Minnesota Democrats Are Creating A Nullification Crisis Over Immigration

Posted For: Rotorblade

Videos emerging from Minneapolis show Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers attempting to apprehend illegal immigrants in public spaces while facing harassment, resistance, and in some cases violence from anti-ICE activists. These scenes are not accidental. They are the foreseeable consequence of a Democratic strategy that amounts to modern-day nullification.

Nullification, in its original historical sense, refers to the doctrine invoked during the Nullification Crisis of 1832, when South Carolina declared federal tariffs unenforceable within its borders. President Andrew Jackson responded by asserting federal supremacy and threatening to deploy military force to ensure compliance with federal law. What Democratic leaders in Minneapolis are doing today mirrors that earlier episode: they are fostering a 21st-century nullification crisis by making enforcement of federal immigration law nearly impossible within their jurisdiction.

President Trump, who has ordered 1,500 active-duty troops stationed in Alaska to prepare for a possible deployment to Minnesota, is acting squarely within both his constitutional authority and historical precedent. His response aligns closely with the approach Jackson took when confronted with open defiance of federal law.

Sanctuary policies are designed precisely to frustrate federal immigration enforcement. These laws, including those in force in Minneapolis and many other Democrat-controlled cities, prohibit state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.

Under normal conditions, when an illegal immigrant commits a crime, local authorities notify federal immigration officials before releasing the offender. ICE then takes custody in a controlled, orderly, and safe transfer between law enforcement agencies. Sanctuary jurisdictions prohibit this cooperation. Instead, local authorities release offenders back into the community, forcing ICE agents to locate and arrest them in neighborhoods, workplaces, and public areas.

This method of enforcement is inherently more volatile and dangerous. In Minneapolis, the risk is compounded by organized anti-ICE activists and self-styled vigilantes who actively seek to interfere with federal agents — sometimes violently. The result is a combustible environment that virtually guarantees confrontations. Critics argue that this chaos is intentional: by making enforcement as disruptive and perilous as possible, sanctuary advocates hope to deter federal authorities altogether. That strategy has already had tragic consequences, including the death of Renee Good, who was fatally shot earlier this month after allegedly attempting to ram an ICE agent with her vehicle.

The objective is clear: to prevent the enforcement of federal immigration law. ICE is not operating outside its legal authority in Minneapolis. It is not exercising new or extraordinary powers. As Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol commander overseeing operations in the city, stated at a press conference this week, the tactics being used are “born out of necessity” and are nonetheless “legal, ethical, and moral.”

“Our operations are lawful. They’re targeted. They’re focused on individuals who pose a serious threat to this community. They are not random and they are not political,” Bovino said.

The “necessity” he described exists only because sanctuary policies prevent the routine transfer of criminal illegal immigrants from local custody to federal authorities. If those transfers were allowed, there would be no need for high-visibility ICE operations in city streets.

Democratic officials oppose federal immigration law but lack the votes to change it. As Democrats in South Carolina once did, they have instead chosen to render it unenforceable within their territory. History shows how dangerous this theory can be. Nullification, championed by Vice President John C. Calhoun, rejected the constitutional principle of federal supremacy and helped lay the groundwork for the Civil War decades later.

President Jackson forcefully rejected the idea that states could nullify federal law. In 1830, he famously warned South Carolinians that any violent resistance to federal authority would be treated as treason. Two years later, in his Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, he wrote that nullification was “incompatible with the existence of the Union” and “destructive of the great object for which it was formed.”

The same assessment applies to modern sanctuary policies. Combined with coordinated efforts to obstruct and intimidate federal immigration authorities, these policies represent a deliberate attempt to nullify federal law in practice. Viewed through this lens, the Trump administration’s decision to issue grand jury subpoenas to senior Minnesota Democratic officials — including Gov. Tim Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, and Attorney General Keith Ellison — is fully justified. There is substantial reason to believe these officials may have obstructed federal law enforcement.

Rather than working to change laws they oppose, they appear to be attempting to nullify them outright. As Jackson recognized nearly two centuries ago, such conduct strikes at the heart of constitutional order. While no one expects President Trump to echo Jackson’s rhetoric, the principle remains the same: those who deliberately undermine federal law should be held accountable under it.

original source