ICE Tear-Gassing Schools? Murphy’s Explosive Claims Rock Immigration Debate

Paul Riverbank, 2/2/2026America’s immigration clash lays bare competing visions of justice: urgent alarms over constitutional rights and human cost confront calls for evenhanded law and due process—forcing the nation to ask what kind of country it seeks to become.

Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut certainly didn’t pull his punches on Fox News Sunday. The way he told it, the situation in Minnesota has veered into the surreal. “ICE is tear-gassing elementary schools,” Murphy declared, his words landing heavily. “It is disappearing legal residents into cars. It is murdering American citizens.” Such allegations rolled in quickly, each one more jarring than the last. Murphy, audibly unsettled, insisted this wasn’t simply a matter of political sparring—he called it an “emergency.” According to him, foundational rights, those enshrined in the Constitution, were being ignored in broad daylight.

Not content to address only the left, Murphy made a point of speaking to conservatives as well. “If you’re a conservative in this country, you should care about the fact that your government is intentionally hurting kids,” he said, invoking heroes of the Bill of Rights—the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments. Murphy held up immigration court as a microcosm: legal residents, following the rules, suddenly plucked from courtrooms without explanation by ICE officers. For him, these moments are not outliers but symptoms of an “immoral” system, its toll measurable in lives and in the fabric of American values.

Yet, the same weekend, the air crackled with another calibration: Justice Department Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, speaking with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, took a different tack. The tempest was not immigration-related, but revolved around former CNN anchor Don Lemon, indicted after an incident at a church in St. Paul. Blanche’s focus was the rule of law—a principle that, he asserted, brooked no exceptions for journalists, protesters, or anyone else.

“There was clearly probable cause, and it wasn’t even a close question,” Blanche explained, reminding viewers, almost with a lawyer’s precision, that the grand jury’s indictment was now in the public record. In his view, the law’s even-handedness is its virtue; the right to free speech or freedom of the press, important as they are, cannot be shields for breaking statutes meant to preserve the sanctity of religious spaces. “Nobody in this country should feel comfortable storming into a church while it’s ongoing and disrupting that church service,” Blanche emphasized, adding, “We’re just not going to stand by.”

What emerges from these dueling segments is a portrait of a country pulled between urgent moral worries and faith in due process. Murphy is animated by the fear of a creeping lawlessness within the state itself—one that, as he argues, violates constitutional protections and inflicts trauma, especially on children. Blanche, meanwhile, is determined to reinforce public confidence in the court system, warning against conflating passionate causes with impunity.

Both men claim the banner of the Constitution, and both bid the country to take that document seriously, though their interpretations of its current treatment couldn’t be further apart. Murphy’s call is clarion and immediate—“address that emergency right now.” Blanche, in contrast, counsels steadiness and trust in established legal mechanisms.

These aren’t abstractions. On city streets and in courtroom corridors, these opposing worldviews play out with tangible stakes. Across Minnesota and the rest of the nation, families and officials are living these tensions in real time. Behind every headline, the struggle is less about slogans and more about the very shape and promise of justice in America.

These days, America's fierce debate over immigration feels less like the parsing of policy and more like a full-throated argument about the country’s conscience—its identity, and the ways official power gets wielded. The lines are especially raw after a weekend of clashing commentary, with one voice roaring from the halls of Congress and another echoing from inside the Justice Department, both painting deeply divergent portraits of America’s current reality.Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut certainly didn’t pull his punches on Fox News Sunday. The way he told it, the situation in Minnesota has veered into the surreal. “ICE is tear-gassing elementary schools,” Murphy declared, his words landing heavily. “It is disappearing legal residents into cars. It is murdering American citizens.” Such allegations rolled in quickly, each one more jarring than the last. Murphy, audibly unsettled, insisted this wasn’t simply a matter of political sparring—he called it an “emergency.” According to him, foundational rights, those enshrined in the Constitution, were being ignored in broad daylight.Not content to address only the left, Murphy made a point of speaking to conservatives as well. “If you’re a conservative in this country, you should care about the fact that your government is intentionally hurting kids,” he said, invoking heroes of the Bill of Rights—the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments. Murphy held up immigration court as a microcosm: legal residents, following the rules, suddenly plucked from courtrooms without explanation by ICE officers. For him, these moments are not outliers but symptoms of an “immoral” system, its toll measurable in lives and in the fabric of American values.Yet, the same weekend, the air crackled with another calibration: Justice Department Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, speaking with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, took a different tack. The tempest was not immigration-related, but revolved around former CNN anchor Don Lemon, indicted after an incident at a church in St. Paul. Blanche’s focus was the rule of law—a principle that, he asserted, brooked no exceptions for journalists, protesters, or anyone else.“There was clearly probable cause, and it wasn’t even a close question,” Blanche explained, reminding viewers, almost with a lawyer’s precision, that the grand jury’s indictment was now in the public record. In his view, the law’s even-handedness is its virtue; the right to free speech or freedom of the press, important as they are, cannot be shields for breaking statutes meant to preserve the sanctity of religious spaces. “Nobody in this country should feel comfortable storming into a church while it’s ongoing and disrupting that church service,” Blanche emphasized, adding, “We’re just not going to stand by.”What emerges from these dueling segments is a portrait of a country pulled between urgent moral worries and faith in due process. Murphy is animated by the fear of a creeping lawlessness within the state itself—one that, as he argues, violates constitutional protections and inflicts trauma, especially on children. Blanche, meanwhile, is determined to reinforce public confidence in the court system, warning against conflating passionate causes with impunity.Both men claim the banner of the Constitution, and both bid the country to take that document seriously, though their interpretations of its current treatment couldn’t be further apart. Murphy’s call is clarion and immediate—“address that emergency right now.” Blanche, in contrast, counsels steadiness and trust in established legal mechanisms.These aren’t abstractions. On city streets and in courtroom corridors, these opposing worldviews play out with tangible stakes. Across Minnesota and the rest of the nation, families and officials are living these tensions in real time. Behind every headline, the struggle is less about slogans and more about the very shape and promise of justice in America.