Episode 453, The Andrew Parker Show: Borders, the Rule of Law, and a Nation Pushed to the Brink

In this episode of The Andrew Parker Show, Andrew Parker examines the growing national divide over immigration enforcement, federal authority, and the rule of law—and why America now finds itself pushed to the brink.

Broadcasting from Minneapolis, Andrew addresses the tragic death of Renee Good and places it within the broader conflict surrounding ICE operations, immigration policy, and escalating political rhetoric. He explores the fundamental clash between globalist ideology and democratically enacted federal law and explains why disagreement with policy does not justify refusal to enforce it.

This episode confronts the role of elected officials and the media in fueling public outrage, undermining law enforcement, and creating an environment where chaos replaces constitutional process. Andrew discusses documented ICE enforcement actions, the legal realities surrounding deportation, and the dangers of incitement when facts are subordinated to narrative.

At its core, this is a discussion about democracy itself—how laws are changed, what happens when election results are rejected in practice, and why the erosion of the rule of law threatens public safety and national cohesion.

If you are seeking clear-eyed analysis rather than slogans, this episode delivers Smart, Plain Talk on one of the most consequential issues of our time.

Transcript

Episode 453, The Andrew Parker Show

Andrew Parker (00:01)
Welcome to another episode of the Andrew Parker show. Thank you once again for joining us as we talk each episode and we're on about, I don't know, four hundred and fifty three, fifty four, something like that. We talk each episode about politics, Israel and the law. Smart plane talk, we we just try to say it the way it is, the way it appears.

trying for an objective perspective, listening to other opinions, attitudes, ideologies and ideas, ⁓ and trying to develop the best way to order our society.

to enhance and promote all that is good and put aside, put away, destroy all that is evil or bad, unhealthy for us.

Today I want to talk about, well, something that is ⁓ continuing from the previous couple of episodes, and that is immigration policy here in the United States. I want to talk about the incident that occurred just down the street, maybe a mile, a couple miles from where I am broadcasting.

right now, the city of Minneapolis.

⁓ And in the context of that horrific event

that no one would want to have happen.

We wish that we could, well, we would have hopes that we could wish it away.

but we cannot. So in the context of that event, I want to talk about immigration policy. I want to talk about our elected officials and how they have handled the vehement disagreement regarding immigration policy.

leading up to and then including what we.

now see as there's new video coming out each day and I said in the previous episodes we need to wait to see what the video looks like

So I want to talk a little bit about that and about the death of ⁓ this woman.

was involved in protesting being opposed to immigration policy. It is a shame indeed that we have reached a point where no matter what side you are on, ⁓ people are losing their lives over this policy. It should not be the case.

So what is this vehement disagreement?

Well, ⁓ I think it's safe to say that pretty much across the board, the Democratic Party has taken on the position that ⁓ first, there was no invasion of immigrants into the United States without following any process, without following any procedure to vet who they were.

that ⁓ that was not a problem. And it lasted year in, year out during the Biden administration and before, but certainly massively during the Biden administration, not during the first Trump term, nor certainly during Trump's now second term.

The border was shut down. But during the Biden years, that completely changed. And it changed because there is a disagreement with immigration policy between the parties.

That disagreement really arose during the Biden years. ⁓ Obama also had issues and problems with a wide open border, but he did attempt to engage in deportations and did deport many through the use of the federal agency handling immigration.

Now, this vehement disagreement is really a globalist versus non-globalist.

Argument

globalist position is that well you know countries really shouldn't have borders in the first place we are all members of the world of the earth and these borders create war they create disagreement

They create hate and discord with your fellow. Without borders, we all are human. We all are living on this planet together. And we all ought to find a way to get along, one culture to the next, in a melting pot of different ideas without borders.

And so immigrants who want to come to the United States and live in the United States should be welcomed with open arms without question or even, some believe, without vetting.

So it becomes a real ⁓ debate if you believe that, and many do. ⁓

as to whether it is right or wrong to allow an illegal immigrant invasion, as the Republicans call it.

