Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who is fond of performatively demanding that sworn federal agents enforcing duly enacted national immigration laws should “get the f*** out” of his city, while issuing no such directives to criminal illegal immigrants, appeared on Fox & Friends this month and made an interesting assertion.
When confronted with an example of how “sanctuary” policies contributed to the needless death of one of his constituents, at the hands of an illegal immigrant drunk driver, Frey suggested that his administration isn’t opposed to cooperating with the feds under certain circumstances. “We are willing to work with people when it’s about murder and when it’s about crime. But the truth is that this ain’t about that,” he claimed. Oh, really? The Department of Homeland Security has released a growing roster of the hardened, violent criminals, including convicted murderers, rapists, and gang members, who have been picked up off the street by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers during the current Minnesota surge. It is very much about crime.
Sanctuary policies, such as those instituted in greater Minneapolis, expressly prohibit local or state authorities from collaborating with federal immigration enforcement, which often takes the form of ignoring or rejecting so-called ICE detainer requests. In a sane world, this would be a proactive two-way street. Whenever an illegal immigrant is arrested or is about to be released from jail or prison, community-based police would give a heads-up to ICE, whose officers would execute an orderly transfer of custody in a controlled environment. And when ICE lodges detainer requests from its side, those would be honored as a matter of course. If the arrestees or detainees in question have criminal convictions or final deportation orders against them, they are promptly deported. If a bit more due process is required in other cases, so be it.
This would be a rational and sensible way for the system to work — and in many parts of the country, it’s exactly how the system does work. Law enforcement agencies help each other out, federal authority is respected, and public safety threats are neutralized. But in left-wing “sanctuary” jurisdictions, mandated noncooperation leads to dangerous criminals with no legal right to remain in the United States being spit back out onto the streets to walk free. This happens routinely and constantly. ICE is targeting its street operations in these blue cities and states as a direct result of this phenomenon. Politicians refuse to assist in going about things the easy way, so ICE is forced to go about it the hard way, which is made riskier and more complicated by vigilante mobs stalking and harassing them at every opportunity, egged on by many of the same politicians whose policies necessitate public-facing enforcement actions.
This reality presents a political opportunity for President Donald Trump. His border security moves have all but shut down the inflow of illegal immigration, a masterstroke that Democrats cynically and falsely insisted couldn’t be achieved. He proved them wrong in a matter of weeks. The public likes what it sees on that front, and it doesn’t seem coincidental that after effectively plugging the gaping hole at our southern border, homicides and drug overdoses have plummeted. This is a real and meaningful achievement. Trump also openly campaigned, and won, on mass deportations, so the fact that his administration is pursuing exactly that course of action should not come as a surprise to anyone. It’s worth remembering that, according to government data reported by the Washington Examiner, approximately 70% of illegal immigrants arrested by ICE under the Trump administration in 2025 had a criminal history inside the U.S. An impressive batting average.
That said, disruptions caused by aggressive interior enforcement are stirring misgivings among the wider population. Many people like the idea of deporting illegal immigrant criminals, but accomplishing that vital goal in reality is a messy and difficult process. Couple that with the steady drumbeat of hyperbole and propaganda from anti-enforcement politicians, activists, and journalists, and some voters are turning against ICE’s work. Axios reported that administration officials “recently reviewed private GOP polling that showed support for his immigration policies falling. The results, reflected in public surveys, bolstered internal concern about the administration’s confrontational enforcement tactics.” Progressive pollster David Shor revealed that message testing shows that some of Democrats’ demagoguery is having an impact, especially the claim that paying for harsh ICE operations is coming at the expense of funding healthcare. That’s a specious argument, but Democrats such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are running with it.
