As I’ve mentioned, one could describe the situation in Los Angeles a “shitshow” or a “dumpster fire”. My take about what happened is that ICE (or other law enforcement officials) went to arrest undocumented immigrants in L.A., but were blocked or impeded by huge protests by American civilians. Both protestors and law enforcement officials were masked: the former, along with the vandalism and violence, shows that the protestors were not committing classical civil disobedience, but didn’t want to be identified; the latter seems unconscionable because law enforcement should not be masked, and should be identifiable. Yes, many demonstrators remained peaceful, but there’s no doubt that there was violence along with attempts to kill or injure law enforcement.
The violence involved protestors setting cars on fire, looting, and worse, firing serious fireworks (Roman candles and M80s) at law enforcement. I don’t think law enforcement provoked these protests, but they did respond with tear gas and flashbangs. At this point, despite the objections of California governor Gavin Newsom, Trump deputized the California National Guard to intervene and protect law enforcement. 4,000 National Guard people were involved, though it’s not clear what, exactly they did. Nevertheless, Newsom has filed a lawsuit against Trump for calling in the Guard.
Then, apparently on Trump’s orders, 700 U.S. Marines were also sent to L.A. to further control the situation. Newsom has also threatened to sue for this as well.
The use of both National Guard and Marines has been widely condemned by the media, especially the progressive or left-wing media. For example, the NYT’s Michelle Goldberg has an op-ed today, “This is what autocracy looks like.” A few quotes:
Since Donald Trump was elected again, I’ve feared one scenario above all others: that he’d call out the military against people protesting his mass deportations, putting America on the road to martial law. Even in my more outlandish imaginings, however, I thought that he’d need more of a pretext to put troops on the streets of an American city — against the wishes of its mayor and governor — than the relatively small protests that broke out in Los Angeles last week.
In a post-reality environment, it turns out, the president didn’t need to wait for a crisis to launch an authoritarian crackdown. Instead, he can simply invent one.
It’s true that some of those protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles have been violent; on Sunday one man was arrested for allegedly tossing a Molotov cocktail at a police officer, and another was accused of driving a motorcycle into a line of cops. Such violence should be condemned both because it’s immoral and because it’s wildly counterproductive; each burning Waymo or smashed storefront is an in-kind gift to the administration.
But the idea that Trump needed to put soldiers on the streets of the city because riots were spinning out of control is pure fantasy. “Today, demonstrations across the city of Los Angeles remained peaceful, and we commend all those who exercised their First Amendment rights responsibly,” said a statement issued by the Los Angeles Police Department on Saturday evening. That was the same day Trump overrode Gov. Gavin Newsom and federalized California’s National Guard, under a rarely used law meant to deal with “rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.”
Then, on Monday, with thousands of National Guard troops already deployed to the city, the administration said it was also sending 700 Marines. The Los Angeles police don’t seem to want the Marines there; in a statement, the police chief, Jim McDonnell, said, “The arrival of federal military forces in Los Angeles — absent clear coordination — presents a significant logistical and operational challenge for those of us charged with safeguarding this city.” But for Trump, safeguarding the city was never the point.
It’s important to understand that for this administration, protests needn’t be violent to be considered an illegitimate uprising. The presidential memorandum calling out the National Guard refers to both violent acts and any protests that “inhibit” law enforcement. That definition would seem to include peaceful demonstrations around the site of ICE raids. In May, for example, armed federal agents stormed two popular Italian restaurants in San Diego looking for undocumented workers; they handcuffed staff members and took four people into custody. As they did so, an outraged crowd gathered outside, chanting “shame” and for a time blocking the agents from leaving. Under Trump’s order, the military could target these people as insurrectionists.
Clearly Goldberg sees calling out both the National Guard and the Marines as a odious step towards an imposition of autocracy in America. I won’t comment on the above but ask readers to respond to the situation. Here are some questions:
1.) Should ICE (or whoever started arrested immigrants) have even gone after the people, even if they were undocumented immigrants who entered the country illegally?
2.) Should law enforcement wear masks?
3.) Is this an example of civil disobedience, violent protest, or both?
4.) Given the violence, was it still necessary (or even useful) to call out the National Guard?
5.) Should the Marines have been called out?
finally
6.) What would you do in this situation if you were President (or governor)?
The doom was cast over the prior 25 years.
What should have happened:
Absolute iron-clad border … illegal entry is a crime … zero tolerance….Combined with advanced highway to legal entry.
What happened instead:
Lax borders verging on open borders, and stultifying legal immigration.
Marx has seized this situation. The cohort of illegal residency considers itself legit. Entitled. Palestine 2.0
Do you have any hope for putting the brakes on now?
It’s disheartening, but then I imagine if Kamala had been elected.
(Obligatory “I don’t like Trump” statement)
Susan, Biden removed Trump’s restrictions and issued an invitation, forced to do so by his Left … AOCortez, Bernie, etc.
A flood arrived.
Once this policy (almost open borders) went swirling down the sewer, he could not reverse … that would make Trump look good and make Cortez howl.
Trapped.
Now 10,000,000 new undocumented live here … they form “a community,” a cohort, a block. They fully believe themselves to be “a state.” They are at war with The United States of America.
Kamala was nobody. Her puppet masters would have made it worse.
My obligatory Trump statement: I despise him. I am not a Trumper and I am atheist.
Most of the immigrations specialists I have read have a different take on the issues. First, Biden didn’t so much remove Trump’s restrictions as he followed court orders and the law — much of that had to do with refugees and asylum seekers. Second, the flood that entered the U.S. was drawn to a large extent by the good economy and the possibility of earning money. Third, ultimately Biden deported or returns millions of illegal entrants — the estimate of the total number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. has been about 12,000,000 for a number of years. Most of them are guilty of “unauthorized presence in the United States,” a civil offense rather than a criminal offense. Finally, I would not discount the impact of Trump’s germ-o-phobia in shaping his disgust at Brown and Black immigrants, who he describes in terms that I normally hear in reference to infectious diseases.
This is not about Donald Trump
There’s a meme :
[begin]
Advance communism->
Praxis causes problems->
Externalize blame->
Propose communism as solution->
[repeat]
A while ago James Lindsay predicted the new solution :
Critical Immigration Theory
And Colin Wright already found a paper describing “UndocuQueer” – being a queer immigrant.
Yes.
They are attempting to construct a GeorgeFloydEvent.
The goal is to disrupt and obliterate the very concept of citizenship, grounded in individual rights, property, and rule of law. Disrupt everything Karl Marx resents. [See list in The Communist Manifesto]
Yes – Marx’s “private property” sounded to me ever since I heard of it dull, ordinary. Didn’t take Marx or Communism etc. seriously at all. A failed plan of economics covered with dust. Nobody does that anymore. Oh well.
