I’m losing hope that the left can connect the dots as to what excesses led to Trump being twice-elected and where we are now in Minneapolis. “Abolish ICE” will be about as successful as “Defund the Police.”
This morning I am seeing poll numbers that indicate the Democratic message is gaining ground and that the illegal actions of ICE could benefit Democrats in the midterm elections. Some feel what’s occurring now is a lead up to canceling midterms, but I do not share that grim perspective.
If Democrats are able to gain ground in congress, I hope they craft a policy for immigration and ICE that is acceptable to a broad segment of America. I share your concern that the “Abolish ICE” slogan could end up hurting Democrats more than helping them in the long run.
We must protest, we must do it peacefully, we must gather and do it peacefully. You can’t spin crowds of peaceful Minnesotans bundled up in the cold “saying this is not right”. I keep turning to the memory of John Lewis for inspiration. He leaves us with such an example of how to show up. I am grateful to my fellow citizens.
Where does this end? It feels like these tactics could lead to more people being shot or killed. There needs to be more negotiating behind the scenes between the governor and ICE, not just public back-and-forth. Currently, it appears that each side is communicating through social media and talk shows, which is exacerbating the situation instead of de-escalating it.
Terry, on the one hand I see your point, but I’m not sure ICE is interested in de-escalation. Their whole purpose is to be performative thugs for Trump’s reality TV. Is this as bad as it gets, or do Trump and Republicans keep going?
Those moderately familiar with history know the Nazis didn’t start with the end game. They gradually normalized demonization of minorities and taking away rights. By the time Jews realized they were on a slippery slope, it was too late for them to do anything about it. As the old saying goes, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
I would love to see things get better quickly. But I sincerely doubt Trump wants that to happen, at least not without 100% capitulation.
Trump is going to escalate if he wants to or not; no one's opinion has any bearing with him. He is intimidation and retribution all rolled up into one small brain. I think Minnesotans have the right to be protected by our National Guard. Trump will characterize that as an insurrection and pursue dubious (if not outright unlawful) ends. Guaranteed. It's also useful to characterize his actions in Minnesota as "purely political opportunism" in a highly charged election cycle. Stay united, protect your neighbors, and be peaceful.
I’m not as certain as you are that the National Guard will be used and that the Insurrection Act is invoked. There is still hope that it is only saber rattling and that a solution is adopted that prevents Minneapolis from being the site of more chaos and destruction.
You are right, Terry. Hate is heavy and exhausting, and ultimately not sustainable. I appreciate you ending this article with how people in Minneapolis are forming support groups this time of turmoil. When GF was murdered, so many protestors lashed out at businesses and the communities. This time, people (and our leaders) are sticking together. And optics ARE extremely important. Everyone needs to check their behavior. It's a fine line to stand up for justice, and yet not have behavior be misinterpreted.
This is a battle about immigration law. Mpls sanctuary policies remove cooperation between local police and federal law enforcement. Some people believe undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay. Protestors are not always peaceful, and include obstruction, and agressive actions aimed at protecting residents from ICE. In turn, ICE is agressive and their rules of engagement are unclear. Some are offended by the idea that it should be necessary to carry proof of citizenship. Emotions run high. Frey and Walz use inflammatory words that promote divisiveness.
There are hard questions that need to be discussed about changes in immigration law. Personally, I think the borders should be secure, immigration procedures clear and enforced, and a path found that provides legal status for immigrants who contribute to our country, while those who are criminals should be deported.
* Expand legal pathways to citizenship for those here long term ( I do not know - 10 or 12 years) who are productive members of society.
* Remove recent arrivals who are non citizens.
* Asylum system reform
* Secure the borders
* Substantially change the system so those coming in can get a quick and fair entry ( increase resources so it can accommodate applications, especially those with needed job skills)
Terry, I agree with you on the need for ALL to curb their impulses. I have 'em on both sides, and that internal conflict at least makes it easier for me to avoid "acting out"...