How can pro-enforcement forces and the Trump administration turn the tide back in favor of rounding up and deporting criminal illegal immigrants, the concept of which continues to enjoy sky-high support in polling? Let’s revisit the aforementioned political opening for Trump. Conservative commentator Mary Katharine Ham recently posited that the president might consider looking at this moment not as an opportunity to fight, but as a chance to make a deal. The bargain, in essence, would be an abandonment of lawless sanctuary policies by local and state Democrats in exchange for “ICE reform” from the feds, meaning drastically reduced street operations — targeted actions for specific and compelling reasons would remain on the table — and increased training for new recruits. It is similar to what border czar Tom Homan recently proposed in Minnesota. In short, it calls Frey et al.’s bluff. They like to say they’re willing to work with the feds on the criminal side of immigration enforcement, because the polling is unambiguous on this point, but their actual policies prove otherwise. That’s why they either simply lie about their stance or mix in weasel words amid tough-sounding talk, building in excuses to continue rebuffing ICE detainer requests.
Trump can use his bully pulpit to cut through this pro-illegal-immigrant obfuscation and avoidance by making his offer in a splashy and headline-grabbing setting. Frame it as a major compromise, even though it’s really just asking Democrats to retreat from their dangerous anti-cooperation posture. If Trump were to make the following argument, especially wrapped in the language of bipartisanship and conciliation, which admittedly don’t always come naturally to him, Democrats could find themselves in a bind:
“The American people elected me to shut down unlawful immigration at the southern border, and we have gotten that done. Critics said it couldn’t be done, and we’ve proven them wrong. Homicides and fatal drug poisonings have plummeted ever since we finally regained control over the mess we inherited. Voters also asked us to remove large numbers of illegal immigrants from the country. We are in the process of carrying out their will on that, too, although it is very difficult work. Thanks to the tireless efforts of federal law enforcement, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants with criminal records in the United States have been removed from our country. Nearly 2 million illegal immigrants have also voluntarily left the country since I took office, incentivized by our policies. This is important progress, but there is much more work to do. ICE street operations against illegal immigrant felons are dangerous. They are made far more dangerous by radical mobs chasing around federal officers and attempting to disrupt their work. It is in America’s public safety and national security interests to continue to get these targets off of our streets, while also minimizing the number of public incidents that have understandably made many of our citizens uncomfortable. This isn’t comfortable work.
“Which is why I’m making a good-faith offer to Democrats who run cities and states that have been intentionally obstructing immigration enforcement. It’s simple and straightforward: If you instruct your local and state police to hand over illegal immigrants who’ve already been detained or incarcerated to our officers inside courthouses, jails, and prisons, my administration will commit to dramatically reducing ICE operations in the streets. ICE will pull back because there will be far less reason for them to be in those streets. Criminal handoffs from one law enforcement agency to another in a controlled and orderly setting are far preferable to sending our brave men and women into harm’s way to track these people down in public. A significant reduction in street operations will also allow for longer and more thorough training processes for new recruits, who’ve been brought on due to the scope and scale of the problem we were left by the previous administration’s open border and anti-enforcement recklessness. I repeat: If Democrats soften their “sanctuary” policies that protect and help harbor even convicted violent criminal illegal immigrants, we will soften our street enforcement operations and enhance training for new officers. It’s a reasonable compromise. All Democrats have to say is ‘yes.’”
ARRESTS OF VIOLENT FELONS DEMONSTRATE ICE’S VALUABLE WORK IN MINNESOTA
That sounds like a reasonable place to land because it is a reasonable place to land. Sanctuary policies are profoundly unreasonable. They’re also indefensible to the vast majority of voters across the country, especially when the case is presented in simple and commonsense terms. If some Democrats are looking for an off-ramp and truly want to end or greatly scale back ugly, public confrontations and conflicts, they can agree to these terms.
If others continue to choose to prioritize “resistance” over sound policy and public safety, Trump and team should at least make that decision more politically painful and embarrassing. Make a big show of the “offer.” Then force the resistance crowd to explain why they won’t take “yes” for an answer, especially amid their loud complaints about “invasions,” “occupations,” “chaos,” and the like. Their arguments are weak. Shine a spotlight on them.
Guy Benson is a senior columnist for the Washington Examiner.