But Marx, Engels, Lenin, Hegel, Marcuse, were no ordinary thinkers.
Anything private – all the way to consciousness itself – is to be seized if it is false – and sublated with the marginalized fragments – properties like Blackness, Queerness, etc. where the truth is located – of society through dialectical materialism – an act of transcendence of those properties that will return the human species to its true nature as socialist man – the species—being.
It’s a religion.
“consciousness itself”
This is the most important thing you said.
Truest
This is not about Marx or Communism. This is about very poor people trying to find honest work in the wealthiest country on earth.
And it is totally about Donald Trump, without whom we would not be having these protests in LA about his broken promises and attacks on hardworking immigrants.
The people you described are not the targets, at the moment. Thugs running drugs and desperate humans are the target.
The only reason it is “about Trump” is: he is not condoning the Open Borders project.
Yesterday textile workers in a factory, today farm workers in several counties. https://abc7news.com/live-updates/la-protest-live-updates-lapd-says-officers-are-making-arrests-dtla-dispersal-order/16717204/entry/16723857/
Biden deported as many or more illegals than Trump, as did Obama. Only you can’t get the dotGov statistics now cause they are “unavailable.”
The only way to curb illegal immigration is to make life in their own country comfortable enough so they don’t want to come in to yours.
These people risk everything to get to the USA. They are not going to be deterred by the possibility of being caught and deported – it’s probably still better than what they are used to.
I think basic to this whole issue is that Trump during the campaign promised to go after the dangerous elements in the undocumented immigrant community and instead he is going after easy targets which in the case of LA is mostly people working through the justice system to establish their situation in the US.
If he was truly going after undocumented immigrants who are committing crimes these protests would not be occurring.
I don’t think he made a distinction between violent and non-violent illegals, although he emphasized the crimes being committed by illegals. In any event this latest fracas started because ICE was going after violent criminals.
Violent criminal as Ambiance Apparel sowing garments and at Home Depot looking for day work. I’m not saying that these people, if they are in the US illegally should be deported after due process, but these are not the hangouts of violent criminal. These are just easy targets to meet the quota.
And the quota is a bigly factor. The Admin had been frustrated that deportations have been lagging far behind what they claimed it would be, and even behind what the Biden administration was doing.
Mike, they WERE hanging out there. 41 were arrested, some undocumented, one charged. They got the guy.
Just like Hamas digging fortifications under schools, and a brain of strategy posing as a hospital orderly, cowards hide behind the innocent, using them like shields.
The comparison to Hamas is absurd. No one is bombing Home Depot or the textile factory. No recent incursion from Mexico has murdered hundreds of innocents in the name of a “Hamas-like” group.
I see people being sent out of the country without due process, and masked men arresting a grad student in MA. and shipping her to a prison in Louisiana. These are the tactic I saw in the USSR and in modern day Russia or Cuba.
Point of information: How does a person living illegally in the United States “work through the justice system to establish their situation in the U.S.”? Is this really a thing? Can you actually do that? Become legal and get a Green Card? And be immune from deportation while you are on your quest? Or is it just a euphemism for “stay out of trouble and avoid contact with the justice system”?
You say these protests/riots would not be happening if ICE was arresting criminals instead of easy targets like the above Green-Card questers. But they are even though they are.
People claiming refugee status are subjected to hearings to determine their validity. They are allowed to remain in the US until the process is finished.
OK, thanks, but aliens with open refugee claims are not “undocumented”. They became documented in the system as claimants, either at entry or later after sneaking in or when/after their visas expired. No, they ought not to be deported until their claims are fully heard and rejected. Are any?
In the US they have documents, usually a Matricula card (Mexican ID) or their passport if not from Central America.
“Undocumented” is a leftist political term of art meaning what immigration attys call “out of status” – illegally here.
And when it comes to “legitimization” it is a matter of coming, laying low (not visiting home), waiting for a general amnesty or one’s individual case to be heard or forgotten: a pretty good bet for an unofficial 5+ year “visa”.
Different rules in the EU.
My bet is that most of those messing up LA are actually undeportable locals – Americans – with a virtue signaling grift more than actual illegal underclass members. They’re busy mowing the lawns. 🙂
D.A.
NYC
Leslie, one guy named in court filings as O.C.G, here illegally, not at point of entry. We caught him. During protracted removal proceedings, he suddenly petitioned for asylum. The didn’t get legal residency … he got protection from being deported to a list of nations in which he would fear injury. I think status is now “floating.”
To answer your question, a person here illegally can get a status that blocks deportation while they “work through the justice system.”
Perhaps he is lying, but Tom Homan said the raids were not for deportation. They were investigating a money laundering operation
Does Not Follow, Mike.
They are going after a powerful, large, criminal establishment. They are following the money.” Thats why IRS is on the scene.
This Causa has a horde of foot soldiers making noise to make it SEEM to be persecution of a guy with a truck.
My understanding (from across the pond) is that ICE were serving criminal warrants for money laundering, tax evasion, and customs fraud. So although some undocumented immigrants in L.A. were captured during the course of the raid it was not the primary aim.
Yes I agree that ICE agents and police should ideally not be masked – just as soon as those opposing them do not identify them and encourage illegal acts against them and their families.
If they don’t want to take the risk, they don’t have to take the job.
Secret police are as unAmerican as it gets.
I just happened to be reading this article (https://www.thefp.com/p/la-riots-protests-illegal-immigration-trump) when you posted this. As usual it’s hard to know what exactly is going on out there. There’s Goldberg’s predictable view, but then you read other stuff saying that there clearly appear to be organized agitators showing up to otherwise peaceful protests, and causing havoc. And waving Mexican & Palestinian flags doesn’t endear sympathy, I’d say. As for your questions, I think (1) if ICE is truly only going after hardened criminals, then that’s as it should be. I don’t personally know enough to judge whether that’s the case. As for (2), I don’t law enforcement should ever be allowed to wear masks, unless they’re part of some highly classified unit whose identities are protected, but that doesn’t appear to be the case here. Re (3), as noted above, I think it’s both civil disobedience and violent protest. As for (4) and (5), I don’t have a problem with calling out the National Guard if local law enforcement is unable to contain the problem & the governor refuses to intervene (and yes I appreciate the hypocrisy of Trump refusing the let the National Guard be called out for January 6…); however, I am uncomfortable with the Marines being put in a position of fighting US citizens on US soil. As for what would I do (6), I’m surprised to admit that I might call out the National Guard as well, assuming first that both local and state officials have either failed or refused to quell the problem over several days. It’s a tough situation, but I can’t say I’ve got a lot of confidence left in Newsom or Bass to sort this mess out. (Here’s Thomas Sowell’s take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU8uGtYnTvg )
With a hat tip to Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, I think the word “shitshow” is awfully well chosen there, yes.
