Newly released documents show Department of Justice officials, Internal Revenue Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation officials were discussing prosecuting nonprofit organizations for allegedly engaging in illegal political activity.
An official “DOJ Recap” document obtained by the group Judicial Watch details an Oct. 8, 2010 meeting between DOJ, IRS and FBI officials, including Lois Lerner, where the administration employees discussed “several possible theories to bring criminal charges under FEC law” against groups “posing” as tax exempt nonprofits.
“The section’s attorneys expressed concern that certain section 501(c) organizations are actually political committees ‘posing’ as if they are not subject to FEC law, and therefore may be subject to criminal liability,” reads the memo from IRS Exempt Organizations Tax Law Specialist Siri Buller to top IRS officials.
Lerner, who was forced out of the IRS in 2013 amid a scandal that the IRS was targeting conservative groups, and her top aide Judy Kindell, explained to DOJ and FBI officials that “although we do not believe that organizations which are subject to a civil audit subsequently receive any type of immunity from a criminal investigation, she will refer them to individuals from [Criminal Investigations] who can better answer that question.”
“[Lerner] explained that we are legally required to separate the civil and criminal aspects of any examination and that while we do not have EO law experts in CI, our FIU agents are experienced in coordinating with CI,” according to the memo. “The attorneys asked whether a change in the law is necessary, and whether a three-way partnership among DOJ, the FEC, and the IRS is possible to prevent prohibited activity by these organizations.”
Judicial Watch says another document shows that just prior to the October 2010 meeting the IRS began giving the FBI confidential taxpayer information on nonprofits. The document obtained by Judicial Watch says the IRS gave the FBI some 21 disks with 1.25 million pages of taxpayer records.
“These new documents show that the Obama IRS scandal is also an Obama DOJ and FBI scandal,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The FBI and Justice Department worked with Lois Lerner and the IRS to concoct some reason to put President Obama’s opponents in jail before his reelection. And this abuse resulted in the FBI’s illegally obtaining confidential taxpayer information. How can the Justice Department and FBI investigate the very scandal in which they are implicated?”
Bill O'Reilly: The vilification of Donald Trump over illegal immigration. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".
Does the truth hurt? Or did Mr. Trump unfairly malign Mexico and millions of Mexican illegal aliens. "Talking Points" will now answer those question.
The primary mistake Donald Trump made in his campaign kickoff speech was speaking too generally about the border problem. Most Mexicans who sneak into the U.S.A., or overstay their legal visitation status do so because they are economically deprived. They are largely undereducated folks trying to feed their families. Also, the vast majority of illegal aliens do not -- do not commit crimes while on American soil, apart from their immigration offenses.
But there are very big problems stemming from Mexican illegal immigration and the stats tell the truth. As we all know, Mexico is the major supplier of illegal drugs into the U.S.A. The drug cartels down there have corrupted the police and many politicians. They are brutal thugs who commit mass murder, torture, and generally shame their nation.
ISIS has nothing on these drug cartels. They are both savage enterprises. The government of Mexico not capable of defeating the drug lords and the government down there rejects direct American intervention. U.S. drug agents, for example, are not allowed to carry firearms in Mexico, thereby putting themselves at great risk assisting Mexican authorities. For decades Mexico City has allowed organized crime to brutalize its own people and Americans as well. Some of the drug organizations have branched out now into people smuggling. Charging money to get desperate migrants across the border. In the process many, perhaps most, migrant women are sexually molested.
And that was the rape situation Donald Trump mentioned. But it's not ordinary Mexicans doing the raping, it's the gangsters. And Trump should have made that clear. The truth is there's little supervision on the Mexican side of the border. Cities like Juarez and Nuevo Laredo literally run by the drug cartels. Border security in Mexico nonexistent and has been for decades. That situation is not going to improve.
So, Trump is correct in saying that only a massive wall will stop the chaos and even then drugs and people will get through although not to the extent they do now. Washington knows all this but has turned away from securing the border ever since President Reagan promised to do that after he signed an immigration amnesty in 1986.
Mr. Reagan did not keep his promise. And every single president since has failed to secure the southern border -- every one.
