The editors of the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have reacted to the killing of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis by a Border Patrol agent:
Washington Post
It’s essential that federal immigration officers don’t think they can act with impunity, because that will only encourage more fatal encounters. An independent probe of this shooting is an important step. On Saturday night, a federal judge ordered DHS not to destroy evidence related to Pretti’s killing in response to a lawsuit filed by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D).
Democrats will prevail if they focus on a narrow set of reasonable demands. The president will gain the upper hand if the left clamors for abolishing ICE. They already tried that during Trump’s first term, and it backfired. At the same time, that agency needs to be bound by laws, oversight and accountability. Most of all, U.S. citizens need to be secure in exercising their First and Second Amendment rights without worrying they’ll get gunned down.
Most Americans want a secure border, and they think violent criminals should be deported. That’s a large part of why Trump returned to the White House. The overreach of the past year, however, could consume his presidency and lead to more tragedy. If Trump won’t change course on his own, can Republicans in Congress save him from himself?
Wall Street Journal
Pretti made a tragic mistake by interfering with ICE agents, but that warranted arrest, not a death sentence. The agents may say they felt threatened, but it’s worth noting the comments over the weekend by police around the country who say that this isn’t how they conduct law enforcement.
Either many ICE agents aren’t properly trained, or they are so on edge as they face opposition in the streets that they are on a hair trigger. Either way, this calls for rethinking how ICE conducts itself, especially in Minneapolis as tensions build.
I materially agree with both of those statements with a few provisos.
The context of the killings in Minneapolis includes:
The initiating policy signal
Candidate Biden literally urged those seeking to enter the United States to “surge to the border”. They did. That signal functioned as an invitation in practice.
This was not metaphorical language. In every domain where the word “surge” is used whether logistics, medicine, military operations it denotes a deliberate increase in volume designed to stress a system’s capacity. The predictable result was a mass inflow that overwhelmed border processing and shifted the enforcement problem into the interior of the country.
Statements by mayors
The mayors of Portland, Minneapolis, and Chicago, all “sanctuary” cities, have made the following statements:
Enforcement of civil immigration laws by militarized forces has no legitimate role in our community, no support from local elected leaders, and little public support
and
Local and state law enforcement must remain the jurisdiction of local law enforcement authorities…
We are demanding that ICE leave the city and state immediately.
and
We stand by our immigrant and refugee communities — know that you have our full support
…we remain opposed to militarized immigration enforcement that runs afoul of the Constitution in our city.
If you think that the key word in the statements above is “militarized”, please provide evidence that the mayors support federal enforcement actions within their jurisdictions so long as they are not militarized. I have searched and found no such statements. They do not oppose tactics; they oppose jurisdiction.
Note that a) the federal government’s role in the enforcement of immigration laws has been fully litigated and is unchallenged; b) all three mayors reject it. The mayors’ position is functionally indistinguishable from nullification: the claim that federal law is valid everywhere except where local officials disapprove of it.
While I recognize that neither the mayors nor the editors have any legal responsibility to do so, I think that under the circumstances they have an ethical responsibility to propose a workable method for enforcing immigration law within those jurisdictions without deploying federal law enforcement agents within them. Otherwise, their position is not reform but abdication.
1) Biden specifically limited it to people seeking asylum. This coincided with a shortage of labor during covid and as we know illegal immigration correlates with labor opportunity.
2) I spent some time looking at sanctuary cities and immigration and they have always allowed ICE to function within their cities. They do not help ICE do their jobs. Note that you dont find statements opposing ICE doing their job before they became militarized. (Militarized is actually a sanitized version of what is going on. What people oppose is a group of poorly trained, anonymous, unaccountable group of agents who do not act within traditional policing norms and seem to have little regard for the safety of the community. The have been encouraged to crate a spectacle and cruel behavior seems to be encouraged.)
Anyway, I think you are asking people to prove a negative. What you should be asking is if before the current version of ICE those cities were engaging in actions that stopped ICE from functioning. I dont think that exists.
3) Your Portland citation refers specifically to when Trump was going to send military troops to Portland. Unless I missed it they said nothing about ICE per se. they just opposed military troops being sent without their consent ie asking for military to be deployed.
