There’s quite a discussion here in Red Wing about Goodhue County’s upcoming decision whether the County will continue to allow refugee resettlement in the County. This decision is necessary due to Trump’s issuance of Executive Order 13888, which prohibits resettlement of refugees unless the Governor of the state and the head of the local governmental unit have consented in advance to refugee settlement.

That means that for refugees to be able to settle somewhere, there must be an affirmative YES! to allow settlement. Minnesota’s Gov. Walz has given his consent and has welcomed refugees to Minnesota:

Governor Walz to Trump Administration: ‘The Inn is Not Full in Minnesota’

In Minnesota, that means that local governments now also must consent to be able to settle refugees in the area. County by County, here are the numbers for Minnesota counties that admitted any refugees, ones not listed, such as Goodhue County, admitted ZERO. NONE! NADA!

Goodhue County will be discussing this in a Committee of the Whole meeting tomorrow, here’s my post on that:

Refugee Resettlement in Goodhue County

In the meantime, there a federal case working its way through Maryland Southern District — keep in mind that the tRump administration is not doing well in federal challenges of its immigration Executive Orders, tRump has lost most, if not all of them (so many, it’s hard to keep track!). Here’s the Complaint and Amici filings available online:

This is everything I can find, and I need to call PACER to get into my account (new computer, AAAAAAAAAARGH!) and look at the filings in the docket, so there may be more. I can’t find the Administration’s Answer, which should have been filed in December. I’ll be digging for that and more when I can get into the court’s docket file.

4 p.m. Tuesday at Goodhue County Board Room, 3rd Floor.

This is Committee of the Whole discussion of continuation of existing Goodhue County policy to allow refugee resettlement, necessitated by tRump’s E.O. 13888 requiring prior consent of local governments.

Intent? How divisive can you get? There have been ZERO refugees resettled in Goodhue County in last 5 years.

Trump’sExecutive Order 13888 turned refugee resettlement on its head by prohibiting resettlement of refugees in an area unless both the state and local government have consented prior.

Gov. Walz to Trump Administration: “The inn is not full in Minnesota.”

Tomorrow, Tuesday 1/7,at 4:00 p.m., the Goodhue County Board, as Committee of the Whole, will address refugee resettlement:

1. Refugee Resettlement in Goodhue County


  1. Refugee Resettlement Presentation.pdf
  2. Refugee Resettlement Additional Information.pdf

The meeting was announced on a facebook group here in Red Wing, and also the Red Wing Tea Party page. I cannot believe the vitriolic, hateful, and just plain ignorant comments being made.

What are people afraid of?

That’s an essay question that’ll take some thoughtful writing, an LTE perhaps, for another day. But in short, it’s about white folks seeing that the world is changing, that privilege as majority isn’t a given, and knowing how the majority has treated minorities, a fear that a reverse Golden Rule karma may be in the future. A similar issue are the cries of Sharia Law by those pushing a “Christian” theocracy, and failure to observe that U.S. is a country of agnostic laws based on the Constitution, particularly the 4th Amendment, by those coming here fleeing religious persecution.

Just in from Federal Register Public Inspections, due to be published on Friday:

Facts matter. For those who can’t be bothered with clicking and reading, here it is:


Think about it… just 18,000…

Court says NO to asylum rule

August 4th, 2019

Remember tRump’s asylum rule, released and effective the same day?

Official release in Federal Register 7/16/2019

And the the following day:

ACLU sues on asylum rule

And now, for the Court’s Order, in the D.C. Circuit, the bottom line:

Trump rule restricting asylum seekers struck down by court

From the opinion:

As explained below, the Court first holds that it has subject-matter jurisdiction, and that Plaintiffs have Article III and zone of interests standing to challenge the Rule. The Court also holds that the Rule (in conjunction with the Proclamation) is inconsistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1158. Those three conclusions end the required inquiry: Because the Rule is contrary to law and must, as a result, be set aside, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), the Court need not consider Plaintiffs’ alternative legal challenges.

Here’s the full Order:

What’s really bothering me about this is that these overbroad tRUmp pipedreams are issued, and over and over and over, each of them MUST be challenged, because if not challenged, they stand. What a waste of time and resources. Oh well. tRump shot down on this one too!

The tRump administration is at it again, this time a rule proposal from Department of Homeland Security and Department of Health and Human Services to circumvent a rule that limits detention of immigrant children to 20 days, and instead, detain them indefinitely, and to make it easier to detain families indefinitely as their cases are pending rather than release on probation.  The proposed rule is open for comment for 60 days, so due November 5 or 6, depending on when it is published in Federal Register.  Info on how to comment is below.

In Fortune:

Trump Administration Proposes Indefinite Detention of Child Migrants

Here’s the proposal, DHS Docket No. ICEB-2018-0002:

If/when adopted, the rule would terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement. From the rule:

But the practical implications of the FSA, and in particular the lack of state licensing for FRCs and the release requirements for minors, have effectively prevented the Government from using family detention for more than a limited period of time, and in turn often led to the release of families. That combination of factors may create a powerful incentive for adults to bring juveniles on the dangerous journey to the United States and then put them in further danger by illegally crossing the United States border—in the hope, whether correct or not, that having a juvenile will result in an immediate release into the United States. At the same time, the second choice—that of separating family members so the adult may be held in detention pending immigration proceedings—is to be avoided when possible, and has generated significant litigation. See Ms. L v. ICE, No. 18-428 (S.D. Cal.).

The expectation that adults with juveniles will remain in the United States outside of immigration detention may incentivize these risky practices.

Of course the practice of separating parents and children, and jailing children as they have, DOH, it would generate significant litigation.  But really, “a powerful incentive” “expectation” that to bring children with would facility entry and that’s why they’re bringing their kids? Really, drag kids along on this arduous journey as a “get out of jail free” card?  This is DHS’ position?

Read it.

You may submit comments on all or part of this proposed rule, but be specific, cite to page number, language, the more specific the better, and propose alternative language, or jettisoning of the whole damn thing.  Put the docket number at the beginning of your comment: DHS Docket No. ICEB-2018-0002

Send your comment by any one of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal (preferred by DHS):

Follow the website instructions for submitting comments.

via E-mail: Include DHS Docket No. ICEB-2018-
0002 in the subject line of the message.

By Mail: Debbie Seguin, Assistant Director, Office of Policy, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, 500 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20536.

Remember, include DHS Docket No. ICEB-2018-0002 in your correspondence.