I‘don’t want them in our country. Their country is awful, and we don’t want them here. It’s like Somalia — you can’t even call it a country. They have nothing. They’re just running around killing each other. There’s no order. Their country is awful, and we don’t want them here.”
These statements were not made by a right-wing radical politician or an ultra-nationalist podcast host. In this manner, U.S. President Donald Trump explicitly outlined his intention to deport Somalis residing in the United States by December 2025. While these statements drew international criticism, they did not affect the leading figure of the new order.
In the US public sphere, immigration policy and the agendas of political parties that take positions on it have been among the most frequently discussed topics for years. Immigration policy is a central pillar of Trump’s election promises and has sometimes been discussed in more abstract terms, focusing on figures such as the number of border crossings, border violation graphs and sovereignty slogans.
However, recent events have brought the issue to the forefront. The increased visibility of images in US cities has brought the issue to the heart of domestic politics. Videos of masked federal agents conducting home raids and engaging in street brawls in Democrat-controlled cities have gone viral and resonated more widely. The actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) teams have created, and continue to create, a discursive and symbolic shift in US politics.
Minnesota, at the heart of recent events, has a more liberal demographic due to its large population of American citizens of Scandinavian origin, as well as people from countries such as Somalia. In Minneapolis, the state capital which has been won by Democrats in every presidential race since 1976, the killing of two people (Renée Good and Alex Pretti) by ICE agents with no outstanding deportation warrants has once again drawn attention to the country’s increasingly tense political climate.
Trump initially defended ICE agents, claiming that Good had run over an agent. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey then stated, “We don’t want ICE in our city”, to which Trump responded by calling Good a wonderful person and claiming that there are many different versions of the video footage. These events illustrate the tension between the president and local governments in the country. While these debates continue, on 11 January the U.S. Department of Labor posted on X: “One nation. One people. One heritage. Don’t forget who you are, Americans,” further highlights the ongoing tension. The post, ‘(One Homeland. One People. One Heritage. Remember who you are, American)’, fanned the flames.
On 24 January, the killing of Alex Pretti sparked public protests. On 27 January, allegations surfaced that Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino had been removed from his post. White House Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt responded by saying that Bovino would continue in his nationwide role. This U-turn by the Trump administration suggests that further softening and concessions will be made in the subsequent process.
In the United States, where delicate balances are often struck, the approach to immigration is one of the main polarizing factors. One of the political paradoxes currently facing the Republican Party concerns the methods used to implement restrictive policies towards immigrants, and whether there is a red line on the issue. The methods employed erode confidence in the state’s ability to intervene effectively. Until now, Republican voters would have envisioned criminals being removed from the country after a proper legal process when hearing phrases like ‘secure the border’ or ‘mass deportation’. However, the operation of the ICE mechanism in areas such as Minneapolis forces Republican voters to confront the reality that the perceived threat could also affect their own living spaces.
In America’s periodic cycles of protest, incidents of police violence resulting in death and debates surrounding disproportionate force have flared up since the case of George Floyd (who also died in Minnesota in 2020). The targeting and methods employed can cause unease even among moderate Republicans. When officials make maximalist claims, questioning takes precedence over acceptance. Labelling the victim of violence as ‘armed and aggressive’ and presenting narratives inconsistent with footage of incidents involving people who have died at the hands of ICE can lead to a significant loss of trust.
A significant turning point in recent developments is not that Democrats are angry — Democrats are often angry about ICE — but that Republicans, including those who normally prefer a more conservative stance, are publicly expressing their unease. The fact that a small segment of persuadable voters have a ‘I wanted sanctions, but not like this’ mentality is creating a polarising political climate that undermines public trust.
ICE’s enforcement powers are based on federal immigration law and executive authority. This framework includes the arrest and detention of foreigners, the conduct of deportation operations and the investigation of immigration-related crimes, under certain conditions. However, authorisation does not imply unlimited power.
The debate over ‘entering homes without a warrant’ contradicts a fundamental principle of American law: that the home and its owner and land are the areas of greatest protection. In the US, especially, considering the Castle Doctrine, which is rooted in British tradition and posits that a person’s home is their castle, granting them the right to use deadly force to remove intruders if necessary, one can imagine the shock that such violations would cause. While immigration is, in many contexts, a matter of civil enforcement, the legitimacy of intrusion into private space depends on a warrant, consent, exigent circumstances and clear legal standards.
