ICE issues agents new 'agitators' guidance: report

US Immigration Officials Toned Down Enforcement Amid Protests in Minnesota, Memo Reveals

Federal Immigration officials in Minnesota have been directed to scale back their enforcement tactics amid growing protests and outcry following two fatal shootings involving federal immigration agents. The new guidance comes as President Trump signals a shift towards "deescalation" in tensions in Minneapolis and St Paul.

The memo, obtained by Reuters, instructs agents to avoid engaging with protesters and instead focus on immigrants with known criminal histories. This approach marks a significant change from the previous catch-everyone strategy, which had been criticized for inflaming tensions.

Agents are now advised to issue clear commands and limit interactions to only those necessary for enforcement purposes. The memo also emphasizes the importance of protecting the right to witness and notes that simply standing further back does not cure a constitutional breach.

The shift in tone comes after two high-profile shootings involving federal immigration agents, one of which killed a US citizen and ICU nurse, Alex Pretti. Renee Nicole Good was also shot and killed by an ICE agent on January 7. The shootings have sparked national outrage and led to calls for greater accountability from the Trump administration.

In response to the criticism, Border Czar Tom Homan has signaled that the administration wants to see illegal immigrants with criminal records detained and deported. However, he has also emphasized the need for a more measured approach and acknowledged that his previous rhetoric may have contributed to the violence.

As the situation in Minnesota continues to unfold, many experts and advocacy groups are expressing concern about the implications of this new guidance for immigrant communities. "Communities across the United States are rightly outraged by ICE's deadly actions and this administration's violent anti-immigrant agenda," said Shayna Kessler, director of the Advancing Universal Representation initiative at the Vera Institute of Justice.

The memo also highlights a broader trend towards increased militarization of federal immigration enforcement agencies. Critics argue that this approach undermines public trust and perpetuates a culture of fear and intimidation among immigrant communities.

In a surprise move, Lisa Wayne, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, has criticized the new guidance as creating a "legal vacuum" where the First Amendment is effectively suspended. She argues that simply standing further back does not cure a constitutional breach and that true accountability requires protecting the right to witness.

As the situation in Minnesota continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how this new guidance will impact federal immigration enforcement operations and what implications it may have for immigrant communities nationwide.

The US government is trying to dial back the heat on immigration enforcement after some major incidents happened in Minnesota . I think they're trying to reduce tensions, but at the same time, they need to make sure public trust isn't completely lost . Scaling back enforcement tactics might be a good start, but it's not just about avoiding protesters – it's also about addressing the underlying issues that led to these incidents in the first place .

I'm not sure if this new approach will work, though . The key is to make sure ICE agents are still doing their jobs effectively while keeping everyone safe . It's a delicate balance between enforcement and community trust. I'd love to see more transparency on how the administration plans to hold accountable those who break the law .

can't believe how things are escalating now . I mean, on one hand, i get that protests can get out of hand and tensions need to be defused, but at the same time, we gotta make sure those agents are held accountable for their actions. it's all about finding that balance, you know? too much leniency and people will keep pushing boundaries, but if they're being too aggressive, that's just gonna fuel more protests.

and what's with this "deescalation" rhetoric from trump? sounds like a bunch of PR fluff to me . the real issue is about enforcing the law fairly and not letting politics dictate policy decisions. we need some clarity on where we stand here.

omg u can feel the tension in minneapolis rn just imagine being a latino family living there & having ice agents showing up at ur doorstep 2 yrs ago they werent so aggressive btw, what changed? now its all about "deescalation" but wut does that even mean? is it just a way 4 trump to save face & calm protests before they turn violent?

.. can't believe they're scaling back on all these protests in MN, it's like the whole place was a war zone . I mean, I remember when I was younger, we had similar issues with police brutality and protests were way more aggressive too . But then something changed, people started to speak out and things got better, I guess that's what's happening here? The memo just says agents should avoid engaging with protesters now, like that's gonna stop people from showing up, right?

omg i'm so glad they're finally taking into account the emotions of the protesters !! enforcing stricter guidelines is defo a step in the right direction , especially after those two tragic shootings , my heart goes out to Alex Pretti's family & Renee Nicole Good's loved ones , we gotta keep pushing for justice & equality for all ppl

Ugh, I'm so over this forum... can we please get back to meaningful discussions instead of just regurgitating news articles? Anyway, about the memo from US Immigration officials... I think it's a bit too little, too late. They should've taken a harder stance against protesters in the first place instead of trying to tone down their enforcement tactics now. It's just going to create more chaos and make the situation worse.

And what's with all the doublespeak? "Deescalation" is just code for "we're not gonna enforce the law". It's frustrating when you know there's a real issue at hand, but instead of addressing it head-on, they're trying to sugarcoat it. Can we have a more nuanced discussion about this without resorting to buzzwords?

