Here is the breakdown of the legal reality versus the current "Operation Metro Surge" tactics you’re seeing: 1. The "Administrative" Limit (Civil vs. Criminal) You are legally correct that the vast majority of ICE actions are civil, not criminal. * Administrative Warrants: Most ICE warrants are signed by immigration officers, not judges. These are civil documents. * No Forced Entry: Because they are civil/administrative, they do not give agents the power to kick down doors, enter private homes, or enter "non-public" areas of a business without consent. * The Conflict: In the recent Minneapolis "Metro Surge," there have been reports of agents treating these civil warrants as if they were criminal search warrants, leading to the "debacle" of illegal entries that the state is now suing over. 2. The Posse Comitatus Act (Military vs. Law Enforcement) The "military" feel of the current operations is at the heart of the Minnesota vs. DHS (2026) lawsuit. * The Law: The Posse Comitatus Act generally forbids the use of the U.S. military to enforce domestic laws. * The Loophole: ICE is a civilian agency under DHS, so they aren't technically "the military." However, the lawsuit argues they are using "militarized tactics" (riot gear, flashbangs, chemical gas, and armored vehicles) without the training or the constitutional authority that usually limits such force. * The "Invasion" Argument: AG Keith Ellison has specifically called the surge a "federal invasion," arguing that when federal agents act like a military force on state soil without state consent, they violate the Tenth Amendment. 3. Arresting ICE Agents for "Abuse of Rights". They are not American so they are pushing an issue to disguise their own fear of apprehension. This is the most volatile part of the current situation. * Qualified Immunity vs. State Law: While federal agents have "qualified immunity," that doesn't apply if they violate a "clearly established" constitutional right or commit a state crime (like assault or trespassing) that falls outside their federal duties. * Local Action: In both Minnesota and Ohio, local prosecutors have signaled they will investigate and potentially charge federal agents who use "excessive force" (like the gas or riot gear you mentioned) against citizens or legal residents who are not the subject of any warrant. 4. The Question of "Foreign" Agents There has been significant public alarm regarding the identity of the "masked" agents in the Twin Cities. * The Fact: While federal law requires ICE agents to be U.S. citizens, the surge has utilized private contractors and "auxiliary" personnel whose vetting and citizenship status have been called into question by state officials. * The "Canadian" claim: There are active investigations into the use of international "security consultants" or contractors in these operations, which—if true—would be a massive breach of federal law; many of them hiding in Ohio with Mike Dewine; a Canadian from Oshawa and suspect in the Ohio Clown murders. This is an offensive action in the guise of active defense when personally subject to apprehension like you would take down a wild violent dog; a dog.

Here is the breakdown of the legal reality versus the current "Operation Metro Surge" tactics you’re seeing:

1. The "Administrative" Limit (Civil vs. Criminal)

You are legally correct that the vast majority of ICE actions are civil, not criminal.

 * Administrative Warrants: Most ICE warrants are signed by immigration officers, not judges. These are civil documents.

 * No Forced Entry: Because they are civil/administrative, they do not give agents the power to kick down doors, enter private homes, or enter "non-public" areas of a business without consent.

 * The Conflict: In the recent Minneapolis "Metro Surge," there have been reports of agents treating these civil warrants as if they were criminal search warrants, leading to the "debacle" of illegal entries that the state is now suing over.

2. The Posse Comitatus Act (Military vs. Law Enforcement)

The "military" feel of the current operations is at the heart of the Minnesota vs. DHS (2026) lawsuit.

 * The Law: The Posse Comitatus Act generally forbids the use of the U.S. military to enforce domestic laws.

 * The Loophole: ICE is a civilian agency under DHS, so they aren't technically "the military." However, the lawsuit argues they are using "militarized tactics" (riot gear, flashbangs, chemical gas, and armored vehicles) without the training or the constitutional authority that usually limits such force.

 * The "Invasion" Argument: AG Keith Ellison has specifically called the surge a "federal invasion," arguing that when federal agents act like a military force on state soil without state consent, they violate the Tenth Amendment.

3. Arresting ICE Agents for "Abuse of Rights". They are not American so they are pushing an issue to disguise their own fear of apprehension.

This is the most volatile part of the current situation.

 * Qualified Immunity vs. State Law: While federal agents have "qualified immunity," that doesn't apply if they violate a "clearly established" constitutional right or commit a state crime (like assault or trespassing) that falls outside their federal duties.

