Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Some important considerations are missing from Explore Minnesota’s plan to attract more travelers and residents to our state, because there are larger issues in play (“State will sell itself to U.S. audience,” Jan. 31). Businesses are short employees for now, but does that justify a full-court press at the national level? How many more workers are desired? How many new residents?

These questions matter because another dynamic is gaining more impact every day: the flood of immigrants to countries with good situations like the United States. The southern states have borne the brunt of a torrent that lately has neared 10,000 migrants every day. While governors in those states have played politics by sending packed buses to northern cities with no warning, they have a point: Why shouldn’t the pain be shared nationally?

Well, it’s already happening, right here. Migrants who moved on from New York City chose Minnesota as their fifth-most-popular destination. This trend is also growing from the movement of longtime residents of other states, particularly the hot ones: The flip side of our warmer, more hospitable winter is scorching summer in places like Phoenix, Miami and Houston. A recent Forbes survey found that 64% of Americans cited climate change or better weather as a motivation to move in the next year.

What to do? Building walls doesn’t work in the long run: Desperate people will find ways around any obstacle. Nor should we seek to entirely squelch the stream of newcomers, who largely arrive motivated to work and who bring welcome additions to the variety of our population. Another idea comes from an unusual source: the far-right prime minister of Italy, who wants to improve conditions in African nations in order to stem the deluge of migrants reaching Italian shores. The execution of her plan has started out bumpy, but the concept is one the U.S. could apply to its own dilemma: If Central and South Americans had higher wages, less violence from the drug trade and a reliable climate for growing crops, they would be more likely to stay in their homes. The U.S. has had a hand in many of the problems in our neighboring nations, which also means that we have leverage for improving the lives of people there.

Coming back around to our tourist agency: Let’s not get carried away with telling the world how fabulous it is here. The Legislature gave Explore Minnesota $25 million to do just that. But other factors will do much of the agency’s work for it, and some of that money might be better spent on other things, such as training programs for specific state industries. In any case, let’s keep in mind that if we turn on the charm too high, we might soon need a new program: Hide Minnesota.

Jeff Naylor, Minneapolis

END-OF-LIFE OPTIONS

Minnesota Medical Association insists on safeguards

Although the legislative session is more than a week away, the topic of physician aid-in-dying is already a topic of legislative hearings and public testimony. This is a serious issue that demands robust discussion and deliberation.

The patient-physician relationship is a sacred trust that must be protected through all stages of life, including the dying process. The Minnesota Medical Association (MMA), the state’s oldest and largest professional association of Minnesota physicians and physicians-in-training, acknowledges that principled, ethical individuals hold a broad range of positions on this issue. For physicians, this is a topic that results in competing ethical obligations: the obligation to “first do no harm” and the obligations to relieve pain and suffering and respect the dignity and autonomy of dying patients.

The MMA’s position has been incorrectly characterized in media reports as “neutral.” In fact, our position is more nuanced than that. Minnesota’s largest physician advocacy group will oppose any aid-in-dying legislation that does not adequately safeguard the interests of patients and physicians. Such safeguards must include the following:

• The legislation must not compel physicians or patients to participate in aid-in-dying against their will.

• It must require patient self-administration.

• It must not permit patients lacking decisionmaking capacity to utilize aid-in-dying.

• It must require mental health referral of patients with a suspected psychological or psychiatric condition.

• It must provide sufficient legal protection for physicians who choose to participate.

The current Minnesota bill, authored by Rep. Mike Freiberg and Sen. Kelly Morrison, M.D., includes those key safeguards. Should the legislation advance this year, the MMA will continue to ensure that such safeguards remain in place.

Dr. Laurel Ries, Falcon Heights

The writer is a family physician and president of the Minnesota Medical Association.

•••

I attended the House Health and Finance Policy Committee hearing on the proposed end-of-life legislation. Here are some of the things I saw or heard and how that landed with me.

First off there were no Republican members in attendance. This led me to speculate that they were either trying to see that there was no quorum, or they had other more pressing people’s business.

To me the testimony broke down into four major themes. One was on religious grounds. This testimony basically said my religious views do not align with this proposed bill and my religious views are more important than yours. I also heard from physicians that this bill would change the physician-patient relationship. That could be seen as good news in that patients would be fully informed when they make their own decisions about their own life. Third, I heard concerns about safeguards. The safeguards in this legislation have been tested in multiple states for years and have been found to meet the needs of the public. Finally, I heard a preponderance of stories about loved family members in agony and pain at the end of life wanting to be released from their suffering. This proposed legislation would give such individuals a way to end their suffering.

I came away from the hearing strongly believing this proposed legislation is a very good piece of family legislation that is clearly pro-choice, letting every person make their own end-of-life decisions, not letting others dictate how they will die.

Douglas Bruce, Bloomington

GAZA RESOLUTION

The double standard

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey did the right thing in vetoing the one-sided “cease-fire” resolution passed by the Minneapolis City Council on Jan. 25. The resolution was poorly conceived and presented a narrow viewpoint that will only encourage antisemitic response.

Apparently, it’s much easier for some to focus their anger exclusively on Israel by creating a false narrative claiming that Israel is a colonial power, after living on the land for over 3,000 years. Stating that Israel is an “occupying power” conveniently ignores the fact that any “occupation” is a result of being directly attacked (1967, 1973). Once again, on Oct. 7, Israel was brutally attacked, savagely and without provocation.

Where is the righteous outrage for the 2 million unprovoked deaths in Syria at the hands of Bashar al-Assad with the help of Vladimir Putin? What about the thousands of deaths in Ukraine, China and Myanmar, to name only a few?

I ask all Americans how the U.S., or any other nation, would respond to a direct, face-to-face attack of rape, murder, torture, beheadings, burning and kidnapping. And this barbarism was proudly videotaped in real time by the perpetrators.

Ostensibly, there seems to be a double standard for judging Israel vs. the other nations of the world.

To all Minneapolis City Council members who plan to override Frey’s veto, I have one request: Before you vote, google and read “Hamas Charter 1988.”

Ned Kantar, Minneapolis