Next Up with Mark Halperin

Episode: How Minnesota Sparked a National Immigration Debate, and Intra-GOP "War" Fight, with Rep. Dingell and Rich Lowry
Date: January 29, 2026
Host: Mark Halperin
Guests: Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (D-MI), Rich Lowry (National Review Editor-in-Chief)

Episode Overview

This episode tackles the national debate on immigration policy—brought to the fore by recent violent incidents in Minnesota—and explores broader questions about law enforcement, policy priorities, and America’s ability to engage in substantive political discourse. Mark Halperin leads candid conversations with Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, who offers an empathetic Democratic perspective on immigration enforcement, and with journalist Rich Lowry, who provides a conservative and pragmatic take on the same issues. The episode stresses the need for more focus on meaningful policy debate and less on political gossip, offering concrete examples and hard questions about border security, deportation, and the role of law enforcement.

Main Theme

"Can America Have a Serious, Nuanced Debate about Immigration and National Values in the Age of Outrage and Partisanship?"

Halperin calls for a more substantive, less personality-driven conversation around critical issues such as immigration, national security, and the choices facing communities and policymakers, using Minnesota as a flashpoint for broader national tensions.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Need for Substance Over Gossip

• Halperin’s opening monologue laments the dominance of personality-driven and gossipy news over true policy debate.
  • "Too much of the conversation, including too much the reporting that comes my way...is a little bit more frivolous." (03:05)
  • He urges a “national town square” for serious discussion.
  • Criticizes coverage that focuses on “wins” for political parties, not solutions for Americans.

Memorable Quote:

“Is it a win for Democrats or would it be a win for the American people?” – Mark Halperin (10:46)

2. The Minnesota Incident—National Repercussions

• Both guests and Halperin discuss Minnesota as a catalyst for bipartisan fear, emotion, and anxiety about immigration and law enforcement.
• Highly publicized shootings in Minneapolis have inflamed debate about ICE, protests, and the boundaries of justified law enforcement.
• The public is emotionally divided—some see overreach/aggression by ICE; others see necessary law enforcement.

Dingell’s Reflection:

“People are anxious, they’re worried and they're scared...They love their country and want to stand up for basic rights.” – Rep. Debbie Dingell (25:26)

3. Empathy vs. Enforcement—The Democratic Perspective (Rep. Dingell)

• Dingell argues for meaningful guardrails and local coordination for ICE operations, citing lack of communication as a cause of community panic.
• Stresses the difference between “violent criminals” and immigrants seeking asylum or filling needed workforce gaps.
• Insists each immigration case is complex, resisting “one size fits all” deportation.
  • “Every case is different, Mark. And that's where we all get in trouble.” (40:28)
• Opposes hasty deportations without due process, particularly for those misled by legal loopholes or changing rules.
• Urges compassion, referencing Catholic values and the Christian call to care for the vulnerable.
• Admits the Biden administration under-resourced border management.
  • “We needed to put more money into it…we needed comprehensive immigration reform…” (42:36)
• Advocates for “de-escalation” both in community conflict and national debate.

Notable Moments:

• Dingell recalls heated local forums:

  “…I’ve never seen the room so shaken up by the intensity of what was said.” (28:16)

• She repeatedly references empathy and Christianity as guiding her stance on immigration.

Key Policy Questions Raised:

• Should ICE/Border Patrol operate in communities at all?
• What counts as “illegal” status—technical vs. intent, asylum process confusion?
• Is it fair or feasible for the government to examine the personal circumstances of each undocumented immigrant?

4. Policy Tensions Within Conservatism—Rich Lowry’s Take

• Lowry supports strong enforcement, arguing the law requires that those caught residing illegally be deported.
  • "They got to go. The black letter of the law is you're an illegal immigrant here. You shall be detained..." (53:33)
• He acknowledges, however, that mass deportations are impractical—resources and political support are lacking.
  • Focus should be on those with criminal convictions or final removal orders.
  • Argues for worksite enforcement/E-Verify rather than public raids as more effective and politically palatable.
• Open to future amnesty, but only if the border is fully sealed and the illegal population dramatically reduced.
  • “If you can diminish the illegal population pretty substantially…and you can make sure the border is sealed…then you can think about…amnesty...” (54:19)
• On Democratic proposals: Supports ICE officer bodycams, but opposes judicial warrant requirements for all immigration arrests, calling it a logistical burden.
• Framing the deterrent effect as a key to lawful policy:

  “...if you come here, even if you don’t commit a crime, if we get you, you’re going to be deported.” (55:36)

• On ICE masks: Sympathetic to doxxing fears, open to ID numbers for accountability but resists full unmasking.

