Readers Write: Immigration, Mary Moriarty, public goods

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

•••

The recent article on immigrant family separations (“First, the deportation. Then the aftershocks,” April 28) encapsulates the feelings of pain, yes, but also general confusion and bewilderment that immigrants, refugees and their loved ones in Minnesota are feeling as a result of this administration’s opaque and erratic immigration policies.

Last month, many Ukrainian refugees received an email instructing them to leave the U.S. immediately. But days later, it was retracted and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security admitted it was sent in error.

I’m sponsoring a Ukrainian family who was living on the front lines of the war and has rebuilt their lives here over the last two years. Imagine the trauma it creates to receive a threatening email saying you are no longer welcome in this country.

They’ve learned English and the adults have jobs working as an auto mechanic and at a spa. Their kids go to our local public school. They pay taxes. They are exactly the people we all want as neighbors.

We still don’t know if the administration plans to revoke their legal status and deport them back to a war zone. America is better than this. Ukrainian newcomers have done nothing wrong — they came here legally, are fully vetted and contribute to our communities. And they deserve clarity and assurance that they will be protected.

Annette Luther, St. Paul

•••

Vietnam suffered terribly under Henry Kissinger’s reign. As Stephen B. Young writes, “So, in a way, we have Henry Kissinger to thank for letting us come to enjoy pho soup and banh mi sandwiches here in the Twin Cities” (“Trump, as Kissinger did, turns on those under illegal attack,” Strib Voices, April 30). Depending on whether President Donald Trump turns his back on Ukraine, we may be welcoming more Ukrainian refugees, and enjoying more borscht and cabbage rolls.

Jennifer Becker, Cambridge, Minn.

•••

By now most of us have heard about the deportation of a young child with cancer who is an American citizen because he was born in the United States. The cancer was being treated here. His mother was not a legal citizen, and was thus to be deported. The mother was given the choice, with scarcely any advance notice, of whether she wanted to take the child with her, and she opted to do so. Border czar Tom Homan described the issue as a two-pronged choice: leave the child here or allow the mother to take him. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was also asked if the child did not deserve due process procedures. He responded as Homan did: He said the child had a right to remain, but the mother opted to take him.

Of course the mother opted to take the child. What mother would have chosen otherwise under the circumstances? But there was a third option. There was an option of kindness, an option of compassion. Are we so committed to deportation that we have no room to consider individual circumstances? Why couldn’t the mother be permitted to remain with her child, at least until the child‘s medical condition had stabilized? Trump has often publicly stated that deportations are first going to target the worst of the worst. Are they? Is there no room to exercise discretion? How many acts of cruelty and denials of due process are we going to tolerate by the Trump administration? Is this what we voted for?

Thomas Wexler, Edina

The writer is a retired judge.

•••

We are seeing attacks on the Trump administration for its deportation policies in the Minnesota Star Tribune on a daily basis, both in articles and by letter writers. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Obama administration deported more than 5 million illegal aliens in eight years. Where was the outrage? These deportations were done without interference from federal judges. Very few of the deported individuals were given due process. In contrast, the Trump administration is on pace for less than 300,000 deportations in 2025 and is being constantly harassed by the liberally biased media and by judges overstepping their bounds.

Chad Hagen, Cook, Minn.

Given Mary Moriarty’s obsession with racial bias in the justice system, she might want to consider the impact of similar bias in the electorate (“Moriarty policy centers race in cases,” front page, May 2). In her recent conversation with the Star Tribune, Moriarty boasted of her wide margin of victory over Martha Holton Dimick in the 2022 Hennepin County attorney election, implying it provides a mandate for her policies. But was it really Moriarty’s policies that led to her victory?

As a supporter of Holton Dimick, I had many conversations with voters in 2022, and while not a scientific poll, these gave me some disturbing insight on their biases about the candidates. Almost everyone I spoke with assumed incorrectly, based upon her race and north Minneapolis background, that Dimick was the anti-police social justice warrior. And many thought Moriarty was the candidate focused on restoring respect for the police.

I challenge Moriarty to consider whether her Irish name, rural Minnesota background and lack of melanin were greater factors in her 2022 election victory than her positions on the issues. Maybe an honest assessment of why she was elected might temper Moriarty’s revolutionary zeal and open her mind to other points of view.

Jerry Anderson, Minneapolis

•••

Just when you think the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office couldn’t be laxer on crime, Moriarty sides with the Tesla vandal and Minnesota state employee with the “diversion” program. We know he vandalized at least six Teslas and got a slap on the wrist. Nice job, Mary. What incentives does this signal to Minneapolis police investigators, who do their job so diligently, when you pull these political stunts? I can only imagine if this suspect were not a state employee, but a conservative who vandalized a vehicle, the book would be thrown at them with jail time.

Now, compare that to Bradley Beck of Big Lake, Minn., an employee at Fleet Farm (now an ex-employee, unlike the vandal), who got caught stealing some cash and snacks. What does the Wright County Attorney’s Office do? Their job. They properly sentenced Beck to jail time and 40 hours of community service, and had him pay a $50 fine. Beck was sentenced to 364 days in jail with 363 days stayed and one year’s probation. In total, Beck took $1,140 from the cash register and $54 in snack items — a gross misdeed.

What a difference between a Hennepin County felony against the Tesla vandal, with his job secure with the state, and a Wright County gross misdemeanor against Beck. Crime pays in Hennepin County. Keep up the great work, Mary.

Bobby Reardon, Pelican Lake Township, Minn.

I was greatly surprised to see three high-powered CEOs pen a commentary arguing for more state investment in early learning (“CEOs to state leaders: Invest in early learning now to prevent future budget hits,” April 26). State investment, they might be surprised to hear, comes from taxes — something that large corporations like theirs work actively to oppose.

In my job, running a labor-grassroots coalition that advocates for funding public goods like child care, education and infrastructure, I am constantly at odds with corporate America. Large corporations and proxies like the Chamber of Commerce, the Minnesota Business Partnership and the Council on State Taxation are engaged in a multifaceted, decadeslong battle against corporate taxation and public investment in general. As a result, America is now the lowest-taxed and lowest-spending wealthy nation on earth, and our population suffers for lack of basic needs like affordable child care and much, much more.

Once upon a time, America built an entire public education system in large part because corporations demanded more skilled workers. Now, corporations like Ecolab and General Mills use their power only to demand more profits for shareholders and the executive suite. But I welcome my newfound compatriots. If the CEO class is ready to stand up for the collective investments that make us all better off, then I look forward to them joining the fight for the revenues that pay for those investments. Otherwise, spare us the grandstanding.

Eric Bernstein, Minneapolis

The writer is a researcher and lobbyist for We Make Minnesota.