The left’s ratcheted narrative on immigration enforcement
A ratchet wrench is an effective tool that allows for continuous movement of a nut in one direction while preventing movement in the opposite direction.
The evolution of the left’s narrative regarding illegal immigration enforcement — from the benign hands-off approach based on feigned fiscal responsibility concerns to violent opposition — has been strategically “ratchet-like,” and it’s time we wake up to it.
Those paying attention have watched the left slowly ratchet the narrative in a dangerous and self-destructive direction, sadly persuading many in the middle and on the right to concede along the way.
It has never been more important for us to recognize this and begin reversing the narrative before outright opposition to federal immigration enforcement becomes normalized.
In Minnesota, the effort to eliminate immigration enforcement began with seemingly benign arguments.
Immigration activists began by pointing out that illegal immigration enforcement was a federal matter. In the spirit of fiscal responsibility, it was important for state and local jurisdictions to ensure they didn’t squander finite resources on a task that was the responsibility of the federal government.
This was a key argument made by DFL lawmakers when introducing legislation that would have established a variety of statewide sanctuary policies in Minnesota. Thankfully, those efforts have come up short — at least for now.
On a local level, progressive jurisdictions like Minneapolis and Hennepin County, reeling from staffing issues borne out of the leftist-led “defund the police” effort, used the “finite resources” narrative as justification to adopt policies that prohibited cooperation with federal immigration authorities. It was gaslight manipulation at its finest.
Click.
Once the “finite resources” narrative was set, the left focused on the next click of the ratchet.
This click established the “chilling effect” narrative. The narrative suggests that when state and local jurisdictions, especially local law enforcement, cooperate with federal immigration authorities, it has a “chilling effect” on immigrants’ willingness to cooperate with police, report crimes, testify as witnesses, or seek help. The narrative falsely suggests that cooperation on immigration matters damages public safety.
The fact is, the narrative is not borne out in fact (see the 2021 report by the Center for Immigration Studies, which concluded that there is no evidence of a “chilling effect” when local law enforcement cooperates with federal authorities on immigration enforcement).
Nonetheless, it was no longer good enough for local law enforcement to take a neutral position on immigration enforcement; it now had to actively oppose it.
Many local law enforcement agencies were pushed to create policies prohibiting the sharing of information with federal immigration authorities. Firewalls were established to cut previous information sharing capability. Policies were put in place to limit or prohibit the transfer of custody of jail inmates to DHS-ICE in secure settings, forcing DHS-ICE to wait outside jails and courthouses in the hopes of taking a wanted person into custody following release from local custody.
This is NOT good public safety policy. It only increases the likelihood of avoidable use of force incidents, avoidable foot and vehicular chases, and other avoidable unintended consequences when federal authorities are forced to go into the community to locate wanted individuals recently released from local custody. The practice represents actual damage to our public safety.
Click.
The left continued to deceptively offer a tacit acknowledgment that the federal government has a legitimate responsibility to conduct immigration enforcement. However, the events earlier this week in Minneapolis dramatically exposed that acknowledgment as just another click of the ratchet.
On Tuesday, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) partnered with several federal and local law enforcement organizations on a cartel-related criminal investigation into human trafficking and drug distribution. Eight search warrants were executed across the Twin Cities, one at a Mexican restaurant on Lake Street in Minneapolis. While no disruption occurred at the other seven locations, the Minneapolis search warrant deteriorated into a dangerous situation for agents and officers after activists responded to oppose the operation, based largely on inaccurate social media posts.
Activists descended upon the agents, deputies, and officers. They began physically disrupting the operation by blocking vehicles and officers from moving, throwing items at the officers, throwing trash cans in the street, etc. Officers responded with limited uses of force and limited use of pepper spray to keep the crowd separated from them. Activists and political supporters responded with accusations of excessive force and absurd complaints over the use of pepper spray given the air quality alerts in place due to Canadian wildfires.
Activists and political supporters criticized some agents/officers for wearing masks during the event (a practice used in self-defense due to doxing and intimidation efforts across the country aimed at DHS-ICE agents), despite the popularity and acceptance of activists wearing masks to prevent their identification. Just more gaslighting.
Minneapolis City Council member and chair of the council’s Public Health and Safety Committee, Jason Chavez, responded to the operation, saying, “Not in our city.”
Hennepin County Board Chair Irene Fernando criticized the operation, saying, “What occurred today is against our shared standard, and the use of military grade equipment resulted in harm… And with the horrifyingly and historically high Air Quality Index, the use of chemical irritants is truly unconscionable and disgusting.”
Both Chavez and Fernando have requested information from the Minneapolis Police and Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, respectively as to their involvement and use of resources in the operation. Both agencies can expect policy and funding reprisals to come from their respective boards because they had the audacity to conduct law enforcement efforts in partnership with federal authorities that included DHS-ICE.
Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, who one might think would be concerned about the human trafficking and drug dealing allegedly occurring in her jurisdiction, responded to the operation in a written statement saying, “I want to be very clear that ICE is showing up in the heart of one of our vibrant immigrant communities alongside local law enforcement causes grievous and irreparable harm. Across the country, ICE is conducting masked abductions of people who are at university, entering courthouses, and working and contributing to this country. ICE is being deployed to terrorize people.”
Minnesota’s Attorney General, Keith Ellison, condemned the operation and suggested the aim was to cause “fear” and “terror” in the community. He offered no such concerns over cartels believed to be conducting human trafficking and drug dealing in our state.
Governor Tim Walz criticized the operation, calling it “chaotic” and done without forewarning to his office — as if the Governor is routinely advised in advance of federal law enforcement activity. He’s not.
Click.
With the deception lifted, it is now clear that in Minnesota, state and local leaders on the left have declared it is no longer acceptable for federal authorities to conduct any enforcement activity that the state and local leaders deem to have immigration enforcement implications — especially not involving local law enforcement — and especially not on days when the air quality is compromised!
Click, click, click.