ICE Director: ‘There’s No Loss of Arrestable Aliens in Minneapolis’ | Carl Higbie FRONTLINE
A senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official pushed back forcefully against claims that federal immigration enforcement has slowed or weakened in Minneapolis, stating that there is “no loss of arrestable aliens” in the city despite its status as a sanctuary-style jurisdiction. The remarks, made during an interview on Carl Higbie FRONTLINE, reignited debate over immigration enforcement, local cooperation, and public safety in major U.S. cities.
The ICE director’s comments come amid ongoing criticism from law enforcement advocates who argue that sanctuary policies limit cooperation between federal agents and local authorities, allowing criminal illegal aliens to evade arrest. Minneapolis, which restricts how much local police can assist federal immigration enforcement, has frequently been cited as an example in the national immigration debate.
According to the ICE official, however, the narrative that sanctuary policies have crippled enforcement is misleading. “There’s no loss of arrestable aliens in Minneapolis,” he said, emphasizing that ICE continues to identify, locate, and arrest individuals who are subject to removal under federal law. He argued that while cooperation from local governments can make enforcement more efficient, ICE has adapted its operations to ensure arrests still occur.
The director explained that ICE relies on a combination of investigative work, surveillance, federal databases, and interagency coordination that does not depend entirely on local police participation. “We’re still doing the job,” he said. “The idea that criminals just disappear because of sanctuary policies is not accurate.”
Host Carl Higbie challenged the official on the real-world risks ICE agents face when operating without local support. Higbie argued that when local law enforcement refuses to honor detainers or share information, ICE officers are forced to make arrests in neighborhoods, workplaces, or public spaces—situations that can be more dangerous for agents and civilians alike.
The ICE director acknowledged those concerns, admitting that lack of cooperation can increase operational risks. “It’s always safer to take custody of someone in a controlled environment, like a jail,” he said. “When we don’t have that option, it does create additional challenges.” Still, he maintained that enforcement outcomes in cities like Minneapolis remain strong.
Critics were quick to respond. Immigration hawks argue that arrest numbers alone do not tell the full story. They contend that sanctuary policies delay removals, increase costs for taxpayers, and undermine deterrence by signaling that local governments are unwilling to assist federal authorities. Some also argue that repeat offenders are more likely to be released back into communities when detainers are ignored.
On the other side, immigrant advocacy groups say the ICE director’s comments confirm their long-held position that sanctuary policies do not obstruct federal law enforcement. They argue such policies are designed to encourage trust between immigrant communities and local police, making residents more willing to report crimes without fear of deportation.
The exchange highlights a deeper disagreement over how immigration law should be enforced in the United States. While ICE insists it can operate effectively even in uncooperative jurisdictions, many lawmakers argue that the system would be safer, cheaper, and more transparent with full local-federal collaboration.
As immigration remains a defining political issue heading into future elections, statements like these are likely to fuel continued debate. Whether Minneapolis represents proof that sanctuary policies do little harm—or evidence of a system working harder than it should—depends largely on where one stands in the broader immigration fight.
Johnson Pushes Back on ‘War Powers’ Vote Amid Iran Strikes
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on Monday that passing a war powers resolution would strip President Trump of his authority to continue military operations in Iran, warning that such a move would present a “frightening prospect.”
Representatives Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) plan to push for a vote on a war powers resolution this week, which would require Congressional authorization before Trump can use military force against Iran again. They argue that the operations in Iran put U.S. troops at risk and are not representative of an “America First” agenda.
According to a source who spoke to The Hill, the resolution is expected to be brought to the floor on Thursday.
“I think the idea that we would move a War Powers Act vote right now, I mean, it will be forced to the floor, but the idea that we would take the ability of our commander in chief, the president, take his authority away right now to finish this job, is a frightening prospect to me,” Johnson told reporters after a briefing on the operation.
“It’s dangerous, and I am certainly hopeful, and I believe we do have the votes to put it down. That’s going to be a good thing for the country and our security and stability,” he added.
