ICE Director: ‘There’s No Loss of Arrestable Aliens in Minneapolis’ | Carl Higbie FRONTLINE

A senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official pushed back forcefully against claims that federal immigration enforcement has slowed or weakened in Minneapolis, stating that there is “no loss of arrestable aliens” in the city despite its status as a sanctuary-style jurisdiction. The remarks, made during an interview on Carl Higbie FRONTLINE, reignited debate over immigration enforcement, local cooperation, and public safety in major U.S. cities.

The ICE director’s comments come amid ongoing criticism from law enforcement advocates who argue that sanctuary policies limit cooperation between federal agents and local authorities, allowing criminal illegal aliens to evade arrest. Minneapolis, which restricts how much local police can assist federal immigration enforcement, has frequently been cited as an example in the national immigration debate.

According to the ICE official, however, the narrative that sanctuary policies have crippled enforcement is misleading. “There’s no loss of arrestable aliens in Minneapolis,” he said, emphasizing that ICE continues to identify, locate, and arrest individuals who are subject to removal under federal law. He argued that while cooperation from local governments can make enforcement more efficient, ICE has adapted its operations to ensure arrests still occur.

The director explained that ICE relies on a combination of investigative work, surveillance, federal databases, and interagency coordination that does not depend entirely on local police participation. “We’re still doing the job,” he said. “The idea that criminals just disappear because of sanctuary policies is not accurate.”

Host Carl Higbie challenged the official on the real-world risks ICE agents face when operating without local support. Higbie argued that when local law enforcement refuses to honor detainers or share information, ICE officers are forced to make arrests in neighborhoods, workplaces, or public spaces—situations that can be more dangerous for agents and civilians alike.

The ICE director acknowledged those concerns, admitting that lack of cooperation can increase operational risks. “It’s always safer to take custody of someone in a controlled environment, like a jail,” he said. “When we don’t have that option, it does create additional challenges.” Still, he maintained that enforcement outcomes in cities like Minneapolis remain strong.

Critics were quick to respond. Immigration hawks argue that arrest numbers alone do not tell the full story. They contend that sanctuary policies delay removals, increase costs for taxpayers, and undermine deterrence by signaling that local governments are unwilling to assist federal authorities. Some also argue that repeat offenders are more likely to be released back into communities when detainers are ignored.

On the other side, immigrant advocacy groups say the ICE director’s comments confirm their long-held position that sanctuary policies do not obstruct federal law enforcement. They argue such policies are designed to encourage trust between immigrant communities and local police, making residents more willing to report crimes without fear of deportation.

The exchange highlights a deeper disagreement over how immigration law should be enforced in the United States. While ICE insists it can operate effectively even in uncooperative jurisdictions, many lawmakers argue that the system would be safer, cheaper, and more transparent with full local-federal collaboration.

As immigration remains a defining political issue heading into future elections, statements like these are likely to fuel continued debate. Whether Minneapolis represents proof that sanctuary policies do little harm—or evidence of a system working harder than it should—depends largely on where one stands in the broader immigration fight.