Trump Administration Asks Judge to Reject Minnesota’s Call to Block ICE Surge
This story raises questions about governance, accountability, and American values.
The coverage treats Minnesota’s lawsuit like a necessary check on a “surge,” as if more enforcement is automatically suspicious. But when Washington sends agents, it is usually because local leaders have decided immigration law is someone else’s problem and voters are left to live with the consequences. What gets missed is the basic question: who controls the border and enforces federal statutes.
New Republican Times Editorial Board
Lawyers for the state and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have sued over the deployment of some 3,000 federal agents to Minnesota.
Original source:
Read at The New York TimesHow We See It
New Republican Times Editorial Board
The coverage treats Minnesota’s lawsuit like a necessary check on a “surge,” as if more enforcement is automatically suspicious. But when Washington sends agents, it is usually because local leaders have decided immigration law is someone else’s problem and voters are left to live with the consequences.
What gets missed is the basic question: who controls the border and enforces federal statutes. States and cities can set policing priorities, but they cannot nullify federal authority simply because it is politically inconvenient. If the deployment is lawful, judges should not become managers of day to day enforcement.
This is about rule of law, public trust, and national sovereignty. Communities deserve predictable enforcement and institutional clarity. If officials want fewer ICE actions, the honest path is legislative change, not courtroom obstruction.
Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.