Readers Write: America at a crossroads, Homeland Security, walleye, Southside Pride

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

•••

As I was preparing for Christmas I was reminded of how grateful I am to live in a free country. A country with immense opportunity. One that allows us to worship as we please. One that is protected by a strong military. I am reminded that I have no reason to feel victimized by people from other countries. I realize that I have it better than the vast majority of those who have ever walked this Earth. Not because I’ve earned it but because I was simply lucky enough to be the prodigy of brave, hardworking ancestors who no doubt faced a lot of bigotry and prejudice in their new country but realized it was better than where they came from. Ingenious ancestors who created a form of government unlike any other the world has seen.

In spite of all of this, our current national leadership is telling us to be fearful and angry. We are supposed to feel hatred. Hatred for Somalis. Hatred for Hispanics. Hatred for Democrats. Hatred for Republicans who challenge him. Maybe even hatred for you if you stand for the “wrong” thing. That’s bad leadership at a time when our country is at a crossroads.

We are at a crossroads for a couple of reasons. Demographically, the largest generation in our history is leaving the workforce, thereby pulling from the system rather than contributing to it. Additionally, the younger generations are not having as many kids to replenish the draining Social Security and Medicare coffers.

Simultaneously, we have had an influx of labor entering from the southern border for the past several years. We have been told that the influx has slowed with the current administration. I am not an expert on those numbers. But I do know that we as a country need to decide how to respond. We could be constructive about it and let one “problem” solve the other. This will not be easy but strikes me as a positive win-win approach. Or we could obediently become entrenched, angry and bitter insisting we deport, deport, deport.

I have no problem getting rid of “the worst of the worst.” But from what I have seen both firsthand and in the media, that is not the entire focus of this operation.

David A. Thul, Blaine

Earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security proposed the collection of five years of social media identifiers, among other unreasonable tightened restrictions, on certain international tourists (“Tourists’ social media could face scrutiny,” Dec. 11). These tourists and businesspeople who are subject to visa waivers from such friendly countries as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, France, Germany and Japan would now be required to submit their social media history prior to entering the United States.

This proposal raises serious concerns about privacy, civil liberties and the chilling effect on free expression. Social media accounts often contain personal, sensitive and informal communications. Requiring disclosure of identifiers risks exposing applicants and their families to unwarranted government scrutiny.

There is little evidence that collecting social media identifiers improves national security or fraud detection. Instead, it risks overwhelming immigration resources with irrelevant information, while diverting resources from more effective vetting practices. In fact, by expanding the volume of personal data requirements, it increases the risk of privacy breaches that can easily endanger applicants as well as their contacts.

Finally, imposition of any such onerous requirements will further erode the viability of the U.S. tourism economy. The World Travel & Tourism Council found the U.S. is the only major economy among 184 countries forecast to see a decline in international visitor spending in 2025. Practically speaking, the rule, if enacted, would lead to international visitors being unreasonably deterred from visiting and enjoying the pending World Cup and Olympic events. In similar fashion to the consequence of imposing tariffs, any such rule would subject tourists from friendly allied countries to impose similar onerous requirements, including releasing of private health records, on American citizen visitors into their countries. The proposed rule could conflict with privacy protections in other countries (like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation), creating severe diplomatic friction.

Immigration processes for residents of our allied countries should be fair, efficient and respectful of fundamental rights. Expanding surveillance through mandatory social media disclosure undermines these principles and sets a troubling precedent.

John P. Biestman, Minneapolis

The article “Walleye caught in federal cutbacks” (Dec. 14) draws attention to a serious issue that deserves far greater public awareness. Walleye are not only one of the most sought-after fish in the state, but they are also deeply tied to Minnesota’s ecological health, outdoor traditions and economy. Ongoing scientific research and long-term monitoring are essential for understanding walleye populations and responding to growing threats such as habitat loss, climate change and invasive species. Federal funding is a critical pillar supporting this work.

When funding is reduced or eliminated, the consequences extend well beyond research labs and scientists. Anglers, local businesses and future generations all stand to be affected. While cutting funding may appear to save money in the short term, it risks reversing hard-earned progress in walleye recovery and could lead to far greater economic and environmental costs in the future. According to the American Sportfishing Association, sports fishing contributes $6.1 billion to Minnesota’s economy each year. A decline in walleye populations — the state’s most popular sport fish — would inevitably reduce that economic impact.

Neal Stadsvold, St. Peter, Minn.

Ed Felien started the paper in reaction to the Gulf War. For 35 years, its masthead proclaimed: “We are proud of the racial and cultural diversity of the Southside, and we oppose racism and other efforts to keep us apart as a community.” In an era of rising tensions around immigration enforcement and community division, this perspective was greatly appreciated. I didn’t agree with every editorial, and found some columns a bit … out there, but it always left me feeling like a few more windows in my mind had been opened.

Is there any chance Glen Taylor could round out his Minnesota newspaper collection with another? Surely a billionaire can afford to keep a scrappy community paper alive. Or add a few columnists to the Strib Voices bullpen?