Notable Quote:

“Where you're gonna get me to sound a little softer is...if you can diminish the illegal population...then you can think about...some form of amnesty for the people who've been here a very long time, have been law-abiding, who are embedded in their community.” – Rich Lowry (54:19)

5. Broader Policy vs. Partisan Narrative

• Halperin critiques media and politics for covering immigration as a political football and not as a question of national principle.
• Rand Paul and Marco Rubio segment (National security debate, Venezuela intervention)—highlights the challenge of applying standards universally, not just as it suits American power.
  • Rand Paul:

    “One way arguments that don’t rebound, that you can’t apply to yourselves…are bad arguments.” (16:41)

• Halperin’s refrain: America must ask, “Is this a win for the people, or just for politicians?”

6. Economic Debate and Political Outcomes

• Closing section with Lowry: Economic data is confusing; public sentiment remains negative due to “baked in” inflation.
• Trump’s approach to economic growth—tariffs and attracting investment—is disconnected from many Americans’ lived reality.
• Short-term optimism about a “boom” is tempered by skepticism that it will affect perceptions before the 2026 elections.

Memorable Exchange:

• Halperin: “Find me the American who said, oh yeah, the tariffs are making me better, my family better off.” (67:25)
• Lowry: “Yeah…It's a big bet and it's a very long-term bet.” (67:36)

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• Halperin: “Is it a win for Democrats or would it be a win for the American people?” (10:46)
• Rep. Dingell: "People are anxious, they’re worried and they're scared...They love their country and want to stand up for basic rights.” (25:26)
• Rep. Dingell: "Every case is different, Mark. And that's where we all get in trouble." (40:28)
• Lowry: “They got to go. The black letter of the law is you're an illegal immigrant here. You shall be detained..." (53:33)
• Lowry: “…if you can diminish the illegal population…then you can think about…some form of amnesty for the people who've been here a very long time…” (54:19)
• Rand Paul: "One way arguments that don’t rebound, that you can’t apply to yourselves…are bad arguments." (16:41)
• Halperin: "America needs to understand what's the morality of what just happened? What's the basis for what just happened?" (16:41)

Important Timestamps

• 01:03–10:46: Halperin’s monologue: media's failure to prioritize real policy debate, overview of Minnesota’s centrality to the immigration conversation.
• 15:21–19:00: Rand Paul and Marco Rubio on interventionism: when is an act an act of war?
• 24:31–45:29: Deep-dive conversation with Rep. Debbie Dingell: Minnesota, ICE in communities, case-by-case complexity of deportation, necessity for compassion and process reform.
• 49:00–61:38: Rich Lowry interview: Conservative policy rifts on deportation, practical limits to enforcement, criteria for amnesty debate, analysis of “mask wars” and accountability.
• 64:35–67:54: Economic outlook for 2026: skepticism about short-term political impact of longer-term policies.

Episode Takeaways

• The debate over immigration enforcement is deeply emotional and sharply polarized, with no easy answers—“every case is different.”
• Both left and right recognize practical and ethical limits to deportation, but propose different solutions based on enforcement, empathy, and accountability.
• Policy discussions are often hijacked by political gamesmanship and media focus on “who’s up, who’s down.”
• There is broad, if often unspoken, consensus that the public deserves more serious, less superficial discussion of issues crucial to American identity and values.

Tone and Style

The conversation is candid, at times challenging, and often reflective. Halperin is direct but fair, pressing both guests to clarify and defend their positions. Dingell’s warmth and moral seriousness counterbalances Lowry’s pragmatic, law-and-order conservatism. The tone is thoughtful, urgent, and serious—reflecting the high stakes of the ongoing national debate.

For listeners seeking a nuanced, honest assessment of the immigration crisis and America’s capacity for reasoned policy debate, this episode is essential.