These days, we often hear the phrase “that’s not who we are,” usually expressed in the context of harsh disagreement with administration policy and the alleged mistreatment of illegal migrants. Fair enough — that’s a concern worthy of consideration. Surely we should live up to our American ethics.

But how about the orchestrated visceral hatred of ICE agents that is now pervasive in American popular culture? These officers are following lawful orders, working to remove dangerous criminals from our midst. But with encouragement from the media and from Democrat leaders, many have learned to detest them, to insult them, to curse them, to threaten them, and to make their jobs as difficult as possible. In Minneapolis, ICE agents are routinely refused service at fast food establishments, not permitted to use restrooms in public places, and hunted at their hotels. Is that “who we are”?

Those of a certain age can remember the dark days of 60 years ago, when military service members, mostly young male draftees returning from brutally difficult 13-month tours of duty in Vietnam, were greeted with sneering disrespect. According to popular media narratives at the time, they were “baby killers” — participants in an unpopular war, unworthy of our appreciation or respect.

We’ve outgrown our disdain for that generation of veterans — now we’re greeted with a “thank you for your service.” But will Americans someday thank those in our service in today’s front lines, attempting to apprehend potentially dangerous illegal migrants?

And in that context, let’s look at the underlying questions regarding the tumultuous situation we find ourselves in, particularly in Minnesota and now taking root around the nation. In what respects is that current circumstance inimical to our nation’s foundational principles? And more importantly, how do we turn it around? I see three ways:

1.) The sanctuary madness must stop. Now.

We are the United States of America, the imperfect union that Abraham Lincoln risked all to restore a century and a half ago. And so, today, why do we permit states or municipalities to exempt themselves from responsibility to support the implementation of federal laws that apply across the land?

That seems patently unconstitutional — and regardless of future court rulings, it is clearly disruptive and dangerous.

The self-declared sanctuary status in Minneapolis has been used as a green light for non-cooperation between local law enforcement and federal agents, a policy explicitly directed by both state and city officials.

In reality, non-cooperation means obstruction, and it adds layers of difficulty and great danger to the agents executing their legal orders. In both of the tragic shooting deaths in Minneapolis over the past few weeks, the ICE agents involved were trying to do their jobs while simultaneously dealing with aggressive protesters. Neither confrontation would have occurred had local law enforcement provided the traffic and crowd control needed for the agents to do their work without interference.

Despite its disastrous consequences in Minneapolis, the sanctuary concept is gaining favor elsewhere on the political left. Last week’s well-organized protests at Columbia University in New York City included a declaration by Columbia students that their campus is now a “sanctuary” (with no sign yet that the university chancellor agrees).

2.) We must clarify — and enforce — limits in the protest behaviors considered to be the free speech protected by the First Amendment.

We Americans enjoy a sweeping right to free speech, explicitly enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. One form of free speech is political protest, a right clearly recognized and upheld in numerous court rulings. We have every right to express our disagreement with government policy and practices through our voices and actions.

We can speak loudly, forcefully, and unpleasantly. The courts have generously expanded those rights to include actions that many Americans consider despicable — burning the U.S. flag as one example. And evidently, obscenities are acceptable versions of free speech. I, for one, am disgusted and unmoved by the proliferation of the F**K ICE! on protesters’ signs and garb everywhere, and spoken aloud routinely by elected Democrat officials.

But there must be limits. We don’t have the right to destroy property, to assault others, to dox federal agents, to threaten them and their families, to impede their lawful actions, and expose them to grave dangers from either enraged mobs or from the illegal immigrants they are trying to apprehend.

Pinning down the limits of acceptable protest behavior has been a slippery slope for some time. Over the years, disruptive and violent protests have become more commonplace, often defying control and restraint and usually resulting in minimal consequences for the perpetrators. The nation watched helplessly as the 2020 “summer of love” protests broke out in the wake of George Floyd’s death, spawning over a thousand riotous events that collectively took more than two dozen lives, along with untold numbers of injuries, rampant arson and looting, and billions in damages to public and private property. Who can forget the iconic newscam video of a TV reporter on one occasion declaring that the night’s protests had been “mainly peaceful” while standing in front of a raging inferno?

Our tolerance for the intolerable continues to grow; with the millions of deportations potentially still ahead, I fear that we’ve only scratched the surface.

3.) We must find a way to separate the politics from the principles in immigration policy.

That’s a tall order. But let’s start by acknowledging that the Democrats’ full-throated opposition to the president’s actions to deport illegal immigrants is not just about immigration policy and practices — it has become a central element in their larger, pervasive “resistance” to all things Trump.

To be clear, I’ve no doubt that the Minneapolis citizens who have been braving sub-zero temperatures to protest passionately in Minneapolis streets have a genuine concern about the treatment of migrants. But I’ve also no doubt that the organizations behind them that provide the planning, training, coordination (via hi-tech signal chat), whistles, and signage for their daily well-organized protests are arms of the Democrat political machine.

After much wheel-spinning, the resistance movement has finally landed on a topic that gets real traction in mobilizing public anti-Trump sentiment. It has its fingerprints on anti-ICE protests erupting in NYC, in the northwest, and elsewhere in the nation, and even on the nationwide wave of high school anti-ICE walkouts — most in areas in which there has been very little ICE activity.

I believe the extreme politicization of Immigration policy is an archetypal example of the corrosive partisanship that is steadily undermining our long history of stable government. It’s a dead end. And I worry that the corrosive partisanship will continue unabated until — driven by repeated ugly consequences — the American electorate refuses to tolerate it.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm (ICE) are following established American Law — the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — and taking direction from the president of the United States. There is nothing dictatorial or undemocratic about it.

For those who do not like the administration’s policy in dealing with illegal immigrants residing in the U.S., you are free to make your feelings heard with a civil, peaceful protest and then at the ballot box. That’s what elections are for.

But don’t take your disagreement out on those handling the brunt of that difficult work — they deserve your respect and appreciation, nothing less.