Now, what about the immigrants themselves? 59 percent of Mexican residents and illegal aliens have less than a high school education. Only 4 percent have a college degree. 68 percent are poor or near poor. 57 percent receive means tested welfare of some kind paid for by the American taxpayer. 56 percent do not have health insurance, many of those receiving Obamacare subsidies.
So Trump's analysis is correct. The majority of Mexicans coming from the U.S.A. are not achievers in the economic sense. To be fair, that was the case with the Irish, Italian, and European immigration waves of the past. Hard working people coming here to try to improve themselves.
But, here is the dangerous part now. According to government statistics, 71 percent of non-American citizens in federal prisons are from Mexico, Columbian nationals second just 4 percent. Mexican criminals represent a whopping 16 percent of all convicts serving time in federal penitentiaries. That's a huge burden on the American taxpayer and a dangerous situation for we, the people.
Like 32-year-old Kate Steinle. Last Wednesday, Kate was walking with her father in San Francisco enjoying the evening when she was shot dead on the street for absolutely no reason at all. Police say 45-year-old Francisco Lopez Sanchez an illegal alien from Mexico murdered Kate. Apparently Sanchez has seven felony convictions, has been deported five times. Yet, he is still walking around the streets of San Francisco, this guy.
That's because Mayor Ed Lee and the 11 members of the San Francisco city supervisors refuse to cooperate with the federal government on criminal aliens. The feds asked the city of San Francisco to keep Sanchez in custody. The city refused. Miss Steinle paid for that irresponsible and unconstitutional decision with her life.
San Francisco is a sanctuary city and proud of it. And violent crimes committed by criminal aliens have happened there before. City authorities refuse to say how many because they know it's a huge scandal, a black mark on the history of San Francisco -- the most tolerant of cities.
The family of Kate Steinle asking for calm, not vengeance. But "Talking Points" is not as charitable.
In 1996, president bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act which stipulated that local and state authorities were to cooperate with the feds in apprehending illegal aliens, especially criminals.
In 2007, then Mayor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order stating that as a sanctuary city San Francisco would not, would not cooperate with federal authorities on illegal immigration matters and would protect even criminal aliens. The feds did nothing.
In 2010, the Obama administration open lid -- openly said it would not punish cities that refused to obey the 1996 immigration law.
So here's the deal. Here's the deal. The mayor and city supervisors of San Francisco are directly responsible for the murder of Kate Steinle and the Obama administration is complicit. Attorney General Loretta Lynch could order the FBI today to arrest Mayor Lee and the supervisors for violating federal law. She is within her authority to do that.
I know that's not going to happen because racial politics drives the law these days which is why Trump caught so much hell. The constitution demands that the federal government protect Americans from foreign intruders, demands it. Obviously that responsibility is not being met. And if you point that out as Trump did, you're a racist, a pinata for the open border crowd to bash.
The fact that a felon could be deported five times and still be walking around San Francisco should shame Congress, shame it. Where is a law that says if you are deported one time and come back, you serve five years in prison? Where is that law? Congress should pass it. And if President Obama doesn't sign it, everything will be on the table. It will be on him.
That legislation should be called the Kate law. Much like Jessica's law. So who will sponsor this? Who will sponsor the new law? Who will do it? Please let me know directly. We are looking for some legislators in Washington who have courage. Are you out there? Are you out there?
"Talking Points" is disgusted with the cowardice of our elected officials from the crazy left San Francisco people to the President to the Congress. Most of them are rich folks who could not care less about the violence and chaos, out-of-control criminal activity south of the border is creating in this country. If Mexico does not crack down hard on border intrusions and drug trafficking, we should punish them economically, punish them -- period.
This entire disaster has been going on for far too long. The excuse that America is at fault because we use drugs and secure our side of the border is valid. We are at fault. That does not excuse Mexico's rampant corruption and abuse of its own people. Drug and people smuggling injure millions and cost lives. It's the dirtiest of crimes.
Finally the poor people sneaking in here to paint your house are not the problem. They're not the problem. The cowardly politicians who will not uphold the law and the constitution are the problem. That's what Donald Trump should have said.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi has defended his office's decision to release a Mexican man who was in the U.S. illegally and who is now suspected in the killing of a woman at a sightseeing pier.
