View this post on the web at [link removed]

⏱️ 8 min read
The Shooting That Changed the Conversation
Alex Pretti has died. He was a nurse, a progressive activist, and someone who confronted federal immigration agents in Minnesota. A Border Patrol agent shot and killed him. No matter what the ongoing investigations reveal, his death is a tragedy. His family deserves compassion, and people should show restraint when commenting before all the facts are clear.
This case stands out for its significant uncertainty. The video footage is unclear, witnesses disagree, and many details are still unknown. Early reports said a gun fell from Pretti’s pocket during a struggle, but there is no solid public evidence that he pulled out his weapon. That is still being investigated.
In cases like this, being careful is not a sign of weakness. It is the responsible thing to do. But instead, the uncertainty led to different groups pushing their own stories, with politicians quick to shape the incident before all the facts were known.
Before looking at the bigger problems this event reveals, one thing should be clear: no matter what changes are needed in tactics, leadership, or communication, the President should not back down from enforcing immigration laws within the country.
For people in California, what happened in Minnesota is not just a far-off example. It is a warning. The same sanctuary policies, limits on cooperation, and political pressures that led to public clashes there are even stronger here. What happened in Minneapolis matters because California has created a bigger version of the same system.
Risk, Responsibility, and the Reality of Enforcement Confrontations
Clashes between civilians and law enforcement are always risky, especially when people get involved in active operations. If guns are present, the danger goes up even more, no matter what anyone intends.
Americans have the constitutional right to own and carry guns, including under state law. Pretti had a legal permit to carry a concealed weapon in Minnesota, and simply having a gun does not justify deadly force.
At the same time, getting in the way of federal agents is dangerous, especially if weapons are present. This does not mean anyone is to blame, but it shows why these situations can quickly get out of control.
Should Pretti have obstructed agents? No.
Did he have a right to protest? Yes.
Did he have the right to carry a firearm? Yes.
All of these facts are true at the same time, and leaving any out gives a false picture.
Why Minnesota Became the Flashpoint
Minnesota did not become the focus of these confrontations by accident. State leaders and officials in its biggest cities chose not to work closely with federal immigration enforcement.
In practice, Minnesota only tells federal authorities when an incarcerated illegal alien is about to be released, and does not allow regular immigration checks during local police stops. Minneapolis takes it further by telling its police not to work with immigration officials at all.
These policies do not stop enforcement. They change how it happens. Federal agencies can no longer rely on routine coordination and must carry out more public operations, turning immigration enforcement from a behind-the-scenes process into street-level confrontations.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that these policies increase risk. Similar events are much less common in states that work with federal authorities. Minnesota’s sanctuary approach helped create the situation now getting national attention.
Why California Is on the Same Path
California’s sanctuary system is similar to Minnesota’s in important ways, but it is bigger, and the stakes are higher. State law strictly limits working with federal immigration authorities, and many local governments see non-cooperation as a key political stance, not just a policy choice.
Like in Minnesota, these policies do not stop enforcement; they change how it happens. By not cooperating, state and local governments force federal agents into more public operations, increasing the likelihood of confrontations in states where protests often escalate.
In a state where federal enforcement is already under heavy political scrutiny and frequent protests, these factors increase risk rather than reduce it.
Minnesota serves as a warning. California is the real test.
Leadership Choices and the Incentive Structure of Chaos
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey made matters worse by failing to cooperate and by supporting activist opposition. They described enforcement as wrong instead of just a routine process.
At the same time, progressive activists and friendly media quickly painted federal enforcement as abusive, focusing on emotion and downplaying the bigger picture. This approach naturally encourages resistance.
Federal leaders did not have to support that story, but often did. Public clashes and quick responses made people dig in their positions, leaving less room to calm things down.
Tragedy rarely leads to better policies. It usually deepens divisions.
Spectacle, Narrative Seeding, and Self-Inflicted Damage
In the immediate aftermath of Pretti’s death, DHS leadership rushed to define the narrative publicly. Initial statements emphasized a targeted operation and asserted that an armed individual approached Border Patrol agents. Some officials went further, suggesting mass-casualty intent.
Later updates made things less clear. People with concealed carry permits often have extra magazines, and later reports said Pretti had a handgun with one magazine and a spare. Early descriptions suggested more than the facts supported.
The issue was not the enforcement, but the way the story was pushed too far. Officials need to be careful and accurate, especially when facts are still unclear. Acting too sure too soon hurts credibility and public trust.
Inside DHS: Discipline Versus Display
There is a real split in strategy within the administration. Border Czar Tom Homan and ICE Director Todd Lyons want to focus on criminal aliens and those with final deportation orders. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, senior adviser Corey Lewandowski, and Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino support broader and more visible enforcement.
Senior DHS officials say the internal atmosphere is tense. ICE leaders warn that aggressive, high-profile tactics could lose public support and blur the roles of different agencies. ICE started with clear goals, but more Border Patrol involvement changed the focus.
Homan, who is well respected in enforcement, prefers discipline over showy tactics. Others want confrontation and quick action. This has led to confusion, more risk, and blame going in the wrong direction.
The Political Trap on the Right
Some supporters of enforcement say that holding back looks weak. But in reality, high-profile operations give activists the images they need to turn voters who support enforcement in theory against it when they see chaos.
This is a trap. Pulling back invites more obstruction. Giving up on priorities risks losing public support. The answer is not to retreat, but to enforce the law with discipline and focus on results, not show.
Why the President Cannot Back Down
The President should not give in to pressure by easing enforcement in the country. Doing that would reward those who block enforcement and make things worse.
This issue is bigger than just immigration. If organized resistance can stop enforcement here, people will use the same tactics against other federal priorities.
The job now is to keep enforcing the law and to demand discipline, professionalism, and clear action from those doing the work.
So, Does It Matter?
Two Americans have died in separate incidents linked to federal immigration enforcement, and the details of one death are still unclear. This alone means public officials should be careful with their words, since what they say shapes how people think and act.
Minnesota’s state and city leaders set the stage for confrontation by failing to cooperate. Some in the federal response chose quick action and show over discipline. These choices came together in ways that made things riskier, not safer.
Now, four steps could help clarify the way forward:
First, the facts about Pretti’s death need to be made clear and open, without jumping to conclusions.
Second, these events should lead to better recruiting, training, and clearer instructions for federal officers working in tough situations.
Third, enforcement within the country must continue. Pulling back would reward those who block it and make things worse.
Fourth, the federal government must make clear—publicly and privately—to sanctuary states, including California, that cooperation is preferred and that its absence creates greater potential for serious problems. Refusal does not halt enforcement; it forces it into more public, more volatile, and less controlled forms than anyone should want.
Below the paywall are three other cartoons that could have gone with this column. All worth checking out!...

Unsubscribe [link removed]?