As the debate continues to rage over ICE agent Jonathan Ross’ killing of Renee Good, serial liar, cosplayer and dog killer Kristi Noem has ordered an increased deployment of DHS agents to Minneapolis and Minnesota in a show of force. Minnesota is not amused, and the attorney general has sued to stop DHS, arguing that this federal invasion is unconstitutional.

The Tenth Amendment gives the State of Minnesota and its subdivisions, including the Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, inviolable sovereign authority to protect the health and wellbeing of all those who reside, work, or visit within their borders. The people of Minnesota are entitled to basic safety and dignity in their communities. They have the right to move about their daily lives confident that their constitutional rights and civil liberties will remain intact and will not be infringed. They have the right to go to work, take their children to school, and move through public and private spaces free from fear of violence against themselves or their loved ones by their federal government. They are entitled to access city services and use city facilities without being harassed by federal agents in parking lots. They expect that law enforcement, whether federal, state, or local, will follow the law, avoid creating dangerous and chaotic circumstances, and conduct itself in a manner that distinguishes officers from masked criminals. Indeed, being free from unlawful seizures, excessive force and retaliation are not a list of aspirations Minnesotans deserve; these are rights enshrined within state and federal laws.

All of this being obviously correct, so what?

When the federal government itself violates legal rights and civic norms on such a broad scale and public panic is high, state and city governments bear the costs— both tangible and intangible. Defendants’ agents’ reckless tactics endanger the public safety, health, and welfare of all Minnesotans. Additionally, Defendants’ agents’ inflammatory and unlawful policing tactics provoke the protests the federal government seeks to suppress.

The unlawful tactics used by Defendants’ agents have left members of Plaintiffs’ communities afraid to shop, go to work, attend school, access basic government services, or otherwise live their lives. They have also resulted in school closures across the Twin Cities due to safety concerns.

The unlawful tactics used by Defendants’ agents also undermine public trust in state and local law enforcement because individuals confuse Defendants with local police. Deteriorating public trust in local law enforcement has serious consequences: it suppresses the reporting and prosecution of crime, especially for immigrant populations. Defendants’ agents’ tactics also sap state and local resources when local law enforcement officers are called away from their important work to respond to avoidable incidents Defendants’ agents cause.

There being no shortage of videos coming out of the Twin Cities, it appears that some, if not most, stops are based on racial profiling, with black people, presumably of Somali ethnicity, being ordered to provide their identification to prove they aren’t illegal aliens. There is no reasonable articulable suspicion that they aren’t lawfully in the country other than their race and, perhaps, where they are found.

The MAGA faithful don’t see any problem with this. If a person is ordered to prove their right to be present, what’s the big deal about providing identification and answering some questions? The non-MAGA answer, of course, is that United States citizens are under no duty to “show their papers” in the United States, and demanding that they do so violates their constitutional rights. Citizens neither have a duty to possess proof of citizenship nor show it upon command.

There is nothing, per se, unconstitutional about ICE or other DHS agents from performing their job and enforcing immigration laws. What is at issue here is the tactics being used to do so, similar to the “stop & frisk” tactics used in New York City that were held to be unconstitutional. But does that mean that Noem’s deployment of more agents, atop the 2000 already deployed which substantially exceeds the number of police officers in the Twin Cities, is somehow unconstitutional?

Does it matter that the agents are being deployed not to perform their functions lawfully and constitutionally, but in violation of the constitutional rights of the citizens of the cities and state? Does it matter that the tactics being used by the agents have been blessed by the Trump administration and the agents are essentially acting without any lawful or constitutional constraints in the performance of their otherwise lawful function?

Defendants claim this unprecedented surge of immigration agents is necessary to fight fraud. In reality, the massive deployment of armed agents to Minnesota bears no connection to that stated objective and instead reflects an alarming escalation of the Trump Administration’s retaliatory actions towards the state.

Has the federal government “invaded” Minnesota as payback against a state run by Democrats to prove that the Trump administration has the capability of seizing control of the state and its citizens? Is this wrong, dangerous and unconstitutional?

*Tuesday Talk rules apply.