Editor’s note: This piece was written after the death of Renee Good but before the death of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.
The death of Renee Nicole Good ignited renewed street tension amid an already chaotic start to 2026. From mass deportations and controversial mis-deportations, to unpredictable raids targeting foreign experts in local industries; from rising detainee deaths to the detention of even U.S. citizens; from door-to-door invasions and street chaos to the fatal shooting of Good in Minneapolis — how far will this go?
And how much harm must spread from immigration communities into entire neighborhoods before order is truly restored rather than repeatedly promised?
Wei Zhang
The stated goals behind current immigration policies are familiar: to restore order, to put American citizens first, to protect what is seen as fragile or slipping away. These aims are not inherently extreme. Every nation has both the right and the responsibility to enforce its laws and manage its borders. The concern arises not from enforcement itself, but from how it is being carried out, and whether the methods chosen are aligned with long-term stability, public trust and social cohesion.
What has become increasingly clear is the widening gap between what is said and what is done.
“What has become increasingly clear is the widening gap between what is said and what is done.”
Narratives can be crafted and repeated even in the presence of video evidence, but people do not live inside official statements. They live with the consequences of their actions. At this point, it is no longer sufficient to listen to words; outcomes must be examined.
Do these escalating measures meaningfully address immigration challenges, or do they instead generate greater disorder by repeatedly crossing basic lines of restraint?
Public debate often frames immigration in the language of disease — something foreign, threatening, in need of control. Yet both data and lived experience tell a different story. From its earliest days, the nation has been shaped by movement, exchange and friction — between people, labor and ideas. Its strength has come less from purity than from adaptation.
Trying to seal the country off now, as if it were once whole and untouched, misunderstands how it became what it is. America never has grown in isolation — nor has any modern state. Living systems do not thrive in a vacuum, and those that pursue absolute purity tend to become fragile. Stability comes from balance, pacing and thoughtful intervention.
When action becomes too forceful, too fast or insufficiently planned, it weakens the system it is meant to protect.
Even the familiar justification of “short-term pain for long-term gain” falters under current conditions. As raids become less targeted and arrests increasingly arbitrary, enforcement begins to resemble a massive surgical intervention that causes widespread damage without evidence of recovery. In medicine, when a procedure injures surrounding tissue and triggers sustained inflammation, it is judged a failure — regardless of intent. Once real harm reaches people who should have been protected, confidence in the judgment and ethics of the operators collapses.
Immigration, like physiology, is deeply integrated into the system it supports. Remove one component abruptly, without understanding its function or preparing for downstream effects, and the damage does not remain localized.
In many underserved communities and certain specialties, immigrant health professionals make up a substantial share of the workforce. Their role is not symbolic; it is operational. Abrupt, aggressive removal does not simply open opportunities for others — it creates gaps that remain unfilled, reducing access to care for citizens who already have few options.
“It was the endpoint of an escalating approach that prioritizes speed and severity over precision and foresight.”
The same pattern appears across the economy. Immigrants participate in labor markets that expand demand, sustain local businesses and create additional employment. These effects are measurable, not ideological. Treating immigration as an external problem to be erased, rather than a reality to be managed with precision, ignores how deeply integrated it has become in everyday life. Pull it out violently, and the system does not rebound — it destabilizes.
The killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis, the official narratives that followed and rising tension in the streets illustrate this danger with devastating clarity. This was not an isolated accident. It was the endpoint of an escalating approach that prioritizes speed and severity over precision and foresight.
The question facing the country now is not whether immigration laws should be enforced, but whether the current approach is achieving what it promises. When immigration becomes a problem that demands action, the response should be proportionate and carefully calibrated — grounded in evidence, attentive to collateral damage and honest about consequences. Measuring success by body counts, removal totals or how far enforcement authority can be pushed is not governance. It is an escalation.
Good’s death tore through families, neighborhoods and shared civic life — the very fabric the system exists to protect. Her death should remind people that immigration is not only about borders and numbers, but about people who live, work and raise children alongside one another. A system that keeps this human reality in view is not weaker for it — it is more careful, more humane and ultimately better equipped to protect everyone it serves.
Wei Zhang is a Public Voices fellow with The OpEd Project at Yale University, specializing in vascular surgery and public health.