Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

JLL generously supports MinnPost’s New Americans coverage.

Minnesota politicians vow to resist Trump’s executive orders on immigration

MinnPost photo by Ibrahim Hirsi
State Rep. Ilhan Omar: “The irony in this is that this is a country that people are fleeing to. [But it’s] becoming one of tyranny, is becoming one of dictatorship and is becoming one that’s turning its face against the values that it’s supposed to stand for.”

On Wednesday, just hours after President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on immigration, Rep. Ilhan Omar found herself before a mass of reporters and flashing cameras in an overcrowded basement room inside the Minnesota State Capitol.

It was merely her fourth week on the job, but Omar, the nation’s first Somali-American legislator, wanted to weigh in on to the latest news concerning immigration: Trump’s order to build a wall along the Mexican border, to launch a mass deportation of undocumented immigrants and to cut funds to cities and states with sanctuary policies.

“The irony in this is that this is a country that people are fleeing to,” Omar said. “[But it’s] becoming one of tyranny, is becoming one of dictatorship and is becoming one that’s turning its face against the values that it’s supposed to stand for.”

Trump’s executive orders were among a series of plans concerning immigration issues that Trump has rolled out in his first week as president — and there are more to come. This week, for example, he’s expected to sign a plan to bar Syrian refugees and people from Muslim-majority countries. 

Here are some of the president’s key immigration plans, how they might affect Minnesota — and what elected officials have said they’ll do to respond to Trump’s executive orders.

Deportation and sanctuary cities

Minnesota has one of the lowest unauthorized immigrant populations in the nation, according to the Pew Research Center, with around 100,000 people.

On Wednesday, Trump’s executive orders included immediately deporting such immigrants — starting with those who have criminal records.

To do so, the president plans to add 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, who are responsible for repatriating immigrants living in the country illegally. 

On top of that, Trump wants local law enforcement in each city and state to play a role in detaining undocumented immigrants to ICE. But there are dozens of cities throughout the country — known as “sanctuary cities” — with ordinances limiting collaboration with federal immigration officials.

The executive order Trump signed on Wednesday calls for cutting federal grants to sanctuary cities and states that refuse to collaborate with immigration officials. But mayors of these cities say their sanctuary policies — which officials also call “separation ordinances”— are meant to make their residents feel safe if they desire to come forward as witnesses and victims of crimes without the fear of repatriation.  

Minneapolis and St. Paul are among dozens of sanctuary cities Trump wants to target. Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges, who spoke at the event on Wednesday, encouraged participants to resist the president’s decision, though she didn’t provide any explanation on how she plans to respond to the order, which she described “a big problem” for her government. 

“Donald Trump is doing his best to punish cities that have separation ordinances by threatening funding to cities,” said Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges. “That’s a big problem and we will need to solve it. But it’s a bigger problem if our democracy comes tumbling down around our ears, which is what its in danger of doing if we give in to these kinds of threats.” 

St. Paul is also one of several sanctuary cities in Minnesota. The city’s mayor, Chris Coleman, wasn’t at the event on Wednesday, but he has previously said that the St. Paul Police Department isn’t responsible for immigration law.     

“Our message is clear: We will resist any attempt by the federal government to tell us how to police our community or to turn our officers into ICE agents,” he wrote in a Pioneer Press opinion piece. “Moreover, we promise to deliver respectful and welcoming services.” 

Banning refugees from Muslim-majority countries

Trump’s Wednesday executive orders didn’t include barring people from Muslim-majority countries from coming to the U.S. But multiple national news organization, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, indicated that the president plans to sign an executive order halting admission of refugees from Syria and citizens of Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Iran and Iraq. 

Following last year’s terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, Brussels and Paris, and several high-profile ISIS-related cases in Minnesota, Trump and other GOP leaders have advocated banning Muslims from entering the country.

At the State Capitol event on Wednesday, Rep. Omar — the state’s only Muslim legislator — spent most of her speaking time on the Muslim ban and insisting that it isn’t an American value. 

“We are doctors, we’re teachers, we’re poets, we’re business owners, we’re factory workers,” she said. “Despite the cold here in Minnesota and in many parts of America, we experienced the warmth of welcoming neighbors.”

She even offered the president to visit her to show another side of the Muslims community.  “I want to offer an opportunity for our new president to come and spend a day with me — to see what it is to be Somali, to be Muslim and to be a refugee that has gotten the opportunity to have a new life.”

Building a border wall 

When he launched his presidential campaign about two years ago, Trump promised to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border to prevent illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America. 

Back then, Trump didn’t share a concrete plan detailing how he was going to do that, how long the wall would be and how much it would cost — though he said Mexico was going to pay for it.

Recently, though, he told the press that U.S. taxpayers will pay the estimated billions of dollars to erect the barricade. But eventually, he added, Mexico will reimburse the U.S. government. 

Whatever the case, Trump will need approval from Congress in securing funding to implement the plan to build a 2,000-mile-long wall.   

Local officials have vowed to push back on that plan, though on Wednesday they were vague on how they would do so. “We are together and we are going to fight together against this,” said state Sen. Patricia Torres Ray. “We refuse to pay for that, we’re going to organize against that because we need health care for our families, we need education. We don’t need a wall.”

Comments (85)

  1. Submitted by Mike Downing on 01/26/2017 - 11:58 am.

    Urban vs suburban/rural split

    This is another example of the urban vs suburban/rural split in MN. St. Paul and Mpls politicians are against borders and are against real vetting of immigrants & guests into the USA. However, suburban & rural Minnesotans are for a safe American and therefore for a real border and real vetting of immigrants & guests into the USA.

    I encourage Democrats to name Keith Ellison to Chair the DNC if you don’t believe this and then watch the election results in 2018.

    • Submitted by Peter Stark on 01/26/2017 - 12:41 pm.


      Trump did considerably worse than Mitt Romney in Minnesota’s suburbs. See here:

      I wouldn’t be so quick to count suburban voters as part of the Trump Coalition. Exurban voters, sure, but the inner-ring suburbs have been trending DFL for several cycles now.

      • Submitted by Tim Smith on 01/26/2017 - 03:07 pm.

        isn’t it possible

        that generally suburbanites share one of Trumps core beliefs even if they din’t vote for him like they did Romney?

