Letters to the Editor | Feb. 3, 2026

Regarding City Council’s overwhelming opposition to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, what is its plan to enforce our nation’s immigration laws? Or does it believe Philadelphia should establish its own? And that America’s 50 states and countless cities should also “do their own thing.” Or is it really saying it wants no standards at all — completely open borders? In which case, an untold number of immigrants could come here.

Does Philadelphia have a plan for that scenario? Because, to my knowledge, there is no nation on earth that allows anyone to cross its border at any time for any reason. Just as we lock the doors of our homes from unwanted intruders, nations set immigration laws for the same reason. Otherwise, we have anarchy. This commonsense observation seems to have escaped the anti-ICE movement.

Or has it? Certainly, there are well-intentioned activists in this movement. However, there are also financial backers, such as George Soros and Neville Roy Singham, who reportedly have close ties to China’s government. And as we have seen with District Attorney Larry Krasner, a recipient of Soros’ financial support, nonenforcement of the law puts everyone at unnecessary risk. Or is that the point?

Lynn Landes, Philadelphia, lynnlandes@gmail.com

Jonathan Zimmerman’s recent column misses the forest for the trees. Either we apply the articles and amendments of the Constitution to all citizens equally, or we are living in a failed democracy. There is no middle ground on this question.

It is certainly ironic that the Second Amendment has been cited by the left. That does not mean its application in this case is automatically hypocritical. To cite it is to faithfully and equally apply the Constitution as interpreted by the courts. In suggesting otherwise, Zimmerman acts as an apologist for those who have ignored and will likely continue to ignore the Constitution at will. This has the effect of normalizing such behavior.

The Constitution starts with the words “We the people …” emphasizing its collective nature and evolution through time. While citizens may sometimes be frustrated by legal interpretations of some of the articles and amendments, the Constitution represents our country’s most basic principles governing behavior. Those who ignore this fact do so at the peril of all citizens.

A defining feature of this administration is that it willfully and illegally ignores basic tenets and interpretations of the Constitution made by the courts. When this happens, the individuals involved must be held to account. If we do not do so, we tacitly accept that the Constitution is no longer meaningful, and that our interactions will be governed by the whims of one man and his underlings.

Michael James, Haverford

“The officer … has been placed on administrative duty pending an internal investigation, as per department policy when an officer discharges his gun.”

When The Inquirer published a report recently about a Philadelphia police officer who had fired a shot at a suspect who allegedly shot another man, the article ended with the above words. Any casual reader of crime in Philadelphia probably knows these words by heart. If you use your gun for any reason, we have to check you out.

Why can’t U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement be subject to the same type of regulations? Why isn’t Jonathan Ross, who fired the shots that killed Renee Good, subject to investigation? Why was he allowed to flee the scene? And why aren’t the ICE agents who shot Alex Pretti being investigated?

Rosemary McDonough, Narberth

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.