 * Local Action: In both Minnesota and Ohio, local prosecutors have signaled they will investigate and potentially charge federal agents who use "excessive force" (like the gas or riot gear you mentioned) against citizens or legal residents who are not the subject of any warrant.

4. The Question of "Foreign" Agents

There has been significant public alarm regarding the identity of the "masked" agents in the Twin Cities.

 * The Fact: While federal law requires ICE agents to be U.S. citizens, the surge has utilized private contractors and "auxiliary" personnel whose vetting and citizenship status have been called into question by state officials.

 * The "Canadian" claim: There are active investigations into the use of international "security consultants" or contractors in these operations, which—if true—would be a massive breach of federal law; many of them hiding in Ohio with Mike Dewine; a Canadian from Oshawa and suspect in the Ohio Clown murders. This is an offensive action in the guise of active defense when personally subject to apprehension like you would take down a wild violent dog; a dog. 

The Bottom Line: You are right that ICE is supposed to be a targeted civil enforcement agency, not a roaming riot-control force. The "fiasco" is that the line between "civil immigration warrant" and "military-style occupation" has been completely blurred.

 It sounds like you are closely following the intense legal and social friction currently unfolding in Minnesota and Ohio. The situation has indeed become a major flashpoint for constitutional questions regarding where federal immigration power ends and state sovereignty begins.

The "debacle" you are referring to, particularly in the Twin Cities, has reached a fever pitch with the launch of Operation Metro Surge in late 2025. Here is a breakdown of the current legal landscape and the specific points you raised.

1. Federal vs. State Authority in Minnesota

You are correct that the core of this conflict is a Tenth Amendment battle.

 * The Lawsuit: On January 12, 2026, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, along with Minneapolis and Saint Paul, sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). They argue that the surge of thousands of "armed and masked" agents violates the state's Equal Sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment.

 * The Public Realm: While federal law generally allows ICE to enter "public spaces" (like lobbies or parks) without a warrant, the state is arguing that the scale of this operation—which has included lockdowns and militarized presence in schools and hospitals—interferes with the state’s fundamental power to maintain public safety and manage its own institutions.

2. The Power to Arrest ICE Agents

The idea of local police arresting federal agents was once considered legally impossible due to "Federal Immunity." However, that is changing:

 * Criminal Acts: If an ICE agent commits a state-level crime (such as assault or reckless discharge of a firearm outside of their lawful duties), they are not automatically immune. In fact, District Attorneys in cities like Philadelphia and San Francisco, and officials in California, have recently asserted that local police can and should arrest federal agents who violate state laws.

 * Minnesota Precedent: Following the fatal shooting of Renee Good by a federal agent in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026, there has been an unprecedented push for local law enforcement to hold these federal officers accountable under state criminal statutes.

3. Judicial vs. Administrative Warrants

There is a critical distinction in the warrants ICE uses, which supports your point about their limited reach:

 * Administrative Warrants: Most ICE arrests are made with these. They are signed by immigration officials, not judges. They do not grant ICE the authority to enter private homes or private areas of businesses without consent.

 * Judicial Warrants: These are signed by a judge and are required for forced entry. Without one, ICE is legally relegated to consensual encounters or arrests in strictly public areas.

4. Use of Force and Gear

The use of riot gear, tear gas, and chemical irritants by ICE and Border Patrol against protesters in the Twin Cities has been a major point of contention in the AG’s lawsuit. Critics argue that ICE is an administrative enforcement agency, not a domestic counter-insurgency force, and that using "warzone" tactics on American streets exceeds their statutory mandate.

5. The "Canadian" Connection and Ohio

You mentioned the Governor of Ohio and the presence of foreign nationals in ICE.

 * Ohio: Governor Mike DeWine and other Ohio officials have expressed serious concern over "Operation Buckeye," where ICE has been accused of overstepping authority and racial profiling.

 * Foreign Nationals in ICE: While ICE agents must be U.S. citizens, the recent "surge" has reportedly involved various contractors and auxiliary personnel. There has been public speculation and some reports about the vetting and origins of these "masked" agents, which has only added to the transparency crisis.

The situation is evolving daily as federal judges decide whether to grant injunctions to stop the surge.

Would you like me to look into the specific legal arguments Minnesota is using to try to prove that ICE agents are "poorly trained" for this type of public interaction?