By JOHN GRAHAM

President Trump’s proposed immigration policy will force more misery on hundreds of thousands of people. But the greater damage will be done to our ideals and vision as a nation, ideals and vision that have shaped 250 years of tolerance and generosity as a people. Now we are faced with a serious question in our town of Langley whether or not to call ourselves a sanctuary city.

Some have pointed out that there may be financial risks in doing so. Fair enough. Others, most cogently University of Washington Law Prof. Hugh Spitzer in the Feb. 4 Record, have pointed out that those risks, while real, may have been dramatically overdrawn and that the odds of Langley being significantly hurt by the Feds by declaring itself a sanctuary city are very small.

I have a graduate degree in decision analysis and the best thing I learned is very simple: the important thing in facing a serious decision is to look not just at the size of the potential negative outcomes, but to look at those potential negative outcomes only when they are matched against the odds they will actually happen. If the odds of a negative outcome are high, the conservative approach makes sense. But if the odds are small, then the smartest choice often is to take the risk.

For example, blizzards are dangerous for driving and if the weather report says there’s a very good chance a blizzard is bearing down on you, then it would be wise to put chains on your car or stay home. But if the weatherman predicts clear skies, your decision should be quite different, no matter how frightened you might be of blizzards.

Similarly, I suggest the best way to look at the sanctuary city decision is to look not just at the potential financial damages in a vacuum, but to look at them only when they are matched against the odds those damages will actually occur. If those odds are high or even moderate, then perhaps a conservative decision is the best course. But if the odds are small or even vanishingly small, which good research shows to be the case, then those risks become worth taking.

Washington State leads the nation in the fight against Trump’s immigration policies. Our governor, our attorney general and a federal judge here have all taken substantial risks to say “Hell no.” Langley can be a strong voice in supporting our state’s leaders to fight for America’s core values of inclusion and compassion — then let other jurisdictions know why we did it and encourage them to do the same. There are now about 200 sanctuary cities and towns in America. What if that became 20,000? Think of the message that would send, that America is still a nation of inclusion, compassion and justice. We will not allow ourselves to become a walled-up fortress of fearful people.

Finally let’s not kid ourselves: this is an up or down decision. Using weak alternative words like “inclusive city” will simply signal to everyone a lack of commitment, that our hearts, unlike those of our state’s leaders, are simply not in this fight.

I don’t want that and, respectfully, I don’t think you should either.

EDITOR’S NOTE: John Graham is a former U.S. diplomat, an author, adventurer and a senior staff member of the Giraffe Heroes Project.