I had to rewrite this. I was finishing up a column Saturday, and it was a good one. The premise was modest: that a little more preparation, a little more thought, and a little less knee-jerk reaction might benefit the ongoing work of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
I was careful not to evaluate the immigration policies themselves. I wasn’t litigating borders or quotas or statutes. I was asking something far simpler: whether a brief pause, a count-to-ten moment of reflection, might lead to better outcomes. One-Mississippi, two-Mississippi.
I cited a couple of recent examples. A Minnesota resident in the middle of the legal asylum process, was apprehended along with his five-year-old son and flown to a Texas detention center the same day. I noted that instead of rushing to spin the optics afterward, perhaps they could have asked beforehand whether there were better options for a father and his kindergartner. I assumed that there must have been room for reflection, a chance to offer a sliver of humanity, especially to a five-year-old. The right answer may not always be obvious, but shouldn’t we at least ask the question?
I also wrote about ICE agents breaking into the Minneapolis home of a U.S. citizen and marching him outside in his underwear and slippers in sub-zero temperatures, in full view of his neighbors. It later emerged that he had been targeted in error. Even so, I had to wonder if the apprehension would really have been jeopardized if agents had given this citizen (yes, I like saying citizen, because it makes a point) two minutes to put on pants, a shirt, maybe a jacket and shoes, before parading him down the street.
These arguments are not meant as an indictment of policy, but more of method. Why is cruelty such a crucial part of the process? I wanted to suggest a pause before we act, which would be good for the ICE targets, but also for the perception of ICE agents. Maybe there would be less demonstrations, and less potential for violence.
That’s a shortened version of what I was going to say. Then Saturday happened. Alex Pretti was shot and killed. I guess we forgot to pause.
Minutes after the shooting, Kristi Noem, Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, et al publicly declared the Veteran’s Hospital ICU nurse a domestic terrorist. They had him “attacking ICE agents” while “brandishing” a gun and even went as far as to say that no one should carry a gun to a protest. Wait a sec – doesn’t that seem a little incongruent with every other NRA and Republican talking point in the last 40 years. I thought we wanted MORE guns.
The administration coordinated their responses, to defend the officers’ actions on Saturday, saying that agents “acted according to their training.” They accused Pretti of “brandishing” his weapon and said that he “attacked” officers.
“This looks like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement,” Noem told reporters during a press conference, prior to any investigation. Really? Less guns, Kristi? Maybe you should pause for a moment. Other officials parroted that response, almost verbatim.
Witnesses at the scene and videos shown on multiple networks demonstrate that no gun was drawn, at least by the victim, and that at least five ICE agents tackled the victim, pepper-sprayed and punched him repeatedly, disarmed him (although his gun was never “brandished”), and only after disarming him fired at least ten shots at Pretti in five-second burst.
At some point, this stops being about immigration policy, and becomes about how power behaves when it believes it no longer needs permission from the public it governs. In fact, ICE has been portrayed as having “absolute immunity” for whatever they do. They do not.
JD Vance, January 8 — “You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action – that’s a federal issue. That guy is protected by absolute immunity.”
JD Vance, January 22 — “No, I didn’t say it and I don’t think any other official within the Trump administration said that officers who engage in wrongdoing would enjoy immunity. That’s absurd.”
Yes, JD, it is absurd that you could, make two completely contradicting statements within 14 days, without grasping any sense of hypocrisy. Once more, maybe we should hit the pause button before we blurt out partisan-speak.
Our administration is spending more time creating coordinated responses for actions taken in haste than they are in planning the actions. And the public is not buying it. We have seen the videos.
Labeling victims as terrorists may be convenient, it may fit the administration’s narrative, but it’s not persuasive. Renee Good did not “run over” an ICE agent, no matter how often Kristi Noem says it, and if you believe the latest ICE claim that the agent who shot her is being treat for “internal bleeding,” you might want to widen your media diet.
And now, Alex Pretti, a nurse at a veterans’ hospital, who was attempting to assist a woman that had been knocked to the ground by ICE agents, has been attacked by multiple agents and shot multiple times. We thought that “a good guy with a gun” was OK. Apparently not.
Something needs to change. One-Mississippi, two-Mississippi.
Curt MacRae is a resident of Coldwater, MI and publishes opinion columns regularly.
To be notified by email when a column is published, or to offer feedback: rantsbymac@gmail.com
Good one.
I agree completely.