Mirkarimi said that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency should earlier have issued an arrest warrant for Francisco Sanchez.
"ICE knew that he had been deported five times," Mirkarimi said. "You would have thought he met a threshold that he required a court order or a warrant. They did not do that."
Prosecutors on Monday charged Sanchez with murder in the death of Kathryn Steinle, who was shot and killed last Wednesday as she and her father took a walk on the popular Pier 14.
Steinle's killing has brought criticism down on this liberal city because Sanchez had been deported repeatedly and was out on the streets after San Francisco officials disregarded a request from immigration authorities to keep him locked up.
San Francisco is one of dozens of cities and counties across the country that do not fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The city goes so far as to promote itself as a "sanctuary" for people in the country illegally.
In a jailhouse interview with a TV station, Sanchez, a 45-year-old repeat drug offender, appeared to confirm that he came to the city because of its status as a sanctuary.
The case has prompted a flurry of criticism from ICE officials, politicians and commenters on social media, all of whom portrayed the slaying as a preventable tragedy.
"Most of the blame should fall squarely on the shoulders of the San Francisco sheriff, because his department had custody of him and made the choice to let him go without notifying ICE," said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, which wants tougher immigration enforcement.
As the weather heats up in Washington, DC, the Obamas as planning their summer vacation.
The Boston Herald reports that President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle and daughters Sasha and Malia will be staying on Martha's Vineyard from August 8-23.
The Obamas have spent almost every single summer on the tony island off the coast of Massachusetts' Cape Cod except for 2012 - when the president was running for re-election.
Continuing yet another tradition of their annual retreat, the Obamas are also expected to stay at the same $12million 'cottage' in Chilmark they rented last year.
+8
Glorious: This huge mansion is where the Obama family will spend their now annual Martha's Vineyard vacation, planned for August 9 through August 24, 2014
+8
The Chilmark mansion slated for the Obama vacation August 9 features 'excellent' quality finishes, according to assessor's records, and affords sweeping water views from nearly all rooms
+8
Welcome back, Barack: President Obama will reportedly spend his two-week August vacation staying at the same $12million cottage he rented on Martha's Vineyard last year
+8
Island life: The mansion at 72 Gosnold's Way, reportedly the site of the Obama vacation on Martha's Vineyard, features a basketball/tennis court, and an 'infinity' pool
+8
Getaway: Above, an aerial view of the home in Chilmark where the Obamas will be staying for a second year in a row
The 8,100-square-foot home features seven bedrooms, nine bathrooms, a basketball/tennis court, hot tub, infinity pool and views of the Elizabeth Islands.
The home is owned by wealthy widow Joanna Hubschman, whose husband Henry died of cancer in 2011.
Four years before his death, Mr Hubschman, a General Electric executive, contributed $6,900 - the maximum donation then allowed - to Hillary Clinton's 2008 bid for president, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
However, it was Barack Obama who took the party's ticket and went on to win the White House.
Two weeks before the general election, Mr Hubschman contributed $2,300 to Obama's campaign.
This year's vacation is likely to be a bit more relaxing for Mr Obama, who faced a wave of criticism for his golf playing last year in the midst of a crisis with ISIS.
+8
A round with friends: Last year, President Obama was ridiculed for hitting the links just after reacting to the death of photojournalist James Foley
In the middle of Mr Obama's vacation last year, the terrorist group released the first of several videos showing the decapitation of a Western citizen.
While Mr Obama was forced to return to Washington at least once during the trip, he did return to the island where he was pictured laughing with friends on the golf course as the nation mourned for fallen photojournalist James Foley.
Is reality about to intrude on America’s political class? For at least the last two decades, that clerisy has assured us that immigration, legal or otherwise, is a virtue. We’ve also been told that our lawless southern border is coming under control.
In his first year in office, President Bill Clinton said, “I believe we should stiffen our efforts to control the southern border.” He added “I think we should have more Border Patrol agents and I think we should do more to restrict illegal immigration.”
In a 2006 address from the Oval Office, President George W. Bush proclaimed that “the United States must secure its borders,” and said that “we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history.”
President Obama said “When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system, and I began by doing what I could to secure our borders.” The White House boasts that his subsequent efforts “represent the most serious and sustained effort to secure our border in our nation’s history.