4) The Minneapolis statement is specifically in reference to the shooting. They are asking that a bunch of poorly trained, anonymous and unaccountable agents be removed. As a mayor’s responsibility is to the safety of the people of that city it seems reasonable. In retrospect it seems prescient. Note that it also tells people they cant engage in activities like blocking traffic, throwing stuff at agents, etc. IOW, they want ICE to leave but knowing they wont they dont want people to take actions that would actually impede ICE.
Steve
Out of 3000 counties 9 account for almost all the violence, and all are in sanctuary cities. And those are located in Minneapolis, Chicago and Los Angeles. NYC is a distant 4th.
I guess untrained or triggered ICE only exist in those 9 counties……………
And before the contortions start, just cut the high school level BS. We all know who and where professional and egged on protestersare located
The surge of ICE agents has largely occurred in sanctuary cities and the larger surge has been in Minneapolis. Most sources place Chicago and LA next. Also, everyone has cameras now and nearly all of these acts of “violence” are being filmed. It’s notable that I’m many/most of them there is no violence observed or its initiated by ICE agents who dont want people filming them. Note that very few people are actually having charges placed against them for violence. People repeatedly get arrested and then released without charges being filed.
Also, we should note that the people claiming all of this violence are the same people who claimed that the Pretti guy approached agents with a weapon with the goal of killing as many as possible while every video shows he had no weapon in hand when taken down by ICE agents.
Steve
https://open.substack.com/pub/jameshowardkunstler/p/had-enough-9ec?r=1f0f6t&utm_medium=ios
Nine counties. That’s because none of this is happening in a vacuum, it’s more organized than you might think.
Also any person who goes out to fight the cops with a gun on him is suicidal or a fool. also had extra clips of ammo.
@grey
So Ruby Ridge was, what, justified?
@Dave
Please show where it is not allowed for local LEOs to be ordered to not support federal enforcement of federal civil laws.
scout
I will admit that I have a pro law enforcement bias. I have friends who serve in law enforcement. In normal circumstances, I think they have an incredibly tough job. They go into situations where the worst people are having their worst days. They have to remain professional with people who are often completely out of control.
For ICE agents, they are having to do all of the above while crowds shout at them, curse them, spit at them, throw things, blow whistles, etc. From a human perspective, I would find it incredibly difficult to remain professional in that environment.
Dave Schuler: I think that under the circumstances they have an ethical responsibility to propose a workable method for enforcing immigration law within those jurisdictions without deploying federal law enforcement agents within them.
Why would they be responsible for enforcing federal policies they reject?
Zachriel:
In a liberal democracy, elected officials are not free agents; they occupy institutional roles. One of the defining obligations of those roles is to enforce duly enacted law, even when they disagree with it. Without that role obligation, law collapses into personal preference, which is the negation of the rule of law.
If officials enforce only the laws they personally approve of, then enforcement becomes discretionary and ideological, and law collapses into individual power. At that point, the rule of law is replaced by rule by officeholders.
An official who disagrees with a law has three legitimate options: enforce it, work to change it, or resign. What is not legitimate is to remain in office while selectively nullifying law through non-enforcement. That is not democratic dissent; it is a usurpation of legislative authority.
Is there an upper limit to how many federal laws can be unenforced in a area? Sovereign Cities?
Dave Schuler: One of the defining obligations of those roles is to enforce duly enacted law, even when they disagree with it.
“Duly enacted” has a meaning. Laws are jurisdictional. For state officials that doesn’t entail enforcing federal law (with some exceptions). They are separate sovereigns. What happens is that states can come to an agreement with the federal government—or not.
Dave Schuler: If officials enforce only the laws they personally approve of, then enforcement becomes discretionary and ideological, and law collapses into individual power.
State officials have to enforce state laws and certain federal laws, but not all federal laws. That’s the law.
Dave Schuler: What is not legitimate is to remain in office while selectively nullifying law through non-enforcement.
That’s not how federalism or the rule of law works. Limiting jurisdiction is an important safeguard of liberty.
walt moffett: Is there an upper limit to how many federal laws can be unenforced in a area? Sovereign Cities?
The federal government can enforce federal law everywhere within the United States. But the states can’t be commandeered to enforce it for them. The federal government can negotiate with the states to enlist their help, but states are under no obligation to reach such an agreement.