It’s also one of the rare times “dumpster fire” is used in its proper context – ie. this is an attention distracting sideshow.
It’s the worst job they’ve ever had since Jayne Mansfield went to Malibu.
Nice for the lobsters though.
The Marxist policy of Repressive Tolerance (Marcuse) in stark usage. Please consider not responding to this with “That’s not Marx.”
+1
… if I follow…
It means total immediate shout-down of “our enemies” (Marcuse’s words) without debate, consideration, or reason. [to be repressed]
Combined with demand of infinitely expanding automatic tolerance for us. ‘If it even vaguely smells like Marx, it does not matter if true, it is true. [to be tolerated]
Not Marx.
Please consider reality.
Please consider the role of Trump, Miller and Voight in all of this. Please consider the reality of Hegsith, Bondi and RFK in the current power class.
1.) Should ICE (or whoever started arrested immigrants) have even gone after the people, even if they were undocumented immigrants who entered the country illegally?
Answer: I’m OK with ICE prioritizing criminals who committed offenses beyond illegal immigration itself, but going beyond that is so disruptive that it is probably unwarranted.
2.) Should law enforcement wear masks?
Answer: In principle, no. But to prevent law enforcement officers from being identified, and their families targeted, perhaps. Being masked serves an intimidation function as well, which might serve as a deterrent.
3.) Is this an example of civil disobedience, violent protest, or both?
Answer: Probably both. There are legitimate protestors out there, but there are also professional agitators. It’s a potent mix that innocent protestors might not be prepared to be drawn into.
4.) Given the violence, was it still necessary (or even useful) to call out the National Guard?
Answer: I think it was premature, as local law enforcement and state officials thought that they had the situation under control. Trump’s actions probably are meant to send an “I am in charge, and you’re incompetent” message to Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass as much as they are meant to enforce the peace.
5.) Should the Marines have been called out?
Answer. I don’t think so. It’s arguable that even the National Guard is more firepower than is necessary. Again, it’s partially an attempt by Trump to intimidate local and state leadership.
First of all, it’s very hard to get a good idea of what all is happening in L.A. It’s not clear how large the protests are, where they are, and if all of them have become violent. That said, a protest ceases to be a protest when it turns violent, and violence includes throwing stuff at law enforcement, vandalism, looting, and resisting arrest. So: 1) Yes, it is ICE’s job to go after illegal aliens; 2) No, not really, but until the protestors stop wearing them, I don’t think it’s an important point; 3) A violent protest is a riot; 4) Given that the Chief of the LAPD said that they couldn’t handle the situation, it was appropriate to bring in the Guard; 5) No, the Marines shouldn’t be put in the position of having to deal with civilians; 6) As President I would call out the Guard. As Governor, I wouldn’t have allowed the situation to get out of hand, starting with being complicit in the immigration crisis by providing benefits to illegals and using State resources to stop illegal immigration. If it had gotten out of hand, though, I would have called out the Guard myself. Newsom is should be blamed for what is happening. It is a direct result of his policies.
Is he to blame for the large volume of illegals in Texas, Florida, and other red states as well?
No. I was obviously speaking in reference to the situation in L.A.
How is it different than any other state, other than Trump’s having decided it is a politically opportune place to intentionally precipitate a “crisis”.
California is a “sanctuary state”. Texas and Florida are not. Newsom is governor of California. Hope that answers your questions.
•”2.) Should law enforcement wear masks?”
They say face covering is for protecting identity because they’ve been harassed/threatened. They are free to do so as anyone I suppose. I note there is an inversion at work : doing what the opposition dictates.
•”3.) Is this an example of civil disobedience, violent protest, or both?”
The question is about what model makes things clear.
IMHO it is an operation : provocation (“Ha ha! I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you!”) operating by the dynamic of the decision dilemma, thereby escalating to mid-level violence. “Peaceful protestors” are installed to cover for the radicals – this is easy (and IMHO why this is the current thing which did not take place) – so it gets the label “protest” – it’s fakery ; sympathetic characters like bringing a baby in a stroller on purpose lead the mass confusion. Play to the audience that isn’t there. Beautiful Trouble explains a lot of this – though I’d have to look again about these M80s… which are illegal and extremely dangerous – I’ve seen Mythbusters enough! I note that the Weather Underground would pride itself on the destruction they carried out because no one was injured – e.g. bombing a place when nobody was in the building.
The crowd dispersal techniques were not meant to be countered – but they are. New gas masks and other PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) are being delivered to resist as the crowd dispersal measures are executed. This is the principle of escalation.
•I suppose if I were in leadership I’d be following the money and bringing warrants, and all that to the principals behind the operations, after they were found.
BUT
The fundamental objective is to get the enemy to make a blunder! Expressed originally by Saul Alinsky, but also in Beautiful Trouble :
Your target’s (or enemy’s) reaction is your real action
In that sense it is a BLUNDER to send Marines!!! Nat. Guard, maybe OK…
Remember a radical right – Woke Right – has entered the White House! They are radicals too!! And will naturally push dialectical political warfare for Leftism.
700 soldiers here, then 700 more there, there and there. And there there and there. And at what point will the US be an occupied territory? Hegseth’s maga based rhetoric makes it plain and clear he regards the armed forces as Trump’s armed forces for the furtherment of Trump’s agenda and not the US.
1) Finding and returning (deporting) those who slip through immigration protocols is most likely suited be an integral yet mundane part of our internal/border security services. Whether doing in mass ‘raids’ is the most effective or efficient, and of course humane, is debatable. It should be a regular, normal ongoing operation that primarily has heightened publicity due to A) extent of the problem (national emergency?) and B) intentional (political and socially charged) negative focus
2) Other than undercover agents or due to potential or specific retributive threats (which agencies may evaluate independently) I believe the overall policy should for be for agent going unmasked
3) Both, given benefit of the doubt; law enforcement should err on the side of toleration, but with tight lines when persons or property are endangered.
4) Seems excessive and premature at this moment, don’t override local control unless mandatory
5) No
6) Pres: voice calm concern, support and set limits, help rather than override (for now), limit rhetoric.
Gov: limit rhetoric, reassure populace, restate limitations of demonstrations, engage with national agencies (ice, pres, etc), encourage debate
I read an account from someone within the protests that the arrival of law enforcement always seemed to escalate peaceful chanting and spray painting (which was minimized as temporary) into more aggressive reactions.