What this whole extended drama (going back much longer than the ICE "operation" itself) underscores for me is the utter inadvisability of "sanctuary" (now sanitized by some as "separation") policies. It's just not honest to view them as anything other than a latter-day revival of "states rights", which was the bad guys' thing in the 19th century... and how did THAT work out for everybody? It's NOT different just because "we're the good guys". It may be LEGAL for some smaller unit of government to say "we are not going to allow our law enforcement agents to help enforce" laws passed by a larger unit of government. It is not, however, workable, nor practical, nor safe... for anybody. It should not be surprising to anyone that when a local government insists on obstructing federal enforcement of any existing law, and an election brings a federal administration into power that is hell-bent to enforce that law - tactical escalation on both sides is what will result, tit-for-tat. And that is what we've seen now over about a decade. It started real slow, and the pace of tactical escalation is now much faster - almost knee-jerk speed - and THAT is what scares me. Not either "side" - but the pace at which EACH side now escalates tactically in response to the other.
Not co-operating IS "obstructing" - not in the legal sense, but in the practical sense of the word... or we wouldn't be doing it. So, it all comes back to sanctuary/separation. Having failed to change a disliked federal law, choosing to NOT enforce it at the local level, and further choosing not even to co-operate locally with federal efforts to enforce, has consequences that are just not avoidable. What we are all proving is just how difficult it is to hang on for 160 years (the distance from the end of the Civil War to our time) to the hard-earned collective memory of what those consequences ARE.
I agree that what is happening in Minnesota reflects a classic “states’ rights” dilemma. Minnesota is pushing back against what it views as illegal ICE tactics, but the broader “sanctuary” issue raises important and unresolved legal questions.
It reminds me of when Mayor Jason West of New Paltz began performing same-sex marriages in 2004. At the time, same-sex marriage was not legal, and a judge eventually barred him from conducting further ceremonies. His actions, however, became part of a broader movement that ultimately led to same-sex marriage becoming legal nationwide.
Minnesota is now at the forefront of states challenging the federal government, and it’s too soon to know how this will play out. “States’ rights” are a mixed bag. People tend to support them when their state’s actions align with their values, but the same principle can work in the opposite direction. For example, some states may ban abortion even when it is legal at the federal level.
In moments of crisis like the one we’re experiencing now, it’s difficult to parse the finer points of the law—especially when the issues are this complex. My hope is that the extreme cold slows everyone down and creates space for reflection. That may be optimistic, but it feels worth hoping for.
Terry, Was just revisiting this piece today (...it's a long story, don't ask!) and had a few thoughts on the points you made in your reply to my comment.
Things get weird when we confuse rights and privileges; or bans and mandates; I'll stop the list there - there are more pairings that could be listed.
Your invoking Mayor West of New Paltz is one of those easy-to-confuse things. What he was doing, in his capacity as an officer of a level of government, was performing acts that were specifically illegal at the time. Civil Disobedience, for sure, but not really a "states rights" conflict. And, while that may "come to mind" when thinking of Minneapolis' embrace of sanctuary/separation, it is not analogous. The latter is not (or at least should not be) performing an act that is illegal - it is declining to let, say, MPD, perform acts that would be Federally-legal, but are not Federally mandated. And, I'd argue, it has overflowed in practice into obstruction of the Feds' attempts' to enforce, as well as just plain proven unwieldy (hence the seemingly never-ending need to keep re-defining those things the MPD is not allowed to do).
The abortion comparison in your note is also not apt. Currently, Federal law allows abortion, AND ALSO allows states to ban (or perhaps only strictly limit) it, state-by-state. So some state not banning it is not a "states rights" issue, and some state banning it is also not a "states rights" issue. Federal law allows different states to have different laws on abortion. But under Roe, when banning abortion was specifically not legal, a state trying to ban abortion anyway WAS a "states rights" issue. "States rights" problems only arise when the Feds ban something, and a state says "no, folks can do it here, and we will not allow you, Feds, to come into our state to enforce the ban." Or, conversely, when the Feds mandate something, and a state says "no, we won't do that".
In principal, separation ordinances do not violate Fed. law, so there's no states' rights issue. But a unit of government declaring "sanctuary" and trying to keep the Feds from enforcing immigration law, would cross the line. The problem in the current immigration enforcement environment is that even though all our immigrant-friendly local laws are carefully crafted NOT to constrain the Feds' ability to enforce as they see fit, in practice, both units of government (arguably) and individual citizens (most definitely) are in fact impeding Federal efforts. That creates a lot of confusing gray area, which in turn is the root of the current problems.
