Peggy Flanagan just won the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, and one of the positions separating her from her primary opponent was about as subtle as a fire alarm: She wants to “rip apart” Immigration and Customs Enforcement and replace it.
So when Flanagan appeared Wednesday on MS NOW’s All In, guest host Jacob Soboroff asked the obvious question. Did that position actually help her win?
“You have this platform of ripping apart — are the words that you use — and replacing ICE,” Soboroff said. “And your opponent in this primary did not use that type of language. Do you believe that that was a decisive issue in the race?”
Now, stay with me, because Flanagan’s answer went somewhere important.
She didn’t simply say, yes, Democratic voters wanted ICE dismantled. Instead, she framed the issue as a test of her opponent’s judgment.
“Well, I think what we heard from Minnesotans is that this was really an issue of judgment,” Flanagan said.
And then she brought up the Laken Riley Act.
“My opponent was the only Minnesota Democrat to vote for Donald Trump’s immigration bill, the Laken Riley Act, which I think really gave the green light for the, just chaos and cruelty that we saw here in the streets in Minneapolis.”
That’s quite a charge.
The Laken Riley Act expanded federal detention requirements for certain noncitizens accused of specified crimes. Flanagan, however, tied her opponent’s support for that legislation to the federal immigration enforcement Minnesota subsequently experienced.
She pointed to what she described as economic damage and trauma, particularly involving children, as well as the deaths of two Minnesotans.
“And I know that the economic impact, the trauma, especially for our children, and the loss of two Minnesotans, people are continuing to carry that, even if the national media has moved on,” Flanagan said.
But Flanagan wasn’t finished. She argued that Minnesota’s response to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts actually mobilized voters.
“The biggest thing I think — and I know that you saw it here when you were on the ground — is that Minnesotans showed up for each other,” she told Soboroff.
“We demonstrated that we are powerful in the face of Donald Trump. And I think that mobilized a lot of people to get engaged and involved in this race.”
There it is.
Flanagan’s explanation is not merely that immigration was another box on the campaign checklist. She believes the confrontation over federal enforcement helped energize people and bring them into the political process.
But here’s where her position gets more complicated.
Later in the interview, Flanagan said she does believe there should be immigration enforcement.
So put these two things next to each other.
Rip ICE apart.
Enforce immigration law.
Those positions aren’t necessarily contradictory. A politician can argue that one federal agency should be dismantled and replaced by another system that performs some or all of its duties. But once you make that argument, the next question arrives immediately: Replaced with what?
That’s the detail Flanagan will have to fill in.
Would a replacement agency detain people? Conduct workplace operations? Arrest people living in the country illegally? Handle removals? How would it interact with Border Patrol and other federal law-enforcement agencies?
Because “rip ICE apart” is a terrific phrase for getting attention. Governing requires explaining what happens the morning after you’ve done it.
And Flanagan isn’t talking about this as an activist standing outside the system. She is Minnesota’s lieutenant governor and now the Democratic nominee for a seat in the United States Senate.
The primary electorate has had its say.
The general-election electorate is next.
That means the language that helped distinguish Flanagan from her Democratic opponent is now going to receive a much wider hearing. Republicans will almost certainly hammer “rip ICE apart.” Flanagan will argue that she supports immigration enforcement but wants a different system for carrying it out.