I’m sorry but if a crowd is walking through major streets proclaiming “these are our streets” and doodling on private property, it’s not reasonable to expect the police to just stay away. And it is reasonable to expect that genuine peaceful protesters would refuse to react to their presence with violence.
Calling in the National Guard was premature, though, let alone the Marines. For California, this riot seems like a 1.8 or 9 on the Richter scale. Trump’s playing reality tv host again.
Very complicated situation…or maybe not? Without knowing enough about the topic, my Bayesian priors on how the Trump administration operates indicate that ICE is being unnecessarily heavy-handed and made no attempt to cooperate with LA or anticipate the likely consequences of their actions.
However, on the other hand I did listen to the Karen Bass on CNN attempting to explain why her city is yet again engulfed in chaos and flames. Her tedious, dim-witted attempts at transferring 100% of the blame for this mess onto the boogie-man Trump are in line with that feckless potted plant Gavin Newsom.
So given that this city and state seem to be run by two individuals that are in way over their heads, I’m not sure that all of this should be blamed on ICE.
But if Los Angeles and California are sanctuary jurisdictions, why should ICE coordinate with local law enforcement? An activist within the LAPD would likely tip off the targets if they knew ICE was planning an operation. Surely ICE would say, “The city’s not gonna help us anyway and will obstruct us. So fuck ‘em.”
Mr. Berger said President Trump deputized the National Guard “under a little-used law.” So he is admitting in a backhanded way that the President is acting with lawful authority. Just because a law is rarely used doesn’t mean it lapsed from atrophy. Whether it should be invoked is a political question with the usual partisan opinions as expected.
As for the Marines, is it not possible that the rioters are mostly not U.S. citizens? If a foreign invasion of U.S. soil occurred, the U.S. military would be called out, obviously. Surely that action would not be illegal just because a few American citizens joined the invading army as traitors.
As a foreigner I’m not taking sides here. I’m just trying to figure out if President Trump is acting within the law — wisely or not is beside the point to me — or beyond/outside it. The Executive in all states, whether Crown or President, wields great power, within lawful limits that are broader than many realize.
It doesn’t make sense to me that non-citizens are among the protesters. I think they would want to stay the hell away from it.
✅
Watch, I’ll finally ask this question I’ve been wanting to ask you and the thread will have dead-ended, but… You’ve mentioned in the past that you and your wife were participating in walks for Israel (?) or the hostages (?)… Were you guys walking with the same worldwide group that was firebombed in Boulder? I’ve been wondering about that. Also wondering if that incident will dampen your desire to show your support publicly. Maybe this isn’t the right place to ask. Hopefully not too inappropriate
Satirist Andy Borowitz:
Trump Sends Stephen Miller to L.A. to Act as Human Repellant
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In what critics are calling an inflammatory move, Donald J. Trump announced on Tuesday that he was sending Stephen Miller to Los Angeles to act as a human repellant.
“No one empties a room faster than Stephen,” Trump said. “He’s better than teargas.”
But Trump’s plan faces a stiff legal challenge from human rights lawyers, who argue that the use of Stephen Miller violates the Geneva Conventions.
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/trump-sends-stephen-miller-to-la
1) No. I support a program to identify people who crossed the border improperly, but if they are here and working, let’s create a plan to document them.
2) Only to the extent they need protection – clear visors work.
3) Don’t know, probably a combo.
4) Probably not.
5) Definitely not.
6) See #1 above. A good President would work to bring the country together. This one seems hell bent on dividing us.
Polls consistently show that a solid majority of Americans support deportation of ALL illegal aliens. So perhaps it was Biden who divided the country on this issue by effectively opening the border and allowing at least 10 million unvetted aliens to enter and stay. Trump arguably won at least in part on this.
All illegals should be deported. You should not be rewarded for queue jumping. Of course, there has to be some sort of hearing to make sure you are an illegal.
In general, law enforcement should not wear masks unless there is a clear safety reason, for example, they do undercover work, you’re arresting mafia, or other organized groups that might retaliate.
Both. Seems to be a few professional provocateur’s among the sincere protesters.
Seems unlikely it was required. LA has a big police force.
Hard no on the marines.
What should be done: Pass a law that fines any company that hires an illegal $10,000 a day per illegal, and individuals get fines of $1000 a day per hire. If no one hires illegals then the flood of illegal immigrants will turn into a trickle.
I think that the very real problem we’re facing due to the last administration laying a red carpet at our southern border is being buried now and that’s a shame. I don’t have a problem with ICE raiding businesses that are knowingly hiring illegals. Yes, it’s disruptive and yes, it’s upsetting for the workers to have their lives torn asunder. I feel badly for the family members (children, primarily) at home with mom and/or dad not returning home. I’m happy that the businesses are being disrupted, though. I don’t know what became of our policy of employers checking and reporting workers legal documents that proved they had the right to work here. All of this goes back to Congress, though. They simply MUST pass an immigration bill and voters must hold them accountable if they don’t. Our do nothing Congress who’d rather appear on news shows and use the latest drama to deflect from the actual problem that they have ignored for decades, pisses me off.
This is to your question about the Walk on the dead-ended thread, Debi.
1) The Walk with Israel is in Toronto every year, sponsored by the United Jewish Appeal. The past two years (and probably in other years) there have been noisy hateful protesters (with masks) but a huge police presence keeps them off the streets of the walk route, which the city closes by permit for the event. Walkers were urged not to engage with protesters so as to avoid escalations that could divert police attention from actual danger. While I don’t doubt that some protesters would kill us if they dared, they don’t dare. But we kept our eyes open. Participation in the Walk — 56,000 the police said this year — swelled enormously last year, with many non-Jewish individuals and organizations coming out. Iranian, Indian, aboriginal, and Christian charities that all raise money specifically for Israel had delegations, and there were Pride flags with Stars of David sewn on. Lots of families with children especially older ones who can be taught what it all means. This is civics, children.
2) The Walk is not specifically for the hostages although of course they are remembered, noted on posters and referenced by speakers. Families of hostages have spoken at other events in Toronto but even they haven’t called for putting their relatives ahead of the main war aim. (Some families do, and make trouble for the Government in Israel.). I think most Jews and friends of Israel have resigned themselves that the IDF has got all it’s going to get alive, and let their memories be a blessing. The focus from Day One — I attended an event in a Toronto synagogue just days after — has been on winning the war. Getting the hostages back has been entirely secondary here because everyone knows what the cost of that would be. We’re there to listen, not to ask, but I have never heard anyone in Toronto say Israel should make concessions to get hostages back. A ceasefire with Hamas left in place, as Canada’s Government has been nagging about since Day 1, is just not on.
