Readers Write: Leave laws, immigration, state bird

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

•••

Substitute teachers are exposed to hundreds of kids a day (“Time for another look at leave laws,” Feb. 9). Of course subs get sick, and when they do, they deserve a paid sick day. Do families really want substitutes to come to work sick because they can’t afford to stay home? Years ago I worked as a long-call substitute teacher every day for more than half a year, but had no sick time and no paid time off even to attend a family funeral. There’s already a statewide shortage of people willing to do this difficult and often thankless job. The least we can do is make sure that substitutes have sick time.

Carol Dallman, St. Paul

The writer is a teacher.

•••

I was frustrated to read the recent column “Time for another look at leave laws” and see paid family and medical leave and Earned Sick and Safe Time portrayed as an “unfunded burden” on schools. The real burden has always been on workers — especially those in low-wage or part-time jobs — who have had to choose between going to work sick, neglecting their health or missing a paycheck just to care for a loved one — because they do not have access to company-provided paid leave.

These new laws should not be seen as suddenly costing employers more money. Rather, we as a state have decided that all workers have access to paid leave, no matter their job, and spread the costs so no one employer carries the full weight. That’s not an unfair burden — it’s basic fairness.

Instead of acting like these policies are a problem, we should recognize that they make workplaces and communities stronger. Everyone deserves a job where they don’t have to fear financial ruin if they get sick or need to take care of family. Supporting workers in tough times isn’t just good policy — it’s the right thing to do.

Brian Kao, St. Paul

The writer is operations director at ISAIAH, a faith-based advocacy organization.

I hope that last Sunday’s lead story of the church leaders uniting to help immigrants inspires people regardless of their personal religious beliefs (“Church leaders unite to help immigrants”). While most biblical scholars do not subscribe to the belief of St. Peter literally standing at the pearly gate, it is a strong image and an apt moral compass to live by. If you subscribe to the humanist concept that you have an obligation to lead an ethical life or follow the teachings of the Gospels which, in even a precursory reading, would show that helping the least among us is fundamental to living a Christian life, the “St. Peter test” can aptly be applied.

I find it valuable to ask myself, if I was standing at that heavenly portal, real or imaginary, would I be prepared for the final test? Currently our nation is watching the world’s most powerful man and the world’s richest man systematically pull resources that help feed starving children through international aid, gut environmental programs that will disproportionately impact the poorest nations and citizens, and treat immigrants and refugees as less than human. If St. Peter asked you what you did during the making of this humanitarian crisis, what would your answer be?

Craig Larson, Minneapolis

•••

The lead article in last Sunday’s edition “Church leaders unite to help immigrants” poses a curious issue of logic: When is a crime not a crime? Last I knew, entering and residing in a country without proper documentation was a crime. It was called “illegal immigration.”

Now, the soft-hearted and equally soft-headed leaders of Minnesota’s Roman Catholics and Episcopalians have gone on record as supporting the removal of “criminal” illegals while supporting the presence of “noncriminal” illegals. To camouflage their illogic, they call them “immigrants.”

In Minnesota, the Roman Catholic and Episcopalian leaders would like to have it both ways and collect funds from the federal government for “refugee resettlement” in the process.

Clearly, it is time to cease funding “refugee resettlement” through the churches, or through any organization using our tax money to “resettle” illegal aliens. It is also time to discontinue tax-exempt status to religious organizations acting as advocates of political activity. Their rallying cry “What would Jesus do?” is not a valid determinant of national policy. Jesus, after all, was Jewish, not Roman Catholic or an Episcopalian.

Carol Jennings, Red Wing

•••

Last Sunday’s front-page article demonstrated the extent the Trump administration is willing to go in its quest to make America only for Americans. “The administration intensified the debate recently by attacking Christian organizations’ use of federal funds to aid foreign newcomers. Trump adviser Elon Musk vowed to shut off ‘illegal payments’ to Lutheran refugee resettlement agencies,” the article reads. I take it “illegal payments” is in quotes because it’s not a fact — just the opinion of Musk.

It may surprise Musk and Donald Trump that there are still people in this country who have some grasp of history, so when I read this paragraph I could not help thinking of another “leader” who wanted to make his country only for people he thought deserving. So I did a little research and found this quote in a Wikipedia article that discussed William Shirer’s book “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”:

“Shirer wrote that the German people were not greatly aroused by the persecution of the churches by the Nazi Government. The great majority were not moved to face imprisonment for the sake of freedom of worship, being too impressed by Hitler’s early successes. Few, he said, paused to reflect that the Nazi regime intended to destroy Christianity… .”

David Luiken, Minneapolis

•••

Although I didn’t vote for Trump, according to the Pew Research Center, many of my fellow Christian neighbors did. And I suspect that they find the freeze of federal funds that support agencies such as Global Refuge (formerly known as Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service) very worrisome. This blanket freeze is unacceptable, and faith leaders' call for more donations to “fill the gap” is equally frustrating. I support my neighbors in need through many organizations, but I cry “baloney” on this one. Are you called by your faith to care for the stranger, feed the hungry and clothe those in need? If your answer is yes, then lean (heavily!) on your legislators to rein in this administration’s tendency to paint every issue with a broad brush, under the label of fraud. Remember, this is your money they’re holding hostage. Yes, we should be cognizant of waste and cheating. No doubt it’s there. But get busy with the real work of convincing this administration to release the money that is known to do good things in this world.

Roberta Becker, Minneapolis

Kevin Duchschere’s article about the Minnesota state bird took me back to elementary school (“A circuitous flight for the state bird,” Curious Minnesota, Feb. 9).

I was in fifth grade two years after the Legislature voted to make the loon our representative bird. I remember the Sunday paper had an entire picture magazine devoted to this strange new (to me) bird.

We were studying Minnesota, and the subject of the state bird came up. The boy who later became my husband spoke up and said it was the loon. Our teacher was a crusty old woman who used to teach soldiers how to read. “Anyone who says the state bird is the loon is loony themselves,” she snapped. “It’s the goldfinch.”

The class had to write, “The encyclopedia is the greatest source of knowledge” 100 times. (Thanks, Ralph.)

Ralph went home for lunch and told his mother what the teacher had said. His mother called the library and confirmed the bird was indeed the loon.

It appeared the teacher had failed to read the footnote in the outdated enyclopedia she used: There was an asterisk next to the goldfinch. Down below, the text read, “unofficial.”

Cynthia Sowden, Minneapolis