Joe Doakes convenes a meeting of the Immigration Integration Advisory Task Force, via email:
C: This session of the Immigration Integration Advisory Task Force will come to order. The Secretary will call the roll:
S: Madam Chairman . . .
C: Excuse me. I find that offensive. I prefer a gender-neutral title.
S: Certainly Madame Chair.
C: I am not a “Chair,” I am a human being. And I am offended by “Madame.” I prefer a gender-neutral title for that, too, in case I change my mind about my gender while we’re in session. You can address me as “Mix.”
S: Yes, Mx. Chair Being. The new law (SF 2356) provides this Task Force shall consist of five members appointed by the Governor to represent Minnesota’s diverse immigrant communities; two members of the House (one appointed by the majority and one by the minority) and two members of the Senate (one appointed by the majority and one by the minority).
Member Mohammed representing the Somali refugee community? Present
Member Vang representing the Southeast Asian immigrant community? Present.
Member Perez representing the Hispanic immigrant community? Present
Member D’ante representing the Chicago refugee community? Present
Member Putin representing the Russian immigrant community? Present
Generic Democrat Senator? Present
Generic Democrat House Member? Present
Republican Senate Member? [no reply]
Republican House Member? [no reply]
C: Mx. Secretary, where are the Republicans?
S: Mx. Chair Being, it seems they were inadvertently sent notices containing the wrong time, date, place and purpose of this meeting; but notice was sent and we have a quorum so we can proceed with business.
C: We’ll go in order of appointment to the Task Force. The Chair recognizes Member Mohammed.
M: Mx. Chair Being, members of the Task Force, I welcome the opportunity to share the findings of my community with you in hopes we can make Minnesota law more welcoming to immigrants. We require a clarification of the definition of “human being” in the murder law, the inclusion of “honor” in the justifiable homicide law, and the outright repeal of the female genital mutilation law.
C: Can you be more specific?
M: Certainly. The present definition of homicide in Chapter 609.185 uses the phrase “human being” without defining it. That phrase could be interpreted to include Jews which would, of course, be ridiculous. My community’s finest legal scholars have thoroughly researched this issue and determined that Jews are not, in fact, people: they are either monkeys or dogs and thus, killing a Jew cannot be considered murder. We require this definition be clarified.
Generic House Democrat: We can take a look at that.
M: In addition, Chapter 609.065 provides that intentional taking of a life is justified only to resist or prevent great bodily harm or death. There is no mention of honor.
Member Perez: Excuse me? Honor?
M: Suppose my daughter were to date a Jew. Her act would dishonor me, dishonor my entire family. The only way I could restore that honor would be to kill her. Honor killings are a long and respected cultural tradition in my community. This law is offensive to us. Minnesota must change to accommodate our ways.
Generic Senate Democrat: That’s certainly understandable.
M: Finally, Chapter 609.2245 prohibits one of our most treasured religious practices and appears to have been adopted solely out of Crusader intolerance and zealotry. It must be repealed at once.
C: I don’t understand.
M: It’s quite simple. Our religious scholars have determined that women, by their nature, are lustful creatures. They can’t help it, they were created that way. But allowing women to indulge their lustful natures leads to social disorder and poverty – look at your own rates of teenage pregnancy and single motherhood. We prevent this outcome by a simple surgical operation to remove one small part of the female anatomy which eliminates a woman’s pleasure in the sex act. Thereafter, she has no desire to be wanton and social order is maintained where it should be, in the male head of household.
Member Putin: That’s barbaric.
M: It’s a religious custom, long revered in my community, and analogous to the Jewish religious practice of circumcision which I point out is not banned. Promoting one religious practice while prohibiting another violates your own First Amendment while simultaneously insulting every member of my faith. I suspect the Catholic Church was behind this law, as they have persecuted us for centuries. Which reminds me, the Catholic Church also was against gay marriage, as are we, but more importantly Chapter 517.01 which limits marriage to two persons. Multiple marriage is another of our religious customs. The word “two” must be removed from that statute. Multiple marriage is about growing old with the women you love . . . C: And that’s all the time we have today. We’ll meet again to discuss this further. Mx. Secretary, please send notice of the next meeting.