The actions and policies of the Canadian Government have been a great disappointment all the way through, and that came through more this year than last, especially that Canadians re-elected pretty much the same Government. It worries more about Islamophobia. As a plain old Canadian, my view is that Israel uniquely in the Middle East embodies our own values of democracy, freedom, and tolerance, and we should be Israel’s ally through thick or thin. Don’t know if we have the votes for that anymore, but we must try.
3) No, the Colorado attack did not deter us in the slightest from wearing our Israel T-shirts in public. Not in a million years. Now more than ever.
Good for you and thanks for the reply. I had a feeling you’d be disappointed with your (Canada’s) recent election — clearly blowback from our president’s inane attack on our most steadfast ally. Politics! Interesting to hear your view on support of Israel as a country taking precedence over all else — however sad that may be for the families of the hostages. Sounds like a “wear it proud” organization/group. It’s wise to not engage the protesters. Thanks, Leslie
Anecdote alert: My brother ran a small business for 40 years. He paid good wages. He told me that Hispanic men were the only men who possessed a work ethic. What small businesses have you run?
I haven’t run any, Arthur, and I apologize that my comment about disrupting businesses offended you. I didn’t mean to be insensitive. I do hope you don’t miss my larger point, though. We need immigration reform so that people like your brother can hire people with that strong work ethic who are enabled to come here legally. I’m sorry for making generalizations about a topic I maybe don’t know as much about as I thought I did. I stand corrected.
1.) ICE should absolutely arrest people who are here illegally (priority on criminals with a capital C who are here illegally). And Plumbers should fix pipes. It’s their literal job. But one does not go about said job in the most noisy, controversial way possible.
2.) law enforcement should not wear masks.
3.) This WAS civil disobedience. It has become a riot. I can show countless videos of LAPD having rocks thrown at them, police cars torched, stores looted. And the truth is, everyone with two brain cells to rub together knew it would go from “hey hey go away” chants to tossing bricks through Apple Store windows. Because it happens every time. Did Trump and Co. play the protesters like a piano? Yup. Yupyupyup.
4.) I would have let the LAPD and LASD make the request themselves, which they would eventually have done. Newsom would have pushed back, but eventually relented as the rioting worsened and he began to realize if he didn’t grow some balls and crack down on violent rioters that his presidential aspirations would be burned up faster than an LAPD squad car.
5.) No. Pure Trumpist theatrics. Tough guy swagger BS.
“This WAS civil disobedience. It has become a riot.”
Escalation upon escalation to provoke reaction.
Why does the National Guard protecting federal property justify the escalation to a riot?
Not sure what this question is searching for.
There is repeated action—reaction. The target is forced into decision dilemmas.
This is the pattern of dialectical political warfare, some of which is laid out in Beautiful Trouble.
Protesters should be cognizant of the fact that Trump WANTS to use all the military force he possibly can. The bigger the operation is, the more effectively he can argue that he is protecting the American public. He WANTS the protesters to respond with increasing violence. He WANTS the situation to get out of control. Think Reichstag fire. Nobody is asking my advice, but here it is anyway. Help those who are in danger. Do it quietly and surreptitiously. Give them a place to stay or transportation to a safe place. But, stay off the streets. Everyone knows that millions of people oppose the process, or at least the manner in which it is being done. We get it. Violent behavior plays right into the hands of these assholes. You are becoming a their tool when you do exactly what they want you to do. Stay home. Organize by phone and computer. You can simultaneously resist and remain invisible. Think French Underground.
Everyone agrees violent criminals should be sought and deported, that was the heart of the Trump campaign. It has devolved into a racist sweep right out of the pages of Project 2025.
Local cops must identify themselves and their badge number if asked. The same should hold for federal cops/law enforcement. I have a feeling a lot of Proud Boys are now working for ICE.
Both.
No.
No. The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that Homeland Secretary Christi Noem wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that the Pentagon should direct military forces “to either detain, just as they would at any federal facility guarded by military, lawbreakers under Title 18 until they can be arrested and processed by federal law enforcement, or arrest them.” Who needs the Posse Comitatus Act? Deploying the military on US soil also is found in Project 2025.
Stop targeting people who are not a direct threat to our society. I note that Obama deported over 3 million illegal aliens and Biden deported over 4 million without calling in the Guard or the Marines.
7.) Do protesters who inexplicably wave Mexican and other foreign flags deserve backhands across the face from other more intelligent protesters?
The big issue is that too many countries are basket cases and migration pressures to USA, Canada and Europe will keep increasing, and no countries have the bureaucratic infrastructure to process mass applications …. I thought experts prediced that globalization would reduce the number of failed states? Why can’t Mexico, Central and South America strengthen their states–they’ve been independent for 150+ years….
100%. One must accept that the most surefire way to do reduce the immigration that is at issue here is to make the point-of-origin nations less… how can I put this politely… shitholey. Don’t cut USAID and VOA. Triple their budgets! Don’t reduce foreign aid to the 3rd world, triple it! Don’t cut medical funding. Triple it! Declare Haitian gangs and drug lords international terrorists and support their arrest, prosecution, removal. Build hospitals, schools, roads. Help make the places that people flee become a place people DON’T flee. Suddenly your border.problems have disappeared. Amazing. And it’s just math.
Canada’s Government has tried this with our Indian Reserves, ironically “tripling” federal welfare funding over the past 10 years on top of steady increases in funding over the past several decades. We now spend more on indigenous program funding to cover all the things you mention under foreign aid — $35 billion a year for fewer than 2 million people — than on national defence. On top of that, hundreds of billions of dollars have to be set aside to pay various lawsuits Canada has settled on generous terms to avoid besmirching the Honour of the Crown. (We have to give the descendants of King George III’s “children” whatever they ask from his descendent, Charles III.). And then private industry has to pay “consultation” rents to aboriginal bands in hopes they won’t molest and vandalize the resource extraction projects Canada relies on. These amounts are secret proprietary business information.
I trust the similarities to shit-hole countries you want to deter immigration from are evident. And guess what: most of the 632 Reserves are still dysfunctional shit-holes! We have no idea where the money went — there are no visible signs of healthy prosperity or investment — , just as the U.S. taxpayer has no idea where all that direct cash foreign aid went.