        • Submitted by Peter Stark on 01/27/2017 - 09:20 am.


          Yes, that is certainly a possibility. It may be that the rest of Trump’s policy suite was unsuitable for suburban voters. However, the rest of Trump’s platform was basically Romney’s, so I’m not sure that works.

          The burbs are becoming much more DFL friendly. That is the principle reason we have a 2-term Dayton with a very rural GOP legislature.

    • Submitted by Pat Terry on 01/26/2017 - 02:05 pm.


      No one is against borders and vetting. Metro politicians just use facts and logic when approaching the issue, not paranoia and racism. Trump isn’t going to make anyone any safer.

      • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 01/27/2017 - 07:39 am.


        An idea that all illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay has an inevitable logical continuation: we should let anyone in. It is logically impossible to defend the first without agreeing with the second. So what kind of facts and logic metro politicians are using? And what does racism have to do with this?

      • Submitted by Steve Rose on 01/27/2017 - 08:17 am.

        “No one is against borders”?


        “Many people have advocated for substantially more open borders around the world. The names of some of these are included below.”

        “The Efficient, Egalitarian, Libertarian, Utilitarian Way to Double World GDP” — Bryan Caplan, Economics Professor, George Mason University

  2. Submitted by Steve Rose on 01/26/2017 - 12:14 pm.

    President Clinton on Immigration and Border Security

    In this 1.5 minute clip from the 1995 State of the Union Address, President Clinton sounds like he could be President Trump, and he receives a standing ovation.

    There is a wall, though permeable at places. The idea of controlling the border, of being a sovereign nation, resonates positively with many. The Democrats attempted in vain to use the idea of improving border security against Trump.

    This Is What the U.S.-Mexico Border Wall Actually Looks Like; the photo at the top of this National Geographic article is on the California border and it was built during Bill Clinton’s presidency.


    “Donald Trump has famously and repeatedly promised to seal the border with a wall if he’s elected. He and others have promised to send people who illegally crossed the border—a number that appears to have leveled off—back to Mexico. For these people, the border wall isn’t an abstraction. Many parts of the border are already covered in fences. In other spots, the wall is not made of bricks, but out of scanners, drones, and guards.”

  3. Submitted by Dave Paulson on 01/26/2017 - 01:07 pm.

    Good Points but Let’s See the Whole Picture Here

    Both comments above are valid in the whole, and the Democrats (I am not one but side with them on many issues) will shoot themselves in the foot if they are not smarter, more consistent and a savvy about this.

    That said, I have not heard any Dem politicians say they are “against borders and against real vetting.” (I am sure there is one or two quotes somewhere, but…)That is too typical or RW talk these days – overstating the opponents positions to make their argument look more valid.

    More important: many RW commentators ignore these realities when criticizing Dems:

    > Obama deported way more illegals than Bush.
    > With the slowed economy, illegal immigration also slowed way down (some rebound now).
    > Many small, medium businesses have relied on and prospered from illegal workers
    > The national GOP has resisted several overtures and, despite control of one or both houses in most of the last 16 years, has rarely put forth legislation to improve our too-slow immigration process (too slow for most Americans taste).
    >Trump’s plans and impulses – here and in most areas, will be expensive and very disruptive. He could implement the same in better ways.

    • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 01/26/2017 - 06:42 pm.

      Logically impossible

      It is logically impossible to demand that illegal immigrants be allowed to stay and yet advocate a secure border… so Democrats stay mum on the border issue. Now let’s look at you issues. Obama deported a lot of people but that included those apprehended at the border and there were many more of them during Obama terms. Economy slowed but people are still coming because it is still better here than there. Small businesses do use illegal immigrants… at the expense of low skill local workers so how is it good?

      • Submitted by Dave Paulson on 01/27/2017 - 03:54 pm.

        logically it is possible in 2 ways

        It is logically possible in 2 ways

        1. Point in time – acknowledge the reality many are already here, so “secure the border” (whatever that means exactly) from this point on.

        2. acknowledge the reality that it is a big complex issue with countless shades of “illegal” and secure the border, and deal with sub-segments of those classifications separately.I think this is pretty much the only realistic way to not bankrupt the country.

        • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 01/27/2017 - 06:14 pm.

          Thank you

          I should have said “it is logically impossible to demand that ALL illegal immigrants…” because those who are here are no better who are still outside and want to come so thank you for your point. Of course we need to acknowledge the reality but note all the slogans from the left such as “no person is illegal” and understand that they do want all illegal immigrants to stay… and for a simple reason because Democrats believe those people will eventually vote for them.

  4. Submitted by John Appelen on 01/26/2017 - 03:36 pm.


    I will never understand the Liberal rationale for putting the wants of ILLEGAL workers / residents in front of the needs of LEGAL workers / residents.

    The low knowledge / low skill LEGAL workers in MN have high unemployment and their wages are too low. And yet the Liberal leaders are planning to spend tax dollars to fight against deporting the ILLEGAL workers / residents who are taking jobs and putting downward pressure on wages in our communities… Especially in those jobs that our poorest need.

    Now I am fine with letting LEGAL immigrants who have thorough background checks enter America, especially if the have knowledge and/or skills that will make America even better. However the idea that hundreds of thousands of undocumented people cross the border each year amazes me. And though many of them are likely good people who come here for jobs, security, etc. I am pretty sure there are thousands who are engaged in the smuggling of drugs, slaves, etc. So it amazes me that people are resistant to making our Southern border very secure.

    I mean many people say they want to cut down on the drugs, sex slaves, forced workers, etc and yet they want to leave the Southern door open. It does leave me puzzled.

    • Submitted by Nick Foreman on 01/26/2017 - 07:02 pm.

      Which republicans, companies and businesses

      Are hiring those illegal workers? Why doesn’t that group put the needs of legal workers instead of the “wants” of illegal poor workers? Why not a tough criminal law against any employer who hires an illegal worker, perhaps at a felony level? I’m not puzzled by the lack of such a law or the lack of any enforcement of any such law? I am puzzled by what part the “southern door” from Texas to California plays in this issue of illegal workers immigration. Throw into your comment drugs, sex slaves, regular slaves and forced workers but please explain how the poor illegal uneducated workers manage such work so successfully

      • Submitted by John Appelen on 01/27/2017 - 02:02 pm.


