That's true, but the line I hear emerging from dem politicians is that it is because ICE is undertrained that these problems are emerging. I may be missing stuff, but anyone who is talking about this on the various programs from the dem side rails on ICE and makes no mention of Border Patrol.
2026-02-02 22:57:18
I'd observe that the two executions in Minneapolis were apparently done by CBP agents with some experience on the job rather than the ICE agents who we've been told are minimally trained. There are a number of narratives that this could lead to and I'm not sure which one is true (and which is most likely to be seized on, which is often very different from the true one) but it does point to some interesting dynamics in all this.
2026-02-01 00:04:28
Since I have the dashboard open, I'm going to quickly move GftNC's link to a separate post as I think that it is worth considering outside what has been discussed here.
2026-01-31 01:04:31
I'll leave this dogpile be except to note this I’m not arguing that at all. I’m simply pointing out that if a particular jurisdiction refuses to cooperate on ICE detainer requests and someone is released, ICE has to go get them. Simple as that. My understanding is that ICE is in the field in Minneapolis more because of the lack of cooperation in Hennepin County.
'Simple as that' does a lot of work here. As I noted, there are a number of factors that contribute to this, so sending 2,000 ICE and CBP agents rather than addressing any of those other factors makes this a disingenuous argument if made by the government, though I don't see it featuring in any of the DHS press releases. I suspect that if they said this, it would be legally actionable in that they are ignoring laws that have been made appropriately in order to get an outcome the DHS would prefer. This is law-breaking, regardless of which side does it.
2026-01-31 00:05:31
A little more googling got me to the ACLU Minnesota page and there have been several cases where sheriffs have been sued because they extended imprisonment for ICE
This is a central issue. [that city and county jails were not releasing people in their custody to ICE for deportation]
It may come as a shock, but I disagree. Comparing state prisons (where a prisoner would go only after being convicted of a felony with a sentence of at least one year) with city and country jails holding not only people who would, after conviction, be moved to the DOC, but also people on lesser charges or people waiting for their cases to be adjudicated is apples and hand grenades.
Minnesota does have separation statutes (which are basically sanctuary policies) and I'm sure that part of the mix for DHS to challenge those policies. However, they are part of a legal framework, and challenging them by creating conditions on the ground that "heighten the contradictions" is something that I thought conservatives abhorred. I guess we all become what we hate.
Because ICE and DHS is trying to create a hostile environment [in order to reduce people coming illegally], they are creating a situation where city and country jails feel obliged to refuse them because ICE hopes to deport them before they have had a trial or because of what might be a minor offense. ICE is looking to deport any immigrant with any kind of criminal conviction, in an approach reminiscent of the Vietnam era "kill them all and let god sort them out." It's clear that the approach is arrest first and make them prove they are innocent. The procession of stories of people being shipped to other states or simply stopped, detained, and then released somewhere far out of the way is too common not to see.
And if they are made so uncomfortable that they leave, so much the better. And given that a lot of low and middle income people are a lost paycheck from banktruptcy, sending them out of state or forcing them to spend money they don't have is not a bug, it's a feature.
has some discussion of these issues. Your argument seems to be local jails in Minnesota are more resistant to ICE and so force needs to be applied to them. But the reason they are more resistant is because of legislation that was drafted, debated, agreed to, and signed into law. It's quite spectacular to see a conservative feel that this process can be blown off when a new president comes in.
I've noted previously (in the discussion of Minaj Hasan's podcast) (and it pains me to do so again) that all the presidents except Reagan had versions of this 'hostile environment' (the phrase is a UK one, but it is basically same shit on a different day) So it's not that the administration is doing something totally new, but at some point, (to draw on more Marxist phraseology "change in quantity becomes a change in quality."
This comment is too long already, but I would also observe that it is not mere coincidence that this is occurring where George Floyd was murdered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Floyd
That murder created opposition to police overreach and probably helps to drive the reaction that you see.