I don’t think even a country as wealthy as the United States can bribe a teeming country like Somalia enough to get Somalis to stop emigrating, much less all the other shit-hole countries like Somalia. (We would be thrilled if more Reserve residents did “emigrate” from the welfare economy of the Reserves to the productive settler economy but they seem content to stay where they are.) But my point is that more donated cash doesn’t fix shit-holiness. Canada is an object lesson.
I honestly don’t see a comparison. The Indians in Canada are, presumably, Canadian citizens whom the nation has an obligation to keep safe and educated and healthy etc, not foreigners fleeing destitution and violence a continent away. Meanwhile, the lawsuit payouts are both the result of a failure of the legislature and of the people’s crippling guilt over “colonialism”.
My suggestion is not to “bribe” poor countries, but to help them. Bribes are what you do to pay off an entity to do something (illegal) so you don’t have to. Aid is merely aid. And aid isn’t or shouldn’t be treated like a blank check. It is posted towards a problem that can be solved. You have a problem with irrigation and people are starving? Let’s build a water pipeline. Now those people aren’t starving and the numbers fleeing literal death aren’t fleeing said death.
That is what we try to do in Canada. Improve basic services. But it only creates dependency. You build a water delivery system for someone, they won’t maintain it because they didn’t buy it, it’s not “theirs.” It breaks down. No one has any agency to fix it. So they’re back to carrying water in skin buckets (or, in Canada, boiling drinking water) until someone gets around to demanding the aid agency/government buy them a new system. Repeat.
The Indian Reserves produce nothing of economic value and pay no taxes. Canada has to supply them not just with basic municipal services like drinking water and fire protection out of the tax revenues from other Canadians but, as well, all the necessities and even luxuries of life that other Canadians have to earn money to buy. No matter how much money we pour into the Reserves so that they can buy more good things of modern life, they remain shit-holes. Whether they’re “entitled” to this or that money is beside my point. The money is still a welfare trap.
Your thesis is that if you give shit-hole countries more money (with strings attached? — Good luck making that stick) they will improve their quality of life enough that energetic people will stick around to make things even better instead of emigrating. The experience with our domestic shit-holes, and America has its share, too, is that that virtuous circle doesn’t get off the ground. Much of the money is stolen. What does get to people in “need” just causes them to become dependent on the next aid cheque. Merely stating that tripling the foreign aid budget will “mathematically” encourage the go-getters not to emigrate but instead build a brighter tomorrow at home is magical thinking. Unless you have evidence from case studies where immigration from undesirable countries fell after they got more foreign aid, that is. We have the evidence from domestic settings with “third-world” living standards that more free money doesn’t make things better, it makes drug and alcohol abuse much worse, and doesn’t act as seed money to produce internally sustainable prosperity.
People who are truly destitute and near-death starving aren’t able to emigrate. They are too poor and too weak to travel, especially on foot. Foreign aid may prevent them from dying in place, but it won’t prevent their more vigorous, better-off, and sharp-elbowed countrymen who live higher up in the pecking order from striking out for better opportunities in countries with open doors. You may want those people or you may not. But your foreign aid money isn’t going to figure in their decision to up sticks. (A few might be motivated to stay behind to steal the aid money, true.)
I see now how it happens.
Mass deportation of undocumented workers is a fool’s errand. Yes, go after Tren de Aragua, traffickers and felons, but going after 4.6 percent of the country’s workforce is insanity. In our neighborhood today, there were three roofing crews repairing hail damage, two landscaping crews tending the commons, and a concrete crew pouring new curbs and gutters. Most likely, many of these fellows are undocumented. Of the estimated number of undocumented workers, there are over 1.5 million in construction, 1.2 million in agriculture, and 1.0 million in hospitality. The administration is clueless regarding who is going to be doing this work – it certainly won’t be the lard-ass, skill-less MAGA scum. Yes, these folks are here illegally, but what the government should be doing is going to the Oxnard plain, the Central Valley, slaughterhouses, and yes Home Depot and other places where immigrants are doing the work that native-borns won’t do, and give out right-to-work documentation to all undocumented in the workforce. Then, provide a reasonable and straightforward path to legal residency.
https://www.statista.com/chart/34074/us-industries-highest-share-of-the-workforce-undocumented-immigrants/
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Disrupt the businesses and watch legislation get passed. Recent events are ugly, but they are a symptom of our legislators not doing their job. We need immigrants. We need to provide a safe, legal way for them to come and work if they so choose. So long as Congress does nothing — for fear of losing their slots — our Congress whom most members of are more interested in enriching themselves and their celebrity status — we will continue down this road of presidents who behave like kings — swinging from the radical right to the radical left — more Executive Orders that will be undone in the following administration. We’re heading nowhere, fast so long as these extremes persist.
The whole USA immigration process is broken, and rigid politics prevents it from getting fixed.
The USA wants cheap labour, but there is no reasonable legal way to get it from temp foreign workers so the illegals fill the need. This has gone on so long it will be very hard to fix.
What works in other countries: huge fines for hiring illegals so there isn’t much work for illegals thus not much incentive to come illegally. A working temp foreign worker program so the low wage jobs that citizens shun can be filled legally. A reasonable immigration system based on a points system, not quotas set per countries set sixty years ago. Points for youth, points for language skills, big points for skills required by the economy. Make it VERY difficult for illegals to get any services, no drivers licenses, no school, no free medical, no rentals.
The hot-button masked ICE officer question seems straightforward. CNN says there is no law or policy that says federal agents must show their faces. It’s at the discretion of the officers running the operation. From there it’s a partisan issue, I suppose.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/08/us/ice-masks-federal-agents-arrest-students
Traditionally, says CNN, federal agents were proud to take down the most notorious crime bosses while showing their faces: “We’re not afraid of you.” But The Mob in America usually left the cops alone, bad for business to kill an FBI agent or rough up his family even if his henchmen even knew how to find them. Not so sure that’s true with this crowd of anarchists.
So in the presence of a discretionary permission my answer about masks is, “What would I do?” Mask up. You bet I would. And yes, if it’s the law that protestors or criminals can’t wear masks, that has no relevance to what the police can do. It’s not a hockey game.
Note: make sure, when forming an opinion about a story describing “masked agents”, that the agents were in fact masked. The agent who arrested that Osturk woman showed his face to her when he told her she was under arrest while another agent cuffed her wrists. Other agents in the video seen securing the scene were wearing masks but the one she directly interacted with was not.
All protests have their vile toxic element that ruins it for the rest of them.
Do “all” protests actually have a “vile” element so “toxic” that all protests are unjustified?
I 100% respect the right for any group to protest, be they commies, nazis, greenies, feminists or incels.
So long as not fireworks are used, cars burned, people threatened, or bystanders obstructed from their activities.
