In the face of violent raids, detentions, and killings carried out by ICE, communities across the United States are organizing to launch legal actions, conduct raid-preparedness trainings, and provide support to victims.
Violations committed during anti-immigration operations are intensifying nationwide. Following the deaths of Alex Petit, Renee Nicole Good, and the numerous detentions reported across the country, the outlook appears bleak for thousands of immigrants. However, a growing number of groups have united in resistance against ICE. Their strategies range from lawsuits over human rights violations to community organizing aimed at mitigating the risks of immigration raids.
In a briefing held by American Community Media (ACoM), experts on anti-immigration policies and members of grassroots organizations discussed how resistance efforts are spreading across the country and how tangible—though still gradual—results are beginning to emerge.
Minneapolis Responds to Repression
One of the central focal points was Minneapolis, the site of the largest ICE deployment in recent history. According to Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of America’s Voice, the scale of the operation marks a turning point. “The ICE deployment in Minneapolis was the largest in history. Initially, there were 2,000 agents, and then another 1,000 were added. Nearly 3,000 federal agents in a single city,” she said.
For Cárdenas, rather than suppressing opposition, the operation has deepened public backlash. “We are seeing an unprecedented response from communities and organizations that were not previously involved and now want to be part of the movement to reject what ICE is doing,” she stated, while warning that the federal government “is not going to stop” and has significant budgetary resources to continue its strategy.
The resistance, however, exists within a complex political landscape. Cárdenas acknowledged that while polls show a majority of Americans believe ICE has gone too far, that disapproval does not automatically translate into support for immigration reform proposals. “Even when most people reject what ICE is doing, many still trust Republicans more on border security and public safety. That is the core challenge,” she explained.
Legal Challenges and Criminalization of Protest
From the legal front, Ann Garcia, senior attorney at the National Immigration Project, outlined a series of lawsuits filed in Minnesota and other cities against ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). These actions challenge arbitrary arrests, excessive use of force, and the repression of peaceful protests.
Garcia highlighted the case Tincher v. DHS, a class-action lawsuit brought by six Minnesota residents, which documents assaults against protesters, legal observers, and U.S. citizens. “The government is trying to construct a fictional narrative about what is happening. What we see in these lawsuits is the use of violent tactics, pepper spray, unlawful arrests, and direct intimidation,” she said.
Although a federal judge initially ordered these practices to stop, the ruling was later suspended by an appellate court. For Garcia, this reveals a troubling pattern. “Trial courts issue injunctions, but higher courts quickly overturn them. This reflects the ideological composition of the current judicial system,” she argued.
She also warned about the language used by the government to describe protesters. “The Department of Homeland Security and the White House are labeling community members as ‘domestic terrorists’ for exercising their constitutional rights. That rhetoric has real and dangerous consequences,” she cautioned, linking it to national security memoranda that, according to her, criminalize political dissent.
Resistance as a Historical Precedent
The discussion took on a historical dimension with the intervention of constitutional scholar Mark Tushnet, emeritus professor at Harvard Law School. Tushnet compared today’s community resistance to 19th-century mobilizations against the Fugitive Slave Act, when Northern citizens organized to prevent the capture of enslaved people.
“Legal actions back then were largely unsuccessful, much as many are today. But what they achieved was to galvanize public opinion,” he explained. In his view, the value of lawsuits and protests lies not only in courtroom victories but in exposing the moral stakes of what is unfolding. “The legal language of unconstitutionality is, at its core, a way of expressing a moral judgment,” he said.
Tushnet expressed skepticism about the courts’ ability to resolve the crisis swiftly. “Courts could not be trusted then, and they probably cannot be trusted now. Real change depends on popular mobilization,” he stated, emphasizing the continued importance of nonviolent resistance.
Toward the end of the briefing, panelists agreed that the current moment must not be normalized. “This is not normal. Our democracy is at stake,” Cárdenas warned, calling for broader coalitions beyond traditional immigrant advocacy circles. “We have to build uncomfortable but necessary bridges if we want to win in the long term,” she concluded.