Minnesota AG says 'destructive' immigration raids are eroding trust in government

Key Concepts

• Immigration Enforcement: The process by which federal agencies, such as ICE, enforce immigration laws.
• Detainer: A request from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to a local law enforcement agency to hold an individual for an additional period (typically 48 hours) after their scheduled release, to allow ICE to take them into federal custody.
• Sanctuary City/State: A term used to describe jurisdictions that have policies limiting their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies. The Attorney General explicitly denies Minnesota is one.
• Parallel Probe: An independent investigation initiated by one authority (e.g., a state) into an incident that is also being investigated by another authority (e.g., the federal government), often due to concerns about the primary investigation's fairness or transparency.
• Depleted Public Resources: The idea that federal actions are consuming state or local funds and personnel that could otherwise be used for state-specific priorities.
• Political Targeting: The accusation that federal actions are motivated by political retribution or specific political agendas rather than objective enforcement needs.

---

Federal Immigration Enforcement Actions and Minnesota's Stance

The Attorney General (AG) discussed recent developments concerning federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota, expressing significant concerns about the federal government's approach and its impact on the state.

Judge's Decision on Immigration Surge The AG began by addressing a judge's decision to decline a ruling, which effectively grants federal agents "a little bit more time" for operations. The AG views this as concerning, stating that previous federal actions have been "destructive," have "depleted public resources," and have been a "failure." He expressed disappointment, emphasizing that "time is of the essence" and that the current situation is "doing so much damage," necessitating relief.

Department of Justice Sending Additional Prosecutors The AG reacted to news from Border Patrol that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is sending additional prosecutors to Minnesota to process immigration cases. He stated he was "not shocked," attributing this move to President Trump "targeting our state." The AG argued that Minnesota is not among the states with the highest immigration rates in America, noting that "many other states have dramatically higher rates of immigration." He suggested that this "unwarranted attention" stems from President Trump's belief that he "won Minnesota three times but he lost it," and that he is "upset about that," having "repeated at numerous times." The AG predicted that this pattern of federal action would "continue as he operates the way he is operating, or until a court tells him he can no longer do it."

Clarifying Minnesota's Position on Sanctuary Policies Addressing the notion that federal actions are a response to "sanctuary policies" or the non-honoring of detainers, the AG firmly clarified Minnesota's position. He stated that Minnesota "complies with the law" and explicitly denied that "Minnesota is not a sanctuary city" or a "sanctuary state," asserting, "We have never claimed to be a sanctuary city. We have never claimed to be a sanctuary state." He explained that the state's policy is to "devote all of our resources to what matters" for the state. While Minnesota "do[es] not interfere" with the federal government's responsibilities, it "do[es] not devote state resources to federal projects like immigration enforcement." The AG called the idea of Minnesota being a "sanctuary state" a "misnomer," emphasizing that "voters and taxpayers of our state expects that the resources of the state will be devoted for the purposes of our state." He concluded by stating, "The federal government is paid to do what they do. We don't interfere with them doing it. But we do not do their job for them."

Investigation into the Shooting of Renee Goode The AG also discussed the ongoing investigation into the shooting and killing of Renee Goode by an ICE agent, highlighting that Minnesota officials have been "shut out of the investigation." In response, his office has launched a "parallel probe." Regarding news that the officer was injured, the AG expressed skepticism, questioning how such a claim could be made "without producing a medical record to prove it," finding it "curious." He criticized the federal government for excluding its own "civil rights department" – which he described as having the most expertise in such cases – from the investigation, while simultaneously "stopping the state from doing the work that we are supposed to do." The AG stated he would not "take the word of those people" or "some nameless, faceless bureaucrat," but rather the "word of a trained medical professional who has made a diagnosis in a medical record." He further criticized the federal government's selective release of information, noting they "like to send out little pieces of information that they believe benefits them like the video that is reported to be from Jonathan Ross and now this nonmedical personnel giving testimony or a public statement about medical conditions," while denying the state access to a "fair, free, open investigation."

---

Conclusion

The Minnesota Attorney General conveyed a strong message of concern and opposition regarding the federal government's immigration enforcement activities in Minnesota. He characterized these actions as politically motivated, detrimental to state resources, and lacking transparency. While firmly denying Minnesota is a "sanctuary state," he reiterated the state's commitment to prioritizing its own resources and not performing federal immigration enforcement duties. Furthermore, he condemned the federal government's obstruction of the state's parallel investigation into the Renee Goode shooting, demanding a fair, open, and evidence-based inquiry. The overarching theme is a call for accountability, transparency, and a clear division of responsibilities between state and federal authorities, particularly in the face of perceived political targeting and operational overreach.