Readers React: Would Libby Schaaf have undermined ICE if Obama were president?

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf takes questions from the media during a news conference at City Hall on Feb. 27.
(Jane Tyska / AP)

To the editor: We are or should be a nation of laws, not men; to be otherwise invites lawlessness. (“It’s one thing to oppose Trump’s policies. It’s another to undercut the law,” editorial, March 2)

President Trump is performing his job as stated in the Constitution — he is carrying out the legally enacted laws on immigration. President Obama enforced immigration law in the same manner, maybe just not to the extent Trump is doing in California, and not under the shadow that Trump casts.

The first job of elected officials is to protect this country’s citizens and legal immigrants; doing as Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf did and alerting potential criminals, legal or illegal, that law enforcement is heading their way is irresponsible.

While we have an obligation as people to ensure that all within our borders receive necessary medical care, food and shelter, to protect possible criminals and encourage resistance to duly enacted laws is to encourage lawlessness.


Scott Miller, Chatsworth


To the editor: Last week, the Los Angeles Times published an article noting that 45% of California agricultural workers are undocumented. The Times Editorial Board should advocate for their amnesty rather than rebuking Schaaf for having the courage to look out for them and other undocumented residents.

Schaaf’s message was empathetic and clear, unlike the vague “resist Trump” billboards used, somehow, as criticism of her actions.

Giving a heads-up to our hardworking neighbors and loved ones that they may be detained and shackled, transported to for-profit detention centers and held indefinitely without basic rights while awaiting exile is, somehow, “going too far”? Being privy and empowered by such knowledge, it would be immoral not to act.

Clearly the writers of this editorial are not at risk of deportation, nor are their loved ones, or they may indeed determine that federal immigration raids constitute the “most dire circumstance.”

Forest Borie, Anchorage, Alaska


To the editor: The editorial states, “Local subversion of federal rules would be justified in only the most dire circumstances.”

How dire is the federal criminalization of marijuana?

Lee Gruenfeld, Palm Springs

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook