sleepystork.com

MINNEAPOLIS — In recent weeks my 80-year-old Asian American parents have started to carry their passports each time they leave their suburban townhouse. Neighbors on their Ring doorbell app will alert users when ICE agents are spotted on nearby roads. My mom has canceled appointments after receiving such warnings. A practical woman, she says she’s in a game of “cat and mouse” with federal agents, and she’ll be damned if she gives them the upper hand.

This is something the headlines often miss when describing what it’s like to be living with ICE in Minnesota.

We know that federal agents shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti. We’ve learned that agents have approached and detained residents who appear to be “foreign” at grocery stores and bus stops. We’ve seen the picture of 5-year-old Liam, with his Spider-Man backpack and animal snow hat, before he and his dad were taken by federal agents. We’ve watched the horrific videos of masked agents tackling, cuffing and dragging U.S. citizens through the street — or parading them into the arctic chill in their boxers — and later releasing them, without apology.

On Saturday morning, Pretti, an ICU nurse, was killed by a Border Patrol agent while holding his phone to record a chaotic scene. It shouldn’t be forgotten that Pretti lost his life on Eat Street, a corridor revived by immigrants. Believe the video that shows Pretti was a helper. He was helping a woman whom an agent violently shoved to the ground. He was helping document the actions by federal agents so that the truth could be preserved.

Maybe Pretti knew how difficult life was becoming for those around him. A quiet, pervasive fear that has taken root in the Twin Cities, forcing some people of color who are not even immigrants to change our behaviors. We take extra precautions. We carry the passport. And we question our belonging.

Federal agents have been recorded on video, acknowledging that they’re homing in on individuals who speak with foreign accents. In one encounter, a man named Ramon Menera had just returned home to Columbia Heights with his daughter after getting ice cream when he was approached by a Border Patrol agent.

“Now, talking to you, hearing that you have an accent, I have reason to believe you are not born of this country,” the agent says in the video.

In other videos, shot at my local Costco parking lot, agents are seen politely asking random shoppers unloading their carts if they are U.S. citizens.

These interactions with agents are almost as chilling as footage of their violent tactics. Such videos normalize unabashed racial profiling by our federal government. It’s clear that anyone who looks or sounds anything but “American” is now viewed with suspicion.

This comes at a heartbreaking cost. Last week a video of an Asian American boy from Iowa circulated widely on social media. He’s 12, his name is Max and he wears a soccer uniform and a tournament medal around his neck. But instead of celebrating his team’s victory, he breaks down crying, describing to his mom the jeers he heard from the other team’s goalie.

“These guys told me I’m an illegal immigrant, even though I was born in America,” he said. “He said Trump is gonna get me and send me back to where I used to live. I was born in America!”

He’s trying to apply logic here, but the math won’t math.

We’re living in a nightmare where a kid who should be elated over his team’s win is processing that some of his peers see him as a second-class citizen. He is feeling the humiliation and denigration that can come with being different, which is something all people of color have experienced. But this time the hate is powered by a schoolyard bully who happens to be the president of the United States.

Somali Americans in Minnesota, says Trump, should “go back to where they came from,” a slur that so many kids from immigrant families have heard. Only now, it is repeated by children who cite the leader of the free world.

What troubles me is how far we are regressing.

Asian Americans, in particular, have always struggled with being perceived as perpetual outsiders, no matter how long we’ve lived in the country. When immigrants of my parents’ generation started families here in the 1970s, many of them figured their children would fit in and thrive here, so long as they gave their children Western names and made sure they could speak perfect American English. I always felt they went overboard, that we didn’t have to whitewash ourselves to gain acceptance. A half-century later, I’m thinking maybe my parents were onto something.

In the initial weeks of the ICE surge in Minnesota, I refused to carry my passport, an act of defiance in a country I no longer recognize. I worried more about my mom, who has a master’s degree in English but speaks with a Taiwanese accent, and my dad, an Army veteran who grew up in the Midwest but has Alzheimer’s and struggles with his words.

But the other night, after hearing from Twin Cities police chiefs that their officers of color have been harassed by federal agents demanding paperwork, I uploaded my passport to my Apple Wallet, just to be safe. It felt like a compromise I could live with.

A document that once made me proud of all the places I’ve traveled is now a badge to prove I belong. It speaks volumes that a person like me is scared — somebody with so many privileges, including my perfect American English.

Aren’t you scared, too?