We are a nation founded upon and (allegedly) governed by words. Beginning with – specifically, foundational-ly – the Constitution. Every syllable was by our Founding Fathers debated and carefully crafted. To ensure a limited, enumerated government, maximum freedom for We the People – and a document that clearly, concisely laid out these parameters.
The Constitution is a “living, breathing document” – but with the amendment process as its only respiratory system. If you don’t like it – amend it. Otherwise, it is what it is – it says what it says.
The Constitution established a system that also relies on precise language. The Legislative Branch writes legislation – that must be within government’s Constitutional parameters. Every syllable is debated and carefully crafted. And since we directly elect this Branch’s members, we get to have a direct say in the words meant to lord over us. We get to lobby Congress to redress our grievances – to help shape the words they write.
When passed, legislation is then sent for signature to the Executive Branch – a President we also elect. If the President signs, the panoply of departments, agencies, commissions and boards then implement it. Though these entities exist in the Executive – they are creations and creatures of the Legislative. They would not exist without law first creating them. They can not do anything unless and until the Legislative with law tells them to do it. And they are bound to adhere to the spirit and the letters of these laws – and to remain within their parameters. The words passed must be the words implemented – no more, no less.
All of which is why there is a Judicial Branch. The Judicial is in the strict-Constitutional-limits-enforcement business. They are to ensure that the laws written – and the government they create – exist within Constitutional bounds. Justices and judges are unelected to avoid political influence – which only works if they remain unpolitical, within their Constitutional bounds. If they write legislative words rather than merely analyze them – reworking laws into new meanings and mandates – we have (yet more) problems.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest is blaming Republicans after an illegal immigrant who was reportedly deported five times was charged with murder in California.
When asked by reporters about critics of President Obama’s immigration enforcement policies, Earnest insisted that it was actually Republicans who are fault for voting against the Gang Of Eight bill last year, pointing out that it contained funding to increase border security.
“The fact is that the president has done everything within his power to make sure that we are focusing our law enforcement resources on criminals and those who pose a threat to public safety and it’s because of the political efforts of Republicans that we have not been able to make the kind of investment that we’d like to make in securing our border and keeping our community safe,” Earnest said.
Francisco Sanchez was charged with shooting and killing a 32-year-old San Francisco woman last week, leading to criticism from illegal immigration activists. Earnest deferred questions about details of the case to the Department of Homeland Security.
Hillary: the government was failing when they enforced the law, and kept future illegal alien voters for me out of the country…
San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy is receiving harsh criticism after Wednesday’s murder of 32-year-old Kate Steinle by Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a illegal immigrant who has been deported five times and has been convicted of seven felonies.
On Sept. 6, 2007 at Dartmouth College while debating during her last attempt to become president, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton supported sanctuary cities saying they help ensure the “personal safety and security of all the citizens.”
Clinton said, “If local law enforcement begins to act like immigration officers what that means is that you will have people not reporting crimes. You will have people hiding from the police. And I think that is a real direct threat to the personal safety and security of all the citizens. So this is a result of the failure of the federal government and that’s where it needs to be fixed.”
When pressed if that means she supports the sanctuary cities policy Clinton replied, “Well, I don’t think there is any choice.”
The amazing thing about this is that it was made six years ago - when it was funny enough to imagine liberals trying to PC up the Dukes but still not to the point where you could actually imagine a major cable network pulling it because it isn’t. Hats off to Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy for actually having the prescience to see this coming.
Trying to remember: Was the gay rainbow flag sufficiently recognized back in 2009 for that to be the likely meaning of the rainbow atop the General Lee? Or is it just combined with the unicorn to signify something more like the whole peace/love/dope thing that’s now taking the form of fascist speech restrictions?
Oh, by the way, some of you who still shriek about “book burning” - which you imagine conservative Christians to be undertaking in an assault on subsersive books - would you mind explaining to me why that is an affront against all that’s good and decent, but banning the Duke boys over a flag on a car is perfectly OK?
Actor Jim Carrey called California Gov. Jerry Brown a “fascist” for signing into law a mandatory immunization bill, which eliminates personal and religious exemptions, according to MSNBC.
