Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling finds himself in an impossible position. Protesters are ramming federal agents’ vehicles and the mayor wants him to arrest those agents for doing their jobs. Meanwhile, the federal government is deploying out-of-state National Guard troops over local objections, and both sides accuse him of being complicit with the enemy. As Snelling put it: “You’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t. We accept that.”
This is what happens when pragmatic governance dies and ideological purity wins.
The chaos on Chicago’s streets didn’t have to happen. In 2007, a comprehensive immigration bill that included both serious border security and a pathway to citizenship had bipartisan leadership support. It died because extremes on both sides preferred no bill to an imperfect compromise. The same pattern repeated in 2013 And 2024.
Eighteen years of failed reform later, we’re living with the consequences: aggressive federal enforcement without local coordination on one side, sanctuary city proclamations that exceed legal authority on the other, and professionals like Snelling caught in the middle trying to maintain order while both tribes use him as a political weapon.
To understand how we got here—and why immigration has become one more arena where extremes rule and everyone loses—we need to examine what happened when pragmatism last had a chance.
The 2007 Grand Compromise That Wasn’t
In 2007, George W. Bush, a lifelong Texan intimately familiar with immigration realities, wanted to tackle comprehensive reform. He understood he faced an uphill battle within his own party—hardline law-and-order Republicans saw immigration as purely an enforcement issue. But Bush crafted what was genuinely meant as a grand compromise: the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act included 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 105 camera and radar towers, and 20,000 more Border Patrol agents to satisfy enforcement concerns, while simultaneously providing a pathway to citizenship for approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants.
The bill attracted serious bipartisan leadership: Republican senators like Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham joined Democrats Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy in pushing for passage. Bush personally lobbied for it, even bringing it back for a second attempt after an initial failure.
But here’s where pragmatism died and purism won.
From the right: Conservative Republicans, driven by talk radio campaigns and groups like NumbersUSA, viewed any pathway to citizenship as “amnesty” and revolted against their own president. In the final cloture vote on June 28, 2007, 37 Republicans voted against it while only 12 supported it.
From the left: Labor unions opposed the guest worker program as creating an exploited underclass. Some progressive Democrats thought the bill didn’t go far enough on family reunification. Some supported amendments—like Senator Byron Dorgan’s successful amendment to sunset the guest worker program—that bill architects warned would be “deal-breakers.” In the end, 15 Democrats voted against it.
The bill died 46-53. Both extremes preferred no bill to an imperfect compromise.
The Pattern Repeats: 2013 and Beyond
The 2013 “Gang of Eight” bill showed the same dynamic. It passed the Senate 68-32 with substantial bipartisan support, included both enforcement measures conservatives wanted and legalization progressives wanted, and died in the Republican-controlled House because Tea Party-aligned members refused to even allow a vote.
Then in 2024, a bipartisan border security bill—negotiated for months with Republican input and including enforcement measures conservatives claimed to want—collapsed within days when hardliners rejected it as insufficient.
But let’s not pretend the left is blameless. Progressive Democrats have consistently opposed enforcement-heavy compromises, and some Democratic officials have prioritized symbolic resistance over practical solutions.
When Both Sides Distort the Truth: Brighton Park
The October 4th shooting in Brighton Park, Illinois, exemplifies how both extremes manipulate facts to serve their narratives rather than seeking truth.
What’s not in dispute: Marimar Martinez and Anthony Ian Santos Ruiz followed Border Patrol agents for 20-30 minutes, engaging in what prosecutors described as “extremely dangerous and extremely reckless” behavior. Security camera footage shows Martinez driving alongside the federal vehicle, at times crossing into oncoming traffic lanes, while both defendants’ vehicles closely pursued the agents. Martinez was live-streaming the chase on Facebook, honking her horn and shouting at agents before the collision occurred.
Martinez and Ruiz created the confrontation. They put themselves in a dangerous situation where violence could—and did—result.
But here’s where both sides start distorting:
Right-wing narrative: DHS initially claimed the incident happened in Broadview (it was Brighton Park), said agents were surrounded by “10 cars” (unclear from evidence), claimed Martinez had a “semi-automatic weapon” threatening agents (her legally-carried gun stayed in her purse on the passenger seat), and said she drove herself to the hospital (an ambulance transported her from an auto shop).
Left-wing narrative: Activists portray Martinez and Ruiz as innocent bystanders targeted by aggressive federal agents, ignoring the 20-30 minute pursuit, the dangerous driving, and their deliberate attempts to box in and impede federal officers.
The inconvenient middle ground: Body camera evidence—and notably, only 3 of multiple cameras were activated—shows an agent saying “Do something, bitch” before exiting the vehicle and firing five shots at Martinez. Whether the federal vehicle struck Martinez’s car first or vice versa remains disputed, with Martinez’s attorney claiming footage shows the agent turned into her vehicle.
A federal judge released both defendants, noting it was “a miracle to me that no one was more seriously injured” while also acknowledging their lack of criminal history.
This is what happens when we choose tribes over facts. Martinez and Ruiz absolutely instigated a dangerous confrontation through reckless pursuit and attempts to box in federal agents. But federal agents also failed to activate all body cameras, provided false information about the incident’s location, and one agent’s “Do something, bitch” suggests possible escalation rather than pure self-defense.