        I am kind of a “belt and suspenders” type of guy.

        I am just fine increasing the penalties on hiring illegal workers. Of course, it will be interesting to see all those Southern homeowners in jail for not vetting their lawn mower guy well enough. Since I maintain my own lawn and clean my own house, no problem…

        I assume some of the smugglers, human traffickers and gang members are pretty smart, creative, skilled, violent and aggressive. Do you doubt this?

        Please remember that many of the illegal workers may be skilled and educated, however they likely compete in the lower compensation job markets for several reasons. (ie cleaning, food service, field work, lawn maintenance, gardening, construction, etc) One of the problems with living in America un officially.

        • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 01/30/2017 - 11:21 am.


          We set up a program to get, unemployed Iron Rangers, and Rust Belt steel workers to move to Georgia, California etc:”

          According to this web site there are “tons” of fruit etc. picking jobs for all those unemployed Americans already!

          • Submitted by John Appelen on 01/30/2017 - 11:55 am.


            Well if we stop subsidizing folks in Northern MN… They may choose to move to where the jobs are all on their own. 🙂

            Or we could stop blocking the mines they want and let them be gainfully employed up there.

            • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 02/01/2017 - 07:55 pm.


              But you know government can’t keep their fingers out of tweaking (Its that “promote the general welfare” part, Blocking the mines? For some that is picking winners and losers, “general welfare” national park, as well as the folks making their living supporting the tourist industry. Would you agree tough choice?
              Perspective: It would be easier if mining companies had been good stewards of the land and the environment, they have a bad reputation and hate to say it but seems they deserve it. A couple simple google searches on mining pollution provides a pretty nasty background. Especially when they just closed the mine, through all the workers out, and left the Fed/state to clean up the mess after declaring bankruptcy. Extremely irresponsible, and suspect they did it on purpose for the bottom line, because it happened many times. The free shot: Kind of like Trump and his bankruptcies!

  5. Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 01/26/2017 - 04:52 pm.

    The so-called “illegal” immigrant is a problem from ten years ago, not today after the Great (Republican) Recession and Obama’s fierce vetting and deportation activities.

    Let’s face it: Trump articulated for a whole bunch of people a racist, xenophobic set of emotions that demonized an enemy for people, to prevent them from seeing who really is messing up their lives–the Wall Street .01 % that Trump has named to his Cabinet.

    • Submitted by John Appelen on 01/26/2017 - 05:37 pm.

      Please elaborate, how are the 0.01% messing up our lives?

      Consumer goods are inexpensive because we buy them from all over the world, we get fresh fruits/vegetables year round from all over the world, our mortgage rates are low, our fuel prices are low, we have free K-12 education for everyone, we have Medicaid / food programs and other welfare programs for the poor, etc.

      Does it really matter to anyone what Trump, Gates, Buffet, Zucherberg, etc have in their wallets?

      Now the things Trump is proposing will reduce the labor pool and increase the cost of foreign goods, which should increase the wages and job opportunities for many working Americans. Isn’t that what the Liberals want? I mean look at all of the “increase the minimum wage” rallies.

      Of course on the downside we will be paying significantly more for most things.

  6. Submitted by Victoria Wilson on 01/26/2017 - 06:17 pm.

    Double Puzzle

    I am double puzzled by the objection to help apprehend criminal aliens. So it’s OK to help the FEDS with naturalized and home-grown criminals but not immigrant ones? And the reason given is that they may be hiding within their communities intimidating fellow countrymen into silence? What message does that send: that a city won’t pursue criminal justice in nooks and crannies where the thugs hold high court over the voice of the neighborhood? It seem like it would create a portion of the city that successfully resists any type of police activity.

    What is noticeable in this comment section is the lack of rash rages against our bombastic, albeit now predictable, new president. The silence almost suggests that readers may question whether their two largest cities should conspire against the laws of our nation. If the silence is due to a fear of not coming across as politically correct or cosmopolitan, I would ask you to rethink your position. I can’t even imagine that new immigrants feel it is politically correct to let criminals live amongst them.

    • Submitted by John Appelen on 01/26/2017 - 09:23 pm.


      I think their rationale is that illegals would not be willing to come forward and testify against criminals if there was a risk of them being deported due to it. Of course, my question is how often does that happen? And if all the illegals were deported, it would not be an issue… I mean they would not be here to witness the crime. 🙂

      Again I am fine with doubling the legal immigration rate, but keeping the South door open and letting people who cut in line in front of the rule following legal immigrants seems wrong to me.

  7. Submitted by John Appelen on 01/26/2017 - 09:37 pm.


    Regarding which immigrants to let legally enter the USA…

    If you were going to give your child a piece of candy from a bowl…
    And you knew the candy in bowl 1 had historically been good, whereas there is a chance of few bad pieces in bowl 2 that may make your child very sick…
    Which bowl would you choose from?

    There are a billion people who would love to move to the USA and we bring in 1+MILLION / year. Why again would we bring in immigrants from the slightly higher risk groups?

    Please remember that unfortunately there could be people in those bowls who do want to harm you and/or your family. And since reading minds is beyond our capability, it will be really hard tell who is who.

  8. Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 01/27/2017 - 07:41 am.

    The right choice

    Limiting illegal immigration and asking all local governments to cooperate with the federal government in enforcing federal laws is logical, lawful, and reasonable and references to tyranny are silly. There are plenty of federal laws that state and local governments help enforce and/or create local laws to follow. For example, all states reduced the drinking limit to comply with federal government guidelines. Or think about all EPA regulations… Sanctuary cities’ excuse for not cooperating with the Feds in search of illegal immigrants is purely political and done to pander to their liberal base because no one is demanding that they ask victims and witnesses for their legal status – just the perpetrators.

  9. Submitted by joe smith on 01/27/2017 - 08:47 am.

    Removing criminal illegal aliens is

    the law. Why is there even a discussion about this?? How could anyone who believes in our laws disagree with the policy of deporting illegal aliens who commit a felony? News to Dems, stick with this illegal, non sensical stance and watch regular folks vote GOP even more.

    As far as “extreme vetting” goes, I’m glad that this administration has the common sense to put up safe zone, protected by NATO, where refugees can be safe while they get vetted or sort out their lives. No one argues these displaced people deserve to be safe, they want to stay in their country and help rebuild once this slaughter by ISIS is over. Many Americans have been calling for this policy for years, Obama ignored this approach, which led to the refugee crisis in Europe that is tearing them apart.

