St. Cloud Times, Jan. 10
Consenting to refugee resettlement is the right thing to do
Stearns County commissioners are facing a question that could either label our county as an accepting, open and caring community, or as an unwelcoming, intolerant and prejudiced place.
We don’t need any help with the latter. Vocal opposition to immigration from some City Council candidates - two of which are now sitting members - and fringe political groups, as well as state and national news coverage on a handful of residents’ distrust for their refugee neighbors have already done that for us. A 2018 report even called St. Cloud Minnesota’s worst city to live in, which makes those of us who love this place cringe at the damage being caused.
Consenting to ongoing primary refugee resettlement in Stearns County is not only the just and right thing to do, it is desperately needed to counter widespread negative perceptions of our community.
After discussing an executive order on primary refugee resettlement made by President Donald Trump in September, members of the county board voted Tuesday to table its decision. We urge constituents to contact commissioners and ask them to schedule a vote, and soon.
Under Trump’s executive order, counties are now required to sign off on whether to allow primary refugees to be resettled in their communities. Counties that don’t make a decision will be considered non-consenting.
Primary resettlement refers to refugees’ initial location in the United States. Last year, Stearns County received 22 primary refugees. The president’s executive order applies only to primary resettlement.
Secondary resettlement refers to refugees who later move within the U.S. The order does nothing to limit that - and it shouldn’t. Like all U.S. residents who aren’t imprisoned or on parole or probation, refugees are free to move wherever they want within the country - and last time we checked, no American has ever been allowed to decide who could and couldn’t move in next to them.
It is imperative members of the Stearns County board stand up, go on the record and make a decision before the end of the month. A pocket veto is the equivalent of hanging a “Not Welcome Here” sign on the county. Not to mention that letting the decision be made by default is … well, let’s call it less than courageous.
Board Chairman Leigh Lenzmeier said Tuesday the board didn’t have enough information to vote, even though stats and figures were presented to the board.
What more information is needed? Here’s what primary refugee resettlement has looked like in Stearns County:
Last year, 22 primary refugees were resettled in Stearns County. In 2018, that number was 12. In the past five years, 662 refugees were placed in Stearns County. In the last decade, about 1,300 refugees were placed in Stearns County. The state predicts there will be about 500 primary refugees entering all of Minnesota in 2020.
Approximately 95% of all refugees placed in the state are being reunited with family members who are already here. Local sponsors report nearly all refugees placed in Stearns County are reunited with family - almost all immediate family. A key factor in determining a refugee’s resettlement location is whether they have family residing there.
It’s unclear how many refugees moved here after being placed elsewhere.
Why? Because this is America, and in America we don’t force people to pass through checkpoints as they travel, or clear a relocation with the government, or present their “papers please” or wear a symbol branding them as outsiders.
And this editorial board is just fine with that.
Refugees undergo thorough background screenings prior to their arrival in the U.S. Refugees pay taxes and contribute to Social Security. Refugees contribute to the community workforce, help drive the economy as consumers and business owners, and they are employed at a very high rate. Experts say the public expenses of helping refugees resettle are recouped in just a few years.
So what would blocking those 22 refugees last year have done to improve Stearns County?
Commissioners, please vote. And vote yes.
___
The Free Press of Mankato, Jan. 12
Affordable housing: Walz plan represents smart investment
Why it matters: Affordable housing demand is far outpacing the need, and investments boost economic development.
Gov. Tim Walz’s plan to invest $276 million in affordable housing represents a bold move to make affordable housing and economic development priority.
He unveiled the plan last week as part of a larger public borrowing proposal that may top $2 billion.
His affordable housing plan covers projects in the metro area and the significant needs in outstate Minnesota. We hope that garners some Republican votes from those who represent rural areas and have long argued those areas are left behind when it comes to funding.
And affordable housing is becoming a bipartisan issue. Republicans and Democrats have supported increases in affordable housing as recently as last year.
The Walz plan covers a variety of affordable housing needs, including those for Native American communities in the Twin Cities and workforce housing desperately needed in outstate to support workers who are in short supply.
The plan offers a good mix of $200 million in housing bonds that would be awarded to developers on a competitive basis, $60 million to rehabilitate public housing already in place and $15 million to upgrade veterans homes.
The Mankato region’s shortage of affordable housing has been well-documented by The Free Press, and strides have been made in recent years to develop almost 200 units of affordable housing.
And the city of Mankato has made affordable housing part of its strategic plan.
Republicans in the Legislature have opposed big DFL borrowing bills, saying they risk putting the state in a burdensome debt situation. Those fears are somewhat overblown and politically driven.
By some estimates from the office of Management and Budget, Minnesota could support a nearly $3 billion bonding bill. And the state maintains a Triple A credit rating, which was incidentally restored mostly by Democrats after the deficits and budget shifting of the era of Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
Now is the year for Democrats and Republicans to come together to make a robust investment in affordable housing that will serve all Minnesotans, wherever they live.