China organizing all of this is pure conspiracy theory. Anyway, I also support law enforcement*, but not when it is bad and you know it is going to be bad. ICE is sending out large numbers of agents with minimal training and they are anonymous and unaccountable. (If you study the history of policing then you know that in the US the issuing of badges with numbers on them was largely to specifically address the issue of accountability.) Inexperienced people make mistakes, they panic more frequently than accountable people with good training. People without accountability act out and misbehave. Both of those are universal truisms.
I think there is some merit to what Charles says in that it probably is more difficult with so many people watching and whistling. However, there are tons of videos and it’s pretty clear that it’s rare when people throw things or engage in physical acts. However, it’s legal for people to do what they are doing when they are yelling and whistling.
* I have personally engaged in the trauma care of multiple police. Via our church, I organized support efforts for the family of the police we were caring for at my hospital. The uncle who taught me to shoot was a cop and I have worked pretty closely with police at times. In most law enforcement groups (military too) the large majority of people who are good decent people who deserve our support. However, there is always a percentage who should not be there. Most often because they are lazy but also because some are incompetent, prone to panic, dont think the rules apply to them or think their position allows them to dominate others ie respect their authority.
This 9 counties thing is rampant among conservatives but I have yet to see a reliable source documenting this claim.
Steve
Dave- What laws are these elected officials not enforcing? AFAICT they are enforcing the state, local and federal laws they are supposed to enforce. There are numerous accounts of protestors being arrested including at least 100 clergy at the airport. Immigration is clearly federal law, as you noted.
Steve
“In the past, ICE made most of its arrests in partnership with local jails and prisons, quietly taking into custody immigrants who had already been arrested by another law enforcement agency.
* * *
Arrests at jails and prisons went up over the past year, but the increase was far exceeded by the growth in what ICE calls “at-large” arrests, the apprehensions of immigrants on the streets, in courthouses, and at homes and businesses. These quadrupled to about 150,000 and made up a majority of immigration arrests in 32 states and Washington, D.C.
They were most common in states like California, Illinois and New York, where local governments have passed laws blocking local jails and prisons from transferring people to ICE custody.”
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/01/18/us/trump-deportation-numbers-immigration-crackdown.html?unlocked_article_code=1.F1A.wW57.8dZN_EhPT65Y&smid=url-share
The sequence is pretty clear. Until about ten years ago, federal, state and local law enforcement cooperated at least from time to time in removing aliens with serious felonies, but one of the fallouts of the defund the police / black lives matter era were laws passed by politicians to prevent law enforcement from continuing such cooperation. Currently, the Illinois Attorney General is investigating several county sheriffs who communicated to ICE the time and place felon aliens were being released. As a side note, a former intern for Senator Duckworth would certainly be alive today if one of these sheriffs had let the feds know when a certain violent felon was being released.
“At-large” operations take more time to execute than a warrant for a single individual, which allows more opportunities for people to protest or try to impede the arrests.
Per Chat-GPT…”Research indicates that sanctuary cities either have no significant impact on homicide rates or may experience lower homicide rates compared to non-sanctuary cities. Studies suggest that these policies can enhance community trust and safety, contributing to overall lower crime rates, including homicides.”
So based upon research while some people may have died because they followed this policy overall it doesnt affect crime rates or it reduces crime. If a local mayor had access to this research it might make sense to prioritize the safety of your people over helping ICE.
PD’s article is interesting. Biden, who by Dave’s claim supported open borders deported far more people than anyone else. That said, it looks like there have been 3 waves of cities claiming sanctuary status, beginning in the 80s. Interestingly I cant find exact numbers but a number of sources estimate that we had about 220 sanctuary cities in 2010 and about 220 now.
Last, sanctuary city rules vary but many/most report so they can be deported illegals who commit violent crimes. Quote describes NYC rule.
“New York’s sanctuary policies only bar local law enforcement from honoring ICE detainer requests, which seek to hold undocumented immigrants in custody for up to an additional 48 hours after they would normally be released.
FACT: Sanctuary policies do not limit all cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
Local law enforcement is permitted to honor detainer requests including when ICE provides a judicial warrant. ”
Steve
I’d like to see more discussion about the legality of these protests. Civil liberties aren’t without limits and while I don’t know much about the laws I know there are reasonable restrictions on protests and the requirement of permits for assembly in certain locations and situations.
Steve says “ However, it’s legal for people to do what they are doing when they are yelling and whistling.”
