Readers Write: The immigration system, ICE agent behavior, health care, individual rights

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

•••

In the Jan. 18 Business section, columnist Evan Ramstad wrote an interesting essay suggesting “Trump’s ICE push seeks to remake state’s population” by reducing it. I thought President Donald Trump was elected to deport illegal immigrants and especially those who commit crimes additional to that of illegally crossing our border — those, for instance, who rape, kill, rob and sell drugs.

Ramstad’s sentiment is that we need immigrants, and I couldn’t more agree with him. I am a second-generation American whose grandparents came from northern Europe; his background heritage may be similar. We needed those folks, and America owes its success to them.

However, during the previous administration, our country made an enormous error by allowing anyone and everyone to stream across our borders, unvetted. Too many of those people are not here to work and if they were, how is it taxpayers have spent billions of dollars for their housing, health care and social services?

Minnesota has perhaps a greater need of immigration than most states, as Ramstad indicated. Immigration laws need to be redrawn and made more simple. We need to attract more immigrants, but only the proper kind. And that proper kind cannot be those hordes of unknowns, including many evil people, who all are breaking U.S. law with their very first step onto our soil.

Folks like Ramstad who have a great deal of influence in politics could do a service to our country by urging and insisting we change immigration law and do immigration the right way.

•••

As a South Korean adoptee, I am blessed to call Minnesota home. Precisely for that reason, it pains me to see my fellow Minnesotans assault federal officers tasked with protecting our communities.

Accordingly, Immigration and Customs Enforcement should remain in Minneapolis, and President Donald Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act to protect ICE officers.

The Insurrection Act addresses situations where federal law cannot be executed through ordinary processes. Specifically, Section 252 authorizes the president to deploy the militia or armed forces when “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages” render enforcement of federal law impracticable.

In light of recent events, Minnesota has reached the “impracticable” threshold. For example, illegal immigrants from Venezuela ambushed an ICE agent with a shovel. In the hours that followed, protesters smashed into and looted FBI vehicles. Furthermore, ICE agents are routinely doxxed on social media and demonized through inflammatory rhetoric from local politicians.

In closing, the repeated attacks on federal agents, the destruction of federal property and the sustained political resistance to lawful enforcement arguably fit within the conditions described in Section 252. Invoking the Insurrection Act would restore order and send an unmistakable message: Federal law enforcement will not be deterred by mob violence.

Jimmy Murphy, Golden Valley

The writer is a law student.

The various letters the Star Tribune has recently published in support of Immigration and Customs Enforcement argue that ICE is enforcing federal law, and therefore these writers (and others) support them. This misses the point entirely. Protest arises because ICE is doing so much more than simply enforcing federal law. Before this insurgency, ICE was also enforcing federal law and no one was protesting because, until this invasion, indeed, near-occupation, enforcement efforts did not trample constitutional protection, including the First and Fourth Amendments that are in place to allow for freedom of speech, public protest, protection against search and seizure absent due process and the need for probable cause and a warrant. Nowhere in the Constitution is there sanction for chemically attacking protesters, killing a woman driving away, throwing 17-year-old employees to the ground and so on. A goal (federal enforcement of law) never justifies the means when those means violate the reason we have a U.S. Constitution and the sacred freedoms it should protect — especially against a government that, instead of enforcing that protection, is taking it away by these brutal methods.

Richard J. Thomas, St. Paul

•••

I read with deep concern the news of the detention, transportation and subsequent release by ICE and Customs and Border Protection agents of Garrison Gibson. Leaving aside for the moment the illegal forced entry into his home, denial of his right to an attorney, denial of his right to appear before a magistrate and other constitutional violations (which are legion), I want to focus on the “trophy photos” he alleges were taken by the agents at the detention center. Agents reportedly posed in a “thumbs up” stance for a “trophy” photo showing Gibson in handcuffs standing between them.

While I am hardly an expert in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it seems clear to me that if we were at war (which it feels to us that we are), such photos would constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention as well as U.S. military regulations. The agents, if they were soldiers, would be subject to court-martial.

Specifically, Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention requires that prisoners be protected from public curiosity, meaning identifiable images should not be distributed. Military regulations such as Army Regulation 190-8 incorporate the prohibitions of the Geneva Convention. If readers will recall, during the Iraq War, part of the infamous Abu Ghraib scandal in 2004 dealt with humiliating photos taken of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers. Both enlisted soldiers and commissioned officers were disciplined and in some cases imprisoned for their part in the abuse of prisoners of war.

My point: Shouldn’t people in our country be treated at least as well as POWs? The photos in Gibson’s case are the least of ICE’s violations of his rights as a resident of our country, but they demonstrate the brutality of the current enforcement effort.

Jerry Wilhelm, Minneapolis

The writer is a retired attorney.

As a family medicine physician practicing in Minnesota, I am increasingly concerned about how Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity has become a barrier to patients receiving appropriate medical care. In my clinic, fear is now a major driver of health decisions — and it is harming patients and communities.

Family medicine depends on trust. Patients must feel safe seeking care, sharing symptoms and returning for follow-up. When ICE activity is visible or rumored in communities, many patients delay or avoid care altogether. I have seen individuals with chronic illnesses miss appointments, parents postpone childhood vaccinations and pregnant patients skip prenatal visits — not because care is unnecessary, but because they are afraid.

These delays in care and the environment of chaos and fear lead to worse outcomes and higher costs. Conditions that could have been managed early become emergencies. Public health efforts suffer when people are pushed away from preventive care. This fear affects not only undocumented individuals but also U.S. citizen children and mixed-status families who rely on consistent access to medical services.

Kathryn Messelt, Stillwater

I’ve read the few letters from folks telling us to stand by quietly while federal thugs terrorize our state. Where are my acquaintances with their little snake stickers on their pickup bumpers that say, “Don’t tread on me”? Apparently, it’s fine for armed government goons to break down the doors of American citizens, without a warrant, as long as the target has brown or black skin. Why not just say it out loud: “Don’t tread on me, I’m white.”