A Dialogue Between Friends
|
A friend I respect highly and I chose to discuss the issues surrounding the arrival of ICE agents into Minneapolis and their efforts to locate, arrest and deport illegal immigrants. The focus is supposed to be on known and wanted criminals, but certain elements of the liberal Twin Cities community march, protest and attempt to threaten and intimidate federal agents assigned to this task. My friend begins by stating:
What do you see as different this time that has resulted in such opposition to how Trump is handling it? I have my own thoughts on that, but I'm curious what you think is behind the difference in how the public views it.
Really, the ONLY difference is that it is Donald Trump fulfilling the promises he made during his campaign, which resulted in a major victory in the 2024 election. Read through the criticisms of Obama and they can be heard word for word being said about Trump today. But Obama had received a Nobel Peace Prize nine months after taking office in 2009 (only God knows why or what he did in his first nine months to deserve that). I liked a lot of things about Obama, but he did nothing in 2009 that qualified him for a Nobel, and that insulated him from a lot of criticism in the years ahead — and he was a Democrat, of course. Democrats and the legacy media (TV networks, newspapers, cable news, late night comedians, bloggers, influencers, podcasters) LOVED Obama — and those same people hate Trump. And it's not some kind of goofy conspiracy theory — it's a fact. From Perplexity AI: National newspapers, television networks, political pundits, news/politics magazines, and cable news outlets are overwhelmingly more likely to be rated as liberal or left-leaning than conservative, according to major media bias rating organizations like AllSides and Ad Fontes. Mainstream skews left. AllSides and Ad Fontes charts place most flagship national outlets (AP, NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, NPR) left of center, with few pure conservative counterparts in equivalent reach except Fox. Studies confirm. Research finds mainstream media (cable/broadcast/print) often gives more negative coverage to Republicans and emphasizes progressive frames, with right-wing outlets more isolated.
Thoughts on why the republicans didn't approve the immigration plan under Biden? I don't know that much about it, but what I have heard is that it was a bipartisan effort that the republicans then wouldn't pass, despite saying something had to be done about immigration. Perhaps, if that legislation had been passed, we wouldn't be facing the current situation.
A fair question! Republicans largely rejected Biden-era immigration proposals, including a 2024 bipartisan Senate deal, because they viewed them as insufficient, believed the President already held necessary authority, and sought stronger measures like those in H.R. 2. Preference for H.R. 2: Republicans held up the House-passed H.R. 2 bill as their standard, which favored stricter measures like reinstating "Remain in Mexico," ending parole programs, and building a border wall. Executive Authority Arguments: Many Republicans argued that President Biden already possessed the authority to secure the border and was failing to use it, viewing new legislation as unnecessary or limiting. Inadequacy of Deals: Some believed the negotiated bipartisan compromise was not strong enough to stop the influx of migrants. President Trump had NO new or additional authority to stop immigration than Biden had, and yet Biden encouraged people to "surge" towards our border and let in at least 8,000,000 unvetted illegal immigrants, while Trump shut down the border as soon as he took office, under the same Constitutional authority that Joe Biden had for the four preceding years. Meanwhile, Border Czar Kamala Harris and U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas assured Congress and America that our border was secure. Many Republicans believe that the president already had all the legal authority he needed to do what needed to be done, including closing the border, and they viewed the Senate bill as limiting rather than enhancing executive authority. Second, many Republicans were using the border security bill the House passed early last year, HR 2, as their benchmark. Among other provisions, this bill would have ended President Biden's parole program, dramatically reduced the grounds for claiming asylum, reinstated the Trump-era "Remain in Mexico" policy, and forced Biden to resume building President Trump's border wall. Measured against this standard, the Senate bill's compromises on asylum and border closure are bound to appear timid half-measures that would not get the job done.
What do you think about the disparity in treatment in terms of where ICE has been sent? I can't quote exact statistics, but I believe I've heard that while we have a lot of immigrants in MN, some states have many more. So why the crackdown here?