The U.S. and Israel conducted joint military strikes against Iran on Saturday after weeks of threats from Trump, who had called for regime change in Tehran. Johnson wrote on the social platform X that Congress’s bipartisan “Gang of Eight” was “briefed in detail earlier this week that military action may become necessary to protect American troops and American citizens in Iran.”
On Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the Iranian military and regime were racing to achieve “immunity” for its ongoing nuclear weapons program, meaning the ability to develop enough ballistic missiles to shield itself and the program from destruction. That’s why Trump chose to act now, he added.
Trump told CNN on Monday morning that the “big wave” of the operation is yet to come. When he was asked how long the war will last, the president said, “I don’t want to see it go on too long. I always thought it would be four weeks. And we’re a little ahead of schedule.”
On Monday, Johnson told reporters he believes Trump “was acting well within his authority” as commander-in-chief to protect the country.
“It’s not a declaration of war. It’s not something that the president was required, because it’s defensive in nature and in design and in necessity, to come to Congress and get a vote first. And if they had briefed a larger group than the Gang of Eight, you know, there’s a real threat that that very sensitive intelligence that we had, you know, might have been leaked or something,” he said.
“So, this is why the commander in chief of our armed forces has the latitude that any commander in chief, any president always has, because they have a set of information that is sensitive, timely and urgent, and they have to be able to act upon it. They did that.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has urged lawmakers to support the war powers resolution, stating in a CNN interview on Monday that Trump needs to be constrained.
Presidents from both parties have taken action on behalf of the country in the past. Also, every president since the act was passed in the early 1970s has said they believe it unconstitutionally limits a president’s Article II authorities.
Trump Escalates Criticism of Ilhan Omar While Aboard Air Force One
What began earlier this month as a viral White House jab at Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has now turned into a broader campaign offensive, with President Donald Trump doubling down on his criticism of the Somali-born congresswoman and the Somali refugee community in the United States.
Omar said during an October appearance on The Dean Obeidallah Show that she was not worried about losing her U.S. citizenship or being sent back to Somalia, where she was born.
“I have no worry, I don’t know how they’d take away my citizenship and like deport me,” Omar said. “But I don’t even know why that’s such a scary threat. I’m not the 8-year-old who escaped war
anymore. I’m grown, my kids are grown. I could go live wherever I want.”
On Nov. 10, the White House posted on X a 2024 photo of Trump waving from a McDonald’s drive-thru window, replying to a clip in which Omar said she was unconcerned about being deported.
The photo — taken during a campaign stop in Pennsylvania — quickly circulated online and was widely interpreted as a taunting “good-bye” message aimed at the Minnesota lawmaker.
Now, the feud has reignited. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump referenced the allegation that Omar had entered the U.S. through a fraudulent marriage.
“She supposedly came into our country by marrying her brother,” he said. “If that’s true, she shouldn’t be a congresswoman, and we should throw her the hell out of the country.”
The president also broadened his remarks to criticize Somali immigration overall.
“Somalis have caused us a lot of trouble, and they cost us a lot of money,” Trump said. “What the hell are we paying Somalia for? We have Ilhan Omar who does nothing but complain about our Constitution and our country! We’re not taking their people anymore — in fact, we’re sending them back.”
Trump has often accused Omar of being “anti-American,” previously telling her and other progressive “Squad” members to “go back” to their “broken and crime-infested countries.” Omar responded earlier this month by calling Trump a “lying buffoon” and saying his story about Somalia’s president refusing to take her back was fabricated.
The White House has signaled that it will not walk back the president’s latest statements. A senior aide said Trump was “reminding voters that America’s generosity should never be repaid with contempt.”
Omar’s family fled Somalia’s civil war in 1991 and spent several years in a Kenyan refugee camp before settling in the United States. She was elected to Congress in 2018, becoming one of the first Muslim women and the first Somali-American to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The renewed confrontation underscores the political tension between Trump and radical members of the “Squad.” It comes amidst growing concerns about immigration policy and the vetting of immigrants in the aftermath of an Afghan refugee’s shooting of two National Guard members over the Thanksgiving holiday.
