This St. Cloud Times Our View editorial is proof that the Times has drank the resettlement Kool-Aid. It started by saying “The St. Cloud City Council did the right thing Monday night when it voted 5-1 to adopt a resolution declaring the city a just and welcoming community.” Actually, that’s a point of disagreement. If the Times thinks that ambushing the citizens and a city councilmember with a last minute resolution that people hadn’t seen before is doing the right thing, then they need to rethink their ethical principles.
Transparency isn’t a nicety. It’s what ethical people do reflexively. It’s done out of respect for others. What happened Monday night was disrespectful and mean-spirited. When supposed civic leaders treat the citizenry with that type of disrespect, the citizenry is entitled to not trust their civic leaders.
Later in the editorial, it said “The intent of these forums is simply to foster respectful, public dialogue aimed at answering questions based on facts, not fear.” When I first read that, I questioned whether this was written by the Onion or if they were serious. Apparently, they intended it to be serious. They failed if that was their intent.
The unmistakable message sent from Monday night’s ambush was that the City Council wasn’t interested in respectful public dialogue. They were interested in hiding the facts about the program to the point that they denied the fact that they’re breaking federal law.
About 70 percent of those residents, for example, are participating in the workforce — a rate that compares to the overall workforce participation of native-born Americans in the region. “They’re filling important roles in the St. Cloud economy,” Goldenrod said. “Minnesota is increasingly relying on immigrant workers to fill critical roles in our workforce.”
Question: Of the 30% of refugees that aren’t participating in the workforce, how many of these refugees qualify for subsidized health care or rental assistance? What other government benefits do they qualify for?
This isn’t helpful:
For all that, though, Ali said he wasn’t surprised that an elected official proposed a plan to ban refugee resettlement in St. Cloud, drawing parallels between Johnson’s resolution and President Donald Trump’s travel ban, which restricts refugees from several predominately Muslim countries from entering the U.S.
I’ve had it up to here with this Muslim ban BS. Jeff Johnson isn’t proposing a ban on refugee resettlement. That’s an intentional incendiary term. Councilman Johnson is proposing a moratorium. The definition of moratorium is “an authorized period of delay or waiting.” The definition of ban is “the act of prohibiting by law; interdiction.”
Words mean things. Councilman Johnson’s resolution wouldn’t have the force of law by itself. Therefore, the word ban is entirely inappropriate. However, a moratorium is entirely appropriate because that’s an authorized wait period.
Up until this point, Councilman Johnson has been portrayed as unreasonable. That’s insulting, considering the fact that he’s the person who published his resolution 2 weeks prior to debating it. It’s insulting, especially considering the fact that he wasn’t the person who tried portraying those that didn’t agree with him as uncaring or un-American.
The people who supported Councilman Goerger’s resolution acted like hooligans. They tried shutting down debate. They tried shouting down those that disagreed with them. They were the people who weren’t interested in having a lengthy debate.