What Is ICE Doing and Why Are People Getting Killed?
What Sanctuary Actually Means
I wrote about this in detail back in September (”Unboxing Sanctuary States and Cities“), but let me restate the core point: a sanctuary state or city is one where local law enforcement chooses not to involve themselves in enforcing federal immigration laws.
This is not protest. This is not defiance. This is federalism.
Under the Constitution, immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. Local police cannot be conscripted into enforcing federal law—the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine forbids it. Sanctuary policies are about ensuring local police can focus on public safety without becoming de facto immigration officers, which undermines community trust and makes everyone less safe.
Federal agents—including ICE—retain full authority to enforce immigration law everywhere in the United States. Sanctuary policies don’t change that. They simply mean local cops aren’t doing ICE’s job for them.
What’s Happening Now
Some political groups—including Democratic governors, mayors, and representatives—are turning immigration enforcement into a civil disobedience protest. They are encouraging citizens to physically intervene and otherwise interfere when ICE conducts arrests.
That encouragement can be direct or implied. Remember after the 2020 election, Trump was accused of instigating people to riot on January 6th without explicitly saying “go riot.” Everyone understood what he was doing. The same standard applies here. When politicians call ICE agents “Nazis,” tell them to “get the f**k out,” and celebrate “ICE Watch” groups without ever telling people to stay away from active arrests—they know exactly what they’re encouraging. You don’t get to wind people up and then claim innocence when they do what you’ve been implying they should do.
This is dangerous. And it is getting people killed.
If someone just robbed a bank and you decided they shouldn’t be arrested, and you inserted yourself at the scene and interfered with the police, you would not be surprised if you got shot. The same logic applies here.
And let’s be clear: these people getting hurt are not just innocently in the neighborhood. Not all of them, but many are following ICE agents. They are intimidating them. They are getting in their way. And it’s not ending well for some of them—or others that are in some way connected to their activities.
This isn’t a moral crusade. It’s interfering with federal law enforcement. And note: the local police aren’t doing what these protesters are doing. The local police are staying out of it—they’re only there for crowd control and to protect the federal agents. That’s sanctuary policy in action. What these protesters are doing is something else entirely.
If you insert yourself into the middle of a lawful arrest, you are putting your life at risk. Law enforcement officers conducting arrests operate under established use-of-force protocols. They don’t know who you are. They don’t know your intentions. They are trained to neutralize threats.
There is such a thing as the fog of war. When you insert yourself into an enforcement action, agents have split seconds to act. They don’t have time to figure out if you’re a concerned citizen, a journalist, or someone about to run them over with a car. They react. And reactions in high-stress situations are not always perfect. The way to stay safe is to stay out of the war zone. If you choose to enter it, you are accepting the risk that comes with it.
Civil disobedience has a long and honorable history in America. But civil disobedience means accepting legal consequences for principled lawbreaking—not physically obstructing armed federal agents in the middle of enforcement actions.
The Responsibility of Political Leaders
The elected officials and political groups encouraging this interference are creating the situation where people who are not the subject of arrests are getting killed.
Trump won the election and this is his approach to immigration control—and he was largely elected to do just that. The voters spoke. This is what they asked for.
Everyone was mad at Trump for interfering with the lawful transition after his first term. Now the Democrats and some other political groups are doing the same thing—refusing to accept the results of an election and interfering with lawful federal action.
So wait your turn. Try to get your guy elected next time if you don’t like this. That’s how democracy works.
Some will argue that immigration enforcement is too urgent to wait—that families are being torn apart right now. I understand that impulse. But urgency doesn’t justify tactics that get people killed. If your response to a policy you oppose is to encourage civilians to physically confront armed federal agents, you are not solving the problem. You are adding bodies to it.
Don’t turn it into political theater. Don’t endanger the public by making them think they are doing something brave or noble by interfering with ICE. They’re not being brave and noble. They’re being used—and some of them are dying for it.
The politicians and political groups urging these confrontations are putting protesters’ lives in danger. They are conflating two entirely separate things:
Sanctuary policies: lawful, constitutional decisions by states and cities about how to allocate their own law enforcement resources.
Obstruction of federal enforcement: interfering with lawful federal arrests, which is both illegal and physically dangerous.
You can support sanctuary policies—as I do—while recognizing that physically blocking ICE agents is not sanctuary policy. It’s something else entirely. And the people encouraging it bear responsibility when it ends in tragedy.
Part of the problem is that media coverage often conflates these two things, treating obstruction as an extension of sanctuary policy rather than a dangerous departure from it. It’s not. Sanctuary means staying out of federal enforcement. Obstruction means jumping into the middle of it.
And let’s be honest about the media’s role here: they have every incentive to aggravate this situation. Conflict sells toothpaste. The more dramatic the confrontation, the more eyeballs on screens, the more advertising revenue. Flooding the airwaves with footage of ICE standoffs isn’t public service—it’s programming. And when news cameras show up, it encourages more people to show up. People perform for cameras. They escalate for cameras. The presence of media at these confrontations isn’t neutral observation—it’s fuel.
Notice how the coverage works: the news media wants you to know that Renee Good was a mother of three, a poet, an artist. This is all designed to generate sympathy and imply that she was the victim of bad ICE people. But none of that information has anything to do with what happened. Why didn’t they mention she likes pizza? Because that wouldn’t serve the narrative. The relevant facts are what she was doing at the scene of an enforcement action—not her hobbies or how many children she had. The framing is manipulation, not journalism.