The friction between federal and local government also marks a new breaking point here. When the federal government appears to ‘sideline’ state authorities after deadly events, this exacerbates administrative problems and gives the impression of avoiding accountability. This represents a dead end for a country where institutional oversight is one of the cornerstones of legitimacy.
ICE’s current actions may be legally permissible, but they are still procedurally careless and legally questionable, and risk being perceived by citizens as an ‘expansion of state power’. The fact that this is happening in a country where the distinction between the state and the individual is particularly clear-cut points to another irony. The Trump administration was elected on the promise of restoring control. However, control is not solely measured by deportation numbers; it is also measured by public consent.
On 3 November, voters in the US will head to the polls for the midterm elections. These elections will determine the outcome of all 435 seats in the US House of Representatives and 35 of the 100 seats in the US Senate. This is the most critical test for Trump: a defeat would cast a shadow over his presidency, and with the altered political arithmetic, it would limit his control over Congress.
If the Democrats take a more rational approach to ICE violence and build their opposition around parameters such as the rule of law, law enforcement accountability and constitutional barriers to mistreatment, this could result in a political blow to the Trump administration. This could enable them to form a coalition that encompasses not only their own supporters, but also some Republicans and independents who are uneasy with federal overreach. However, a more extreme stance could lead to a new vicious cycle. The clash between Republican arguments that ‘Democrats want open borders’ and Democratic arguments that ‘Republicans want a police state’ could result in an election where the main determining factor is the economy.
Given the mathematics of US politics, it can be concluded that midterm elections often work against the president’s party. This is not a moral judgement, but a structural rhythm. If the White House is losing ground economically too, immigration becomes an attractive ‘shelter’. For Republicans, the danger arising from the Minneapolis events is their potential to evolve into a symbolic counter-narrative. Even many supporters of deportation are affected by events resulting in the deaths of people not directly involved. Furthermore, the cost of a clearly wrong practice, as illustrated by the images of Alex Pretti’s death, will be reflected in public opinion.
Surveys on the subject show that different aspects of migration can take centre stage when gauging public opinion on the issue. The surveys indicate that voters may approve of border management while opposing the broader management of migration. Therefore, the issue must be addressed not with a superficial approach, but as a complex phenomenon whose consequences could have political repercussions.
A Democratic victory in the 3 November midterm elections could provide a framework for reshaping politics. Sessions, subpoenas and investigative committees dominated by the opposition bloc would establish important foundations for shaping the concept of legitimacy, a term frequently used in US politics. A Democratic-controlled House of Representatives could scrutinise the Trump administration constantly. The political atmosphere could also impact the legislature. Similarly, the ICE issue affects not only the elections, but also how ICE tactics are investigated, which will influence politics again.
With its box office success and the buzz it generated in popular culture, “One Battle After Another” is among this year’s major Oscar contenders. Films that win awards at critical junctures in US history can clearly serve as guides to understanding the spirit of the times. Films released after the Watergate scandal reflected the climate of insecurity and corruption against a backdrop of societal fragility in the 1970s. The neo-conservative regime of the 2000s also emerged through the cultural formation woven by war-focused films.
With its opening scene set in a refugee camp on the border and its subsequent backdrop reflecting the rivalry between immigrants and the authorities, “One Battle After Another” establishes a contextual connection with the ICE phenomenon. It is fair to say that the US political climate will be a driving factor in whether this film wins Best Picture.
The escalating ICE debate suggests no shift towards a more moderate political climate. The Trump administration anticipates that voters will reward toughness and ignore the methods used, making security and economic concerns the dominant factors. However, the midterm elections, in which American voters may approach the issue from a different perspective, could see this approach punished.
If the country feels that ICE’s current tactics are no longer democratic, Republicans could lose their advantage. Democrats, on the other hand, could exploit the situation if they adopt a rational and equitable strategy. In this sense, the ICE debate is not just about immigration. It will serve as a litmus test to show whether American politics can still distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate power.
Stay informed by subscribing to
our weekly newsletter.