    Finally, you can’t have open borders with welfare for all…. It can’t work… Look at California and their budget to find out why.

  10. Submitted by Janice Kehler on 01/29/2017 - 07:27 am.

    Extreme vetting

    …is code for using religion as a litmus test for immigration. Christians are okay, Muslims are not?!!??? Not what America is about. Put yourself inside the skin of a Muslim, would you feel safe in America, never mind a NATO ( the same NATO that Trump claims is useless) enforced safe zone?

    Trump is unstable–not a well-informed leader, backed by a republican party that is all about words and no substance ( 8 years to come up with a health care plan and they still don’t have one!!!). The republican party is not about serving the public, it is about being obstructionist. “Regular folks” are going to want solutions and that is how they will vote.

    The issue of immigration and the migration of human beings fleeing terrorism, oppression, poverty, torture… is a human crisis not a budgetary crisis, especially in our country that has so many resources. It is our bad that we can’t share and support each other as fellow Americans. It is our bad when we take out our frustrations on the Syrian refugee–vulnerable women and children washed up onto our shores–a four year old whose life was ended in the cold waters that spring from our lack of human decency.

    • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 01/29/2017 - 11:49 am.

      We all want solutions

      Regular folks wanted solutions… and that is why they voted for Trump and Republicans…. As for immigration, are you for the open borders?

  11. Submitted by Kenneth Kjer on 01/29/2017 - 09:27 am.

    My suggestion:

    Before anybody makes up there minds about immigration from Islamic countries, I suggest they read the Koran and then make an intelligent decision based their knowledge gained from the reading. I believe it should be mandatory for all elected officials.There are far to many rumors out there both good and bad,

    • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 01/29/2017 - 11:49 am.

      This will not help

      Reading Koran will not solve the problem since everyone is saying that Islamic terrorists are not interpreting it correctly…

    • Submitted by John Appelen on 01/29/2017 - 12:37 pm.

      How exactly would this help? Like the Bible, the Koran is not the issue, it is the small number of followers who choose to interpret it in a certain manner.

      Now let’s say that 99.9% of Muslims interpret the Koran as being about peace and tolerance of other religions. And only 0.1% believe that all non-Muslims are sinners who should not be tolerated. That means there are 10 intolerant Muslims in a group of 10,000.

      As I asked above, since we have millions of people from many other countries and cultures who want to get into the USA. Does it make sense to take the slightly higher risk by accepting individuals from certain countries?

    • Submitted by Helen Hunter on 01/29/2017 - 10:28 pm.

      Reading the Bible

      Would reading the Hebrew and Christian Bible explain the Crusaders, the Protestant Ethic, so-called “fundamentalist” Christianity, or the actions of yet another empire whose days are numbered?

    • Submitted by Matt Haas on 01/29/2017 - 11:10 pm.

      I might suggest one read the Constitution

      Particularly the part where the checks and balances between the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary branches are outlined. As this has apparently gone out the window, it will make for a good historical lesson for your grandkids as they ask how our democracy was ended. This what you voted for conservatives? A President that is above the rule of law? Hope you enjoy the hell your blind devotion hath wrought.

      • Submitted by Steve Rose on 01/30/2017 - 11:08 am.

        Who Set the Table?

        ‘I’ve Got a Pen and I’ve Got a Phone’ President Obama famously bragged about his power to take Executive Action (January 2014). At that time, I am sure he felt that the American people would surely respect his legacy by electing his endorsed candidate, and things would continue to roll left.

        If you didn’t cry foul then, the cartoon bubble over you head now contains the phrase blah-blah-blah!.

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 01/30/2017 - 12:15 pm.


          I take it that all of the conservatives who spent so much time whinging about President Obama’s “unconstitutional” executive orders realize the pretty glaring contradiction. I assume they are intellectually honest enough to realize that contradiction. They probably are not so enmeshed in their own “bubbles” as to think that tu quoque is any kind of response, and are prepared to admit they were wrong.

          That’s going to happen any day now, right?

          • Submitted by Steve Rose on 01/30/2017 - 04:09 pm.

            Really? I just pointed it out.

            The over-reaching, and that is what it clearly is and what it was, will continue.

            The table has been set. Or in other words, when you find yourself under the bus, pause to consider who drove that bus into to town, and how you welcomed its arrival.

        • Submitted by Helen Hunter on 01/31/2017 - 01:13 am.

          Tell the Whole Story

          President Obama had to deal, after his first two years, with a “republican”-majority Congress who loathed him and had conspired not to work with him on anything. That is, for eight years they refused to do the jobs they were elected to do while continuing to collect their salaries and enjoy their benefits. (Some would call that theft.)
          I put quotes around the name of their party because they have demonstrated that they care nothing for our republic.
          It’s such a pity that so many people who dislike or hate President Obama have denied themselves the possibility of knowing anything about him. Contrary to your assumption that “he felt that the American people would…elect…his endorsed candidate”, Barack Obama is a realist and a pragmatist as well as a principled man. He knew and knows that nothing is sure until it’s happened.
          As for executive orders, all presidents have written them. It’s not the FACT of writing executive orders that is a problem; it’s their content that is important. President Obama, a lawyer and professor of Constitutional Law, as well as someone who didn’t consider himself too smart to need advice, researched and thought out the consequences of the orders he wrote.
          Unlike the present holder of the office.
          And, since this is real life, not a cartoon, there is no cartoon bubble over any of our heads.

          • Submitted by Steve Rose on 01/31/2017 - 09:55 am.

            It is not their job …

            It is neither party’s job to carry out the other party’s agenda.

            No Republican cast a vote for the so called “Affordable Care Act”. This CNN article tells ” Health care costs rise by most in 32 years”. Nothing affordable about.


            It is no one’s job in congress to foist that burden upon the American people.

            When, in 2014, President Obama bragged “‘I’ve Got a Pen and I’ve Got a Phone”, I don’t think he was planning to turn those powerful tools over to President Trump. This may be real life, but when those that didn’t cry foul regarding the last President’s executive overreaches, they make themselves a caricature when they do so now.