Is that really the case, and if this is currently not prohibited, should it be?
@scout,
Ruby ridge though unfortunate, WAS justified as agents were attempting to serve a lawful warrant. Resisting had consequences.
Just as when two FBI Agents attempted to serve a warrant on the Lakota reservation in Pine Ridge which ended in tragedy for all involved. Resisting arrest has consequences.
I’m certain in hindsight that in both instances execution could have been improved upon, but nevertheless, the law must be enforced.
@Steve,
China is not omnipotent, and currently has their hands full of domestic problems, but they have long been making efforts to disrupt our society and political system.
Governor Walz has far too much history and apparently has an appreciation for all things Communist China to be a Government official in any capacity.
From the WSJ…
“Over the past year, Trump’s more hard-line aides, including Noem and her top adviser Corey Lewandowski, have pushed for missions that include roving patrols doing street sweeps in large liberal cities. Homan and others have favored a more methodical but slower approach to go after immigrants with criminal histories or final deportation orders, according to people familiar with the matter.”
I think Dave is operating on the idea that ICE is acting under Homan’s model. Since Noem is in charge they are using her model. It’s these roving patrols that are grabbing people because they look “suspicious”. This has resulted in many US citizens being unnecessarily detained and even deported.
Steve
This has resulted in many US citizens being unnecessarily detained and even deported.
Huh? ?
Where were US citizens deported to, exactly?
Having now thought about it I realize there can be instances of immigrants who have lawfully completed the process to citizenship who might be inadvertently treated as a non-citizen and deported back to their country if origin. I’d be willing to bet that this is a rare occurrence representing mistakes in documents but if you had evidence that I’m wrong please share, steve.
The scenario I describe would be regrettable but doesn’t rise to the level that enforcement if immigration law should be suspended.
Yes, all of the instances I have seen documented are essentially accidental with the exception of some kids who were deported with their parents against the wishes of the parents. (I believe they had relatives here who would have cared for the kids if they stayed.) When looked at it appears that there is about a 1-1.5% error rate in whom they detain but it’s hard to tell how many of those get deported as ICE withholds data. Chat-GPT says…
“Error Rate in ICE Deportations
Overview of Deportation Errors
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has faced significant criticism for mistakenly deporting individuals, including U.S. citizens. Between 2015 and 2020, ICE deported approximately 70 potential U.S. citizens, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). This indicates a troubling error rate in identifying individuals eligible for deportation.
Factors Contributing to Errors
Inconsistent Training: ICE officers are sometimes allowed to interview individuals claiming U.S. citizenship without a supervisor present, leading to potential mistakes.
Faulty Databases: ICE’s data systems do not always accurately reflect an individual’s citizenship status, complicating the identification process.
Historical Context
From 2002 to 2017, ICE wrongly identified at least 2,840 U.S. citizens as potentially eligible for removal. This included at least 214 who were detained. The lack of accurate record-keeping and oversight has contributed to these errors.”
They have always had a low baseline rate of errors and now they are grabbing people with roving patrols on the basis of suspicions and the people they are hiring have minimal training. It’s a set up for more errors.
Steve
I have no idea where you got the “1-1.5 % error rate” estimate and the ChatGPT convo doesn’t include any data from the current administration.
Per Chat-GPT
“Deportation Rates of ICE Detainees
Overview of Deportation Statistics
The deportation rate of individuals detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has seen significant changes, especially during the current administration. As of late 2025, the deportation process has become more aggressive, with a notable increase in the number of detainees being deported directly from custody.
Current Deportation Rates
For every person released from ICE detention, more than 14 individuals are deported directly from custody.
This is a significant increase compared to the previous year, where the ratio was approximately 1 to 2.
Total Number of Detainees
As of November 30, 2025, there were 65,735 individuals in ICE detention.
The number of deportations has been reported to be around 140,000 since the beginning of the current administration.”
This means roughly 7% are released and 93% are deported. If we take the admin at its word that it is not releasing people to await trail or court then it’s likely they detained a large chunk of people by mistake. Anyway, was listening to a podcast by a supposedly retired ICE agent and his estimate was the one I cited. Note that while he couldn’t speak accurately on current numbers in the past they would let people go to await a court date if they didnt have adequate holding space. The Linken Riley Act (Mandatory detention) among others means they dont do that.
Steve