Now, one of the differences between the two is that this globalist ideology is not grounded in law yet here in the United States. And so the Democrats are stuck with laws on the books that have not been changed despite the fact that at the ballot box the parties in power have shifted and changed several times.

over the last several decades, but immigration policy has not changed. So the laws on the books do not support this globalist ideology. They support a more conservative, ⁓ the Republican ideology. I don't want to turn this into a partisan, well, one side is right, the other is wrong.

the red versus the blue I Want to turn it into not turn it in but but present that there are differences in a belief in immigration

And many in the Democrat side, you know, are not these full-blown globalists that I just described, but many are simply, we want an open immigration policy. Everyone who is here should stay here. they, ⁓ many will argue if they commit a crime, they should be ⁓ tried and if convicted, serve time.

for that crime like any other in this country.

but they should not, if they're here, be removed and they should have the rights ultimately as citizens. And then from here, we decide how to vet and have a big wide open door for immigrants who are not yet here.

And so that view has not been enacted into law, but those Democrats that believe it and agree, ⁓ want it that way, and by the way, there are many Republicans that do as well because of, you know, in some respects because of the ability to have a broader workforce here in the United States rather than kicking out millions of

people who are here contrary to the law. But the point that I am making is the law on the books is not what the Democrats wish that it was. It simply isn't. So what do they do with that? They say, doesn't matter, we are going to demand that that is the way we solve this problem. We are going to demand

that regardless of what the laws are on the books, they are not to be enforced and we should solve the problem the way that we want it solved. Well, of course, that is about as undemocratic as you can get.

If you want to change the law, you don't just say, we're going to change the law even though can't get it enact, the changes enacted. No, if you're going to change the law, you change it by starting at the ballot box, getting people of like mind elected, and then passing legislation to change the law with those people of like mind as you.

And that's the way we do it in a democratic society.

That's the way we did it. With desegregation of the schools in the South, we didn't say, well, we know that, you know, federal law requires it, but you states down in the South, you don't like it. So you're refusing. That's fine with us. Go ahead and refuse. No.

That is not the way a democratic society works. And if it were, we would not have desegregated the schools. We had to send in federal troops for that, recall? Federal law enforcement, if you will. And the states opposed it, and there was a battle.

But the states did not have foundation.

and they were not certainly able to elect sufficient people to say, want to continue with segregation, or we want to leave it to a state's rights issue. Immigration policy is a federal policy.

and the united states elected donald trump who has a certain view and position as it relates to immigration

So that's what happened at the democratically elected stage here in the U.S. in 2024.

And no matter how much the state of Illinois may dislike it, or the state of California, or right here, the state of Minnesota, and Tim Walz, and Jacob Fry, the mayor of Minneapolis, or the Attorney General Keith House may dislike it, it is the law. And it is a federal policy to enforce federal law.

in the manner that Trump ran on and he is now carrying out.

So, not only is it undemocratic and improper for the messaging and the opposition and the pushback by elected officials, but it is dangerous. It results in an environment that we are seeing, no matter how much they oppose.

And by the way...

the vitriol coming from both corners, but certainly from the left, about what ICE agents are doing.

is beyond reality. Now we can fight over the facts. No it isn't, know, they're masked and they are disappearing people, they're throwing people in vans never to be seen again, they're ripping apart families. This is the messaging ⁓ of the left.

But what if, and I don't think that messaging would change, if the facts are, which has been reported, 70 % at least of those arrested, of those taken into custody.

of those sent out are

here illegally, here improperly, violated the laws on the books. Deportation has, ⁓ or is in the process of occurring, 70%. Now does that mean 30 % are rounded up and shouldn't be? Well to the extent that there are people that are pulled in.

and should not be deported.

They have legal recourse and they should carry it out.

But in addition, what if the facts are, and has been reported, that large numbers, thousands of those here illegally also have criminal convictions or criminal records?

That seems to be a big deal from a policy perspective. Now you can disagree with the policy. Frankly, it doesn't matter. That is the law as it sits. The deportations should occur, whether criminals or not. And if they are criminals, beyond being here illegally, even more so they should be ⁓ deported. Or if they've been tried and convicted here, they should serve their time.

And there are many, many that have been. ICE just put out ⁓ an exemplary list, but a short list, relatively speaking, of criminal illegal immigrants called aliens. In fact, that term is used in the Constitution, convicted of murder, some of them, of...

child rape some of them and they're right here in the state of Minnesota.

Should we ignore them? Because the Democratic Party in the state of Minnesota is defending them. Is taking the side of these criminal offenders.

⁓

And these people are real, they're not fictitious, they have names, they are on the ICE website as just a few of those gathered up.

here in ⁓ minnesota

⁓ Sexual assault against a minor and I'm not gonna list the names But I have them here. I have a picture of them and you can go again on the ice website to see this

and to see the statement of the ICE director. Do we not want him to do his job? He says, regardless of staged political theatrics, which is what he calls the opposition to what ICE is doing, quote, ICE is going to continue to arrest the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens in Minnesota and elsewhere.