Finally, regarding your "...hope ...that the extreme cold slows everyone down and creates space for reflection." - Sadly, it didn't work out that way...
I think we may see this differently when it comes to the role of local government and individual citizens. From my perspective, a lack of cooperation or the recording of ICE actions is not the root cause of the current tensions. Prior to coming to Minnesota, ICE had already demonstrated a willingness to use enforcement tactics that many people believe raise serious civil rights concerns.
It also seems worth distinguishing between enforcing immigration law and assuming that the most aggressive tactics are the only way to do so. Other administrations, including the Obama administration, were able to detain and deport individuals without provoking the level of confrontation we are seeing now. That history suggests there may be alternative approaches that reduce conflict while still enforcing the law.
At this point, it appears that neither Republicans nor Democrats see much incentive to work with the other side to resolve the issue. What seems most needed is a clear immigration policy that both respects border security and clearly defines the role states are expected to play.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Conversations like this are an important part of working through difficult issues.
Thanks for sending this article. This current situation is a by-product of an earlier failure of Congress to pass immigration legislation. Is there any hope they will get it done in the next 3-4 years? It seems unlikely to me.
I’m losing hope that the left can connect the dots as to what excesses led to Trump being twice-elected and where we are now in Minneapolis. “Abolish ICE” will be about as successful as “Defund the Police.”
Hi Madeline,
This morning I am seeing poll numbers that indicate the Democratic message is gaining ground and that the illegal actions of ICE could benefit Democrats in the midterm elections. Some feel what’s occurring now is a lead up to canceling midterms, but I do not share that grim perspective.
If Democrats are able to gain ground in congress, I hope they craft a policy for immigration and ICE that is acceptable to a broad segment of America. I share your concern that the “Abolish ICE” slogan could end up hurting Democrats more than helping them in the long run.
Terry
We must protest, we must do it peacefully, we must gather and do it peacefully. You can’t spin crowds of peaceful Minnesotans bundled up in the cold “saying this is not right”. I keep turning to the memory of John Lewis for inspiration. He leaves us with such an example of how to show up. I am grateful to my fellow citizens.
Walz and Frey are playing it right. We can’t afford further escalation from Trump. Glad Walz has the National Guard ready in case Trump does escalate.
So many impeachable offenses for Trump, I’m losing count.
Here we are: https://www.reddit.com/r/MnGuns/comments/1qgqnob/armed_community_member_stands_guard_in_his/
Note the plans to form armed groups to prevent ICE officers from doing their jobs.
Where does this end? It feels like these tactics could lead to more people being shot or killed. There needs to be more negotiating behind the scenes between the governor and ICE, not just public back-and-forth. Currently, it appears that each side is communicating through social media and talk shows, which is exacerbating the situation instead of de-escalating it.
Terry, on the one hand I see your point, but I’m not sure ICE is interested in de-escalation. Their whole purpose is to be performative thugs for Trump’s reality TV. Is this as bad as it gets, or do Trump and Republicans keep going?
Those moderately familiar with history know the Nazis didn’t start with the end game. They gradually normalized demonization of minorities and taking away rights. By the time Jews realized they were on a slippery slope, it was too late for them to do anything about it. As the old saying goes, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
I would love to see things get better quickly. But I sincerely doubt Trump wants that to happen, at least not without 100% capitulation.
Trump is going to escalate if he wants to or not; no one's opinion has any bearing with him. He is intimidation and retribution all rolled up into one small brain. I think Minnesotans have the right to be protected by our National Guard. Trump will characterize that as an insurrection and pursue dubious (if not outright unlawful) ends. Guaranteed. It's also useful to characterize his actions in Minnesota as "purely political opportunism" in a highly charged election cycle. Stay united, protect your neighbors, and be peaceful.
I’m not as certain as you are that the National Guard will be used and that the Insurrection Act is invoked. There is still hope that it is only saber rattling and that a solution is adopted that prevents Minneapolis from being the site of more chaos and destruction.
Thank you for this thoughtful article.
