Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey’s executive order barring immigration enforcement operations on city-owned properties represents a crucial stance against the Trump administration’s targeted assault on immigrant communities—particularly Somali-Americans. The timing couldn’t be more significant, coming directly after President Trump’s inflammatory claim that Somalis “contribute nothing” to America. This executive action, while limited in scope, draws an important line in the sand between local governance and federal immigration enforcement that deserves both commendation and critical examination.
A Necessary Shield Against Politically Motivated Enforcement
The executive order’s prohibition on using city-owned parking lots, ramps, garages, and vacant lots for immigration enforcement operations is more than symbolic—it creates physical safe zones in a community under siege. When federal agents storm neighborhoods and target people based on appearance rather than legal warrants, as described by Karmel Mall owner Basim Sabri, we’re witnessing enforcement that has abandoned due process in favor of racial profiling. The president’s explicit targeting of Somali immigrants transforms this from routine enforcement into something far more alarming: politically motivated intimidation of specific ethnic communities.
Consider the historical context: Minneapolis hosts one of America’s largest Somali communities, with approximately 74,000 people of Somali descent living in Minnesota. These communities have established thriving business districts like Karmel Mall, started hundreds of local businesses, and become integral to the city’s cultural and economic fabric. The Cedar-Riverside neighborhood, often called “Little Mogadishu,” represents decades of immigrant entrepreneurship and community building. The president’s claim that this community “contributes nothing” isn’t just factually wrong—it’s a dangerous rhetorical attack meant to dehumanize an entire ethnic group.
The Limitations of Municipal Resistance
While Frey’s order deserves support, it also reveals the severe limitations cities face when confronting federal immigration enforcement. The order only covers city-owned properties, leaving countless other locations vulnerable to ICE operations. This patchwork approach to protection highlights the fundamental problem: cities can only create islands of safety rather than comprehensive protection for residents.
Similar municipal resistance efforts have faced significant challenges elsewhere. When Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf warned residents of impending ICE raids in 2018, she faced potential federal obstruction of justice charges. Philadelphia’s sanctuary city policies were challenged in federal court. These precedents demonstrate that local resistance, while important, often lacks the legal authority to fully shield communities from federal enforcement actions.
The signage template for businesses represents an innovative approach to expanding these protected zones, but relies entirely on voluntary participation from private property owners. While some, like Karmel Mall, have already taken similar steps independently, many businesses may fear retaliation or legal consequences for restricting federal agents’ access.
Community Trust and Public Safety
Perhaps the strongest argument for Frey’s order is its recognition that aggressive immigration enforcement fundamentally undermines public safety by destroying community trust in government institutions. When immigrant communities fear that any interaction with local authorities might trigger deportation proceedings, they become less likely to report crimes, serve as witnesses, or participate in community policing efforts.
Research supports this concern. A 2020 study from the University of California San Diego found that sanctuary city policies were associated with lower crime rates compared to non-sanctuary jurisdictions. The study suggested this was because immigrants in sanctuary cities were more willing to cooperate with police. Similarly, a 2017 analysis by the Center for American Progress found that counties with sanctuary policies experienced, on average, 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people compared to non-sanctuary counties.
Frey’s statement that there’s “no place in Minneapolis for fear-based tactics or operations that undermine community trust” isn’t just morally sound—it’s evidence-based public safety policy. When federal immigration enforcement uses racial profiling and community intimidation, it creates precisely the climate of fear that makes effective local policing impossible.
Addressing the Counterarguments
Critics of Frey’s order will inevitably argue that it obstructs legitimate law enforcement and protects individuals who have violated immigration laws. This perspective, while common, fundamentally misunderstands both the limited scope of the order and the nature of immigration violations.
First, the order doesn’t prevent ICE from conducting operations with proper judicial warrants or from operating on non-city property. It simply prevents city resources from being used to facilitate civil immigration enforcement. The distinction between criminal and civil enforcement is crucial—most immigration violations are civil, not criminal matters, yet ICE operations often employ tactics typically reserved for dangerous criminal suspects.
Second, the claim that sanctuary policies protect dangerous criminals ignores the reality that most immigration enforcement targets people whose only violation is their immigration status. A 2019 analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University found that the majority of ICE detainers were placed on individuals with no criminal conviction or only minor offenses. The narrative of immigrant criminality simply isn’t supported by evidence.
The Path Forward: Beyond Symbolic Resistance
While Frey’s executive order represents an important stand, truly protecting immigrant communities will require more comprehensive approaches. Cities like Minneapolis should consider establishing legal defense funds for immigrants facing deportation, following the model of New York City’s successful program that provides legal representation to detained immigrants. Studies show immigrants with legal representation are up to ten times more likely to establish a right to remain in the United States.
Additionally, cities can invest in community-based support systems that help immigrants navigate legal pathways to regularize their status when possible. Educational programs that inform immigrants of their rights during encounters with ICE can help prevent unlawful detentions based on coercion or misinformation.
Most importantly, local leaders must continue advocating for comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level. The current enforcement-heavy approach creates precisely the climate of fear and division that undermines both public safety and community cohesion.
The Moral Imperative of Resistance
When a president explicitly targets an ethnic community with dehumanizing rhetoric and follows it with targeted enforcement, local resistance becomes a moral imperative. Frey’s executive order represents an important recognition that cities have both the right and responsibility to protect all residents, regardless of immigration status.
The stories emerging from Minneapolis—of ICE agents profiling Somali residents, of businesses posting signs to protect customers, of communities living in fear—should alarm anyone concerned with civil liberties and equal protection under law. In this context, Frey’s order isn’t radical; it’s a minimal response to a federal assault on specific ethnic communities.
Minneapolis residents should support this executive order while recognizing it as just one step in a longer struggle. The fight for immigrant justice can’t be won through executive orders alone—it requires sustained community organizing, legal advocacy, and political pressure at every level of government. In the meantime, every parking lot, garage, and vacant lot protected from becoming a staging ground for civil immigration enforcement represents a small but meaningful victory for human dignity in increasingly challenging times.