Some of these criminal aliens have had final orders of removal from the United States for three decades.

but they nonetheless have not been deported. They have been defended and allowed to stay here.

And ICE's arrests prevent recidivism, they make communities safer, but unfortunately it feels like local politicians want to ignore that part and drum up discontent rather than protect their own constituents. So that is a position.

that is taken by the ICE director and he then shows this whole list as I say, a child ⁓ rapist with four DUIs.

another convicted of strong-arm sodomy of a boy and of a girl, other aggravated sex offenses, nine counts of larceny, unauthorized use of a vehicle, four counts of fraud, vehicle theft, two counts of drug possession, and it goes on. This is another one who...

is being defended to stay here.

There are lists of others that go for pages.

If you go on the ICE website, can see their picture, their name, the criminal conduct, including homicides.

⁓ larceny theft burglary

all throughout, dozens of them.

And when you see this, it causes you to pause when you have local elected officials interfering with the work of law enforcement to take these people off the streets once and for all who should not even be in this country.

One of the defenses that those on the left raise is, well, there are those examples, but there are many more examples per capita of US citizens who engage in this sort of criminal conduct that need to be brought to justice. And so using that as a reason to gather up illegal aliens, illegal immigrants,

is misguided. And that argument seems unusual and completely ineffective.

And why is that? Well, because if someone is a citizen, yes, we have a judicial system that should bring them to justice for conduct, illegal conduct that they engage in for sure. But if there's someone here illegally, they shouldn't even be here in order to engage in this illegal conduct. And so removing them is required, not just

to avoid and limit and reduce the amount of crime in this ⁓ country, but to make sure that we are allowing into the United States only those that go through the process of the democratically enacted ⁓ immigration ⁓ rules and procedures.

Again, just because states, whether they be in the South, we're talking about desegregation from decades ago, or whether we are talking about states like Illinois, California, Minnesota.

that oppose the current president's immigration policy. That is not reason to create an environment that results in the kind of pushback opposition, incitement of violence against law enforcement.

That is wrong. It is wrong to call for it, for anyone to call for it, but certainly for elected officials to call for it. And when that sort of clarion call is made, resulting in the kind of environment that we have here in Minnesota.

whether it be from the 2020 murder of George Floyd and all of the damage and additional death that occurred because of the failure of the Democrat elected officials here in Minnesota to recognize and quell and put down illegal conduct.

when it's happening in the streets, whether it be because of opposition to what happened to George Floyd or not, it does not warrant, it does not excuse the kind of conduct that occurred after that. And in the same vein,

whether it be because of the...

death of this woman, ⁓ Renee Good, here in the Twin Cities. ⁓ Horrific occurrence, something that we wish never would occur. But to be an elected official here and to just walk away from it and say, look it, see, this is what happens when President Trump sends out ice

to enforce federal law. No, it shouldn't be what happens.

Let me read to you.

a post on Facebook that I frankly don't know who wrote. I don't know if it was a political position or whether it was just one of personal ⁓ feelings about Renee Good, but it was it is a perspective. I am agnostic on whether I agree or disagree with this ⁓ perspective, and I don't think it's important whether I do or not.

It is something for you to consider regardless of the side you are on. I am one who does not generally believe that the victim should be blamed unless they should be blamed in part.

So.

This was posted by someone who says they are a father and not a mom, but it was written by a mother. So it was posted by someone who didn't write it.

But this father says that it sums it up pretty well from his perspective. But again, it was written by a ⁓ mom.

and it talks about the...

Why is this woman, Good, out in the streets pushing back against ICE trying to enforce federal law?

I mean, she is a mother. She has obligations to her kids. The kid's father is apparently no longer alive.

She has three kids.

She is the parent left to take care of them.

And this other mom is judging her, if you will.

She says the one job she has above every cause, every protest, every headline, is getting home to her kids.

What is she doing instead? I'm now quoting from this ⁓ post She's out of state other reports claim that she lives here That was my understanding frankly is that she lives here in Minnesota

She is in the street, in her car, blocking federal agents who are doing their job.

Not alone though, her partner is right there filming her like this is some brave little documentary moment.

This is the writing of this woman who wrote this post.

around them, sirens are blaring, people are yelling, there's chaos.

so agents can't do their lawful duty.