___
Minneapolis Star Tribune, Jan. 11
Use U.S.-Iran pause to pursue diplomacy
Preventing nuclear weapons proliferation must remain the key U.S. strategic objective.
It is indeed a “good thing for all parties concerned and a good thing for the world,” as President Donald Trump said Wednesday, that “Iran appears to be standing down.”
Now it’s time for Trump to stand up for a coherent Mideast strategy that goes beyond inconsistent tactics that alternately suggest impending withdrawal and deepening involvement. While there are occasional successes, the current approach alienates allies and emboldens adversaries.
Specifically, the administration must articulate a clearer objective regarding Iran. It shouldn’t be regime change, as some hawks hope, but should focus instead on preventing proliferation. A nuclear-armed Iran would not only be an existential threat to some countries but also trigger a Mideast deployment dash.
The Iran nuclear deal was designed to preclude that. But Trump scrapped that pact (more formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) and embarked on a “maximum pressure” campaign that has backfired. In the wake of the killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Tehran announced that it would no longer abide by the deal’s nuclear-enrichment limits. And in response to the U.S. pulling out of the deal and ratcheting up sanctions, the theocracy has responded with a maximum-pressure campaign of its own that has deeply destabilized the region.
The JCPOA was imperfect - as any agreement between world powers and Iran would be. “By definition a deal is a compromise, and so people who are criticizing the deal because it didn’t meet their ideal objectives would have to say that about any deal,” Robert Malley told an editorial writer. Malley, who was a special assistant to former President Barack Obama on Iran and is now president of the International Crisis Group, added that “the only kind of deal that would satisfy would be a surrender by one side, and that was not what negotiations usually produce.”
Iran, of course, did not unilaterally surrender. And European allies who were signatories to the agreement are unlikely to give up on the pact, despite reports that the administration will ask them to do so. They know that such a move would drive Tehran even deeper toward Moscow and Beijing, two other signatories who, like all parties to the pact, acknowledge that Iran was technically in compliance until after the U.S. pullout.
Whether the deal is salvageable is unknown. If re-elected, Trump is unlikely to try. And even if a Democrat takes the oath of office in January 2021, geopolitical fluidity would likely require a renegotiation. Either way, diplomacy is essential. There clearly is no will and little wallet for yet another major Mideast war for regime change.
Indeed, if Iran is going to change, it will happen from within. Before the U.S. drone strike, brave Iranians took to Tehran’s streets to demand reform. But that was undercut by the rally-around-the-theocracy momentum that seized the nation after the Soleimani killing.
And in the streets of Baghdad and beyond, there was also a growing anti-Iran sentiment that led to mass demonstrations in Iraq.
Much of the anti-Iran sentiment that had led to mass demonstrations in Iraq also froze after the drone strike on Iraqi soil made the U.S., not Iran, the issue among Iraqi citizens and lawmakers, who passed a nonbinding parliamentary resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
A “huge relationship repair” with Baghdad is due, William Wechsler, director of the Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council, told an editorial writer. “You want to go back to the situation where Iran was the center of ire, both on the street and in political chambers, and where the United States is the defender of Iraqi sovereignty.”
It’s understandable that many war-weary Americans want to leave the region. But that would leave more malevolent regional forces, let alone Russia and China, to fill the void. And in fact, one of the biggest challenges in the Mideast, Wechsler said, is overcoming perceptions not of deeper U.S. involvement but “the overwhelming perception of an imminent withdrawal.”
That perception invites miscalculation by state and nonstate actors alike, which would inevitably require U.S. re-involvement, just as the rise of al-Qaida and ISIS did. “I’d rather have a minor presence over a long period of time than a major presence for a short period of time,” Wechsler said.
A more coherent strategy will require sitting down with - and not talking down to - U.S. allies. Trump’s ongoing disparagement of NATO is damaging, and he’ll approach any kind of diplomatic engagement with low global equity, according to a new Pew Research Center poll across 32 countries. Not surprisingly, 64% or respondents said they do not have confidence in America’s commander-in-chief to “do the right thing in world affairs,” while only 29% said they did. The numbers are even worse among Western Europeans, with nearly 3 in 4 lacking confidence.
For its part, despite the throngs mourning Soleimani, the Iranian government is deeply unpopular among many in the country. And its leaders are viewed as overbearing in some Shiite-majority countries such as Iraq, a direct threat to many Sunni-majority nations and a pariah among many countries worldwide. And Tehran’s terrible perception will only worsen with Iran’s admission that it shot down a Ukrainian airliner with 176 civilians on board, mistaking it for an enemy target.
Both Iran and the U.S. will have challenges building coalitions. Yet diplomacy must somehow proceed, lest the next clash spiral out of control.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.