“California Gov says yes to poisoning more children with mercury and aluminum in manditory vaccines. This corporate fascist must be stopped,” Carrey wrote in atweet on June 30. Carrey used to date actress Jenny McCarthy, who has an autistic son.
Carrey said while he is “not anti-vaccine,” he is “anti-thimerosal, anti-mercury.” The preservative ingredients found in some vaccines have not been taken out of all vaccines, Carrey warned.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative, has not been used as a preservative in routine childhood vaccinations since 2001, except in some influenza vaccines.
Jerry Brown made the Republican legislators relevant again. Brown’s call for special sessions for transportation and Medi-Cal funding invariably brings talk about possible tax increases. With a two-thirds vote needed to raise taxes, and the Democratic majority shy of the super two-thirds mark, Republicans must be part of the conversation.
Despite their best efforts offering innovative approaches to some of California’s difficult problems during the legislative session, the Democrats on major bills and the budget that needed simple majority approval mostly have sidelined Republicans. But that will not be the case when revenue solutions are sought and debated during the special sessions.
According to the governor, the special sessions are about permanent revenue sources to bolster transportation infrastructure and Medi-Cal. While Republicans put forward plans to use current revenues to satisfy funding concerns for the roads, much of the talk will focus on tax and fee increases. Republicans have said no to the need for new taxes since the state is awash in new money. Even post budget signing, the Legislative Analyst’s Office reported the state brought in a half-a-billion dollars more that the budget anticipated.
(As an aside, Republicans may have already supported a tax in their road funding proposal depending on how a court rules. One Republican suggestion is to use cap-and-trade funds recently put on gasoline production to fund transportation. The California Chamber of Commerce has gone to court claiming cap-and-trade amounts to a tax. If the Chamber suit is successful part of the Republican transportation package is a tax.)
Republicans position on taxes will also be tested in any Medi-Cal fix. One of the leading proposals to fund Medi-Cal is to increase the tobacco tax. If the governor is searching for a permanent revenue source to fund Medi-Cal, tobacco tax seems a poor choice. The tobacco tax is a diminishing resource as fewer people choose to smoke. Increasing the tax on smoking is supposed to discourage the practice thus limiting future revenues. Relying on the tobacco tax to rescue the Medi-Cal program would seem short sighted given the governor’s stated goal.
Given the need for Republican votes for tax plans, Republicans are in the middle of the debate and can offer savings ideas and plans re-directing current revenues that cannot easily be dismissed by the majority. If the GOP simply gave in to raising taxes then the issue of Democrats needing a supermajority is moot. Republicans will use their leverage to be deeply engaged in any solutions.
Attention all armchair crusaders, warriors of the web, and victims of life, the universe, and everything:
Take a break from your e-rantings, your Twitter manifestos, and your Justrage railings. Stop screaming at your screens for a moment – they can wait, and the odds of them walking away are slim. Put down your Frappuccino, your Doritos, and your frozen pizza.
This is meant for you.
Not long ago, I happened upon an article on society’s newest scourge – one more aggressive than a microaggression, more fearsome than a raging Bull Connor, and more phallic than a good five-cent cigar – creeping sexism.
Terrified yet? Collect your thoughts, change your underwear, and get back to your screens as soon as you can.
Beware of this great evil – one that would leave Brother Number One aghast and in tears. Here is the root of our nation’s problems:
Referring to mixed-gender groups as “you guys.”
Yes, that’s it! That’s what’s killing our economy, molesting our innocents, and driving us ever closer to the sulfurous abyss.
...Now, here is the real problem: that every self-righteous, mollycoddled twit with a keyboard considers it a duty to spew forth inane writings addressing the endless list of so-called social inequities.
I have been inspired to join the fray, only I won't be waging war against those standing in the way of universal equality and tolerance. My war will be fought against the irate, status-updating, post-sharing keyboard warriors who perpetuate this culture of blind, banal fury because they are so desperate to feel alive and with purpose that they seek to create an adversary where none naturally exists.
Heavens, I am cruel, and the world has been cruel and unfair to us, hasn't it, my victimized friends?
Or has it?
