Readers Write: Abolishing ICE, immigration, agents going to protesters’ homes, fraud

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I have heard it said that Democrats are wrestling with the issue of whether Immigration and Customs Enforcement should continue to exist (“Trump’s immigration crackdown has Democrats wrestling with ‘abolish ICE’ movement,” Feb. 17). Speaking as a Democrat but not as my party, I am not wrestling with the issue at all. The reason is simple, compelling and convincing. The indisputable fact is that ICE is not accountable to our system of justice.

This lack of accountability is the result of the combination of two factors. First, it seems clear that ICE officers are not accountable under the U.S. Constitution to state authorities. They are exempt from the application of state law. Second, while theoretically ICE officers are accountable under federal law, as a practical matter we know that President Donald Trump will pardon any ICE officer charged with a federal crime. We also know that any FBI agent or Justice Department official who pursues an investigation against ICE officers will be demoted or more likely fired.

For me, the conclusion to be drawn here is obvious. No law enforcement agency that in practical terms is both above and outside the law should be funded because it should not exist. A law enforcement agency without law is a contradiction in terms, a logical impossibility, something that cannot and does not exist in a rational society. ICE, as currently constituted, must go.

Jon Miners, Crystal

The recent Evan Ramstad column arguing that “immigration is Minnesota’s top issue” and demanding rigid population growth targets misses the daily reality of working families (“Immigration is Minnesota’s top issue. We need numbers,” Feb. 15).

Socioeconomic data consistently shows that voters are actually focused on five core pillars of a stable life:

These are not secondary concerns; they are prerequisites for growth. Demanding a population “target” puts the cart before the horse.

Most Minnesotans want to welcome and support new residents.

But to do so responsibly, we must first fix these foundational issues. Once we secure affordable housing, accessible child care and robust health care, we will naturally foster the thriving environment necessary to integrate the immigrants who will become the Minnesotans of tomorrow.

Jonathan Bates, Hopkins

On Feb. 8, Ramstad excoriated in “The Great Wrecking of Minnesota is underway” what he called the unjust and immoral actions of the federal government, and to a lesser degree the state government, in arresting or otherwise harassing immigrants in Minnesota to the detriment of its economy, which he said is highly dependent on immigrants for its health. He ended with a refrain often voiced by immigration supporters that immigrants do work that natives won’t do. Reader comments largely agreed with his legal and moral assessment but were less definitive about his claim that native-born American won’t work in, for example, large poultry rendering plants.

I would like to see that claim tested. Ramstad has the burden of proof. He should present unemployed Minnesotans, of which we have way too many, a factually complete, accurate and tonally neutral description of the work involved and ask them whether they would do that work for any wage. If most answered no, he’d be proved right. But he should also give respondents an option to specify a wage at which they would do the work. If most answered yes at a specified wage, then the issue would be clearly seen as merely a matter of money, not immigration.

Harry Roberts, Oronoco, Minn.

In the Feb. 15 paper I read another article, “Agents menaced observers at their homes, filings say,” similar to reports in various media outlets over the last few weeks. The stories describe visits by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the homes of citizens exercising their constitutional rights as observers. There is clearly confusion about how this can actually happen.

The key to these situations is that the citizen is most likely driving their personal vehicle. With the license plate number of any vehicle, ICE and literally thousands of other individuals and organizations are able to gain access to the state computerized driver’s license and motor vehicle registration system. This system gives all users real-time access to the home address and personal data about the registered owner of the vehicle. This system has been in operation for at least 40 years. Now, many law enforcement officers use terminals in their vehicles, thereby facilitating quick access.

I hope this sheds some light on what many of us find is a frightening and totally unacceptable use of law enforcement resources.

Don Gemberling, St. Paul

The writer is co-chair at Minnesotans for Open Government.

Rep. Steve Elkins’ Star Tribune commentary makes a strong case that obsolete IT systems — like the 1980s-era MAXIS and COBOL-based MMIS — are a major vulnerability enabling fraud in Minnesota’s Medicaid and related Department of Human Services programs (“A key Minnesota fraud vulnerability: Obsolete systems,” Strib Voices, Feb. 15).

However, framing outdated technology as the primary or “key” vulnerability feels like a red herring. It shifts focus to multiyear, expensive modernization efforts while underplaying other major contributors to the recent large-scale fraud scandals.

Blaming ancient COBOL systems almost exclusively risks delaying quicker, lower-cost policy changes that could curb ongoing abuse now — while modernization (like the Medicaid Enterprise System project) proceeds slowly. Federal scrutiny has intensified, and public frustration centers on the sheer scale (potentially billions at risk) and lack of accountability, not solely on legacy tech backlogs.

A truly effective response requires both tracks: sustained funding for system upgrades and immediate non-tech reforms, such as:

Tech modernization will help long-term, but prioritizing these faster policy levers could protect taxpayers and legitimate recipients sooner.