Readers Write: Polarization, ‘divine intervention’ and enforcing immigration laws

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

•••

The political polarization in our state and country seems to be growing more strident. And now, with the violent death of Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband and the attempted killing of state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, some seem to relish bashing and blaming those with a different political perspective for that tragedy.

My neighbor across the street, Bob, and I have shared often radically different political points of view over 20-plus years. Each election cycle I put up signs advocating for many people on the more “progressive” side of the political spectrum while Bob displays signs for those of a more “conservative” mindset.

We used to spar often at the mailbox about our particular view of the world and who should get credit or blame for what was happening. We haven’t done that for awhile now. While we still display competing political signs, we have spent far more time in recent years asking about how each other’s day or week has gone. We now spend far more time inquiring about each other’s latest or long-term interests and projects than our politics. We have also acknowledged knowing that if one of us ever needed help with something we can always call on the other for assistance.

There are times and places for vigorous political dialogue and debate (i.e., legislative sessions, or maybe over coffee or a beer). For Bob and me, it is no longer the mailbox, because we have concluded that there are even more important things to talk about there — our shared humanity.

Jerry Friest, Eagan

Caroline Siebels-Lindquist’s column about the hypocrisy of a seeming pro-lifer taking lives could have made the point without the partisan jab proclaiming the life of the unborn had less value than Rep. Melissa Hortman’s (“Plausible targeting of those defending abortion access can’t be understated,” Strib Voices, June 19). The snarky opening to her opinion serves only to inflame those who don’t believe that a tiny human is an nonautonomous organism, as she says. In fact, after reading her opening paragraph, her point was lost to me as I sat there disgusted at her use of offensive language.

As a parent of five and an observer of many ultrasounds of my own children, I can assure you my children were every bit as valuable in the womb as any of us are now. We all started there. Don’t forget where you came from.

Matthew Laszlo, Anoka

•••

When Rep. Kristin Bahner learned that her and her family’s lives were spared because they were away from home when Vance Boelter pulled up to their house this past weekend, she said that “divine intervention led my family to change our plans keeping us safe” (“Democrat says Boelter also visited her home,” June 19).

We hear this so often when people narrowly miss horrific events. But do they realize how cruel, heartless and entitled that sounds? So God decided the Bahner family was worth saving but did not bother to intervene on behalf of the Hoffmans and Hortmans? Do they really think they were more special than those two families? Do they think that God decides which people he loves and cares about so that he can intervene while letting others suffer and die?

I always hate when people make these claims. “God intervened.” “God looked down on us and saved us.” “God blessed our family,” etc. What makes them so special that God would choose to save them over other worthy and good people who lose their lives or suffer unspeakable tragedy? I do not believe that my God is that cruel and heartless. God is with us in the midst of tragedy, but he doesn’t sit and decide who will suffer and who he will spare. That is not the God I worship!

Think next time before you make this thoughtless proclamation!

Pamela Pommer, Bloomington

In a country supposedly built on the rule of law, it’s a special kind of irony that when President Donald J. Trump decides to actually enforce it loudly, unapologetically and effectively, he’s branded as cruel, fascist or worse. Meanwhile, the very same laws he’s enforcing sat ignored, twisted or selectively applied by previous administrations that cloaked chaos in compassion and policy failure in moral superiority.

Let’s be clear: U.S. immigration law isn’t a choose-your-own-adventure story. It’s a legal framework, passed by Congress, signed into law and affirmed in courtrooms across the country. It outlines who can come in, how and under what conditions. It also spells out what happens when those rules are broken. Yet for decades, particularly under Democratic leadership, enforcement has been treated like a political inconvenience rather than a legal obligation. So when Trump deploys Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest undocumented individuals with deportation orders, he’s not reinventing the wheel, he’s turning it. When he reinstates travel restrictions from unstable or hostile nations, he’s not “banning Muslims,” he’s prioritizing national security. When he invokes Title 10 to send federal troops into cities that have failed to cooperate with basic immigration enforcement, he’s responding to a vacuum of responsibility created by sanctuary policies and political theater.

The same party that demands strict background checks for gun ownership somehow turns a blind eye when thousands cross the border daily, unvetted and undocumented. Is the law sacred, or is it only sacred when it suits a political agenda? The Biden administration gutted asylum restrictions, stopped interior enforcement and allowed border crossings to hit record highs. Cities like New York and Chicago are now overrun with the consequences, overcrowded shelters, strained services and communities pushed to the brink. And yet, when Trump steps in with decisive action, mass deportations, restored travel bans and pending executive orders to secure legal guest labor, the left doesn’t offer solutions. It offers slogans.

What Trump is doing in 2025 isn’t radical. It’s remedial. He’s trying to repair a system deliberately left broken. The courts have the final say, and some of his actions will inevitably face challenges, but enforcing existing immigration law should never be a partisan issue. The fact that it speaks volumes about how deeply politicized even basic legal enforcement has become.

You don’t have to like Trump to acknowledge the facts. You don’t have to agree with every tactic to admit that this country cannot function under selective law enforcement. What happens when laws are only applied based on who’s in power? You stop having a republic, and start playing with authoritarian fire. So yes ... how dare Trump enforce the law of the land? How dare he step in where Democrats wouldn’t? How dare he actually try to restore order in a system that’s been spiraling toward anarchy? He dares ... because someone had to.

Rick Fraser, Prescott, Wis.

•••

Finally, Trump acknowledged that our immigrant labor is essential (“Trump changes focus of ICE raids,” June 15). He wrote that “our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from [the agricultural industry, hotels and restaurants], with those jobs being almost impossible to replace.” It is the workers, not the jobs, that are almost impossible to replace. They are essential to our workforce and our economy. But do our laws reflect this? Apparently not, if they are considered to be here illegally and subject to deportation. [Opinion editor’s note: The Trump administration appeared to recommit to immigration raids at farms, hotels and restaurants on Monday.]

The essential nature of these workers is supported in Evan Ramstad’s column, “The economic argument for health care for immigrants” (June 15). He presents a case that demonstrates how important immigrants have been to the recent growth in Minnesota. He summarizes well the recent legislative budget process concerning health care benefits for these essential, but undocumented, people. (The unique and courageous role of the late Rep. Melissa Hortman is striking, and deepened my sadness over her death.)

So I ask, is our nation guided by the rule of law? If so, then our reality should match our laws.

Peter Kolb, Circle Pines