The Minneapolis Shooting: January 7, 2026
The point here is not to try the case but to give some facts and views of what happened.
On the morning of January 7, 2026, ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen and mother of three, in a residential neighborhood in south Minneapolis.
The Department of Homeland Security deployed more than 2,000 officers to the Minneapolis area as part of what it called its “largest immigration enforcement operation ever.” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem stated that Good had been “stalking and impeding” ICE agents throughout the day before the shooting. According to Noem, Good blocked federal officers with her vehicle and refused to exit when ordered. Noem said Good then “weaponized her vehicle,” and the ICE officer—fearing for his life—fired in self-defense.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, after viewing video of the incident, called the DHS account “garbage” and “bulls**t,” describing it as “an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying.”
The same ICE agent, Jonathan Ross, was injured in June 2025 when a suspect fleeing arrest dragged him 50 yards with a vehicle, resulting in 33 stitches. DHS officials claim attacks on ICE agents have increased dramatically—by as much as 1,000% over the past year—though independent analyses suggest that figure is inflated by broadened definitions of “assault.”
Good’s death is at least the fifth fatality linked to immigration enforcement operations since the crackdown began in mid-2025. The Trace has documented more than a dozen shootings by immigration agents, with at least four people killed and five others injured. Two more people were shot in Portland, Oregon, the day after the Minneapolis incident, in what DHS again described as a “weaponized vehicle” situation.
Good is not the only U.S. citizen caught in these confrontations. In October 2025, Marimar Martinez was shot in Chicago after allegedly blocking an agent’s vehicle. These aren’t undocumented immigrants being deported—these are Americans getting killed in standoffs that never should have happened.
One detail from the Minneapolis shooting is worth noting: Good’s wife, who was present and filming, reportedly said “I made her come down here.” This isn’t about their relationship—it’s about how social pressure draws people into dangerous situations they might not otherwise choose. When political leaders and community groups encourage “ICE Watch” activities, they create an environment where people feel obligated to show up, to participate, to not let their community down. That social pressure puts people in harm’s way. It makes the politicians encouraging this behavior even more culpable.
Whatever the disputed details of the shooting itself, one thing is clear: Renee Good was not some innocent person who happened to be driving by at that moment. She was there deliberately. Her car was positioned sideways, blocking the street. Her wife was outside filming. They had been there for minutes before the confrontation. The “mother of three on her way home” narrative the media is pushing doesn’t match the observable facts.
The facts of what happened in Minneapolis are disputed. The underlying dynamic is not: civilians are inserting themselves into federal enforcement actions, and people are dying.
None of this excuses reckless use of force by federal agents. DHS should ensure clear rules of engagement and independent review of every shooting. But the way to get that accountability is through politics and oversight—not by encouraging civilians to confront armed officers in the street.
This can be investigated and tried in the courts. It’s not going to serve justice to try it on the nightly news. The politicians are all showing up, acting concerned, to get their air time as part of their next election. In some cases, those very people that are encouraging this chaos.
The Bottom Line
These people are getting killed because citizens who are not part of law enforcement are inserting themselves into the middle of immigration enforcement.
That’s not sanctuary. That’s not civil disobedience. That’s getting between armed officers and their targets during active arrests.
This is not the same thing as holding a peaceful protest. You want to march with signs that say “We Don’t Want Kings” or “Abolish ICE”? That’s your right. That’s democracy. But following federal agents through neighborhoods, blocking their vehicles, and interfering with arrests is not peaceful protest. It’s obstruction—and it’s getting people killed.
You want to protest? Do it at a federal building. Do it at the Capitol. Do it anywhere that isn’t an active enforcement action where armed officers are trying to take someone into custody.
The politicians encouraging this need to stop. They are endangering the public for the purpose of political theater.
And here’s what I’m not hearing from any of these politicians or political groups: “The place for protest is not in the middle of an arrest.” Not one of them is telling their supporters to stay away from active enforcement operations. Not one is saying “protest at the federal building, not at the scene of an arrest.” They’re letting people believe that inserting themselves into dangerous situations is noble resistance—and then acting shocked when someone gets shot.
Illegal entry is a federal crime. You can argue about whether that should be the case, but it is. ICE agents are searching for and arresting criminals under federal law. That’s not the time or place for civilians to show up and get in the way.
And here’s the political reality the Democrats don’t seem to grasp: this isn’t helping them get back into office. It’s doing the opposite. Every time voters see footage of civilians blocking ICE vehicles and confrontations turning violent, they’re not thinking “brave resistance.” They’re thinking “these people will never secure the border.” Democrats are reinforcing the exact perception that cost them the last election—that they can’t or won’t deal with immigration. If you want to win the next one, this is not the way.
I’ve written before about how sour grapes is not a moral high ground. This is more of the same. You lost the election. The voters chose a different approach to immigration. Turning enforcement into street theater doesn’t change that—it just makes you look like you’d rather create chaos than accept the result and do the hard work of winning the next time. Sounds a lot like the January 6th riots, which those same people rail against.
See also:
“Unboxing Sanctuary States and Cities“ — Cranky Old Guy, Sep 13, 2025
“Sour Grapes Is Not a Moral High Ground“ — Cranky Old Guy, Nov 30, 2025