Both things can be true—and acknowledging that complexity is what pragmatism requires. Instead, each side cherry-picks the facts that support their narrative while ignoring the ones that don’t.
When Pragmatism Dies on the Streets
The broader Chicago situation exemplifies what happens when pragmatic governance collapses entirely. Mayor Brandon Johnson issued executive orders declaring city property off-limits to federal immigration enforcement and called for criminal charges against federal agents who violate city law. This is legal overreach—as Police Superintendent Larry Snelling correctly pointed out, Chicago police “are neither permitted nor able to apprehend federal agents” based on the mayor’s proclamations.
Snelling has been one of the few pragmatic voices in this chaos. When protesters rammed vehicles carrying federal agents and surrounded them in confrontations, Snelling made clear his officers would respond to protect any law enforcement officer in danger, regardless of jurisdiction. He warned protesters: “Following them or boxing them in could result in deadly force. You may not like what they’re doing…but that does not mean you get to commit a crime.”
This is basic rule of law—first responders must help other first responders in danger, regardless of policy disagreements.
But the federal tactics that created this situation are equally part of the problem. The aggressive enforcement approach includes operations conducted without local coordination and National Guard troops from Texas deployed to Illinois over the objections of state and local officials. President Trump has made threats to jail Governor Pritzker and Mayor Johnson.
Research consistently shows that sanctuary policies don’t increase crime—in fact, crime rates are actually lower in sanctuary jurisdictions by an average of 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people compared to non-sanctuary areas. Why? Because when immigrant communities trust local police, they report crimes, cooperate with investigations, and help solve problems. When they fear any interaction with police could lead to deportation, criminals prey on immigrant victims who won’t come forward.
The Cycle of Extremism
So what do we have?
From the left: Mayor Johnson making unenforceable proclamations, some protesters engaging in dangerous confrontations with federal agents, and sanctuary policies taken to extremes that sometimes protect actual criminals alongside vulnerable families.
From the right: Maximum enforcement tactics with minimal local coordination, National Guard deployments to “Democrat-run cities,” threats to jail elected officials, and rhetoric painting all undocumented immigrants as threats.
In the middle: Superintendent Snelling trying to maintain order and the rule of law while being “used as political pawns from people on both sides of the issue.” As he put it: “You’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t. We accept that.”
This is exactly what happens when comprehensive reform fails for 18 years. Without a functional immigration system, we get chaos, violence, federal-state conflicts, and first responders caught in the middle trying to keep communities safe.
The due process concerns are real because the enforcement-only approach is what happens when the left refuses to compromise on border security and enforcement. The violence and non-cooperation concerns are real because the sanctuary-city-at-all-costs approach is what happens when the right refuses to compromise on pathways to legal status for long-term residents contributing to their communities.
Both extremes have created conditions requiring aggressive responses that violate norms on both ends. That’s the cost of purism over pragmatism—not just policy failure, but actual chaos in the streets.
Where the Extremes Thrive
The real culprits here aren’t everyday Republicans or Democrats—most voters actually support pragmatic compromises on immigration. The problem is the meme factories, the outrage merchants, the activists on both extremes who profit from conflict and paint any compromise as betrayal.
These forces—conservative talk radio hosts who killed the 2007 bill, progressive activists who demand purity tests, social media amplifying the most extreme voices on both sides—create an environment where politicians who seek bipartisan solutions face primary challenges and base revolts.
You know who these extremes are: they’re the ones spreading unsourced and inaccurate information presented as truth. They ride the dopamine-fueled wave of dissent into absolute chaos.
The Pragmatist’s Path Forward
Research shows that extreme polarization “can undermine democracy by making compromise impossible and transforming politics into a zero-sum game.” We’re living that reality now.
The 2007 bill would have prevented much of today’s chaos. The 2013 bill would have addressed enforcement and legalization together. The 2024 bill represented months of bipartisan negotiation. All died because extremes on both sides preferred tribal warfare to imperfect victories.
It ends when we all refuse to accept the nonsense floated as truth from hyper-partisans on both sides. When we:
Demand citations for inflammatory claims and distorted statistics
Recognize propaganda regardless of which tribe produces it
Support pragmatic politicians willing to accept 70% solutions rather than holding out for 100%
Acknowledge that people who disagree aren’t evil, just prioritizing different values
I write this as someone who serves on a police commission in rural Wisconsin, where I regularly navigate tensions between law-and-order priorities and civil liberties concerns. It’s given me deep respect for law enforcement professionals like Superintendent Snelling who refuse to let their work become a political weapon for either side. Being sympathetic to enforcement needs while opposing police state overreach isn’t contradictory—it’s what pragmatic governance requires.
The sad truth is there probably aren’t many likes involved in this approach. But it’s the only path forward that doesn’t lead to more chaos, more violence, and more destruction of the functional governance we desperately need. Nobody wins when extremes rule. Everyone loses. And the fights go on and on with any calls for imperfect victories or pragmatic solutions dismissed outright time and time again.
How does it end? Only when we refuse to be foot soldiers in someone else’s purity war.
Comments