Wake Up, America: Minneapolis and the Escalation We Pretended Wouldn’t Come

The death of Renée Nicole Good in Minneapolis is tragic. A life ended suddenly and violently, and no decent person should be indifferent to that. Almost immediately, the country split into familiar camps, each racing to advance a narrative before the facts had settled. As usual, nothing was learned, and tensions only rose.

Whatever the final legal findings say, one thing is already clear: this event did not occur in isolation. It fits a pattern that has been building for years. We can keep pretending these are isolated incidents, or we can face what the evidence is telling us. The divide over immigration enforcement is producing predictable—and preventable—tragedies.

The Data Tells a Story

Immigration enforcement happens in two fundamentally different ways. In cooperative jurisdictions, when local police arrest someone for an unrelated crime, ICE can lodge a detainer—a request to hold that person briefly so ICE can take custody when local charges are resolved. The transfer happens inside a jail, controlled and administrative. In non-cooperative sanctuary jurisdictions, local authorities refuse these detainers. This forces ICE to locate and arrest people in the community—at homes, workplaces, during traffic stops, and on streets. One method happens behind secure walls. The other happens in public—where crowds form, tensions escalate, and split-second decisions can turn deadly.

Through October 2025, ICE made more than 217,000 arrests in the country’s interior (Prison Policy Initiative analysis of ICE data). In cooperative states that honor detainers, most arrests, roughly 70% on average, occur through controlled transfers inside jails. Tennessee handles about 75 percent this way. In  Texas and Florida, roughly 65 percent. These are administrative handovers in secure facilities—no crowds, no street confrontations, no high-speed chases.

In sanctuary jurisdictions, the opposite is true. On average, about 30%  percent of arrests come from jails, and in some cases, fewer than 10 percent. Massachusetts reports that only 7 percent of ICE arrests are made through jail transfers. New York and Oregon report roughly 9 to 11 percent and California 25%. The rest occur in communities—streets, worksites, homes, and neighborhoods. Sanctuary policies do not stop enforcement. They force it into the most dangerous settings.

Minnesota is not a statewide sanctuary jurisdiction like California or Oregon. Non-cooperation with ICE detainers and transfers is largely the result of local policies in specific cities and counties, concentrated mainly in the Minneapolis–St. Paul metro area. Many rural counties continue to cooperate with ICE, and some maintain formal enforcement agreements, demonstrating that safer, custodial enforcement methods are both possible and already in use in the state.

The risk is now increasing. Since September 2025, federal agents have fired their weapons during vehicle-related enforcement operations at least 11 times, according to The New York Times. The incidents occurred in Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Portland, Maryland, and Phoenix — an immigrant was shot last evening while resisting arrest by ICE in Minneapolis. At least nine of the eleven occurred in sanctuary or limited-cooperation jurisdictions—precisely where enforcement has been pushed out of jails and into streets and traffic stops.

When enforcement occurs during traffic stops and street-level encounters, risk escalates quickly. Vehicles may be used—or perceived—as weapons. Decisions must be made in seconds. Add instant, context-free video and partisan storytelling, and the danger multiplies. This pattern is not a coincidence. It reflects the predictable consequences of how federal law enforcement is being forced to operate.  Disrupting federal law enforcement does not stop enforcement—it only forces it into more dangerous forms. The result is more chaos, more confrontation, and more lives at risk—including the lives of the very immigrants these actions claim to protect.

Method, Not Volume

President Barack Obama conducted interior immigration enforcement at similar or higher levels than other recent administrations. Enforcement under Obama relied far more on cooperation and jail transfers than on street-level arrests. There was far less organized resistance and little public confrontation, because enforcement occurred primarily through custodial transfers rather than street arrests. The difference wasn't the volume of enforcement—it was the method and the level of organized resistance.

Why Escalation Continues

Here is what makes this crisis so dangerous. ICE is enforcing federal law. The federal government cannot—and will not—stop enforcing the law in jurisdictions that disagree with it. To do so would be to surrender federal authority itself, not just on immigration but on any issue where local resistance emerges. This is not about any particular administration. It is about whether federal law means anything at all. To acquiesce is to abandon the rule of law.

Many protesters believe they are doing valuable moral work by disrupting enforcement operations. They see themselves as the civil rights activists of our time. But every act of obstruction forces the federal government to prove that it can still enforce the law. The government escalates not out of cruelty, but because backing down would invite challenges everywhere. That dynamic locks both sides into an escalation spiral. Neither believes it can step back first.

What Needs to Happen Now

If we genuinely care about citizens, law enforcement officers, and immigrants, we must stop pretending this is a simple contest between good and evil.