Laura Yuen writes opinion and reported pieces exploring parenting, gender, family and relationships, with special attention on women and underrepresented communities. She looks for the deeper resonance of a story, to humanize it, and make it universal. Before joining the Star Tribune in 2021, Laura spent 13 years at MPR News, most recently as editor of a team covering race, class, communities and education. She also reported for the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader.

___

©2026 The Minnesota Star Tribune. Visit at startribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

We are former senior Department of Homeland Security officials with experience in immigration enforcement, counterterrorism, and national security. Our public service was shaped by September 11, 2001, grounding us in the twin obligations of security and constitutional restraint. Today, we are deeply alarmed by what we are seeing from our former department.

Let us be clear at the outset: we support strong borders and lawful immigration enforcement. Law enforcement deserves respect; society cannot function without it. But enforcement that treats the public as the enemy and abandons constitutional limits does not make us safer. It puts the entire system at risk — legally, operationally, and morally.

Over the past year, we have watched repeated violations of Americans’ First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights.

Free expression and peaceful protest are core to our Constitution, and the government has a duty to protect those rights even — especially — when speech is uncomfortable or critical of authority. At the same time, protections against unreasonable searches and seizures must be honored;  law enforcement should not bypass judicial oversight when entering private homes or conducting operations.

And in just the last three weeks, federal immigration officers have been involved in three shootings, resulting in two deaths — an unprecedented pattern in modern immigration enforcement. Any serious law enforcement institution confronted with that record would pause operations and reassess training and tactics.

That has not happened, and it raises legitimate questions about proportionality, judgment, and respect for constitutional limits.

These outcomes did not occur in a vacuum. Over the past year, DHS leadership has driven a dramatic shift in tone and culture. Federal officials publicly labeled Renee Good — a mother and U.S. citizen — and Alex Pretti — a nurse who cared for U.S. veterans and also a U.S. citizen — as “terrorists” before investigations were initiated and without evidence of terrorist ideology or motive.

Official DHS social media accounts routinely post inflammatory content glorifying paramilitary enforcement. This rhetoric has influenced operations, encouraging escalation rather than restraint against American citizens.

When senior officials treat Americans as adversaries — not as neighbors and citizens with rights — it poisons the workforce. Officers are taught to see the public they serve through the prism of fear rather than duty, and that mindset can become self-fulfilling. Law enforcement that views the public as the enemy, rather than as fellow citizens to protect, and that abandons constitutional limits, does not make us safer. It normalizes escalation, erodes legitimacy, and increases the risk of violence for civilians and officers alike.

History offers a cautionary lesson: when enforcement institutions lose accountability and are insulated from meaningful oversight, their use of power tends to expand rather than contract. That reality should concern all Americans, regardless of where they stand politically.

Equally concerning is the lack of independent accountability. The administration declined to open an investigation into the shooting of Ms. Good and indicated it would investigate the shooting of Pretti internally. Across the country — in red states and blue states alike — officer-involved shootings are reviewed by independent authorities for a reason: public trust depends on it.

As tensions with protesters have escalated, it is essential to remember where responsibility lies in a constitutional democracy. Citizens have a duty to exercise their First Amendment rights peacefully. But the greater burden of restraint rests with the state. Whistling, shouting, filming arrests, or verbally criticizing officers is not violence. It is annoying — but it is protected speech. Courts have been clear for decades: speech does not become violence simply because it provokes irritation, anger, or discomfort in law enforcement. The public has a right to expect that officers will respond to lawful protest with professionalism and restraint, not force.

Mission of Homeland Security

DHS argues that officers are simply doing their duty by enforcing immigration laws during these operations nationwide to detain immigrants; that they have no choice. That framing is misleading. The executive branch exercises discretion in whom it prioritizes and how operations are conducted. Their choices are directly tied to the outcomes we are seeing. Officials also claim these operations target “criminals,” yet as of late November, roughly 73% of those detained had no criminal conviction, according to an analysis of publicly available ICE data by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).

Having immigration officers walk residential or commercial streets in broad daylight is not how violent criminals are apprehended. Rapists, murderers, and drug traffickers do not announce themselves or surrender voluntarily. Identifying dangerous offenders requires investigative work, intelligence, and coordination — capabilities ICE already possesses. If the objective were to focus on genuinely dangerous individuals, the executive branch could do so. The outcomes suggest something else: an emphasis on meeting numerical targets, regardless of the human or constitutional cost.

Congress recently approved an unprecedented expansion of ICE — a 120% increase in workforce and a tripling of their budget – making it the largest federal law enforcement agency, with a budget larger than many other nation’s militaries. Rapid growth at this scale carries predictable risks, including reduced vetting of new hires and weakened institutional culture. According to an investigation by Government Executive, training for new hires has been cut by nearly 77%.

