In Minnesota, a recent operation executed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) led to the arrest of a rather unsavory character. This individual, a Mexican national, appears to have been racking up a spectacular resume as an accused sex offender and convicted human smuggler. While one would think such a person would send shivers down anyone’s spine, not everyone is thrilled about ICE stepping in to clean up the mess. It seems like some folks in power are more inclined to scrutinize the enforcers rather than the offenders.
Former Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Chad Wolf, seemed to have no qualms justifying ICE’s actions, emphasizing that they were simply enforcing laws already in place. After all, when one hears about such crimes, it’s hard to argue against law enforcement stepping in. Yet, the conversation inexplicably veered towards a civil rights investigation into a completely different case making headlines. Apparently, investigations into two separate incidents are on-going, but DHS, along with the FBI, are doing their due diligence to unravel the murk of what actually transpired.
Interestingly enough, Tom Homan, a vocal advocate for focusing on hardened criminals, expressed his satisfaction with ICE honing in on those who seem to collect criminal charges the way others might collect stamps. He pointed out that there are plenty more criminals to round up in the Minneapolis area, making it an ongoing endeavor for ICE. While Homan’s priorities lie in targeting the most dangerous elements residing unlawfully in the country, he also asserts that ICE agents will not overlook anyone without legal rights to be in the U.S., even if they’ve managed to keep out of trouble for years.
While ICE keeps busy chasing down criminals, some Democrats have lined up a set of demands they believe must be met before reopening the government, which seems to include everything but the kitchen sink. These demands include implementing rules like no masks, body cameras for agents, and enforced codes of conduct. One could argue they are focusing more energy on curbing ICE’s abilities than on reining in crime itself. These ideas appear particularly ironic given the fact that cooperation with ICE actually seems to decrease conflicts rather than escalate them, especially when contrasted with the havoc that sanctuary city policies can wreak.
Lindsey Graham, echoing sentiments rather opposite to these reform demands, advocates for the end of sanctuary cities altogether, suggesting it could make situations like these much safer. Perhaps he’s onto something there. After all, it’s tough to effectively deal with criminals when there’s an invisible tug-of-war over jurisdiction. While the bureaucrats hash out who should do what, it’s clear who’s delivering results. So perhaps, instead of tying ICE’s hands with unnecessary regulations, the powers that be should focus on cleaning up the chaos in policies themselves.
