The Cost of Political Incitement
I wanted to take a measured approach before weighing in on the rising tensions in Minnesota. Not everything demands an immediate response, and in moments of volatility restraint matters. But a recent video by TikTok creator @deonjoseph22 that crossed my X feed changed that calculation.
In the video, Deon Joseph draws on decades of experience dealing with protests and crowd dynamics. His argument is simple and uncomfortable. What has changed is not immigration law or enforcement tactics. What has changed is political behavior. Selective outrage. Organized obstruction. And elected officials willing to use inflammatory language that signals approval for resistance.
As Joseph puts it:
“This isn’t about Trump versus Obama. The tactics were the same. The difference is who’s getting the smoke and why.”
He urges viewers to look past tribal politics and recognize how coordinated agitation works, especially when leaders choose words that escalate rather than cool tensions.
I recommend watching the full video here and judging his argument for yourself:
@deonjoseph22 @deonjoseph22 ♬ original sound – deon joseph
Tiktok failed to load.
Words Matter. Especially From People With Power.
On January 7, 2026, an ICE enforcement operation in Minneapolis ended with the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good. The incident triggered protests across Minnesota. Tragedy deserved transparency and accountability. What it did not require was elected officials encouraging hostility toward federal officers operating under lawful authority.
Instead, that is exactly what happened.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey did not urge calm. He did not emphasize cooperation with investigators. He took a megaphone and said this:
“ICE. Get the fuck out of Minneapolis. We do not want you here.”
That is not policy disagreement. That is a mayor publicly demanding that federal law enforcement abandon their lawful duties.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz followed suit, framing federal enforcement as an unnecessary provocation and asserting the state did not want federal involvement. Members of Minnesota’s congressional delegation amplified similar messaging in hearings and media appearances, repeatedly characterizing ICE operations as terrorizing communities rather than enforcing the law.
In Oregon, the rhetoric has been no less incendiary.
Senator Jeff Merkley warned protesters not to “take the bait,” implicitly framing federal law enforcement as an occupying force rather than agents executing federal statutes. Senator Ron Wyden declared that federal deployments “must end,” blaming enforcement for unrest rather than those initiating violence.
Members of Oregon’s congressional delegation went further, labeling ICE actions as “state-sponsored terror” and demanding operations cease entirely. Those statements are on the public record.
This language does not exist in a vacuum. It functions as permission.
From Protest to Obstruction to Violence
Following these statements, protests escalated into direct confrontations with federal officers. In Minnesota, ICE agents were assaulted. Federal vehicles were vandalized. Firearms were stolen from law enforcement vehicles. Counter-protesters and journalists perceived as sympathetic to ICE were harassed and attacked.
These are not hypotheticals. They are documented incidents.
When elected officials describe federal agents as illegitimate, oppressive, or criminal, activists hear a message. Resistance is justified. Obstruction is righteous. Violence is someone else’s fault.
That brings us to a word many are eager to use selectively.
What Is an Insurrection?
The definition is not complicated.
An insurrection is the act of violently opposing or obstructing the execution of law or the authority of the government.
Not disagreement. Not protest. Not litigation.
Obstruction. Resistance. Force.
When activists physically block federal officers from executing lawful warrants, surround vehicles, attack agents, steal weapons, or coordinate efforts to shut down enforcement operations, that meets the definition.
When elected officials encourage that behavior, excuse it, or refuse to condemn it, they are not protecting democracy. They are undermining it.
You cannot claim to defend the rule of law while cheering defiance of it.
The Law Is Clear. The Narrative Is Not.
Another falsehood fueling this unrest deserves correction.
Entering the United States without inspection is not merely a civil paperwork issue. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1325, improper entry into the United States is a federal crime. The statute is public. Anyone can read it.
ICE enforces that law along with others governing reentry after deportation, fraud, and criminal conduct by non-citizens.
Equally important, the majority of recent ICE apprehensions involve more than immigration violations alone. Federal data show significant numbers of detainees with additional charges including violent offenses, sex crimes, and weapons violations. This information is available through DHS enforcement reporting and court records.
The caricature of ICE as rounding up otherwise law-abiding neighbors for sport is politically useful. It is not accurate.
The Double Standard No One Wants to Acknowledge
Under Barack Obama, millions of people were deported. ICE conducted raids. Detention centers existed. Families were separated. The same images now recycled as symbols of tyranny originated then.
The difference was not policy. It was politics.
Democrats ignored it. Media downplayed it. Activists largely stood down.
Today, faced with an administration they oppose and lacking a coherent alternative immigration policy, Democrats are left with one strategy. Amplify chaos. Channel outrage. Treat enforcement itself as illegitimate.
That is not governance. It is abdication.
Facts for the Reader to Consider
ICE is enforcing laws passed by Congress.
Illegal entry is a crime under federal statute.
Most ICE apprehensions involve additional criminal charges.
Obstructing federal law enforcement meets the definition of insurrection.
Political rhetoric has consequences beyond the microphone.
You do not have to like immigration law to respect it.
You do not have to support an administration to oppose violence.
And you do not defend democracy by encouraging defiance of lawful authority.
That’s my viewpoint.
About the Author
