Readers Write: GOP response to Renee Good’s killing, police tactics, immigration debate

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

•••

It’s unfortunate but not surprising that Renee Good continues to be blamed for her own killing by Republicans at all levels of government — including those currently campaigning for elected office in our state.

At the recent debate among Republican candidates for governor, Kendall Qualls was quoted as saying, “She shouldn’t have even been in that perimeter” where Immigration and Customs Enforcement was conducting operations (“Message at GOP forum: Time to clean house,” Jan. 12). ICE has been going door to door in many parts of the Twin Cities. The entire metro area — schools, grocery stores, hardware stores, restaurants — is apparently their “perimeter” now. So, are people supposed to stay out of their own neighborhoods and businesses, under penalty of being shot and killed if they don’t?

These violent, undertrained thugs are the ones who should stay out of our perimeter — not the other way around.

Anne Hamre, Roseville

•••

Not to be outdone, Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth assailed those leaders for inciting violence by — get this — name-calling: referring to ICE agents as “Gestapo.” That is, agents wearing face-covering masks, roaming neighborhoods in unmarked vehicles, grabbing people off the streets regardless of their citizenship status or evidence of criminal history. “Cooler heads have to prevail,” she had the gall to pronounce. As if she, and her fellow Republicans are the voice of sweet reason, and we citizens of an occupied city are the hotheads.

Their argument is actually even more outrageous: We are just sheep being cajoled — by our mendacious leaders — into disrespect for the hardworking agents of the federal government. By simply expressing discontent with the policies of President Donald Trump and adviser Stephen Miller, our elected leaders are directly responsible for the violence that ensues.

The president of the United States, however, may: refer to Democrats as “vermin” and the “enemy within,” honor and even pardon the violent mob that assaulted the U.S. Capitol to keep him in power and — grotesquely — label a young Minneapolis mother a “domestic terrorist” without even bothering with facts. At this, no Republican candidate for governor may dare even to raise an eyebrow on his or her cooler head.

Got it. Thanks for telling us who you are.

Stephen Bubul, Minneapolis

I just heard the statement from Demuth about the ICE presence in Minneapolis. She basically equates asking ICE to leave the city with wanting violent offenders who do not have legal status to remain in Minnesota. This is the same tired refrain from the feckless Republicans here and in Washington that can only bow and scrape before this authoritarian administration. If all ICE and Border Patrol were doing in the city were finding and detaining violent offenders, there would be no protests, no story and no deaths of innocent people. Instead, they harass legal immigrants and citizens who fit their racial profiles, use intimidation and exceed their authority to terrorize adults and children, and act like goon squads rather than law enforcement. My question to you, Demuth and the rest of your party, is why you choose to turn a blind eye to these excesses — including killing — and applaud these thugs.

Control of our borders is important. Violent criminals should be caught, prosecuted and punished. All of this can be done without an assault on innocent people and nonviolent offenders. Why don’t you stand up for that?

Brian Kemp, Edina

I listened to the New York Times interview with Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara. He showed complete professionalism, as well as concern for our city, its people, the Minneapolis Police Department and the rule of law. He also convincingly described the nearly impossible job our 600-person force faces as it deals with the aftermath of thousands of ill-trained, poorly supervised ICE personnel as they rampage our streets with weapons and terrorize our residents, apparently with impunity.

I thank the chief for speaking out, and for displaying the leadership so blatantly missing from ICE.

•••

Law enforcement is dangerous. From traffic stops to domestic calls, police officers routinely risk lethal consequences. For example, when three Burnsville officers were killed in 2024 on duty, our communities respected and appreciated their sacrifices. The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), with its primary missions to support survivors and defend officers accused of crimes, could be forgiven for knee-jerk solidarity with fellow officers from another agency, as FOP did in decrying the rush to judgment when an ICE agent killed Good.

If FOP wants community leaders and activists to wait for investigations to conclude, it should do likewise. Surely FOP did not mean “FOP Stands with ICE” even when ICE breaks the law.

If more than a tiny fraction of the public does not trust law enforcement, police jobs will become even more dangerous. Public rage and distrust of ICE threaten to bleed over into distrust of state and local law enforcement.

FOP’s statement also ignores that de-escalation is a critical skill in modern policing. ICE’s aggressive tactics escalate rather than de-escalate tension. Regardless of one’s position on how to treat people in the United States illegally, many citizens will oppose brutality and a failure of care.

Steve Schewe, Eden Prairie, and Steve Reinhardt, Eagan

I read Andy Brehm’s Jan. 13 column (“On the issue of immigration, neither party gets it quite right”) to hopefully learn an enlightening thought or two about the U.S. immigration debate.

Instead, I was left marveling at Brehm.

“Laws should be enforced or changed. But never ignored,” he writes.

How blind a person must be to his biases, or just plain insincere, to write such words and not apply them to the daily treading on constitutional rights by the federal agents in Minnesota? (Let alone to MAGA’s own dear leader. Emoluments clause, anyone?)

That, he writes, is “concerning.”

If militarized, politically motivated intimidation against those undocumented, hardworking people — the “peaceful sector,” as he puts it — does not move one beyond “concern,” how about the way this ham-fisted campaign is willing to wantonly harass and terrorize anyone with an accent and skin tone that’s a few shades darker than Brehm’s, regardless of their citizenship or legal status?

As a Catholic (like Brehm), I suggest he revisit his moral compass to try to find the correct emotional response: righteous anger.