Colorado could be a target for enforcement

Some may wonder why events unfolding hundreds of miles away should matter to Coloradans. The truth is that federal enforcement priorities and tactics that are normalized in one place tend to spread unless checked. Throughout history, unchecked power has expanded and carried out similar or worse activities elsewhere — first here, then there. Colorado already sits among the metropolitan areas experiencing one of the highest rates of immigrant arrivals per capita behind only a handful of  U.S. cities.

Colorado’s state and local policies have also drawn federal scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice has targeted Colorado and Denver in litigation challenging local immigration-related laws, framing them as inconsistent with federal enforcement priorities.

This combination of factors means that Colorado could be next on the list. If so, it is critical that protestors and citizens do two things:  document law enforcement actions in line with the law and remain peaceful.  The latter, in particular, is absolutely vital.  There can be no violence against law enforcement.  That will undo all that has been sacrificed.

The executive branch does not have unfettered power, and Congress is not a bystander. It is a co-equal branch with a constitutional duty to conduct oversight and set limits.

Members of Congress must act. Yes, they should immediately hold oversight hearings, demanding accountability from DHS leadership, and using the power of the purse to impose conditions tied to constitutional compliance. But we need more. CBP, ICE, and DHS are no longer agencies with the credibility to keep the nation safe. Congress should create a blue ribbon commission to both hold them accountable and issue recommendations of how the agency should be reconstituted. Nothing short of that will be trusted by the American people.

We continue to care deeply about the mission of DHS and the professionals who serve there — many of whom cannot speak publicly without risking their careers. When leaders promote escalation over restraint, they endanger both civilians and officers.

To our fellow Coloradans: If this can happen in Minneapolis, Chicago and Portland, it can happen in Denver, Durango and the Western Slope. Call your senators and representative and demand that Congress insist on the rule of law. Law enforcement and liberty are not opposing values. In America, they must stand together.

Eric Balliet is a retired Homeland Security Investigations special agent who spent over 15 years on the Arizona/Mexico border combatting international drug and human smuggling organizations, he worked under five administrations and served as the law enforcement advisor to Department of Homeland Security secretaries Jeh Johnson and John Kelly. Elizabeth Neumann is a former DHS assistant secretary for counterterrorism and deputy chief of staff who served in national security roles across three administrations, including the Trump administration. 

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Colorado cannot remain dependent on the federal government to support the child care needs of Colorado families.

Colorado families are already doing everything they can to stay afloat. Parents are juggling two or three jobs. Caregivers are burning out, barely making minimum wage. And child care providers — especially those trusted family, friend, and neighbor caregivers — are being pushed past the breaking point.

Now, just when support is most needed, the Trump administration tried to hit pause on billions of dollars in child care, family assistance, and social services funding to five states, including Colorado as a punishment for Colorado upholding the law.

The cuts included federal funds for the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program (CCCAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Social Services Block Grants — lifelines for working families across Colorado.

President Donald Trump’s goal of sewing chaos in Colorado is only successful, not because of his efforts, but because Colorado is unable to invest what we should in our own childcare infrastructure. Colorado’s child care budget, the funds that go to families who need tuition assistance, the funds that support centers in remaining open, the funds that support professional development, early intervention, home visiting, are 80% reliant on the federal government.

This should be a lesson to every Coloradan that the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) makes it impossible to invest in our own. We are unable to responsibly budget to the real needs of families to support making child care more affordable, or health care. We are unable to pay teachers a livable wage where they can afford child care so they can go to work and teach other people’s kids.

TABOR is failing our families. TABOR requires a flat tax rate for every income earner in the state. That means that the majority of the families in Colorado who are barely making ends meet and those who are not, are carrying a heavier tax burden than those who make $500k or more! How?

Besides having more discretionary funding, the wealthy can take advantage of many tax tools that help them pay less in taxes than someone who makes $75,000 a year. With this flat tax system, we are leaving billions of dollars on the table that could be used to invest in our own child care infrastructure.

The graduated income tax proposal that the Protect Colorado’s Future coalition is working to get on the ballot would raise more than $2 billion for child care, health care, and K-12. Importantly, it would cut state income taxes for everyone making less than $500,000 a year, and raise income taxes for people making above that. A graduated income tax system, which Colorado had until 1987, is fairer and will help pay for the things Coloradans need.