          • Submitted by Steve Rose on 01/31/2017 - 01:04 pm.

            The Constitution

            You are clearly impressed with President Obama’s credentials as a constitutional scholar.

            Lawyers and politicians (of all stripes) are gifted spinners and benders of the Constitution. It is a document of the people and one of its most important functions is to limit government. Including all the amendments, it is only about 7500 words. Everybody should read it for themselves, rather than look to constitutional scholars, who see it from their own special perspective.

            • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 01/31/2017 - 09:59 pm.

              Have read it and:

              I see the constitution from my own special perspective, but I’m willing to discuss with others. Also read a couple books on Thomas J, the federalist papers, H.D. Thoreau etc. trying to get their perspective, is that cheating?

              • Submitted by Steve Rose on 02/01/2017 - 01:22 pm.

                It depends …

                My comment was in response to a comment credentialing President Obama as a constitutional scholar

                It depends, as it is only cheating if you are using one of those sources on your extensive reading list as your own, or if you are allowing them to shape your interpretations.

                • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 02/01/2017 - 04:36 pm.


                  helps shape my interpretations, one way or the other, including this dialogue. It fits with the term “liberty” the quality or state of being free: especially thinking. Seems our founders went the liberty route and created something totally different by using parts and pieces from all over the place, then said that’s the best we can do for now, following generations have to figure it out for themselves, i.e. the constitution is a set of guidelines not a bible.

                  • Submitted by Steve Rose on 02/02/2017 - 06:49 am.

                    “The Supreme Law of the Land”

                    From Article VI, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;”

                    A set of guidelines? Hardly.

                    • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 02/02/2017 - 10:25 am.


                      Since it was written in 1789, please show me where it address’s space travel, airplanes, computers, telecommunications, social media, medical science, homo sexuality, gender identification, automobiles, nuclear power, medicare, medicaid, social security, unemployment, property law, tax law, etc. etc. and basically all the states, west of the Mississippi (and some east), much less Alaska, and Hawaii, that were not part of the union at signing?

                      If its all there, its all there, if not, seems like someone has to “interpret” something?

                    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 02/02/2017 - 10:53 am.


                      Laws passed must be able to stand a constitutional test. If tested and found unconstitutional, courts will strike down a law. All laws written by the government must not violate the constitution; the Constitution governs and limits the government

                      There have been 27 amendments; the 27th was ratified in 1992. If space travel law needed to be in the Constitution, it could be.

                    • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 02/02/2017 - 02:01 pm.

                      You avoided the question!

                      Where do all those other laws come from? Are they not derivatives of the constitution? How do folks know they will fit W/I the constitution? What do they use for guidance? The framers aren’t around anymore.
                      Who administers the test, how do we know they got the test right? Seems there are some-places in history where they might have got it wrong, how is that possible, they couldn’t have interpreted the guidelines incorrectly could they?
                      The statement “A set of guidelines? Hardly” insinuates, it is all written down and not subject to interpretation, disagreement or modification.

                    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 02/02/2017 - 04:09 pm.


                      1) Laws are passed by Legislators and signed into law by Presidents and Governors.
                      2) They don’t don’t always know what is constitutional
                      3) The courts administer the tests.
                      4) If the writers of article VI would have preferred a milquetoast term like “guidelines”, they would not have instead called the Constitution “the Supreme Law of the Land”.

                    • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 02/02/2017 - 04:57 pm.

                      Still dodging:

                      You can’t make something else if it is already all encompassing.
                      Yes I know how they make laws, your point was they are all, already made, and in the constitution!
                      1,2,3: To the orignal point, someone has to interpret something. Your point it is already interpreted just read it.
                      #4 And how do you know what they meant or preferred? You already mentioned we should each interpret for our selves, Are you cheating, who’s opinion are you using to cheat with? I have already given you mine.

                    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 02/02/2017 - 09:47 pm.

                      All encompassing?

                      Those are your words and not equivalent to supreme. We have three branches of government that work together to write, interpret, and enforce the laws. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

                      I recommended that people read the Constitution for themselves and do some critical thinking for themselves. Studying the Constitution is no longer done in Minneapolis Public Schools, at least in the standard curriculum.

          • Submitted by Steve Rose on 02/01/2017 - 05:52 pm.

            Actually, Obama was not/is not …

            Actually, Obama is was not a constitutional law professor, at least according to a Hillary spokesperson.

            “Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.”


            The title of “senior lecturer” doesn’t carry nearly the weight of the title “professor”.

            • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 02/02/2017 - 08:52 am.

              Did You Read the Entire Article?

              “UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track.”

              Yes, yes, I see that you’re just quoting a “Hillary spokesperson” from the 2008 campaign. That’s a little like saying it must be true because President Trump said it.

              • Submitted by Steve Rose on 02/03/2017 - 08:24 am.


                A carefully crafted statement from a law school, imagine that. Couched in a lot of soft words with wiggle room, including “considered” and “regarded”. Either he is a Professor or he is not. Perhaps someday he will accept and tenure track position. If he does, he will start the process of becoming a Professor. More likely, he will accept six figure speaking engagements.

  12. Submitted by Edward Blaise on 01/30/2017 - 08:25 am.

    30 Days from now.

    Like Nixon’s “secret plan to end the War in Viet Nam”, we now know Trump’s secret plan to eliminate ISIS: He just told the Joint Chiefs of Staff to get back to him in 30 days with a plan: Both plans did not exist.

    But the Donald has told us he will wipe them out completely, not a man, woman or child left standing. To help guide the secret plan he has made a premeditated move to alienate every government where ISIS operates. Iraq has already put in place a law mirroring Trump’s law against us.

    It’s easy to say “who cares, nobody should be going there anyway”; but, the only way ISIS gets wiped out completely is hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground fighting them. Shall it be our boots or the boots of those who live there? The belligerent Trump has already handicapped the Generals and their plan by impairing our ability to use the boots who live there.

    My guess is that the only allies he will find to fight ISIS are Bashar Al Assad and Vladimir Putin. And there Donald the Deal Maker will cut his deal: trading ISIS for his endorsement of a emboldened Russia and the lifetime appointment of a ruthless dictator.

    And maybe that is OK. Because the one think we definitely know about Trump’s history is that in the end he declares bankruptcy and screws his partners.

