Readers Write: ICE surge, lawyers’ code of ethics

This isn’t immigration enforcement.

The Minnesota Star Tribune
February 11, 2026 at 12:00AM

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

•••

The Star Tribune and other media outlets must stop using the term “immigration crackdown” in connection with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Patrol and other Department of Homeland Security agency actions in Minnesota (for example, “Twin Cities immigration crackdown delays home construction, slows real estate market,” StarTribune.com, Feb. 9). The same reporting regularly finds that the vast majority of people arrested in these sweeps are being illegally detained, since they typically have proper immigration status or are full citizens. It’s not a crackdown if these supposed law enforcement agencies are intentionally missing the target so much of the time and choosing to inflict collateral damage instead. This is state terrorism against citizens and legal residents, and the false “crackdown” framing only lends legitimacy to clearly unconstitutional actions.

Michael Hicks, Minneapolis

•••

As congressional Democrats spar with Republicans over funding, contingent on negotiating DHS enforcement policies, I’m not really hearing straightforward drill-down questions of DHS’ motivations.

  1. What is it about ICE enforcement that’s so much more inherently dangerous than experienced by any other law enforcement officers? Why do ICE agents need masks, anonymity and extrajudicial detainment? Are criminal illegal immigrants any more dangerous than our own homegrown criminals? We can certainly be assured there are a lot less of the illegal immigrant type.
    1. Do we really need an ICE force in numbers greater than all local law enforcement to catch this supposedly limited number of people? And why do we need new “black site” extrajudicial detention facilities to house them?
      1. Once we have already built these facilities, what’s to stop the government from using them to house any future undesirable individuals that need disappearing? If we ever get rid of all the illegal immigrants, we’ll have a ton of available “black site” spaces to fill, where habeas corpus rights don’t apply and no judicial warrants are required.

        The answers seem to be:

        1. Masks, anonymity and extrajudicial detainment are for expediency and intimidation of all citizens and immigrants — illegal or otherwise.
          1. The force numbers and “black sites” are needed to round up and house thousands of immigrants, including those without criminal backgrounds and even those legal with pending immigration cases.
            1. The policies will be justified by a no-questions-asked, noncontingent, fully funded new and recurring DHS budget.

              Please convince me I’m wrong!

              Connie Clabots, Brooklyn Park

              •••

              If the feds are breaking the law (“Feds play fast, loose with license plates,” Feb. 9), then ticket them, impound the vehicles, and make then obey the laws like everyone else.

              Old saying: “The ends do not justify the means.”

              That includes the idea that one should not be breaking one law to enforce some other law.

              The rule of law applies to everyone.

              Donald A. Newell Jr., Monticello

              •••

              I think it is time we change our state flag once again. When the new state flag came out, many people complained that it was bland and boring. I suggest that we add the “rebel loon” symbol to our flag now. It symbolizes not only Minnesotans’ fighting spirit, but their independence and hope for the future. And long after our current situation involving ICE is over, the symbol on our state flag would continue to represent those qualities for future generations of Minnesota residents and visitors. Such a change would, of course, cost money. A quick internet search told me it cost about $4 million total to change the flag last time. But given our situation in the state, I would be willing to bet that if a GoFundMe or a site officially set up by the appropriate state department were created to defray the cost, people internationally would be willing to donate.

              Willis Woyke, Columbia Heights

              •••

              American conservatives continue to ask, “What’s wrong with what ICE is doing in Minneapolis?” Besides the obvious inhuman brutality, the short answer is very easy — ICE has turned the bedrock American principle of presumption of innocence on its head. ICE, abetted by a warped Supreme Court that thinks appearance of Hispanic heritage is probable cause for law enforcement intervention, uses a “presumption of guilt” approach. This is where a person or group of people are presumed to be guilty of a crime based on the color of their skin or speech patterns and must prove their innocence before they can be released. The other thing that is deeply immoral, as well as unconstitutional about the ICE operation in Minnesota, is in the whole concept of collective punishment. Collective punishment is what the Nazis did to the Jews. Collective punishment is always wrong and, to me, represents a cancer on human civilization. The fact that a handful of Somalis in Minnesota were involved in a large fraud does not justify punishing every Somali American citizen in this country.

              This un-American madness must end now.

              Stephen Kriz, Maple Grove

              LAWYER CODE OF CONDUCT

              An ethics reminder in troubled times

              A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. Lawyers practicing in Minnesota’s state and federal courts must follow the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. The rules protect the public from unethical conduct by lawyers, many of whom hold positions of great power. Given reports of recent events in our state and federal courtrooms, we thought that an overview of key ethical rules might be helpful to the public.

              First, a lawyer may not make a frivolous argument, which is an argument made without a good-faith basis in law or fact. This is true even when the lawyer’s client insists on a particular argument or position. “I did what my client wanted” is not a defense to making a frivolous argument. Similarly, a lawyer must disclose legal authority that is directly adverse to the client’s position.

              Second, in many cases there is no “just following orders” defense to lawyer misconduct, which can occur even where the lawyer acts at the express direction of another person. The same is true in reverse: A supervisor cannot close their eyes to their staff’s conduct. Instead, the supervisor must make reasonable efforts to ensure that their lawyer and nonlawyer staff follow the ethical rules. Organizations and offices bear a collective responsibility to make sure that their staff follow Minnesota’s ethics rules.

              Finally, Minnesota’s ethical rules instruct that a lawyer must not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. This can include ignoring court orders, attempting to influence witness testimony or disparaging parties in a case. Conduct need not be illegal to be deemed prejudicial to the administration of justice and, therefore, unethical.

              The vast majority of lawyers in Minnesota ethically represent their clients’ positions. Most aggressive or unpopular actions by lawyers are not unethical. But lawyers who violate our ethical rules put at risk the very basis of our system: the rule of law. Lawyers are bound to uphold the standards of professional conduct, even in extraordinary times.

              This letter was written by Benjamin J. Butler, chair of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, and Jeanette Boerner, the immediate past chair of the Lawyers Board. The views expressed here are their own.

              about the writer

              about the writer