Child care is not a luxury. It is how single moms keep jobs, how low-wage families stay housed, how children with disabilities receive care, and how our smallest businesses — child care providers — survive. It’s what makes our local economies prosper. Over reliance on the federal government puts Colorado families at risk to vendettas and grudges. Freezing these funds doesn’t just stall support; it rips the rug out from under communities already hanging by a thread.

And the damage spreads quickly:

• Parents are forced to choose between work and caregiving.

• Employers lose reliable workers overnight.

• Providers — mostly women of color — face closure, laying off staff and displacing children.

• Children lose critical early learning and safety.

At Colorado Statewide Parent Coalition, we see this every day. We work with hundreds of families and friend, family and neighbor providers who rely on these programs to keep going. These are not numbers — they are neighbors, teachers, grandmothers, and essential workers.

Let’s also be clear about what this funding freeze is not: It’s not about fixing fraud. It’s not about fiscal responsibility. And it’s not about improving services.

It is about punishing families — especially immigrant, low-income, and communities of color — for political disagreements they had no part in creating.

This moment demands more than technical solutions. It demands moral courage.

The moral courage to change TABOR and create a graduated income tax in Colorado so we can reduce our reliance on the federal government and generate the funding we need to take care of Coloradans.

Mirla De Low Coronado is the director of early childhood programs at the Colorado Statewide Parent Coalition.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Last week, Gov. Jared Polis said he was considering clemency for Tina Peters, the former Mesa County Clerk serving a nine-year sentence for using her position to circumvent security protocols and grant unauthorized illegal access to the County’s voting equipment in the 2020 election. While the governor’s benevolent instincts are laudable, leniency here would only invite more lawbreaking, and ultimately, more suffering — in Colorado and beyond.

Peters, who is 70 years old, is a cause celebre among those who insist the 2020 election was stolen. President Donald Trump performatively issued her a “full pardon” — but it has no legal effect because Peters was convicted under state law. Not only has Trump repeatedly attacked the governor on social media for failing to intervene on Peters’ behalf, but he has also vetoed bipartisan legislation and tried to withhold billions in funding for Colorado’s neediest families, for clean water and for disaster relief.

Amidst this relentless pressure campaign, the governor recently expressed his view that Peters “got a sentence that was harsh. . . . And when you have people that are elderly, and we’re looking at this across a number of many people — people in their 70s or 80s in our system — how much of a threat to society are they and how do we balance that in a way that makes sure they can spend their last year few years at home.”

The governor is right to examine whether elderly inmates in our state prisons pose a continuing threat to society. The governor is likewise justified in exploring a range of options for ensuring Colorado receives the funding it needs. But here, such altruistic considerations do not justify capitulating to a lawless authoritarian in the White House.

The courts are already stepping in, freezing the president’s attempt to withhold funds for child care, food assistance, housing, and job training. And despite stark polarization, it’s clear there is real bipartisan alignment within the state’s delegation to keep fighting in Congress for other critical state priorities.

Even if clemency led the White House to dial back the ongoing efforts to punish Colorado, acquiescence today only invites future harassment. Bending to the demands of a bully does not earn goodwill – it signals that extortion and coercion are likely to pay off again. Accommodation on points of principle – justice, the rule of law, truth itself – send a troubling signal that, if enough pressure is applied, anything is up for negotiation.

Moreover, clemency for Peters would do incalculable damage to our state and our nation. Peters has never repented for her crimes, conceded the legitimacy of the 2020 election, or apologized for the untold harm she caused to fellow election officials. Clemency would open the door to more lawbreaking, inspire further attacks on the integrity of our elections, and foment deeper divisions in our state.

Trump has already shown by pardoning January 6th rioters that he can protect allies who break the law on his behalf from federal law enforcement. But state law – and the prospect of serious criminal penalties for serious criminal behavior – remains an essential deterrent. If Trump can demonstrate in such a high-profile way that he can also protect his apparatchiks from state law consequences — even in state under the stewardship of a principled, independent governor — it will be a ringing invitation to his allies to break the law on his behalf when it comes to the upcoming elections, here and around the country.

And here’s the thing: Peters is up for parole consideration in 2028. The legal system will work on its own, as it does for any ordinary person. The parole board would undoubtedly consider and give great weight to the governor’s humanitarian concerns then.

Regardless of Gov. Polis’ best intentions and just motives, gubernatorial clemency would be proof that you can break the law and get away with it as long as you do it for Donald Trump.

Max Potter was the senior media adviser to former Colorado Gov. John HIckenlooper and is now a writer/editor with Protect Democracy. Beau Tremitiere resides in Boulder County and is a counsel at Protect Democracy, where he leads programs to defend the rule of law.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.