Readers Write: Science and vaccines, health care for undocumented adults, Kilmar Abrego Garcia

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

•••

I am prompted to respond to the removal of 17 sitting members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, described in “RFK Jr. ousts CDC vaccine advisers,” as well as “NIH scientists criticize deep health research cuts” (June 10). The stated goal for the cessation of $12 billion for mostly ongoing, unfinished research is restoring the “gold standard” in research and opposing ideological activism. The word “restoring” assumes we once had a “gold standard” and are not currently using it. I would like to know when and how we were using this “gold standard,” and when did we stop? Sometime in my last 40 years standing at the lab bench, I’m curious how scientific experiments focused on temperatures, chemical compositions and biological components suddenly became linked to the entirely human cognitive exercise of politics. It’s no more ridiculous than if a car mechanic’s political views made a difference in how they fixed cars.

To their detriment, not much time or energy is spent educating our scientific community on how to sway public opinion. These are skills that politicians and lawyers cultivate. When the term “ideological activism” becomes linked to scientific pursuits, most scientists just blink and likely say, “Huh? What just happened?”

Any current public mistrust of scientific research studies can’t be due to a real degradation in the application of “good science,” because that would require the public to be able to judge or even care what “good” or “bad” science looks like. Mistrust has purely been sown by those whose job it has always been to affect public opinion and trust — politicians and lawyers.

Connie Clabots, Brooklyn Center

The writer is a retired research scientist.

I think I read this right: By cutting undocumented folks’ health care, Republicans say we are saving $600 million out of a $66 billion budget bill. That comes to 1% savings. We couldn’t come up with the 1% for these folks? For God’s sake, raise my taxes 1%, I’m fine with that. Or even 2% to cover someone who couldn’t bear it. I’m frankly embarrassed for our state government (who is not really my neighbor anyway, according to House Floor Leader Harry Niska) and for our society who would leave human beings unprotected because of their status. Shame!

Harald Eriksen, Brooklyn Park

•••

I feel compelled to write in response to those, including columnist Lori Sturdevant (“Minnesota has a budget deal because DFLers chose to lead,” Strib Voices, June 11), who paint the DFL leaders who agreed to strip undocumented adult Minnesotans of their access to slightly more affordable health insurance while also extending millions of dollars in tax breaks to the richest, authoritarian-aligned tech companies as “honorable” leaders doing their best in a bad situation. But:

While I get that the DFL did not have the votes to fully overcome the Republicans’ cruel and craven position, some things are worth a public fight, and this is one of them. I urge DFLers to make the public case and reverse these two decisions in the next session.

Arlene Mathison, Minneapolis

•••

With all due respect to Niska, his recent statement about sending a “clear message to Minnesota taxpayers that taxpayer-funded benefits are not a reward for breaking federal immigration laws,” left me wondering: Which “Minnesota taxpayers” is he talking about? My understanding is that many, perhaps most, undocumented immigrants in Minnesota do pay taxes. Is that the group he is talking about?

Jim Hanton, Arden Hills

•••

I believe in responsibility and honesty. How about you? Then let’s be honest: First, are people of other nations who freely chose to illegally enter, live and work in our country entitled to benefits that take health care dollars needed by citizens/legal immigrants? (Think also of veterans and nursing home residents.) Second, should a newspaper, bound by professional standards of objectivity and duty to fully inform the public on critical issues, advocate for a cause or a select group of people using unclear/inaccurate wording to do it?

The headline “MinnesotaCare is stripped from adult immigrants” of June 10 (the article itself uses “undocumented”) shows how misleading the Star Tribune has become by merging terms. There is a big difference between legal and illegal immigrants — those who respect immigration law and those who sneak in. Almost no one promotes discrimination against legal immigrants (neither do I, having many such friends), yet the headline promotes the idea that all adult immigrants are losing health care. “Undocumented” is also a lie, as illegal immigrants do possess documents — or they would not qualify to drive legally, as clearly stated in the “driver’s licenses for everyone” bill, passed last year.

Most important, with medical benefits, Minnesota would be rewarding the dishonesty of thousands (and incentivizing more to come) who believe they are above the law, having now become openly vocal, demanding benefits. If those who illegally entered our country are so worthy, wouldn’t more good be done by their residence in their home countries? Our Statue of Liberty, a gift from France celebrating the Emancipation Proclamation, looking outward, encourages democracy throughout the world. Isn’t that what we believe in?

Linda M. Huhn, Minneapolis

The U.S. Department of Justice has finally brought Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia back to the U.S., after he was mistakenly deported from Maryland in March. But rather than admit the administration made a mistake in the first place when it violated a court order preventing his deportation to El Salvador, it has doubled down by charging him with human trafficking. This is supposedly based on a traffic stop in 2022 in Tennessee, where the police made a notation suspecting human trafficking after noting money and a number of people in his car, but did not charge him or refer him to ICE. The DOJ has also made mention of him dressed in “known gang clothing” and associating with MS13 gang members outside a big box store, but again no charges were made. To complicate this case even more it has an “informant” who said Garcia is an M13 member from an organization in New York — a city he has never lived in. Even with all this going on, he allegedly has no criminal record. He does have three children and was living and working in Maryland before all of this happened.

Abrego Garcia has admitted in court that he came into the country illegally at the age of 16. He married a U.S. citizen in 2019 and appeared before a judge to get protection from deportation to El Salvador, where he believed he would be persecuted. He has checked in with ICE every year since then and yet it was only under the current administration that he was mistakenly deported. When a senator became involved highlighting Abrego Garcia’s case, there were all kinds of accusations made by the DOJ.

Now the DOJ will have its chance in court to prove those accusations, and Abrego Garcia will have his day in court to defend himself. That is the way the judicial system is supposed to give due process to all in our country. This case most definitely has more questions than answers.

Jan McCarthy, Eden Prairie