    • Submitted by Helen Hunter on 01/31/2017 - 01:39 am.

      “Wiping out ISIS”

      Like we wiped out Al Quada, after having trained them for use against the Russians?
      I can’t be the only American sickened by this whole continuing massacre-for-profit. Stop it! Stop talking as if we have to continue it, as if it’s normal!
      It’s not normal. It is a normal part of the “business of empire” and I want out of the empire. I am tired of people being killed in my name all over the world. It is not necessary. It is not funny. Have you ever seen a person killed? I have. There is nothing but horror and grief in it. My brother saw someone in his platoon kill a man in front of his children, in Vietnam. Only one of our many imperial wars. He is haunted by it still. Imagine the children.
      Imagine! Not profits, not warrior prowess, not “glory”, not America First, but death, blood, children screaming, children MURDERED.
      It’s not worth it. Being “the greatest country in the world” is not worth it.
      Anyone who imagines it is is sick with the same sickness that afflicts the person who now writes unresearched, un-thought-out malicious executive orders in the White House.

  13. Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 01/30/2017 - 11:34 am.

    Statue of Liberty

    “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

    Wonder what the Statue of Conservatism says?

    • Submitted by John Appelen on 01/30/2017 - 12:00 pm.


      Give me your qualified capable responsible hard working self disciplined people who will help the USA thrive, prosper and allow us to keep helping people around the world in their own home country. And if you are intolerant and want to destroy our way of life, please stay home. 🙂

      • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 01/30/2017 - 02:48 pm.

        Forgot the parts:

        Unless you are Muslim, or from a Muslim country, or Mexican, and make sure you are christian, and won’t take a job that an American Born (but not of an illegal immigrant) might fill in the next 25 years, but will not be involved in any international trade that absolutely does not give America a significant advantage in the deal, will immediately report any illegal immigrant they meet and or/are aware of and of course must speak perfect American English and only American English once touching American soil, and change all garb to western culture. and of course convert and adapt all local conservative Christian values, purchase at least 3-4 firearms and 6000 rounds of ammo, and don’t forget to locate in an inner city with the other immigrants of your kind, you will not be allowed to send money back to your family etc, nor will they be able to join you here at a later date. I’m sure there are a quite a few additional ones but, you know us lefties! 🙁

        • Submitted by John Appelen on 01/30/2017 - 04:33 pm.


          I really liked the gun and ammo reqt. 🙂

          I disagree with the order, or at least the way it was implemented, but you do realize that there are dozens of Muslim countries that were NOT named in it. Just mentioning it.

          And we love immigrants from South of the border, that is if they follow the legal process, submit to background checks and don’t budge in front of other potential immigrants who are waiting patiently to join our society.

          • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 01/31/2017 - 09:12 am.

            Hard to beleive

            Especially the love part.
            Seems if one is escaping near certain death, there is no compassion much less love. Moral compass.
            Ironically how was the US populated, by those fleeing persecution political, religious or otherwise, suspect the majority have no evidence that our forefathers have legal immigration papers, curious how many folks can prove their ancestors legally did? Ellis Island (on line) only goes back to 1892. Also suspect the American Indians would call us all illegal!


            • Submitted by John Appelen on 01/31/2017 - 10:32 am.


              Did the woman and man in Titanic love each other? Even as she floated on the debris and he froze to death and drowned….

              My point is that the USA is an excellent lifeboat and we allow 1+ MILLION legal immigrants into the boat every year. And we spend a huge amount of money to help people where they currently live. There are probably 2+ BILLION people in the world who would love to be here.

              All I am asking is that people enter the life boat through the controlled access point in an orderly, lawful and controlled manner. If one thinks are unemployment and wages are too low for some employees, I fear what it would be like if we just dropped another 10 million similar employees into the mix…

              As for Indians, for better or worse we conquered them and therefore have the right to make the rules. And if space aliens conquer us, they will make the rules… So is life.

              • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 02/01/2017 - 04:53 pm.

                Well then:

                I didn’t bring up the love part, if it doesn’t apply perhaps it shouldn’t be in the equation? Excellent, relative to what or who, no offense but it sounds like Trumpism? The 2B may even be a light number, the point being there will always be illegal immigration, and the more we try to disrupt other countries economies the worse it will get. Need to give folks a reason to stay home, good jobs, safe and secure governments would be helpful. Picking on some of the most devastated populations for political ends does nothing for our moral compass as Trump did slamming Somali’s?

                • Submitted by John Appelen on 02/02/2017 - 02:35 pm.


                  I think most of the people striving to get here legally or illegally think the USA is an excellent lifeboat. (ie stable, rule of law, free education, jobs, etc) I wish more of our own citizens appreciated what we have half as much.

                  I thought we were discussing all the illegal immigrants from our southern border. How did we get back to Somalia? By the way, I disagree with the travel ban.

  14. Submitted by Edward Blaise on 01/30/2017 - 01:28 pm.

    2 4 6 8 Let’s All Assimilate….

    My grandparents either came off the boat in the late 1800’s or were one generation removed from the boat (Italy and Sweden, a mixed marriage by my folks) . As a kid in the 60’s Swedish was regularly spoken in our house: undecipherable to me. By the 70’s and their passing it disappeared completely. And, while hesitant to call Grandpa wretched refuse, they all did meet multiple criteria:

    “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

    And as much as some may think it different now, it’s more the same than not…

    • Submitted by John Appelen on 01/30/2017 - 02:39 pm.

      Actually I think it is very different. Back then the USA had a very good reason for allowing millions to immigrate here. We had tons of open unclaimed land and needed people who were willing to claim it, improve it and work on it. And we had high unemployment and needed employees in the factories.

      Where as today we already have too many low knowledge / low skill citizens as we know from the low pay for those jobs, the high unemployment rate within some groups of citizens and the high welfare cost our society incurs.

      Now if you want to help America’s poor while helping America thrive, I think we need to focusing in highly educated / skilled immigrants for now. (ie Doctors, Nurses, Programmers, etc) And then start bringing in more low knowledge/ low skill workers once our poor are earning more.

      Or do you think it is a good idea to keep flooding the low end job market?

      • Submitted by Helen Hunter on 01/31/2017 - 12:50 am.