Near as I can tell — and I've been watching and studying these issues right from the start — Trump focused on "sanctuary cities" (not a legal designation in the first place) and all of the cities claiming to be "sanctuary cities" are run by liberal Democratic politicians. "There is no official legal standard or federal statutory definition for claiming to be a 'sanctuary city.' The term is informal and used variably to describe local policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement." "The operation followed high-profile federal investigations into fraud, including a $300 million pandemic-era food aid scheme (Feeding Our Future) involving Somali-American defendants, and University of Minnesota-related fraud." — Perplexity AI It is estimated by legitimate sources that total Somali fraud has cost taxpayers at least $9 BILLION dollars. That sure ought to draw some state and federal attention, but Walz, Frey and Ellison laughed it off, lied about it, and were often complicit in the fraud. Senator Hawley vs. Minnesota AG Keith Ellison Trump's administration flooded agents into several Democrat-governed cities with similar justifications (crime, undocumented populations, sanctuary policies). 
Thoughts about a government that appears to target blue states but not red states (with a "red" president and administration in place)? Just theoretically, is this an appropriate way to govern a democracy?
That would absolutely NOT be an appropriate way to govern a democracy! However: "There are no true sanctuary cities in solidly 'red' Republican-run states, as these states have enacted strict anti-sanctuary laws that prohibit or heavily penalize such policies." So while it might appear that President Trump is "targeting" Democrat-run states, it's a false narrative because of that fact.
Does the fact that there were serious issues with Obama's and Biden's approaches to immigration mean that it's okay that Trump does equally bad or worse? Or should we strive to do a better job at addressing this very complex issue?
As far as I know, Donald Trump has not suggested anything like that — can you imagine the riots we'd see if Trump demanded that the people who HIRE illegal immigrants should be jailed, but not the immigrants themselves? Meanwhile, Biden, Mayorkas, and border czar Kamala Harris assured us that our border was secure, even as more than 8 million immigrants came into the United States during his term. And yet, days after Trump's inauguration, the border was almost immediately and effectively closed. Your premise is that what President Trump is doing is bad or worse than what previous presidents have or haven't done. You're asking a question that presumes an answer you have already established! That's just a trick question... But, of course, it's never okay for any president to enact policies that are bad or worse than a previous president, although the standards for "bad" or "worse" will vary depending on who's being asked and what their own political positions and ethical standards may be. Even as Barack "The Deporter in Chief" Obama separated families and children, deported illegal immigrants for traffic violations, did not allow for due process, and held families and children in deportation centers, there were no riots or protests or "FUCK ICE" signs on the nightly news. The ACLU heavily criticized Obama-era immigration detention facilities for inhumane conditions, lack of oversight, and systemic abuses, urging their closure and reform. Key ACLU criticisms — Deplorable physical conditions. Detainees faced unsanitary cells with worms in food, dirty trays, overcrowded spaces (e.g., 10 men sharing one toilet at Pinal County Jail, AZ), frigid holding areas, and inadequate food, water, hygiene, or medical care — violating basic due process. — Abuse and mistreatment. Reports documented verbal abuse (racial slurs, derogatory comments), physical violence (guards throwing people against walls), denial of family visits, and excessive solitary confinement for vulnerable groups like LGBT detainees and those with mental illnesses. — Medical neglect and deaths. Preventable deaths occurred due to ignored intake exams, delayed emergency care, and poor oversight; e.g., a detainee at Stewart Detention Center (GA) died from a treatable heart infection after systemic failures. — Over-reliance on private prisons and "bed mandates." Expansion to 34,000+ beds (89% increase since 2003), often in private facilities like those run by GEO Group/CoreCivic, incentivized mass detention of non-dangerous people at high taxpayer cost ($122–$300+/day), without enforceable standards. — Family detention horrors. New sites like Dilley and Karnes (TX) held mothers/children in "jail-like" conditions during the 2014 surge, breaching court settlements and lacking alternatives for asylum-seekers. — Perplexity AI I agree that we should all strive to do a better job, but illegal immigration continues to be a critical crisis in our country with millions of unvetted people coming from MANY countries (not just Mexico) including China, El Salvador, Honduras, Cuba, and many other countries with possible opposing political and/or terrorist affiliations. 