2026-01-29 22:28:12
I would just observe that one of the reasons a dogpile develops is related to simple population mechanics. If you have more representatives of one side than the other, when a hot button topic emerges and you have the imbalance, the flood of questions should be seen as reflecting that rather than some flaw in the majority's thinking.
While I'd like to draw out bc on some of his views, I don't think it would be very useful, in large part because of these mechanics.
The only observation I would make is that it seems clear to me that DHS chose Minneapolis for this push rather than Texas or Florida (Operation Metro Surge) as another example of population mechanics. They wanted to create a chilling effect rather than actually address the problem they claimed they were solving.
2026-01-27 07:53:51
bc, thanks, appreciate it.
2026-01-27 01:12:02
bc,
Not really cool combining two people's comments (and removing the context) to make your point.
2026-01-25 23:30:47
It’s interesting, but I realise I don’t really have favourites. I read the arguments of the various commentators, and sometimes I think they’re worthwhile, and sometimes not. Quite frequently, people with whom I’ve deeply disagreed on other subjects say things I think are worth considering, or a hopeful sign from commentators who might influence a constituency with whom I very much disagree (like David Frum), and I take some comfort in that.
I've been thinking about this a bit. Definitely one of those chacun son gout sort of thing, but Snarki's observation twigged why I don't like Bobo, which is that everything seems to be in service of defending a GOP position and every observation seems to be linked to that.
It reminds me of the banning of Tacitus/Trevino from here. IIRC, he accused _Edward of promoting Islam when he quoted a Saudi cleric on some point. But (again iirc), the final step was when he came in under a different name to participate and try and put the same point across. As cleek mentioned, back in the day, he was part of the thrust and parry of the site, but there are (or at least were) norms and pretending to be someone else was a step too far. I feel like the site was proven right when he found a job that had him playing up the sodomy charges against Anwar Ibrahim because the government wanted him out of the picture. (and in a bizarre turn, Anwar Abrahim ended up forming a coalition with the guy who tried to throw him in prison and is now the current PM)
Now, Brooks hasn't pretended to be someone else, but that unerring ability to land on a GOP friendly position suggests that what he says is driven by considerations outside of what I would think are important.
2026-01-24 09:58:27
Thanks for the David Brooks link, though let me rag on it a bit. I wish he had spent a little less time the previous 2 years claiming that everyone who was pointing out the direction this clown car was rolling had their hair on fire and a little more time putting up some resistance, even if only by observing it in a column or at a speaking event. I remember him saying that Trump was 'the most consequential president in our lifetime', which sounds a lot like the sentence in the reference letter "When you come to know him as we know him, you will appreciate him as we appreciate him."
The column has Brooks going back to Tacitus, but it would have been nice if he invoked Tacitus to discuss some other points of the MAGA movement, perhaps noting after one of those circle jerk cabinet meetings that 'Flatterers are the worst kind of enemies' or, in considering the whole cult of MAGA "In their ignorance they called it culture, when it was part of their enslavement."
Brooks has spent a lot of time claiming that the judiciary would ultimately function to stop Trump and that what people should do is stay at their desks. He's still playing the same games when he says
And no, I don’t think America is headed toward anything like a Rome-style collapse. Our institutions are too strong, and our people, deep down, still have the same democratic values.
I think in response to the line about how everyone needed to stay at their desks, Jamelle Bouie said that this is really hard when the desk is being sold for parts. (I hope you can post Bouie's reply to Brooks, he's weighed in a few times in response, I think, and I'm sure that it will be worth reading)
Battle hardened vets on the blog can also note that Tacitus was the nom de blog of one Josh Trevino (the tilde over the n came later), who got into some problems with editorials on Malaysian politics, but, like a bad penny, pops up again and again. I understand that one can't blame the original Tacitus for the sins of the nouveau Tacman, but I have to wonder about the connection in Brooks' mind. The Tacitus quote "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" embodies one notion that has gotten us into this mess, so a little reflection might be in order from Brooks, though that is not his strong suit.
Again, apologies for ragging on the article, but as you note, Brooks is certainly not a favorite of mine.