Perhaps all of these causes that keep too many of us energized, falsely ennobled, and indignant; that appear to give us some greater sense of use and purpose (while conveniently requiring no sacrifice at all), allow us to ignore the facts that very few of us in this land of privilege face or have faced any real struggles, that our lives are hollow and lonely, and that millions of us contribute nothing to society but vitriol.
VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Carli Lloyd came up big again. Three times.
And with it came the Americans’ elusive third Women’s World Cup title.
Lloyd scored a hat trick as the U.S. burst to a four-goal lead in the first 16 minutes, and the Americans overwhelmed defending champion Japan 5-2 Sunday for their record third championship and first since 1999.
A sellout crowd that included U.S. Vice President Joe Biden roared in approval for Lloyd’s hat trick, the first ever in a Women’s World Cup final.
“We just made history,” Lloyd said. “I was on a mission.”
When it was over, Lloyd collapsed to her knees and pumped her fists. Forward Abby Wambach bear-hugged teary-eyed coach Jill Ellis, lifting her off the ground.
Lloyd, voted the Golden Ball as player of the tournament, scored twice in a span of about 135 seconds as the U.S. led 2-0 by the fifth minute.
Lauren Holiday boosted the lead in the 14th and two minutes later Lloyd made it 4-0 with an audacious 54-yard, right-footed shot from midfield that sailed over goalkeeper Ayumi Kaihori.
Japan closed on Yuki Ogimi’s goal in the 27th and an own goal by Julie Johnston in the 52nd. Tobin Heath scored two minutes later for the Americans, who had struggled in the World Cup since winning the inaugural tournament in 1991 and then again at the Rose Bowl eight years later.
Christie Rampone, the only holdover from the 1999 team, lifted the trophy with Wambach, the 35-year-old former FIFA Player of the Year who lost her regular starting job with age. Wambach was among the most vocal opponents of FIFA’s decision to play the tournament on artificial turf.
With FIFA President Sepp Blatter staying away during a U.S. criminal investigation of soccer officials, the trophy was presented by FIFA Senior Vice President Issa Hayatou of Cameroon, the head of African soccer’s governing body.
From a former medical clinic within St. Paul's Bandana Square, members of Minnesota's Cameroonian community organize a Scrabble tournament, lawn tennis and career mentoring programs while debating the fractious politics of their home country.
Some bear physical scars that tell of their political activism in Central Africa.
There's similar energy brewing near Dale Street and University Avenue, where the city's sizable ethnic Oromo community gathers in a converted church for summer cookouts, teen dance shows and college-readiness classes. Members of this community, too, have shed blood and lost loved ones while speaking out for basic rights.
In a one-story storefront a few light-rail stops down the road, the Eritrean community runs a third cultural center dedicated to yet another growing segment of the African immigrant population in St. Paul -- and they also have stories to tell about war, upheaval and progress.
Thousands of African immigrants have landed in Minnesota after fleeing political persecution or civil war in their home countries. Others have been lured by the opportunity to continue their education at the University of Minnesota or accept jobs at major employers such as the Mayo Clinic and IBM.
After decades of their numbers growing, they've pooled money to establish permanent community spaces where they can break bread and celebrate their language, culture and faith. Several are in St. Paul.
Economist Bruce Corrie isn't surprised. Corrie, a professor at Concordia University in St. Paul, believes the state's African population produces $14 million in philanthropy within Minnesota each year, on top of $150 million in annual remittances to countries in Africa.
Abdullahi Ali reads the Koran at the Oromo Community Center in St. Paul on Thursday, May 28, 2015. (Pioneer Press: Scott Takushi)
At least 73,000 African immigrants call Minnesota home, according to the 2008-2012 American Community Survey, or 111,000 with children included. Advocates say they wouldn't be surprised if the real number was double that figure.
The immigrants represent at least 25 countries in Africa, making Minnesota home to the ninth-largest African community in the country.
Roughly 60 percent come from East African nations such as Somalia and Ethiopia, and 25 percent from West African countries such as Nigeria and Liberia. The rest hail from throughout the continent. About one in five immigrants in Minnesota is African, according to the U.S. census.
In late May, Corrie released a 45-page report -- "The Economic Potential of African Immigrants in Minnesota" -- at the Snelling Cafe, not far from Snelling and University avenues, an area he's dubbed "Little Africa" because of the many immigrant-run businesses.