And it also saddens me when citizens and protesters are hurt or arrested for doing what they THINK is a virtuous and moral act against the "Gestapo" — as if attempts to apprehend known criminals equals the slaughter of 6,000,000 Jews in the Holocaust. There is NO comparison, and the equivocation of ICE agents and President Trump with Hitler and the Gestapo is insanity and patently offensive. Watching Renee Good — a known member of "ICE Watch" — obstruct traffic with her car and hearing her wife taunt ICE agents while telling Renee to "Drive, baby, drive!" after she was told to stop the car and exit the vehicle by a lawful authority seemed like a foolish move. Mayor Frey then said: "He walked away with a hip injury that he might as well have gotten from closing a refrigerator door with his hips. I've seen worse injuries from doing that." I've closed the refrigerator that way a few times, but have never suffered from internal bleeding of the torso. Is it simply fair to say that if someone is standing in front of your car — be it an ICE agent, a pedestrian, a child or a stray dog — you probably shouldn't hit them with your car?
One of the more frustrating things is seeing how easily people dismiss issues that don't directly affect them, when others don't have that luxury. It's just a quick segment on the news, then it's gone. I saw this quote recently: "It shouldn't have to happen to you, for it to matter to you."
I agree completely! That's why it's important to try and stop the fighting in Gaza between Israel and Hamas (up to 84,000 people killed), to stop the war in Ukraine (more than 1.23 million deaths), to speak out on behalf of protesters in Iran where the UN estimates that more than 20,000 people have been killed, and do something about the 100,000 people murdered in Venezuela under the dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro: "Across Maduro's 12+ plus years, that level of annual violence adds up to well over 100,000 violent deaths." — Perplexity AI Most of our allies do nothing — but it matters to President Trump and he's trying to do something about it.
At the heart of this ICE operation, I have two fundamental concerns:
1. The gap between stated goals and lived reality. Trump — DHS — ICE claim the mission is to remove "rapists, murderers, and gang members." The actual enforcement paints an entirely different picture — one that's focused broadly, without precision, to detain immigrants regardless of their criminal history, occupational status, or contributions to the community. I discuss this later, in reference to the tactics required to enforce immigration laws when hampered by "sanctuary city" limitations. But remember what Clinton, Obama and Biden all agreed about: "But they're all illegal aliens, and whether they're innocent or guilty of the crime they're charged with in court, they're still here illegally and they should be sent out of the country." I don't agree with that, but their occupational status and contributions to the community are not relevant to the fact that they entered our country and remain here illegally. Meanwhile: Overall, USCIS has a record 11.3 million pending cases across all form types as of mid-2025 — illustrating how many are trying to migrate through legal channels. — Perplexity AI With a backlog of 11.3 million people attempting to enter the United States legally, why should people who came across our borders illegally receive special opportunities, benefits, and financial support?
2. ICE's growing disregard for constitutional boundaries governing search, seizure, and detention.
TRAC records (Tracreports.org) show that as of Nov 30th, 2025, 74% of detainees have no criminal convictions. This article suggests that in the recent surge of detainments, 92% have no criminal convictions. These stats look fairly accurate. People who simply entered this country illegally should be treated with the same respect and courtesy as any legal citizen, in respect of all Constitutional boundaries. This becomes more difficult when protesters are confronting, provoking and taunting ICE agents, throwing fireworks, blocking streets with cars and bodies, and spitting in their faces. ICE Agents SURROUNDED by Furious Crowd After Stopping Man in Minneapolis Were I a law-abiding illegal immigrant, I would carry any and all legal documents in my possession, and peacefully cooperate and comply with police or ICE agents at all times. Don't be stupid, people!
I watched the ride-along video you sent from Alpha News — there's almost nothing in that video I would have any criticism of. The arrest they conducted was planned, patient, and entirely legal. This shows what good enforcement looks like — and that's why the contrast is so painful and politically polarizing when one assumes this is how all detainments are being performed currently in Minneapolis.
The Liz Collins ride-along was obviously a best case scenario. ICE agents would prefer to NOT go out into the community to root out suspected criminals — if someone is arrested by local police, ICE should be notified and allowed to come into the Minneapolis city jail, pick up the convicted criminal, and deport him or her. Instead: Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) and other local agencies have released undocumented immigrants after arrests for crimes, citing the city's sanctuary ordinance. DHS claims Minnesota released nearly 470 criminal undocumented immigrants since President Trump's inauguration, including those with ICE detainers, forcing ICE to arrest them on the streets instead. — Perplexity AI That absolutely makes no sense! When Minneapolis arrests someone and they are prosecuted and convicted, they should NOT be released into the public because of some vague "sanctuary city" designation (which has NO legal standing). |