That's true, but the line I hear emerging from dem politicians is that it is because ICE is undertrained that these problems are emerging. I may be missing stuff, but anyone who is talking about this on the various programs from the dem side rails on ICE and makes no mention of Border Patrol.
I'd observe that the two executions in Minneapolis were apparently done by CBP agents with some experience on the job rather than the ICE agents who we've been told are minimally trained. There are a number of narratives that this could lead to and I'm not sure which one is true (and which is most likely to be seized on, which is often very different from the true one) but it does point to some interesting dynamics in all this.
Since I have the dashboard open, I'm going to quickly move GftNC's link to a separate post as I think that it is worth considering outside what has been discussed here.
I'll leave this dogpile be except to note this
I’m not arguing that at all. I’m simply pointing out that if a particular jurisdiction refuses to cooperate on ICE detainer requests and someone is released, ICE has to go get them. Simple as that. My understanding is that ICE is in the field in Minneapolis more because of the lack of cooperation in Hennepin County.
'Simple as that' does a lot of work here. As I noted, there are a number of factors that contribute to this, so sending 2,000 ICE and CBP agents rather than addressing any of those other factors makes this a disingenuous argument if made by the government, though I don't see it featuring in any of the DHS press releases. I suspect that if they said this, it would be legally actionable in that they are ignoring laws that have been made appropriately in order to get an outcome the DHS would prefer. This is law-breaking, regardless of which side does it.
A little more googling got me to the ACLU Minnesota page and there have been several cases where sheriffs have been sued because they extended imprisonment for ICE
https://www.aclu-mn.org/cases/jose-lopez-orellana-v-nobles-county/
https://www.aclu-mn.org/news/aclu-mn-cuts-deportation-pipeline-nobles-county/
https://www.aclu-mn.org/press-releases/jury-finds-anoka-county-jail-committed-false-imprisonment/
This seems more nuanced than bc's description.
This is a central issue. [that city and county jails were not releasing people in their custody to ICE for deportation]
It may come as a shock, but I disagree. Comparing state prisons (where a prisoner would go only after being convicted of a felony with a sentence of at least one year) with city and country jails holding not only people who would, after conviction, be moved to the DOC, but also people on lesser charges or people waiting for their cases to be adjudicated is apples and hand grenades.
Minnesota does have separation statutes (which are basically sanctuary policies) and I'm sure that part of the mix for DHS to challenge those policies. However, they are part of a legal framework, and challenging them by creating conditions on the ground that "heighten the contradictions" is something that I thought conservatives abhorred. I guess we all become what we hate.
Because ICE and DHS is trying to create a hostile environment [in order to reduce people coming illegally], they are creating a situation where city and country jails feel obliged to refuse them because ICE hopes to deport them before they have had a trial or because of what might be a minor offense. ICE is looking to deport any immigrant with any kind of criminal conviction, in an approach reminiscent of the Vietnam era "kill them all and let god sort them out." It's clear that the approach is arrest first and make them prove they are innocent. The procession of stories of people being shipped to other states or simply stopped, detained, and then released somewhere far out of the way is too common not to see.
And if they are made so uncomfortable that they leave, so much the better. And given that a lot of low and middle income people are a lost paycheck from banktruptcy, sending them out of state or forcing them to spend money they don't have is not a bug, it's a feature.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2025/12/11/ice-jails-update/
has some discussion of these issues. Your argument seems to be local jails in Minnesota are more resistant to ICE and so force needs to be applied to them. But the reason they are more resistant is because of legislation that was drafted, debated, agreed to, and signed into law. It's quite spectacular to see a conservative feel that this process can be blown off when a new president comes in.
I've noted previously (in the discussion of Minaj Hasan's podcast) (and it pains me to do so again) that all the presidents except Reagan had versions of this 'hostile environment' (the phrase is a UK one, but it is basically same shit on a different day) So it's not that the administration is doing something totally new, but at some point, (to draw on more Marxist phraseology "change in quantity becomes a change in quality."
