Martha's vineyard wanted an open border? Did they want illegal immigrants?

1. The event that framed the question: a politically charged airlift

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis chartered flights that transported nearly 50 Venezuelan migrants to Martha’s Vineyard as a protest against federal immigration policy, an action widely described as a political stunt and which thrust the small island into national debate about migration and sanctuary policies ^{[5] [1] [6]}.

2. Immediate Vineyard response: emergency hospitality, not a policy endorsement

Local officials, volunteers and elected representatives mobilized to provide emergency shelter, food, and legal referrals when the migrants arrived, with elected Rep. Dylan Fernandes and others describing the community response as hands‑on aid rather than a statement of national immigration law; local leaders emphasized immediate humanitarian care ^{[1] [2]}.

3. “Sanctuary destination” versus “open border” — language matters

Martha’s Vineyard had been described as an immigrant‑friendly or “sanctuary destination,” meaning local practices and community groups support immigrants and limit cooperation with some federal immigration enforcement — a local posture distinct from advocating an “open border” national policy that would remove or relax federal border controls ^{[1] [7]}.

4. Legal aftermath: the arrival created legal opportunities, not carte blanche entry

Ironically, the relocation to Massachusetts allowed some migrants legal advantages — access to courts in a less crowded jurisdiction and eligibility for certain visas such as U visas — underscoring that the island’s role was to provide a forum and support for legal claims rather than endorsement of illegal entry ^[3].

5. Local politics and fear: a community with a large immigrant population

Martha’s Vineyard has a substantial immigrant population — including a notable Brazilian community — and island residents and institutions have been active in offering “know your rights” resources and clinics; concerns about enforcement actions under different federal administrations also generated local rallies to defend immigrant protections, showing that the island’s posture is shaped by resident demographics and social services priorities ^{[8] [9] [10]}.

6. Criticism and charges of hypocrisy: national voices pushed alternate narratives

Conservative outlets and commentators framed the island’s response as hypocrisy — arguing that wealthy, liberal communities declare sanctuary values but resist long‑term responsibility when migrants arrive — a critique amplified in editorials and opinion pieces that juxtaposed hospitality with claims the island did not truly want permanent newcomers ^{[4] [11] [7]}.

7. The hidden agendas and the political theater on all sides

The incident was weaponized politically: Republican governors used relocations to spotlight border enforcement failures, while Democratic leaders and advocates called the maneuvers cruel and cynical; meanwhile local actors who provided aid framed their actions as humanitarian and legal support, not an invitation for more arrivals — a distinction often lost amid national commentary ^{[5] [12] [1]}.

Conclusion: Did Martha’s Vineyard “want illegal immigrants”?

The available reporting shows that Martha’s Vineyard as a community and many island leaders did not advocate an “open border” or a policy of encouraging illegal entry; they responded with emergency shelter, legal assistance, and advocacy for immigrant protections, while national political actors used the episode to score points on immigration policy — a nuance obscured by partisan headlines ^{[1] [3] [5]}.