In a holiday social media post, a former U.S. president launched a broadside against current immigration policy, employing language that has drawn sharp criticism for its derogatory nature.
The lengthy statement, published late on Thanksgiving, centered on the state of Minnesota and its leadership. The author claimed the state was being negatively transformed by refugee resettlement, alleging without providing evidence that criminal elements were operating freely.
The post singled out Minnesota’s governor, using a term widely condemned as a slur against individuals with intellectual disabilities to describe him. The governor was accused of inaction due to “fear, incompetence, or both.”
The critique extended to a member of Congress who emigrated from Somalia as a child. The post made disparaging remarks about her religious attire and repeated a long-debunked conspiracy theory regarding her family background. She was labeled the “worst” legislator in the country and falsely accused of entering the United States illegally.
The commentary began with a sarcastic holiday greeting to “Great American Citizens and Patriots,” blaming them for allowing the country to be, in the author’s view, “divided, disrupted, carved up, murdered, beaten, mugged, and laughed at” due to “Politically Correct” immigration policies described as “STUPID.”
Citing census data, the post claimed a foreign-born population of 53 million, asserting without verification that a majority rely on public assistance or originate from “failed nations” or criminal backgrounds. It argued that this imposes a financial burden on American taxpayers who are too polite to complain.
The author contended that while citizens have tolerated the situation, it is “eating them alive.” Using unverified figures, the post claimed a migrant family receives significantly more in benefits than they earn, labeling this a primary driver of social issues like crime, strained public services, and urban decay—problems it claimed were absent in the post-World War II era.
The remarks have ignited debate, with critics condemning the language as offensive and the claims as inflammatory and lacking factual support.
