Who benefits?
Some city officials are reportedly upset with District Attorney Larry Krasner for saying he would prosecute federal immigration agents if they commit crimes here. Mayor Cherelle L. Parker’s concern with avoiding confrontation has been reinforced by Police Commissioner Kevin J. Bethel, who recently said, “Who benefits when you’re putting out things and trying to … poke the bear?”
I’ll tell you who benefits — the bear. Or, in this case, our federal government: “We the people of the United States.” And when the residents of one city fear for their lives and livelihood under the yoke of a violent federal occupation, it concerns all of the states, all of the cities. We all benefit by standing up to tyranny, or we all lose our freedom.
Barry George, Philadelphia
. . .
Some folks have suggested that protesting the operations of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement should be done at a distance and with respect. This opinion infers that getting close enough to help someone who has been pushed to the ground only serves to promote violence.
The violence initiated by some government agents may not be a characteristic of all of them, but it is a direct result of the words and actions coming from the president and his enforcers, which appeal to the “bad actors” being actively recruited, rewarded, and pardoned. Psychological tests have proven time and time again that cruel behavior by otherwise normal people is facilitated when their identities are hidden.
The cover for the actions of ICE is “the removal of people who are here illegally,” but even these folk have rights and protection under the law, as do we all. Now it is the “illegals” who are the targets of removal. Will “protesters” be the next target?
The world has been witness to what happens when too few people protest an authoritarian government’s self-sanctioned actions. In America right now, most protests are happening in “blue” states. God bless the people in these states. When will “red” states folks finally step up and be counted? The world is watching.
Joe Sundeen, Yardley
Paid protester trope
Letter writer Carl Marchi noted recently that today’s “… protesting mobs … have no morals and no credibility.” He contrasts this with activists from the social justice and anti-war movements of the 1960s and 1970s, who he says “… had some moral character.” As someone whose activism started in 1966 and who remains very active to this day, I can tell Mr. Marchi he has no idea what he is talking about. As an active member of Indivisible and supporter of other current groups, I assure him that the moral character of today’s activists matches that of the ’60s and ’70s. I was heavily engaged in Philadelphia and later in Wisconsin in those days. Moral character was abundant then, and it is just as abundant now.
He also says about today’s protesters that he “sincerely” believes they are “being paid.” It is a truly sad and completely false accusation. As a regular demonstrator, among other activities with Indivisible, I can assure him that no paychecks have been received since I started involvement in 2018. Our only “pay” is the moral support of hanging together and working together to free this country of Donald Trump’s fascism as he threatens the very survival of our democracy. I invite Mr. Marchi to check out Indivisible, but he shouldn’t expect to get paid.
Bob Groves, Philadelphia
Moral conviction
I am a 79-year-old retired attorney and former teacher who took part in the 1963 civil rights march because I was strongly and emotionally outraged by the racism and inequality I saw in my own country. For similar reasons, I participated with my Marine vet son in four large protests last year in opposition to the illegal and unconstitutional actions we’ve seen from the current administration. Not only do I love my country, but I am still committed to the rule of law, which was my occupational cornerstone for almost 40 years. In addition, my 15 years as a high school teacher imbued in me the importance of truth-telling and fostering cognitive thinking skills, so the next generation can rationally analyze news events. Therefore, I must take extreme umbrage at the assertion by Carl Marchi in his letter that we protesters “have no morals and no credibility,” and, in fact, he believes we are being paid. He’s not the lone voice with the latter claim (including from a relative and former friend), and I usually laugh at something so nonsensical. But with the vast amount of disinformation circulating these days, I just can’t let this one pass. Every single person with whom I interacted at the protests (comprised of tens of thousands) voiced similar strongly fearful reactions to the horrors they were witnessing as the separation of powers embodied in the Constitution was being dismantled. How that makes them — and me — immoral and not credible is another example of the statements made by the president et al. that have no basis in fact. Many of us have jokingly asked others at the protests if they had gotten their checks from George Soros yet, as the pro-Trump minions have routinely asserted. Ridiculously false statements like that are dangerous, as they serve only to incite more hatred.
Diane C. Lucente, Delran
Official inaction
We’ve known for a while now that Philadelphia has a mayor who repeatedly sits on her hands when it comes to crucial issues such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, SEPTA, immigration, and “sanctuary cities.” The latest example of her inaction involves the removal of the historical panels about slavery from the President’s House. The mayor should take a good look in the mirror and see herself as the enabler of the removal.
The city has known for months that Donald Trump was planning to get rid of the panels, but there was an easy way to stop him. The city could have relied upon a cooperative agreement drafted in 1950 by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the City of Philadelphia. That agreement prohibits either the city or the federal government from making changes to the buildings or grounds at the Independence National Historical Park site “except by mutual agreement.”
Given Trump’s stated plans to change the President’s House site, the mayor and/or City Council could have declared the Department of the Interior in breach of that agreement. Further, given the city’s continued ownership of historic parcels, it could have threatened to declare that the portions of the historic district the city owns are off limits to Trump and Co. Instead, by choosing to sit on her hands and not go to court after the fact, the mayor has an uphill battle.
Our founders would have acted thus against the king, but not so for Philadelphia’s current leadership. They clearly prefer planning a 250th anniversary party to protecting our collective heritage.
Mark D. Schwartz, Bryn Mawr
. . .
Mayor Cherelle L. Parker has now presided over two municipal disasters in less than a year. The city workers’ strike of summer 2025 left heaps of steaming garbage strewn across our neighborhoods. Now, the city is barely functioning days after a snowstorm. Traversing a crosswalk is now a privilege for the fit and able-bodied, and our beloved SEPTA drivers are still navigating sheets of ice on arterial streets.
It does not have to be this way. Philadelphians should remember this next year when we go to the polls for the 2027 mayoral election.
Brian Elmore, Philadelphia
Dueling branches
Minnesota’s intentional disregard for federal immigration law is the mirror opposite of former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s attempt in 2010 to enforce immigration laws in her state during Barack Obama’s presidency. In an attempt to stem the flood of illegal immigrants into Arizona, she signed into law a statute that authorized state and local police officers to enforce federal immigration laws. The Obama administration challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court Arizona’s sovereign authority to enforce the federal government’s immigration laws. Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority in holding that federal immigration authority supersedes Arizona from establishing any immigration rules of its own.
Gov. Brewer tried to defend her state from drug cartels and other criminal organizations that used America’s open borders to further their interests. Now, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey are actively subverting federal immigration law and a contingent of activist judges, obstructionist politicians, and intentionally misleading members of the press to pretend that Minnesota can do what Arizona could not: establish its own immigration rules. Fifteen years ago, the Obama team argued that “we can’t have 50 different immigration policies.” Today, Obama’s friends act as if Minnesota can do whatever it wants, the consequences to federal authority and national sovereignty be damned. Either the federal government exercises authority over immigration enforcement or the state of Minnesota does.
Richard Colucci, Pennsauken
Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.