You are right, Terry. Hate is heavy and exhausting, and ultimately not sustainable. I appreciate you ending this article with how people in Minneapolis are forming support groups this time of turmoil. When GF was murdered, so many protestors lashed out at businesses and the communities. This time, people (and our leaders) are sticking together. And optics ARE extremely important. Everyone needs to check their behavior. It's a fine line to stand up for justice, and yet not have behavior be misinterpreted.
Another example of neighbors helping neighbors is: https://thepeopleslaundrympls.com/
I find the idea of volunteers stepping up to do laundry for people who are afraid to go to the laundromat both creative and inspiring.
This is a battle about immigration law. Mpls sanctuary policies remove cooperation between local police and federal law enforcement. Some people believe undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay. Protestors are not always peaceful, and include obstruction, and agressive actions aimed at protecting residents from ICE. In turn, ICE is agressive and their rules of engagement are unclear. Some are offended by the idea that it should be necessary to carry proof of citizenship. Emotions run high. Frey and Walz use inflammatory words that promote divisiveness.
There are hard questions that need to be discussed about changes in immigration law. Personally, I think the borders should be secure, immigration procedures clear and enforced, and a path found that provides legal status for immigrants who contribute to our country, while those who are criminals should be deported.
National legislation would be fantastic:
* Try to Address the root causes of migration
* Expand legal pathways to citizenship for those here long term ( I do not know - 10 or 12 years) who are productive members of society.
* Remove recent arrivals who are non citizens.
* Asylum system reform
* Secure the borders
* Substantially change the system so those coming in can get a quick and fair entry ( increase resources so it can accommodate applications, especially those with needed job skills)
Agree completely. Frustrated and that lawmakers who think as we do appear nearly nonexistent.
Terry, I agree with you on the need for ALL to curb their impulses. I have 'em on both sides, and that internal conflict at least makes it easier for me to avoid "acting out"...
What this whole extended drama (going back much longer than the ICE "operation" itself) underscores for me is the utter inadvisability of "sanctuary" (now sanitized by some as "separation") policies. It's just not honest to view them as anything other than a latter-day revival of "states rights", which was the bad guys' thing in the 19th century... and how did THAT work out for everybody? It's NOT different just because "we're the good guys". It may be LEGAL for some smaller unit of government to say "we are not going to allow our law enforcement agents to help enforce" laws passed by a larger unit of government. It is not, however, workable, nor practical, nor safe... for anybody. It should not be surprising to anyone that when a local government insists on obstructing federal enforcement of any existing law, and an election brings a federal administration into power that is hell-bent to enforce that law - tactical escalation on both sides is what will result, tit-for-tat. And that is what we've seen now over about a decade. It started real slow, and the pace of tactical escalation is now much faster - almost knee-jerk speed - and THAT is what scares me. Not either "side" - but the pace at which EACH side now escalates tactically in response to the other.
Not co-operating IS "obstructing" - not in the legal sense, but in the practical sense of the word... or we wouldn't be doing it. So, it all comes back to sanctuary/separation. Having failed to change a disliked federal law, choosing to NOT enforce it at the local level, and further choosing not even to co-operate locally with federal efforts to enforce, has consequences that are just not avoidable. What we are all proving is just how difficult it is to hang on for 160 years (the distance from the end of the Civil War to our time) to the hard-earned collective memory of what those consequences ARE.
Hi Jim,
I agree that what is happening in Minnesota reflects a classic “states’ rights” dilemma. Minnesota is pushing back against what it views as illegal ICE tactics, but the broader “sanctuary” issue raises important and unresolved legal questions.
It reminds me of when Mayor Jason West of New Paltz began performing same-sex marriages in 2004. At the time, same-sex marriage was not legal, and a judge eventually barred him from conducting further ceremonies. His actions, however, became part of a broader movement that ultimately led to same-sex marriage becoming legal nationwide.
Minnesota is now at the forefront of states challenging the federal government, and it’s too soon to know how this will play out. “States’ rights” are a mixed bag. People tend to support them when their state’s actions align with their values, but the same principle can work in the opposite direction. For example, some states may ban abortion even when it is legal at the federal level.