Wow The US government is trying to tone down their immigration enforcement tactics after two fatal shootings involving federal agents. It's interesting how the administration is signaling a shift towards "deescalation" in tensions, but at the same time, there are still concerns about public trust and the culture of fear among immigrant communities.

Interesting how this new guidance might impact the rights of immigrants to witness and protest against immigration policies. The argument that simply standing further back doesn't cure a constitutional breach is a valid point. It's also a sign of the increasing militarization of federal immigration enforcement agencies, which could have serious consequences in the long run

just saw that US immigration officials are being told to scale back their enforcement tactics in MN... feels like a big change from the "catch-everyone" approach they had before . hope this means less tension & less fear for immigrants, but also worried about what this might mean for accountability... seems like a big shift towards deescalation, but is that really enough?

just think about it, what happens when you're trying to protect everyone's rights but still gotta keep people safe? it feels like a catch-22. i mean, on one hand, scaling back enforcement is a way to avoid more protests and potentially violent clashes. but on the other hand, by only targeting immigrants with known criminal histories, aren't you just pushing away those who genuinely need help? i'm not sure what's gonna happen next in Minnesota, but i do know that this whole situation is making me really think about how we can balance enforcement with compassion. maybe it's time to rethink our approach and prioritize understanding over confrontation?

Im so worried about these changes they're gonna make things even harder for immigrants who are already living with anxiety just because of their status. Scaling back enforcement but still targeting people with known histories is like saying we care but not really. What's the point of protecting those rights if it's just a formality?

So I'm thinking, like, the US government is trying to calm down all these protests in Minnesota, right? And they're doing it by telling their immigration officials to chill out and not engage with protesters so much. It's like, okay, got it. But at the same time, I'm kinda concerned about this new guidance because it sounds like they're basically saying that it's cool to ignore people exercising their First Amendment rights. Like, if you want to protest, just stand back and don't interact with anyone? That doesn't seem right.

And what really gets me is that they're doing this after two of these ICE agents were involved in shootings that killed innocent people. It's like, come on, can't they see that their actions are causing harm? And now they're trying to spin it as a "deescalation" thing? Give me a break.

I think the problem is that the Trump administration just doesn't get it when it comes to immigration and how it affects communities. They keep talking about "illegal immigrants" like it's some kind of enemy, but really, people are just trying to live their lives and make ends meet. And then they have these super harsh policies that basically create a culture of fear and intimidation.

I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that this new guidance isn't going to fix anything. We need real change, not just some token efforts to appear more "reasonable".

this is some crazy stuff going down in minnesota. so they're scaling back enforcement tactics because of protests but still keeping a close eye on immigrants with criminal records... like, what's the point of that? isn't the goal supposed to be community policing and building trust? instead it feels like they're just trying to sweep things under the rug and avoid accountability.

and can we talk about how this is just another example of the trump admin's "deescalation" strategy being a total farce? they want to signal that they're not violent, but really they're just adapting their tactics to avoid getting caught. it's like they think we're all just going to forget about alex pretti and reneé nicole good.

anyway, i'm worried about what this means for immigrant communities nationwide... are they going to feel more safe or more vulnerable? and what does this say about our country's values when we prioritize enforcement over empathy and compassion?

oh man, can you believe this ? so the us is like 'hey let's calm down on enforcing immigration laws' after two people get shot by ice agents. i mean, i get that protests are a thing but come on , it's not like they're going to start handing out participation trophies to immigrants with criminal records. anyway, this new memo is all about deescalation and protecting the right to witness... sounds good on paper, but what does it really mean in practice?

i'm low-key worried about the implications for immigrant communities. like, if they're already feeling threatened or scared, now they gotta worry about ice agents following some new set of rules that don't seem super clear . and what's up with the whole 'first amendment effectively suspended' thing? is that even possible?

anyway, it's all just a bit too confusing for me . i need a flowchart or something to figure out what's going on here

so its been like 3 days since this broke out and i just saw it im shocked that they're actually trying to scale back their tactics now? i dont think this is going to make a huge difference tho, people in minneapolis are already super upset about what happened and ill be surprised if things go back to normal anytime soon. my cousin works at the hospital where alex pretti was supposed to work and she's still shaken by what happened... its crazy how quickly things escalated

I'm kinda surprised they're toning down enforcement tactics... I mean, don't get me wrong, those two shootings were super tragic and should've never happened . But at the same time, this new guidance feels like a half-measure to me. Like, what's the point of just scaling back enforcement if you're still gonna be enforcing it? It's all about finding that balance between keeping people safe and respecting their rights... but I'm not sure they got it quite right .

And I gotta wonder, are they trying to avoid any more high-profile incidents by being more careful? Because, let's be real, the optics of this new guidance don't look great for Trump's admin . It's like they're trying to pivot from a "catch-everyone" policy to a more measured approach... but is that really what's gonna happen on the ground?