If Elected Leaders Won't Follow the Law, More Violence Will Occur

The death of Renée Good was not inevitable.

It was not an unavoidable accident.

And it was not the product of a single bad decision made in a vacuum.

The death of Renée Good was the foreseeable result of elected officials at state and local levels choosing confrontation, confusion, and political signaling over lawful process and coordination.

When state and local officials openly resist lawful cooperation with federal authorities; when lawful processes are ignored or undermined; and when enforcement becomes reactive rather than planned, tragedy becomes more likely. Renée Good’s death should force an uncomfortable but necessary reckoning: when elected leaders ignore laws, they create the environment for tragedy.

This is not an abstract policy debate. It is about real communities, real law enforcement officers, and real citizens caught in the middle of institutional dysfunction.

Across the country, states have taken sharply different approaches to immigration enforcement. In states like Texas, cooperation with federal authorities (while controversial in some circles) has produced clear, predictable enforcement outcomes. Dangerous individuals with criminal histories are identified, apprehended, and removed through structured operations that prioritize planning and coordination. The result is not perfection, but clarity that ultimately reduces chaos, minimizes surprise encounters, and protects the public as a whole.

Contrast that with the approach taken in Minnesota, where state and local leaders have openly resisted federal enforcement, challenged lawful actions in court, and publicly delegitimized the authority of federal agents. Whatever one’s views on immigration policy, this posture has consequences. When federal officers operate in hostile or ambiguous environments — without cooperation from local law enforcement — standard and routine enforcement actions are more likely to occur in public spaces, under compressed timelines, and with heightened tension. That is when mistakes happen and that is when lives are lost.

Too often, the debate is framed as a binary choice between compassion and enforcement. That framing is false — and dangerously so.

Adherence to the law protects everyone, including non-violent illegal immigrants. Clear legal standards, lawful warrants, and coordinated enforcement reduce the likelihood of chaotic encounters, mistaken identities, and unnecessary escalation. When enforcement is predictable and governed by due process, individuals who pose no threat are far less likely to be swept into dangerous situations born of confusion and fear.

Ironically, jurisdictions that claim to be protecting immigrant communities be resisting lawful enforcement often achieve the opposite. By pushing law enforcement into powder keg situations and by creating uncertainty about when and how the law will be applied, these communities are increasing the likelihood of sudden, uncoordinated encounters in neighborhoods, workplaces, and public spaces. Lawful, transparent enforcement allows authorities to separate violent offenders from non-violent individuals, reducing risk to everyone involved.

This is not about mass deportations or collective punishment. It is about process. It is about the rule of law as a stabilizing force — one that protect citizens, law-enforcement officers, and immigrant communities alike.

When state officials choose political theater over cooperation, they do not make enforcement disappear. They make it more dangerous. Federal officers will still act . . . they are sworn to. Criminal actors will still exploit gaps . . . they can’t help themselves. The difference in this scenario is that the safety rails are gone.

Outlier state and local officials like the ones in Minnesota are the exception, not the norm. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is conducting operations across the country . . . so why is the conflict so localized? Candidly, the blame runs much higher than state and local jurisdictions. Years of apathy at the federal level under previous administrations have created the fuel for an explosion and sadly they will never have to answer for these gross crimes of inaction.

That doesn’t mean those former administration didn’t enforce immigration law . . . in fact they did. They just did so without having Democrat elected leaders cause confusion, contention, and chaos while urging their supporters to riot and resist federal authorities.

Good governance requires humility and coordination. It requires recognizing that no single level of government operates in isolation, and that public denunciations and legal obstruction carry downstream consequences. When elected officials undermine lawful authority while offering no workable alternative, they create precisely the conditions that lead to tragedy.

Renée Good’s death should not be used as a talking point or a rallying cry. It is a tragically predictable outcome.

There is a path forward — one that does not require ideological agreement, only institutional responsibility:

• Clear agreements between federal, state, and local law enforcement that defines roles and responsibilities that cannot be disregard or set aside by elected leaders because they don’t personally agree with the enforcement action;
• Advance coordination and planning for enforcement actions with the goal of those actions being swift and (to all extents possible) non-disruptive of daily life around the target area;
• Transparent communication with communities about lawful process and rights so that individuals are not caught off-guard should they be detained or arrested for interfering or hindering a federal law enforcement action; and
• Independent accountability when force is used, free from political spin.

The law exists not to provoke conflict, but to prevent it. When government refuses to follow its own rules, the cost is measured not in headlines or court filings, but in lives.

If leaders continue to choose defiance over discipline, symbolism over substance, and politics over process . . . Renée Good will not be the last name we learn too late.