        Tons of open unclaimed land

        stolen from the Indians. You keep forgetting these less appetizing parts of our history.
        Including: those people who went to work in the factories/sweatshops weren’t welcomed with open arms and decent paychecks. They were paid starvation wages and had to let their children work in the hope that they could pay the rent and buy enough food to stay alive.
        So you think the low pay of jobs immigrants do MEANS that the work is low-skilled?
        No. It means employers will still pay as little as they can to people in the vulnerable position of immigrant and non-English speaker. They will still skimp on safety measures and they will still “discourage” labor organizing.
        I worked in the Hennepin County welfare department in the early 1990s, just before “welfare reform” took effect, “workfare” by another name. My clients were single mothers, families with problems, recent immigrants from Ukraine, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia. They worked their way off welfare, just as people have before and since. According to national statistics, most people spend two years or less on welfare. Welfare costs are only 1% of our Federal budget, compared to 60% for the military.
        That’s unbalanced, to say the least, and there are other serious imbalances in our budget and our values.
        I think many of us need to re-think our “tough” views on people generally, immigrants and minority people in particular. The business of America is not business. It’s “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity.”
        We will always have plenty of work trying to do those things. And one task is to remember or learn for the first time: ALL work is skilled. Try working in a chicken factory. I dare you.

        • Submitted by John Appelen on 01/31/2017 - 10:20 am.


          I was a farm boy so I know all about butchering chickens, an unpleasant job but pretty easy. As for the land, yes we were the conquerors and took the land from the weaker people who lived here. We in our foolishness also had legal slavery and a lot of our citizens treated other citizens poorly. I have no desire to ignore our past, the good news is that this is now and that was then.

          Now to the present, I have no problem with allowing more LEGAL immigrants / workers into the country. I just think that if people want low end jobs to pay more, we probably need to reduce the number of people applying for those jobs. Does this make sense?

          To accomplish this removing the ILLEGAL workers and limiting the inflow of these type of employees seems a rational technique.

          The other choice is to start supporting US based manufacturing and service firms by buying from them instead of from over seas. Are you willing to pay more for product and services that hire and pay American workers well? That is a question all consumers need to ask themselves.

      • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 01/31/2017 - 01:03 pm.

        Well, not exactly…

        I passed a Burger King awhile back and they had a sign that offered a starting wage of $15 bucks an hour: The low end of the job market must not be flooded completely. As I noted, my grandparents met the Statue of Liberty criteria: they were not highly skilled, highly educated contributors to the economy of their day. They got work where they could find it, they raised their families , they did the best they could. These aspirations have not vaporized with most of our current immigrant families. And, by my estimate, if I add up the tax dollars created by my siblings and cousins in 2016, the US did well betting on ET and Lena’s prospects in 1902…

        • Submitted by John Appelen on 01/31/2017 - 01:51 pm.

          Revenues and Expenses

          If Burger King is paying $15 / hr why are people still pushing the raising of the Min Wage? And why are so many people still unemployed?

          As noted many times here, the USA needed workers of all types in 1902…Not sure that is the case now with manufacturing depressed, automation in the fields/factories, and some wages being “too low”.

          As for a good bet… The question is how many additional revenues were generated vs how many additional expenses were created?

          Remember the old joke that is told about a retailer who sold products below cost, losing a little money on each sale. “I make it up on volume,” the retailer said. (Volume means that the retailer is losing a lot of money, of course, and never breaking even.)

          • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 01/31/2017 - 09:42 pm.

            Breaking news!!!!

            1. Thanks to Governor Dayton and President Obama, our state has recovered from the Pawlenty/Bush recession and our unemployment rate is at a very reasonable low.

            2. I guess some folks don’t want to travel to Elk River to flip burgers and those fighting a $10 minimum wage are just doing their part to fulfill their right wing fantasies and obligations: just do it: it’s the fair and balanced thing to do.

            And while I have not encountered any Islamic terrorists or Mexican rapists in my daily travels, I can offer a couple of experiences: Waiting in line at my neighborhood auto parts store a young Somalian man ahead of me purchased an armful of chrome trim tidbits for his car. When I made it back to the parking lot I noticed that he had a nicely washed 20 year old compact car and we exchanged a smile and wave as he installed the new “earings” on his ride. He could not wait to even get home to show his pride in ownership of this $1,000 car: I think he was happy to be here and have the opportunity to start a new life while acquiring a few early trappings of the good life in MN.

            Another time I arrived a half hour before opening of the local driver license station. A beautiful early Summer day, I found a place to sit on the lawn by the door. Soon a middle aged Hispanic man sat down near me. We exchanged a few pleasantries and a conversation broke out: he had been in the US for 25 years, He and his wife both work 2 jobs and he just purchased a new $200,000 home in the suburbs.He laughed that he always hoped to someday return to Mexico; but, it’s not happening: his kids are now established Minnesotans and were not going any where.

            Both of these fellows were not white smocked research scientists: they were regular hard working folks, not unlike my grandparents, just looking to make a start in a new country. I’ll take a chance on them.

            • Submitted by John Appelen on 02/01/2017 - 08:31 am.


              Again I have no problem with Legal Immigration, but I think we should take care of our own citizens before we bring in more refugees.


              • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 02/01/2017 - 08:16 pm.


                As a realist:
                To deport: Got $400-600 Billion and counting laying around? That doesn’t count the lost GDP number”
                Not sure how the P&L looks vs a way to citizenship.


                To your problem:
                The president determines the number of refugees accepted each year in consultation with Congress, which appropriates the funds, and the government contracts with nine agencies, six of which are faith-based, to resettle them. Refugees are given federal money to learn English and pay for essentials, and they are expected to start working in the first couple of months.

                Financial help and volunteer work from citizens and charitable organizations are important, too, because “the government funding isn’t really enough to do this right,” said Melanie Nezer, the chairwoman of Refugee Council USA, the coordinating body for agencies that handle resettlement.
                (Google who is sponsoring refugees in America)
                Cost/Refugee ~ $20K (feel free to chose your source) in total probably far less than the tax deduction for millionaire and billionaire castles.

                Now: Should America have a moral compass on the world stage? Or is that everyone else’s problem?
                (Free shot): Especially since we want to be “great again”? Or, is moral leadership not part of being great?

                Yep its complicated:

                • Submitted by John Appelen on 02/02/2017 - 08:23 am.