I grew up in L.A. and many decades ago raids and mass deportations of illegals were common and not particularly controversial. What has changed? My guess is that back then mass illegal immigration was seen as a threat to low-skilled American workers because it drove down wages. People like Ceasar Chavez and his United Farm Workers union were heroes to the left for showing up at the border to stop illegal entries. Even Bernie Sanders opposed illegal immigration for such traditional leftist reasons until the Bernie crowd threatened to abandon their support for him. What has changed is the left – which went from advocacy for American workers to anti-American wokeness.
Many decades ago when Latinos were a minority population and L.A. cops were nonpareil enforcers of the law? Today’s cops are different (I hope) and the demographics are mightily different, esp. in L.A. county.
Polls have shown that most Latino citizens oppose illegal immigration. That was true decades ago (when Ceasar Chavez was a hero to the left) and still true today from what I’ve read. Former Dem advisor Ruy Teixeira delved into this and concluded that the Dems were mistaken to think that supporting mass illegal immigration would win them more Latino votes – in the last election it seems to have had the opposite effect, according to his analysis.
Last election? That game board has been utterly cleared. Democrats know that non-citizens can’t vote so don’t know where you’re alleged motive comes from. What’s with the conspiracy theory about non-citizens voting? I’m surprised that still has steam.
You didn’t read what I wrote. I said nothing about non-citizens voting. I referred to Latino CITIZENS voting, and the assumption among some Dems that allowing open borders would win more support from Latino CITIZENS in the last election. It didn’t.
Just as the tree huggers who found their prime real estate just outside the Forest Service boundary. I got mine, now you stay out.
Illegally hiring and exploiting illegals is on the employers. Arresting them at work makes sense for both parties. But the fact that we did this in the seventies and it still goes on needs to be fixed.
Miller has quotas. Don’t think that was a 70’s thing.
It was a thing in the 70s. If Miller has quotas, so did Carter…
“In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Carter promised sweeps of factories, farms and other workplaces, ending with the detention of undocumented workers in holding facilities to await deportation. It would be “the biggest drive against illegal aliens in history,” Carter told the paper. News of the raids terrified Latinos in the United States, many of whom remembered the wave of forced deportations in the 1930s.
Historians have documented the behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing that the United States participated in during Operation Wetback—deals that were not publicized at the time. Immigration officials threatened South Texas employers, some of whom had resorted to hiring armed guards to fend off Border Patrol officers, with stepped-up raids and offered them watered-down versions of the Bracero Program that let them get papers for their workers without committing to all of the program’s strenuous requirements. As a result, the number of immigrants in the Bracero Program grew as undocumented workers were deported.”
I think Pete Townsend has it right:
Won’t you come and join the party dressed to kill…
It’s an eminence front, it’s a put on.
I know the song is about drug-addled powerful people making poor decisions and hiding behind them, but I think it applies to this charade in L.A. as well.
Edit: forgot to add, everyone forgets, this is a Miller project, you know, the freak who runs the operation.
That’s such a cool song. I LOVE that song — the lyrics, the music — so good! I’m going to go play it right now.
using soldiers on domestic soil to suppress citizens evoking the reaction of “Is that fine?” does not inspire confidence in people’s ability to resist jackboots
not directly related to LA, but anyone liberally throwing words like ‘Marxism’ into their intellectual word salad when discussing [Happenings of the Day] is engaging in the right-wing equivalent of genderwoo, using made up language and nebulous rhetoric to sound scary while saying nothing at all
There are a lot of negative things to be said about California or Progressivism, but neither jackboots nor mirroring its methodology are the answer.
I’m kind of reminded of an older blog post about Bill Maher’s meeting with Trump, and Trump casually conceding he lost the election. Cool. So Trump knowingly and intentionally attacking the integrity of American democracy instead of doing it because he’s retarded is… good?
It’s not.
Same here. Calling in the army because Californians are out of their minds is… good?
It’s not.
Cops exist for a reason.
If escalating to the use of military force on citizens by the guy who intentionally compromised the integrity of the electoral process doesn’t cause a reflexive ‘No’ reaction, nothing will.
+1
1.) Should ICE (or whoever started arrested immigrants) have even gone after the people, even if they were undocumented immigrants who entered the country illegally?
I favor an open border to anyone coming here to work. Our government should spend its great resources on screening out criminals.
2.) Should law enforcement wear masks?
Only in Russia.
3.) Is this an example of civil disobedience, violent protest, or both?
Seems like the first. The amount of violence has been minuscule.
4.) Given the violence, was it still necessary (or even useful) to call out the National Guard?
The police in LA have controlled worse. Trump is looking for excuses to militarize American cities.
5.) Should the Marines have been called out?
Of course not. Why are we having a military parade on his birthday?
finally
6.) What would you do in this situation if you were President (or governor)?
Develop a system to deal with incoming migrants and implement it.
When you say “I favor an open border to anyone coming here to work.”, how many do you have in mind?
The latest UN number of refugees is around 120 million. I’m pretty sure if the US announces open borders for anyone who wants to work in the US, you can easily reach half a billion or more.
So.. are half a billion new people in the US – let’s say over the next 10 years – OK for you? I guess you can imagine what it would do to wages, cost of living (especially housing) and civil order.
If 50 million immigrants per year are not OK for you, what number is? More importantly, what number is tolerated by the majority of US citizens?
High immigration is good for those who are financially set, own a house and benefit more from cheaper services to increase their comfort. If you are working in a low-wage job to make ends meet and struggle to pay an ever increasing rent, then having more people that compete for the same jobs and the same accommodations drives down wages and drives up rent. However, at a certain point immigration has made life more difficult for enough people that the social order – tenuous as is in the US from a European perspective – degrades even further souring the deal even for those well-off. At which immigration level this degradation occurs is debatable. Thus I wonder how many immigrants willing to work you (or anyone else in this debate) thinks should be invited.
You are conflating refugees (people fleeing persecution) with people coming here to work.
Legally speaking, we already have an entirely open border for refugees, although in practice it does not work.
The current ICE raids are focusing on groups of people at work or seeking work.
My mother’s parents came here from Ukraine and he worked in coal mines; my paternal grandmother’s family came in 1848 partly for economic reasons. I have nothing against similar immigrants from Mexico, or similar parts today. Some are my neighbors and the only trouble they cause me is when they wake me up because they are going to work.
If the USA said anyone seeking work can come on over, and we’ll give you a legal path to stay, then you would get at least 500 million people coming over. there are WAY more economic immigrants than refugees. All countries desirable countries have to set reasonable limits on immigration or they will not be able to integrate, and support them while to “get settles”. Housing would be a problem if you opened the border.
