The recent federal raid at a Minneapolis Mexican restaurant has reignited a critical debate about the proper role of local police during immigration enforcement operations. While police chiefs maintain they’re merely ‘keeping the peace,’ this stance reveals a troubling gray area that demands closer scrutiny. The question isn’t simply academic—it directly impacts community trust, public safety priorities, and whether local resources effectively become extensions of federal immigration policy.
When local officers appear alongside ICE agents—even if technically not assisting with immigration enforcement—they create a perception of collaboration that erodes trust in immigrant communities. This distinction between ‘keeping the peace’ and ‘assisting ICE’ might satisfy legal technicalities, but in practice, it’s a difference without a meaningful distinction to those affected.
The False Neutrality of ‘Peacekeeping’
The Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association’s position that local police are simply ‘keeping the peace’ at ICE operations presents a facade of neutrality that doesn’t withstand scrutiny. When Saint Paul police officers deploy chemical irritants against protesters blocking federal vehicles during immigration operations, they’re making an active choice to prioritize federal immigration enforcement over community concerns.
This so-called ‘peacekeeping’ role inherently takes sides. By dispersing protesters rather than negotiating solutions or creating buffer zones, local police effectively facilitate ICE operations. The Minneapolis and Saint Paul Police Departments may have formal policies against assisting with civil immigration enforcement, but their actions during protests demonstrate how easily these policies can be circumvented through the justification of maintaining order.
In 2019, when ICE conducted raids across major U.S. cities, departments in Chicago and Los Angeles took markedly different approaches than what we’re seeing in Minnesota. Chicago police publicly refused to provide support resources to ICE operations, while the LAPD issued clear guidance to officers to maintain distance from immigration enforcement activities. These examples prove that alternative approaches exist beyond the false binary of either assisting ICE or allowing violence.
The Community Trust Paradox
Local police departments nationwide have spent years building community policing initiatives specifically designed to increase trust with immigrant populations. When these same departments show up at ICE raids, they undermine their own community safety goals. Research from Tom Tyler at Yale Law School demonstrates that perceived procedural justice—whether people believe police treat them fairly—is the single most important factor in community cooperation with law enforcement.
The presence of local police at immigration raids creates a devastating chilling effect. Immigrants become less likely to report crimes, serve as witnesses, or engage with police in any capacity. A 2020 study by the Urban Institute found that in cities where local police were seen cooperating with ICE, crime reporting in immigrant communities dropped by up to 44%. This doesn’t just affect immigrants—it makes entire neighborhoods less safe when crimes go unreported.
Minneapolis has a significant immigrant population that contributes to the economic and cultural fabric of the city. When police actions at ICE raids damage relationships with these communities, they’re not just harming immigrants—they’re compromising public safety for everyone. The true peacekeeping role would involve mediating between federal authorities and local communities to find solutions that don’t require chemical irritants or force.
Legal Obligations vs. Discretionary Choices
Police chiefs like Jeff Potts cite federal law to justify their presence at immigration operations, but this oversimplifies a complex legal landscape. While 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits local governments from restricting information sharing with federal immigration authorities, nothing in federal law requires local police to provide operational support or crowd control for ICE raids.
In fact, numerous court decisions, including the landmark Gonzales v. City of Peoria, have established that local police have no affirmative obligation to enforce federal immigration law. The choice to deploy officers to ICE operations is discretionary, not mandatory. When departments claim they