What is needed now is an immediate de-escalation agreement with both sides acting simultaneously—not next month, not after more studies, now. Sanctuary jurisdictions must honor ICE detainers for individuals already in custody, shifting enforcement back to controlled jail transfers. In return, federal enforcement must commit publicly and unambiguously to strict prioritization: criminal convictions, serious pending charges, gang members, documented public safety threats, and final deportation orders. No more. Both sides act. Both sides get accountability. Lives get saved.

At the same time, political leaders at every level should discourage obstruction and escalation. Local officials should make clear that interference with lawful law enforcement operations is unacceptable. Federal officials should commit to using proportional tactics that prioritize safety and avoid unnecessary confrontations in the streets.

This approach shifts enforcement back to controlled custodial settings—the model already used in cooperative states. Current data shows this is feasible: roughly a quarter of ICE detainees have criminal convictions, and another quarter face pending charges. Prioritizing these cases through jail transfers already works in much of the country.

Minneapolis as a Warning

Minneapolis should not be treated as a one-off tragedy or a political weapon. It should be understood as a warning. If we continue to choose outrage and obstruction over responsibility and reform, escalation will continue. More lives will be lost—civilians, immigrants, and officers alike.

A workable model already exists. Cooperative states prove it works. The data shows it reduces dangerous confrontations. We do not need louder voices. We need more people willing to act like citizens in collaboration with those they may not agree with to find solutions that will save lives and prevent harm and destruction.

A Simple Ask

If you agree that endless escalation helps no one, do something constructive. At minimum share this post on your social media and email. We have to begin a conversation. That does not happen if you read this and write it off because you disagree with it or do not like the tone of my blog site. Comment and engage.  

We are calling for mutual de-escalation: custodial cooperation in exchange for prioritized, safer enforcement. You do not have to agree with every detail. You only need to believe the current path is unsustainable and that compromise is better than chaos.

Editor’s Note

For readers new to my writing, this post may sound firm, but it is not sudden. The views expressed here reflect more than a decade of writing, research, and reflection on immigration, law, and moral responsibility. I have consistently tried to hold together two ideas our politics insists on pulling apart: compassion for people and respect for the rule of law. The essays listed below trace that work from early warnings to recent policy proposals. 

The Push and Pull to Get to the Border (2014) – Early warnings on incentives driving surges.
They Must Go Home to Central America (2014) – Humane repatriation amid crisis.
Balancing Borders and Brotherhood (2014) – The core tension.
Brotherhood and Borders (2017) – Deeper moral grounding.
Immigration Reform Part 1: Necessary and Inevitable (2025) – Why reform can no longer be avoided and must begin with restoring enforcement credibility.
Immigration Reform Part 2: Why We Keep Failing – How political incentives, false compassion, and enforcement breakdowns derail every reform effort.
Immigration Reform Part 3: Strategic Imperatives – The core principles required for a workable, humane, and durable immigration system.
Immigration Reform Part 4: From Strategy to Policy – Translating principles into concrete enforcement, legal status, and system reforms.
An Open Letter on the Dignity Act of 2025 – A measured critique of the Act’s intentions, risks, and unintended consequences.

------

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com

DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com. To see archived blog posts since 2014, visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.

DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

After Maduro: The Test of U.S. Power, Restraint, and Competence

This is Part III of a three-part series examining the Trump Administration's Venezuela strategy. Part I established why the Western Hemisphere became a U.S. national security priority. Part II explained how that strategy translated into Operation Southern Spear and the military force posture now in the Caribbean.

In the early hours of January 3, 2026, the United States conducted military strikes across Venezuela and captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, transporting them to the USS Iwo Jima before transfer to face narcoterrorism charges in the Southern District of New York. Operation Absolute Resolve succeeded with no U.S. casualties or equipment losses.

For readers of this series, the question was never whether this would happen—it was when, and what would follow.

In a press conference today, President Trump provided the answer. Asked who would govern Venezuela, he stated simply: "We are going to run it." He clarified that the United States has no intention of executing this operation only to hand authority immediately to officials who may lack capacity or support. The U.S. will establish stability, begin reconstructing the oil industry, and only then identify Venezuelan leadership capable of assuming power.

This represents direct U.S. interim administration—not immediate transfer to Venezuelan opposition figures. It is a significant departure from recent interventions and raises profound questions about execution, timeline, and exit strategy.

From Strategy to Enforcement: What the U.S. Is Doing in the Caribbean

This is Part II of a three-part series examining the Trump Administration's Venezuela strategy. Part I established why the Western Hemisphere became a U.S. national security priority.  Part III examines the removal of Nicolas Maduro and its implications for the future of Venezuela.

The current U.S. military presence in the Caribbean cannot be understood in isolation. What some observers perceive as a sudden escalation is, in fact, the operational expression of a strategic shift articulated years ago and formalized in the 2025 National Security Strategy. 