This comment is too long already, but I would also observe that it is not mere coincidence that this is occurring where George Floyd was murdered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Floyd
That murder created opposition to police overreach and probably helps to drive the reaction that you see.
I would just observe that one of the reasons a dogpile develops is related to simple population mechanics. If you have more representatives of one side than the other, when a hot button topic emerges and you have the imbalance, the flood of questions should be seen as reflecting that rather than some flaw in the majority's thinking.
While I'd like to draw out bc on some of his views, I don't think it would be very useful, in large part because of these mechanics.
The only observation I would make is that it seems clear to me that DHS chose Minneapolis for this push rather than Texas or Florida (Operation Metro Surge) as another example of population mechanics. They wanted to create a chilling effect rather than actually address the problem they claimed they were solving.
bc, thanks, appreciate it.
bc,
Not really cool combining two people's comments (and removing the context) to make your point.
It’s interesting, but I realise I don’t really have favourites. I read the arguments of the various commentators, and sometimes I think they’re worthwhile, and sometimes not. Quite frequently, people with whom I’ve deeply disagreed on other subjects say things I think are worth considering, or a hopeful sign from commentators who might influence a constituency with whom I very much disagree (like David Frum), and I take some comfort in that.
I've been thinking about this a bit. Definitely one of those chacun son gout sort of thing, but Snarki's observation twigged why I don't like Bobo, which is that everything seems to be in service of defending a GOP position and every observation seems to be linked to that.
It reminds me of the banning of Tacitus/Trevino from here. IIRC, he accused _Edward of promoting Islam when he quoted a Saudi cleric on some point. But (again iirc), the final step was when he came in under a different name to participate and try and put the same point across. As cleek mentioned, back in the day, he was part of the thrust and parry of the site, but there are (or at least were) norms and pretending to be someone else was a step too far. I feel like the site was proven right when he found a job that had him playing up the sodomy charges against Anwar Ibrahim because the government wanted him out of the picture. (and in a bizarre turn, Anwar Abrahim ended up forming a coalition with the guy who tried to throw him in prison and is now the current PM)
Now, Brooks hasn't pretended to be someone else, but that unerring ability to land on a GOP friendly position suggests that what he says is driven by considerations outside of what I would think are important.
Thanks for the David Brooks link, though let me rag on it a bit. I wish he had spent a little less time the previous 2 years claiming that everyone who was pointing out the direction this clown car was rolling had their hair on fire and a little more time putting up some resistance, even if only by observing it in a column or at a speaking event. I remember him saying that Trump was 'the most consequential president in our lifetime', which sounds a lot like the sentence in the reference letter "When you come to know him as we know him, you will appreciate him as we appreciate him."
The column has Brooks going back to Tacitus, but it would have been nice if he invoked Tacitus to discuss some other points of the MAGA movement, perhaps noting after one of those circle jerk cabinet meetings that 'Flatterers are the worst kind of enemies' or, in considering the whole cult of MAGA "In their ignorance they called it culture, when it was part of their enslavement."
Brooks has spent a lot of time claiming that the judiciary would ultimately function to stop Trump and that what people should do is stay at their desks. He's still playing the same games when he says
And no, I don’t think America is headed toward anything like a Rome-style collapse. Our institutions are too strong, and our people, deep down, still have the same democratic values.
I think in response to the line about how everyone needed to stay at their desks, Jamelle Bouie said that this is really hard when the desk is being sold for parts. (I hope you can post Bouie's reply to Brooks, he's weighed in a few times in response, I think, and I'm sure that it will be worth reading)
Battle hardened vets on the blog can also note that Tacitus was the nom de blog of one Josh Trevino (the tilde over the n came later), who got into some problems with editorials on Malaysian politics, but, like a bad penny, pops up again and again. I understand that one can't blame the original Tacitus for the sins of the nouveau Tacman, but I have to wonder about the connection in Brooks' mind. The Tacitus quote "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" embodies one notion that has gotten us into this mess, so a little reflection might be in order from Brooks, though that is not his strong suit.
Again, apologies for ragging on the article, but as you note, Brooks is certainly not a favorite of mine.