If officials in Minnesota are uncomfortable with President Trump’s warning about potentially using the Insurrection Act, they might want to take more decisive action to curb unrest in their state.
On Wednesday night, anti-ICE protesters reacted predictably after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer was attacked by two undocumented individuals during an arrest. The officer shot one of them in self-defense, leading to riots.
Mayor Jacob Frey placed the blame on ICE, referring to the situation as an unprovoked attack on law enforcement.
He urged people to consider how they would feel if their city was, in a sense, overtaken by numerous federal agents who do not share their values.
Minnesota’s leaders might want to reflect on whether portraying federal law enforcement as an invading force really helps convey to President Trump that he should refrain from invoking the Insurrection Act.
It’s a bit like how Confederate leaders must have felt about the 20th Maine Infantry rolling into Richmond, Virginia, back in 1863.
This seems to be their usual mindset.
State Representative Risch Kozlovsky suggested that the shooting incident shows ICE agents “aren’t here for public safety,” implying they come to hunt and harm.
Before the shooting occurred, Governor Tim Walz called on Trump to “end this occupation.”
This perspective appears to support and encourage minor acts of anti-ICE insurrection among Minnesota’s leaders.
While no firearms or explosives were involved, various forms of pressure and intimidation have been used to obstruct the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws in the state.
ICE agents are often seen amidst a hostile crowd, many of whom view them as an occupying force, determined to drive them out.
For those opposed to ICE, this resembles a “Free Palestine” movement.
Supporters of the activists, much like Rep. Ilhan Omar, argue that their role is simply to document and hold ICE accountable.
However, this claim feels misleading. Sure, activists carry cameras, but they also obstruct ICE vehicles, shout at the agents, and attempt to “de-arrest” individuals.
The underlying aim seems to be to foster an environment of intimidation, making ICE’s job in the city as challenging as possible.
If this kind of activity is to be labeled as the work of “legal watchdogs,” then one might argue that the Proud Boys at the Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville were merely “historic preservationists.”
Frey mentioned that activists are protecting their city and their neighbors.
Yet, it’s hard to imagine any mayor making similar comments in different circumstances.
For instance, if the FBI apprehended a criminal in Minneapolis, it wouldn’t be perceived as an attack on the city — quite the opposite.
And when it comes to neighbors, anyone arrested for any crime is someone’s neighbor.
Just because someone lives nearby doesn’t mean they’re above the law or that their neighbors can obstruct law enforcement from doing their job.
Interestingly, the “neighbors” the activists claim to protect are frequently other activists who interfere with ICE and find themselves detained.
During Trump’s first term, “resistance” was a buzzword for passionate counteraction, including large protests that were disruptive but lawful.
Today in Minnesota, “resistance” feels like an apt descriptor.
This context is partly why the Insurrection Act exists.
It’s a somewhat antiquated law with ambiguous provisions that allows the President to deploy military or federalized National Guard troops to handle “unlawful disturbances.”
If Trump were to take such action, it would indeed be noteworthy.
Ideally, leveraging different law enforcement resources to ensure the safety of ICE officers would be advisable. Even better would be addressing and reducing the anti-ICE protests.
Last week, Jacob Frey infamously told ICE to “get the heck out of Minneapolis.”
Now, it might be time for him to direct the protesters to vacate the streets as well.