Her window is down, she hears the orders, she understands the orders, she ignores the orders. Then she puts the car in reverse. Still doesn't comply. Then she puts it in drive, not park, drive. She moves forward into the agent. That's not quote confusion, that's not quote panic, that's the decision after decision after decision.

Now put yourself in the agent's shoes for half a second. A driver is already in an unlawful act, refusing commands in a hostile chaotic scene, and now that other, or that driver uses a vehicle to move toward you. You get a split second. You don't get the luxury of, maybe she's just stressed. You have to assume the worst.

You have to think of protecting other people like the partner at the window because if you assume the best and you're wrong, you don't go home or someone else. I am now continuing to read from this post. So the agent fires after she makes an intentional and aggressive move toward him because he has no idea what her intentions are and she just demonstrated she's willing to escalate.

Now imagine, and I'm continuing to read from this woman's, well, it was a father, a man who posted this, but it was, he says, a mom who wrote it.

Now imagine her three kids at school, sitting there like any other day, not knowing their mother is out playing Street Hero games for criminals in the middle of a work week with the two adults responsible for them. She didn't think about them. She didn't think, if I get arrested, who picks my babies up? She didn't think, if I get hurt, who raises them? She didn't think, if I die, they have nobody.

She thought about protecting criminals. She thought about interfering with federal agents. She thought about the camera. She thought about the crowd. She thought about the moment. There is no amount of evidence, money, tears on TV, or news spin that can make this make sense.

As a mother, nothing about this makes sense. At minimum, she knew her actions could get her arrested. At minimum, and she still chose it, she chose strangers, she chose chaos, she chose lawlessness. Make it make sense, because the only thing I see is three kids who just got abandoned by the only parent they had left, not by accident, but by a series of deliberate choices.

Now I wanted to read that post, not because I agree with it or I am pushing the perspective of the writer of the post. I think what it does is it outlines the gravity of disagreement that exists here. Because some will say, not unreasonably, how dare this woman who wrote this

post according to the person who posted it that it was a woman a mom how dare she judge this now deceased mother

how wrong it is of her to judge what this mother was doing. How heroic the mother was to be out in the streets blocking this illegal conduct by ICE federal agents, which many people believe it is illegal conduct. It's quote unquote Gestapo-like conduct. Indeed, the governor of this state has called it such.

⁓ And the mayor has used arguably worse terms For what it is. So this woman this mother Who is now deceased? ⁓ Being out in the street doing what she did in obstructing or interfering with ⁓ law enforcement ⁓ Making her voice heard Was not inappropriate ⁓ at all. And in fact

She was trying to make this a better world for her kids to grow up in. So there is that whole perspective. And it can't go on ignored.

Now there also is the perspective that was laid out by this woman who, you know, was and I think would acknowledge was ⁓ judging this mother who, ⁓ Renee Good.

But what I find most particular about, most important about the line being drawn and people taking up sides and being so sure of their side on an issue like this.

is that it furthers the polarization. And because of, ⁓ and at the core of this, and it's one of the reasons I had hoped that Donald J. Trump would not run for president in 2024, and that somebody like Marco Rubio would. ⁓

is because of the polarization, even though it is entirely inappropriate, and I think the liberal left has engaged in entirely inappropriate, over the top, Trump derangement syndrome in the way they have dealt with virtually every issue, every statement that Trump has made. And this being no different, they have gone over the top.

as it relates to responding.

to the federal law enforcement actions to ⁓ enforce our immigration policy.

an enforcement and a policy of enforcement that the American people voted for in electing Donald Trump. They have gone over the top and they have created an environment.

⁓ frankly that they continue to celebrate and applaud themselves in creating an environment where this sort of thing can happen

I dare say that there is no evidence to support that ICE agents get up every morning to see how many lives they can take that day.

Now what they are doing.

is they are enforcing the law of this country.

And I don't think that can be disputed fairly.

The fact that you disagree with what the law is, once again, I will say, you deal with that at the ballot.

You deal with that by changing them.

not in the manner that Tim Walz has dealt with it, not for sure in the manner that Jacob Fry has dealt with it, saying that it is complete BS.

And of course, he said the full word, which I won't. It is complete BS to suggest that Renee Good used her vehicle as a weapon against the agent that she struck. You can't say that, you can't conclude that, that it's complete BS.

She turned her, she went toward the agent. She struck the agent.

