Letters: Shooting doesn’t mean ICE shouldn’t enforce immigration law
Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
ICE must enforce immigration laws
Re: “ICE officer shoots Minneapolis driver during latest crackdown” (Page A3, Jan. 8).
The killing of a woman in Minneapolis by an ICE agent may or may not have been a justified use of force. On first appearance, it does appear that it wasn’t. But even if it wasn’t justified, that in no way justifies shutting down ICE and the enforcement of our immigration laws. Furthermore, rioting or defending rioting in support of this is a disgrace and damnable foolishness. It’s also hypocritical when done by people who condemned the Jan. 6, 2021, riot. Rioting is never justifiable.
As with the killing of George Floyd, the one who killed the woman will be duly prosecuted if the evidence suggests guilt. But ICE must be allowed to enforce federal immigration law, including deporting convicted criminal aliens and people with clear gang or terrorist associations. States and local communities have no right to impede such enforcement. In fact, doing this could be considered seditious.
Christopher Andrus
Dublin
ICE shootings put local police in a positive light
Re: “ICE officer shoots Minneapolis driver during latest crackdown” (Page A3, Jan. 8).
My wife and I feel very fortunate to live in Pleasant Hill. Our police force is well-managed, well-trained and accountable to the public they serve.
This good fortune is especially appreciated when we read in the East Bay Times how ICE agents use lethal force against unarmed civilians. The recent case in Minneapolis is incredibly disturbing. I saw several videos where two ICE agents, without provocation, shot the driver to death. Clearly, ICE agents are badly managed, poorly trained and unaccountable to the public. Either that, or they have been trained to shoot first and ask questions later.
Incidents like this make us appreciate the professionalism of our own Police Department.
Dan Safran
Pleasant Hill
Supreme Court can’t invalidate Constitution
Re: “Trump loses his backing on immigration” (Page A6, Jan. 2).
In her column, Patricia Lopez states, “The Supreme Court is weighing whether to repeal (the 14th Amendment’s) birthright citizenship — a change (President) Trump considers essential.” Any amendment to the Constitution is as much a part of it as the original document. No court, not even the Supreme Court, can throw out any part of the Constitution.
But what if it could? Could it throw out our Bill of Rights, our protections from oppressive governments? Could it throw out the 13th Amendment, which ended slavery? Or the 19th, that gave women the vote? No court, not even the Supreme Court, can do that. No president, not even George Washington, could have done that.
Who could we trust with the power to void any part of the Constitution they did not care for? I’m old, and I haven’t met that person yet. Have you?
Michael Steinberg
Berkeley
Trump Venezuela policy is based on his whims
Re: “Trump says U.S. will ‘run’ Venezuela after swift strike” (Page A1, Jan. 4).
Now that Donald Trump has captured President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, it’s a good time to review his past statements.
Trump has said repeatedly he was against “forever wars” and “regime change,” but now he seems willing to risk a war with Venezuela to do exactly that. He recently pardoned former Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was serving a 45-year sentence in U.S. federal prison for smuggling cocaine into the United States.
Yes, Maduro is a bad guy who stole the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election just like Trump tried to do in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, but I agree with Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who said there are about 30 countries around the world run by autocratic dictators. We shouldn’t be asking our brave men and women in the armed forces to act as the world’s policemen. Trump’s policy appears to be whatever he feels like on any given day.
Arthur Straus
Walnut Creek