                  I am thinking that many would self deport if they stopped having jobs and receiving financial benefits. The question is are we willing to stop paying ILLEGAL workers to be here taking jobs from our poorer citizens?

                  I am fine having a moral compass, however that does not mean we need to bring the whole population of the world into “our house”… Would you drive downtown and pick up some homeless people to come home and live with you to show moral leadership? Or would you support organizations that can help them on their own turf?

                  To really help people in other countries… We need to help them improve their country.

                  • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 02/02/2017 - 10:10 am.

                    Been there explained this

                    Earlier post: Why aren’t the UN-employed flocking to the fruit and vegetable picking areas, and living in shot gun shacks 16 to a room? The ag business has clearly said many times, the crops will rot in the filed without immigrant labor, legal or illegal, you can’t get Iron Rangers to Minneapolis much less California and Georgia. (They are free to move or not to move, there was a great migration during the depression! Its easier to whine than do something. Since the “R”s got all 3 branches, here is their big opportunity to round then up like the SS did in Germany! You really need to show some thing that says these folks are taking jobs from our poorer citizens. Sorry to burst your bubble: But the fake president is putting out fake news. Oh sorry, this could be fake science I suppose!


                    Whole population of the world: Feel free to define our fair share? That is what the congress and president do: And we can be sure the new presidents moral compass will be ~ “0” because he doesn’t appear to have one. if it isn’t feeding his ego it isn’t on the radar.
                    Besides, he is itching to start a war with Iran, so the whole world, by the time Mr. Little hands gets done perhaps the population will have diminished significantly, hey and we are only in what week 2?


                    We do agree on the last point 100%, but that is not on the fake presidents agenda, he does not believe in WIN-WIN, only in order for me to be great (boost my ego) you must lose! Yes we do financially support organizations that help people on their own turf, and also endorse foreign aid other than military.

                    Well actually, we have had folks in our house at 4 in the morning that were in threatening situations, and yes we do contribute financially (significant) to some key organizations downtown that take care of the homeless, and yes we do live inner city and devote time and resources to live with folks that are not quite so advantaged, or not “normal” no I am not a Mother Theresa type.

                    • Submitted by John Appelen on 02/02/2017 - 10:53 am.

                      Ninety Thousand

                      Apparently there are ~90,000 ILLEGAL workers in MN. I am guessing that they are not working in “the fields down South”…

                      I am pretty sure if they weren’t here in MN, some wages would go up and some unemployment would go down no matter what the NY Times hypothesizes. Well, or more automation equipment would be built and purchased. Do you disagree?

                      If not, how do you think companies will get the work done? People keep wanting higher wages for low end workers and yet they are happy to keep the market flooded.

  15. Submitted by Dan Landherr on 01/30/2017 - 02:34 pm.

    So much muddle in this issue

    The big problem with the executive order is it is forcing LEGAL immigrants out. People with green card status or dual-citizenship were turned away. Why would we deport Canadian or UK citizens?

    I think people are ignorant of the already stringent requirements for refugees to enter the country. If you described the current system and called it “extreme vetting” I think most people would be satisfied. I have yet to hear a specific criticism of the 18-24 month long process that was already in place.

    The whole discussion seems to revolve around straw men arguments using as much hypothetical fear, uncertainty and doubt as possible.

    • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 01/30/2017 - 08:12 pm.

      Theoretically impossible

      It is impossible to vet anyone from a country where a civil war is raging and all civil institutions are broken and no records exist… no matter how long we say it takes.

      • Submitted by Dan Landherr on 01/31/2017 - 10:22 am.

        Not interested in theory

        I’m interested in creating a practical immigration system. I know full well it will have flaws like every other process. I have no interest in letting the perfect theoretical system be the enemy of “good enough”. People’s lives depend on practical government. As long as people have free will we cannot use theoretical constructs to describe them.

        • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 01/31/2017 - 07:56 pm.

          Well said

          “People’s lives depend on practical government,” – well said. That is why it is practical to take all measures to prevent potential terrorists coming to America… Imagine that your grocery store has boxes of grapes for sale and you know that out of thousands of grapes in each box one may be poisoned. Would you buy it? Would the store have it for sale?

          • Submitted by Dan Landherr on 02/01/2017 - 09:46 am.

            You need to do some research on food borne illness

            This is a risk ALL of us take EVERY day. It is impossible to take ALL measures to prevent bad things from happening.

            Interesting that you point to food as your example.

            “CDC estimates 48 million people get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die from food borne diseases each year in the United States”

            Grapes are also the 3rd highest cause of choking deaths among children


            I don’t recall any hospitalizations or deaths caused by Syrian refugees last year. 13 people were injured by a Somali refugee last year and before that the only refugee who caused an issue was a Cuban and that was in 1980. Grapes appear to be FAR MORE DANGEROUS than refugees.

            • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 02/03/2017 - 06:06 pm.

              I apologize

              Mr. Landher, I apologize but I tried to respond to your post several times but my messages were not allowed to go through. I wish we could continue this interesting discussion.

          • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 02/01/2017 - 07:45 pm.

            OK I’ll bite lets talk Risk!

            2013 (death from Car crash) 1/47,118
            Assault by firearm 1/28,208
            Sorry death from immigrants didn’t even make the top 15.
            Seems you are more likely to die from a lightening strike,
            Guess the next Trump executive order should be to ban the immigration of lightening, followed by Floods, storms and dog bites, and making it so people don’t fall off ladders! .


            Thanks Dan, the grape thing got me curious, yep really like those probabilities!

  16. Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 02/01/2017 - 06:52 pm.

    Most timely/you won’t hardly believe!

    Boomberg did a video/article on, I’ll call it derivatives of immigrants: paraphrasing Forest Gump, immigrants are like a box of chocolates!
    Moral of the story as in investing and life “No risk no gain”

    • Submitted by John Appelen on 02/02/2017 - 10:55 am.

      LEGAL immigrants and free trade are great !!!

      However this post is regarding ILLEGAL residents…

      There is a HUGE difference.

      • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 02/02/2017 - 07:50 pm.

        Call it what you want

        The article is titled:

        “Minnesota politicians vow to resist Trump’s executive orders on immigration”

        (Trumps EO is a Ban on legal immigration from particular countries/specifically Muslim)

Leave a Reply