From Policy to Force Posture

Operation Southern Spear is the most visible manifestation of this change. Announced shortly after President Trump’s January 2025 inauguration, Southern Spear is led by U.S. Southern Command and the Navy’s Fourth Fleet. While it builds on earlier counter-drug and maritime security efforts, including experimentation with manned and unmanned systems, it has undergone a significant expansion in scope, persistence, and enforcement authority over the past six months.

What the Force Is—and Is Not

The U.S. has now assembled a substantial joint force under Joint Task Force Southern Spear: a carrier strike group, an amphibious ready group with a Marine Expeditionary Unit embarked, supporting surface combatants, special operations elements, and forward-deployed airpower operating from Puerto Rico and regional bases.

This is not an invasion force. It is a control force—designed to deny freedom of movement, disrupt logistics, impose costs, and shape outcomes without occupying territory.

America's Neighborhood: Why the Western Hemisphere Is Now a U.S. National Security Priority

This is Part I of a three-part series examining the Trump Administration's Venezuela strategy. Part II explains how that strategy translated into Operation Southern Spear and the military force posture now in the Caribbean. Part III describes the issues of power transition following the removal of Nicolas Maduro from power.

For decades, U.S. national security strategy treated the Western Hemisphere as largely settled terrain. Serious threats were assumed to lie elsewhere—in Europe, the Middle East, or Asia. Problems closer to home were treated as diplomatic, economic, or law-enforcement matters rather than core security concerns.

That assumption no longer holds.

The Trump Administration's 2025 National Security Strategy marks a clear reprioritization. The Western Hemisphere is now described as America's near strategic environment—a region where instability directly affects U.S. security, public health, and geopolitical influence. Migration, drug trafficking, transnational crime, and foreign state penetration are no longer treated as secondary issues. They are treated as strategic threats.

Trump Accounts: What Families Need to Know Before 2026

The creation of Trump Accounts could be one of the most significant changes to American family finances in a generation. Starting in 2026, every parent and guardian of a child under 18 will be able to open a federally approved, tax-advantaged investment account designed to provide lifelong financial security for their child.

The idea is simple but revolutionary: a universal savings account for children, in some cases partly funded by public or charitable donations, invested exclusively in low-cost U.S. stock market index funds, and kept locked until adulthood. Parents cannot use these accounts for toys, vacations, or emergencies. These accounts aim to create a solid foundation for long-term financial stability and retirement security.

Since these accounts will be activated during the 2025 tax filing cycle, families should familiarize themselves with the rules now, well before the first IRS forms are available in mid-2026.

This guide explains what Trump Accounts are, how they differ from 529 plans and custodial accounts, what families will need to do in 2026, and—crucially—why these accounts can be confidently used as a permanent part of the tax code.

Courts in the Crossfire: How Injunctions and Venue Games Are Damaging the Judiciary

On October 27, 2025, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked Executive Order 14248, which required proof of citizenship for voter registration on federal forms. The executive order goal was straightforward: ensure that only citizens vote, as mandated by federal law. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, appointed by President Bill Clinton, ruled that the President “lacks authority” to alter election procedures under the Elections Clause.

That ruling conflates two very different constitutional areas. The Elections Clause that she relies on governs how elections are conducted—such as polling hours and ballots—not who is eligible to vote. Citizenship is a legal qualification, and the President’s duty under the Take Care Clause is to enforce those laws faithfully. Cases like Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council (2013) confirm that federal authorities can require proof of eligibility. Under the Youngstown framework, a 1952 Supreme Court test that defines the limits of presidential power, this order clearly falls within the category in which the President acts with congressional approval. The National Voter Registration Act allows the Election Assistance Commission to require information “necessary” to determine eligibility. This isn’t executive overreach; it’s the proper execution of the law. 

Sober Awakening: Faith's Quiet Revolution

 A Wedding Without Wine

Last month, I attended the wedding of a young couple, only twenty-two years old. It was one of the most touching ceremonies I’ve ever seen: love, faith, and reverence filled the hall. Every detail, from the prayers to the communion hymns, moved those in attendance.

At the reception, no alcohol was served—but the dance floor was packed. Laughter, rhythm, and joy filled the night. These were twenty- and thirty-somethings—faithful, confident, and completely comfortable in their sobriety. It wasn’t deprivation; it was joy rooted in faith, the kind that sees no need to dull the senses or cloud the moment.

That evening was symbolic of a quiet revolution that is underway. After generations of associating alcohol with adulthood and success, America is shifting away from that view. Gallup reports that only about 54% of adults now drink, down from two-thirds just a few years ago. This isn’t due to policy—it’s personal. A change of heart, and young people are leading the change.