In moments of crisis like the one we’re experiencing now, it’s difficult to parse the finer points of the law—especially when the issues are this complex. My hope is that the extreme cold slows everyone down and creates space for reflection. That may be optimistic, but it feels worth hoping for.
Thanks for your thoughtful notes,
Terry
Terry, Was just revisiting this piece today (...it's a long story, don't ask!) and had a few thoughts on the points you made in your reply to my comment.
Things get weird when we confuse rights and privileges; or bans and mandates; I'll stop the list there - there are more pairings that could be listed.
Your invoking Mayor West of New Paltz is one of those easy-to-confuse things. What he was doing, in his capacity as an officer of a level of government, was performing acts that were specifically illegal at the time. Civil Disobedience, for sure, but not really a "states rights" conflict. And, while that may "come to mind" when thinking of Minneapolis' embrace of sanctuary/separation, it is not analogous. The latter is not (or at least should not be) performing an act that is illegal - it is declining to let, say, MPD, perform acts that would be Federally-legal, but are not Federally mandated. And, I'd argue, it has overflowed in practice into obstruction of the Feds' attempts' to enforce, as well as just plain proven unwieldy (hence the seemingly never-ending need to keep re-defining those things the MPD is not allowed to do).
The abortion comparison in your note is also not apt. Currently, Federal law allows abortion, AND ALSO allows states to ban (or perhaps only strictly limit) it, state-by-state. So some state not banning it is not a "states rights" issue, and some state banning it is also not a "states rights" issue. Federal law allows different states to have different laws on abortion. But under Roe, when banning abortion was specifically not legal, a state trying to ban abortion anyway WAS a "states rights" issue. "States rights" problems only arise when the Feds ban something, and a state says "no, folks can do it here, and we will not allow you, Feds, to come into our state to enforce the ban." Or, conversely, when the Feds mandate something, and a state says "no, we won't do that".
In principal, separation ordinances do not violate Fed. law, so there's no states' rights issue. But a unit of government declaring "sanctuary" and trying to keep the Feds from enforcing immigration law, would cross the line. The problem in the current immigration enforcement environment is that even though all our immigrant-friendly local laws are carefully crafted NOT to constrain the Feds' ability to enforce as they see fit, in practice, both units of government (arguably) and individual citizens (most definitely) are in fact impeding Federal efforts. That creates a lot of confusing gray area, which in turn is the root of the current problems.
Finally, regarding your "...hope ...that the extreme cold slows everyone down and creates space for reflection." - Sadly, it didn't work out that way...
Hi Jim,
I think we may see this differently when it comes to the role of local government and individual citizens. From my perspective, a lack of cooperation or the recording of ICE actions is not the root cause of the current tensions. Prior to coming to Minnesota, ICE had already demonstrated a willingness to use enforcement tactics that many people believe raise serious civil rights concerns.
It also seems worth distinguishing between enforcing immigration law and assuming that the most aggressive tactics are the only way to do so. Other administrations, including the Obama administration, were able to detain and deport individuals without provoking the level of confrontation we are seeing now. That history suggests there may be alternative approaches that reduce conflict while still enforcing the law.
At this point, it appears that neither Republicans nor Democrats see much incentive to work with the other side to resolve the issue. What seems most needed is a clear immigration policy that both respects border security and clearly defines the role states are expected to play.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Conversations like this are an important part of working through difficult issues.
Best,
Terry
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/24/bipartisan-border-bill-loses-support-fails-procedural-vote-in-u-s-senate/
Shelley,
Thanks for sending this article. This current situation is a by-product of an earlier failure of Congress to pass immigration legislation. Is there any hope they will get it done in the next 3-4 years? It seems unlikely to me.
Terry
Trump is responsible for stopping this legislation. This legislation would have made a huge difference and helped address our immigration crisis.
Doesn't seem likely.
These two pieces pretty much cover all for me. Must reads.
From the Briefing program with Jen Psaki on MSNBC, : Trump accidentally confesses why he is antagonizing Mpls.
https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1qhp2ow/trump_accidentally_confesses_why_he_is/
Out in the New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/18/opinion/renee-good-ice-immunity.html?unlocked_article_code=1.F1A.rVlo.hbt2Ko38l7BU&smid=em-share