Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The editorial on Jan. 28 supported the idea that Minnesota should allow undocumented immigrants to get driver's licenses ("OK driver's licenses for all Minnesotans"). No, no, no!

I really hate the argument that because undocumented immigrants are already here and driving, we might as well make it legal by allowing them to get a driver's license.

First, they come here illegally. Then they drive illegally. And work illegally. Who really thinks that they will pay for insurance if they get a driver's license? And why are we condoning illegal behavior? If we know someone is here illegally, why do we just ignore that and, worse yet, try to make life more comfortable for them? If someone applies for a license and we discover they are here illegally, why aren't they removed? And won't illegal immigrants fear that as well? I imagine few will actually get a license, take the test and get insurance.

As for Secretary of State Steve Simon's assurances that under "current voting laws, driver's licenses are not used to provide evidence of citizenship": That is true. What is sad is that we just believe people when they claim they can legally vote.

People are driving through red lights and illegally driving while holding their cellphones. Should we just make all those things legal because people are doing them anyway?

Pam J. Pommer, Bloomington

•••

The Star Tribune Editorial Board states a number of practical reasons for allowing "undocumented immigrants" residing in Minnesota "to obtain a driver's license or state identification card without showing proof of citizenship." However, the editorial ignores a more fundamental issue concerning the progressive devaluation of American citizenship.

The passage of the DFL's "Driver's Licenses for All" bill will be another step toward blurring the distinction between the American citizenry and the growing numbers of those who are residing here illegally while claiming (or being granted) the privileges of citizenship.

Driver's licenses for "undocumented immigrants" are just the first step. Some municipalities in other states have already proposed giving noncitizens the right to vote in local elections; it is only a matter of time before we hear similar proposals from the DFL.

At the risk of sounding naively patriotic, I place a high value on my American citizenship, and resent seeing this value debased by national and state lawmakers who refuse to enforce our immigration laws.

Peter D. Abarbanel, Apple Valley

Once again, Congress is going through the drama of negotiating an increase to our national debt ceiling. On cue, Republicans threaten to push us off the debt cliff unless they get what they want. They profess their commitment to fiscal vigilance and cutting spending to achieve a balanced budget. It may just be coincidental, but Republicans have a knack of beating the deficit drum when a Democrat sits in the White House. In the past 50 years, no Republican presidency, even with full control of Congress, has balanced the budget. When controlling government, Republicans can't get enough of deficits. The track record is unbroken. It has been a repeating cycle of tax cuts that results in years of nothing but deficits. The only presidency in that time frame that experienced surpluses, four years in a row, was Bill Clinton's.

Republicans who love the mantra that tax cuts pay for themselves know it is a deceitful fraud. I don't know which is worse, lying politicians who dig into their bag of treats to entice voters with tax cuts or Americans who repeatedly fall for the same bogus claptrap that tax cuts raise everyone's boats. Politicians won't get their comeuppance until voters get tired of being played for gullible marks.

As for Republicans in Congress shouting about deficits and hanging tough about raising the debt ceiling, the truth is they really don't care. It's just a pretentious charade because, well, this president is a Democrat. During the Trump years, docile Republicans voted three times to raise the debt ceiling, never once showing any spine of fiscal rectitude. Then Trump actually suspended the debt limit entirely. If you like hypocrisy and blather, watch Republican leaders play with fire as we go the brink of default on making payments on our national debt.

Josh Gruber, Minneapolis

•••

In an effort to appear to be concerned about "out-of-control government policies," 24 senators are playing a game of political chicken hoping to hold up voting to raise the debt ceiling. The last time Republicans played this dangerous game, it resulted in $1.3 billion in increased borrowing costs in that year alone. Just the specter of this is enough to bring already shaky financial markets, both at home and abroad, to the brink of collapse and if fully realized could result in a long-term recession. These senators aren't able to show which cuts they might be wanting to make or to which programs. This isn't legislating but grandstanding and obstructionism. If they are truly concerned about financial stability, they could do the hard work of finding ways to reduce spending first and bring these forth as proposals rather than hijacking our entire economy.

Micki Rasmussen, Bloomington

In reading about the recent turnaround by the Memphis police department and the disbanding of the Scorpion unit ("Memphis police unit disbanded," Jan. 29), I think all police departments should do an assessment of these types of units, starting with the naming conventions. If you are truly looking to "Restore Peace in Our Neighborhoods," as the back half of the acronym stands for, maybe start with something that doesn't suggest a department is being weaponized. If peace is what you are truly looking to obtain, common sense should lead to a less dramatic, dangerous name. If attracting the types of officers that are capable of beating your citizenry to death is your objective, then, by all means, stay the course.

Paul Standal, St. Paul

•••

Can you imagine, for a second, it was five women police officers who fatally beat Tyre Nichols on the heels of a traffic stop? Picture it. They would never have done it, nor would they have let it get that far, and the results would have been very different.

Juliann Brunzell, Minneapolis

The writer is a retired police officer.

I applaud the Star Tribune for taking a very strong stance on many of the commonsense initiatives proposed to try and decrease gun violence in our society ("Allow gun bans in public spaces," editorial, Jan. 30) and urge our legislators to pass bills supporting these efforts. At the same time, we must also look at why people often turn to guns to solve problems instead of utilizing nonviolent means. In this case, the community center employee got in a fight with some teens and at some point decided to use a gun he was carrying. Why didn't he either use skills we hope he had learned as a city employee to de-escalate the situation or call the police for assistance? Guns appear to be too easy a "solution" for people in our society, and we need to figure out how to get away from this mentality.

Sheldon Berkowitz, St. Paul

•••

St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter and the Star Tribune Editorial Board may not be aware of it, but banning guns from public places does not prevent gun violence in those places. In fact, shootings continue to happen in places like public schools where guns are banned. Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act in 1990, which prohibits guns in schools, but school shootings continue. The reason shootings happen in places that ban guns is that criminals don't obey the law. The only way the proposed law will have an impact is if all visitors to places banning guns are searched for guns. If that's the proposal, I'm all for it. If you're just going to put up a sign, don't bother.

James Brandt, New Brighton