LETTER: Public looks favorably on Trump's immigration reform proposals
I welcome Mitchell Vangsness to the world of public policy and opinion writing. His letter against Donald Trump was interesting, but misinformed. In a respectful manner, the battle of ideas is now being joined!
To begin, some hard facts are in order. When a country does not control its border, the resulting influx of migrants creates massive economic and social ills that do real harm to the pre-existing residential workforce. I would encourage Mr. Vangsness to carefully review the situation on the ground in Germany and the Czech Republic. He should pay attention not only to the European politicians who are finally trying to cope with the serious problem they have, but also to the Catholic and Protestant religious leaders, including senior cardinals and bishops, who now openly worry about the negative impacts on the social fabric from unchecked immigration from the Middle East. These leaders have seen the facts with their own eyes, and are speaking out accordingly.
From an understanding of those facts, we must introduce public policies in this country to better protect our existing residential workforce. Donald Trump has put forth several policy proposals during this campaign season to reform our immigration architecture, and I do take great comfort in how the voters of America are responding positively to his ideas.
This is still a democracy, where the people control the process, even though it must come as quite a shock to the permanent class of politicians in Washington. I will happily accept the verdict of the voters in November.
Finally, I hope Mr. Vangsness will stay engaged through this long process. I have kept my head down since my re-election loss in 2006, but I think our democracy works best when all voices are heard. I thank him for giving me this opportunity to re-engage.
Editor's note: Brian LeClair is the Trump for President co-chairman for Minnesota Congressional District 4 and a former state senator, 2003-07. LeClair is responding to a letter to the editor that was published in the May 25 print edition of the Woodbury Bulletin.