Was she trying to avoid the agent? Was she trying to strike the agent? That is where the debate turns. But the fact of the matter is, nobody's going to know that. And from the agent's perspective, which is the perspective that this must be viewed at, as, or from, ⁓

You have a car coming at you.

And that's what you know.

⁓ So the fry comments that this is complete BS is you know it's it's vitriol and unhelpful vitriol and He didn't even wait to see all the the video and the different angles and of course the Star Tribune piles on ⁓ In continuing that and and those in the in on the blue teams camp

whatever in the media across the country in whatever other allies the blue team has pile on and that's what the Star Tribune did they went you know and they put out an article saying we're going frame by frame looking at whether you know she was intending to hit him or not and which direction the wheels were turned and ⁓

But the fact of the matter is she's behind the wheel of a car and she went toward an agent. Was she trying to hit him or trying to avoid him? That could go either way.

It could go either way. But everything leading up to that is not good, including remaining in her car stopped. Not being there in the first place, but remaining in her car stopped as an innocent protester. If she's interfering and obstructing, which reports are from, and I don't know that these are disputed.

She was there virtually all day obstructing and interfering in any way she could and in fact she had been trained on it So it was intentional to do that

Is that someone who is avoiding harm's way when they go toward an officer? No one can dispute that she went forward toward the officer. That can't be disputed. Whether she was intending to miss him or hit him or scare him, no. Who knows?

So there are lot of ways in which this could have ⁓ been avoided.

Now many will say, and maybe correctly, that the officer

⁓

should not have even pulled his weapon. He could have, they could have arrested her later. They had her license plate number, where was ⁓ she going? It wasn't as if they were not going to mete out justice as in their mind they had a right to do. And so there was no basis to shoot at all. But of course that ignores that somebody is coming at you with a

with a vehicle.

So it is a battle, by the way, Fry, in addition to saying it's BS, to say what Kristi Noem said about the video and what happened here.

I think that was irresponsible. And then he has to say get the F out of Minneapolis, you know, trying to elevate his position, trying to excite his team against ICE, against Donald Trump, anything against Donald Trump. I mean, it appears those comments were made.

really for the purpose of showing I am the strong arm here. And I am going to speak for you.

all of you who are frustrated on the blue team, because I'm leading the blue team speaking out for you. Get the F out of Minneapolis.

Well, again.

⁓ There were many Democrats in the South when desegregation was going on who were saying get the F out of Mississippi, get the F out of Alabama.

Now those Democrats, Democrats both times, Interesting. But far different. People would say my assessment or analogy is unfair because desegregation is the righteous thing and that's...

where the federal government should be stepping in, but deportation is not the righteous thing. It's the opposite of it. And so the federal government shouldn't be stepping in.

course, federal government wouldn't need to step in in this case if Joe Biden, Barack Obama, others had.

the border and forced federal law rather than simply deciding not to, allowing a crisis to occur. And then when there are attempts being made over the past year to end that crisis and to...

go back to pre-crisis by deporting those who flooded the country. They say, no, no, no, no, no, you can't do that. We've created the problem, but you can't fix it.

Well, there are few who would stand up against that sort of message.

I, ⁓

recommend that you take a look at, leave it's episode 451, Melanie Phillips was on the show and it was just an excellent episode. I recommend you take a look at it. I am engaging now in communications.

international leaders really on ⁓ public policy issues related to Israel and peace in the Middle East.

and we'll see what comes of those communications but ⁓ be ready for them. Be ready for the fallout.

by listening to ⁓ that episode, episode four, I think it's 451.

I thank you once again for joining me on the Andrew Parker Show and ⁓ I recommend that you go to theandrewparkershow.com. Get on the bandwagon because ⁓ many, many are ahead of you and you don't want any more ahead of you. By subscribing, following us, liking it, sending us a text message.

I had some mail this week that was interesting to say the least, talking about policy positions as it relates to the state of Israel and whether there could be peace by simply giving the Palestinians the benefit of the doubt, which some would argue the Israelis have done time and time and time again and Jewish blood is running the street because of it.

Text us if you agree, disagree 952-522-2818. 952-522-2818 and thank you to our sponsors, Parker Daniels Keyboard Law Firm, Premier Law Firm, Downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota, and True North Investments. True North Investments. ⁓ Creative investment ideas for the best of you out there.

Again, text us 952-522-2818 and visit theandrewparkershow.com. Until next time, be kind to your neighbor.