It’s a utopian ideal to have open borders.
You say that you favor an open border to anyone coming here to work. Would you favor 500,000 people coming here with credentials and skills similar to yours interviewing for all the jobs that you find attractive?
On Question 3)
Jerry has written so carefully and extensively on this website about civil disobedience that I took Q3 to be a test of whether readers had read those posts.
To recap, civil disobedience involves violating a specific law you believe to be unjust, in the hope that you can shame the authorities into repealing that law. The idea is to be identified, arrested without resistance, put on trial, and punished if convicted. Pleading not guilty and mounting a defence (of necessity say) is OK — it would be great publicity if the jury acquitted you — but you’re not supposed to try to evade arrest. You have to face the music. Imagine Rosa Parks sitting in the front of the bus….and then dashing for a following getaway car as soon as the police showed up.
Breaking laws other than the one you are protesting is counterproductive. It alienates your potential supporters, whom you need to help get the law repealed, and it diverts public attention away from your cause and focuses on the violence or obstruction of the streets ot whatever. Any violence or obstruction of the streets would tell the world that you are protesting against laws that prohibit violence and obstructing streets…and the world knows what to do with people like that. It ain’t pretty. “Throwing rocks at police officers is against the law. I’m going to throw rocks at police officers in the hopes that the state will repeal that law and make it legal to throw rocks at police officers.” Right, then.
By this definition, the events in Los Angeles are absolutely not civil disobedience. Violence and diffuse unfocused lawbreaking are something else. So, even, is a “mostly peaceful” protest that occupies the streets and denies them to lawful users. That is, essentially, a riot if the protestors don’t disperse when the police decide they’ve indulged them long enough.
Very good summary. And if the Democrats make the same mistake here as they did pushing the woke agenda, Trump and his ilk will continue to rule. It’s sad that one has the choice between two extremes, neither of which is good, but that’s in part another of the many disadvantages of a two-party system.
Too bad I haven’t heard one Democrat saying what you just said
The biggest problem is Trump didn’t, yet again, consult other people. Assistance wasn’t sought by anyone in California. In complete contrast to January 6th, where he was happy to sit back and watch the violence, in this case he went over the top of the Mayor and Governor.
I suspect he’s keen to invoke martial law. He is looking for ways to avoid consultation with anyone other than his sycophant advisors like Miller.
Trump is a power hungry mad man. He will be looking to start some kind of violence so he can rule all on his own under the guise of stopping said violence. It’s going to get worse as he nears the end of his term.
He’s been getting schooled by people like Orban of Hungary and Netanyahu of Israel.
The real question is: will the military happily march in? If the military, rather than the national guard do start being sent into protests the unimaginable will happen! It’ll be goodbye USA. No more freedom. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will no longer exist.
I’m British. My country has experience of using troops in the context of civilian law enforcement and I’m old enough to remember the last time we did it – during The Troubles in Northern Ireland.
Using the army to quell civilian unrest rarely goes well. A soldier doesn’t usually have the tools or training to deal with such situations. If a soldier has a mob coming towards him, his only tool is usually a gun and he will often resort to using it. Being deployed during the Troubles has made murderers of some troops and made the community they were there ostensibly to protect suspicious and hostile towards them.
My thoughts based on your questions:
1.) Should ICE (or whoever started arrested immigrants) have even gone after the people, even if they were undocumented immigrants who entered the country illegally?
-Yes.
I’ve been open to paths to naturalization, or deportation. Both parties have kicked the illegal immigration can down the road for some time. During the Biden admin immigrants learned they could use Asylum claims to jam up the system and stay almost indefinitely, and this led to a massive issue. Not all the fault of the Biden admin, but his admin also waited forever to address the issue. Now this admin is tackling the problem. I don’t approve of all the decisions the admin is making but if folks are here illegally I have no problem with them being deported.
I would like more transparency and insurance of due process. But in theory I don’t care that ICE is deporting illegal immigrants.
2.) Should law enforcement wear masks?
No. I understand the worry about being doxxed and being vulnerable to attack, which is the rational behind the masks. But I also think this has always been part of the risk of being a police officer.
3.) Is this an example of civil disobedience, violent protest, or both?
I’m sure there is a fair bit of both, but once gas filled bottles start flying, and bricks, and cars start being burned, and police officers attacked, the crowd needs to go home.
4.) Given the violence, was it still necessary (or even useful) to call out the National Guard? This will really depend on the crowd sizes and level of violence. LA is a city that cannot have its police tied up in prolonged nightly battles with violent rioters. Police and SHeriff’s first duty is as first responders. The more of their personnel that need to be dedicated to fighting, or containing rioters the more the average LA citizen is let down by those first responders. After the first Friday night of conflict, or maybe Saturday night, what I wish is that Newsom had called up the Guard himself. That would have been leadership.
5.) Should the Marines have been called out?
No. There is no evidence that the National Guard have any need of back up.
finally
6.) What would you do in this situation if you were President (or governor)?
There is some reporting that Newsom and Bass Sent police and LA Sheriffs to the area where ICE and Border Patrol were executing warrants. The reporting suggests that they werent’ really to help protect ICE or Border Patrol by keeping protestors away from them. They seem to have been there to prevent property damage. They only get involved when the protestors throw bottles at them. I think had leadership indicated a dire need to keep protestors from ICE and Border Patrol, a lot of this would have fizzled into nothing. Were I Newsom or Bass I would have urged the police and SHeriff’s Dept to keep protestors and federal agents well separated. Depending on how bad the violence was on Friday or Saturday night, I think I would have, were I Newsom called up the national guard myself.
And if I were the President I would have kept right the hell out of it. Let Dems repeat every error of Minneapolis and 2020 generally. Watching Dem response to this on my FB feed demonstrates to me that would be the best GOP strategy.
1.) Should ICE (or whoever started arrested immigrants) have even gone after the people, even if they were undocumented immigrants who entered the country illegally?
Those who enter illegally should be deported. That being said, there should be a clear system in place to bring in on a temporary or long term basis to fill labour market gaps both as unskilled and skilled levels.
2.) Should law enforcement wear masks?
Yes, as otherwise it allows them to be recognised and targeted after such incidents (and their families).
3.) Is this an example of civil disobedience, violent protest, or both?
In the main it is valid protest given the strong tradition in the US for open and public protest. However, as is often the case this can be hijacked by those who favour violent protest or are there just for violence itself.
4.) Given the violence, was it still necessary (or even useful) to call out the National Guard?
No, well resourced police can be sufficient.
5.) Should the Marines have been called out?
Definitely a very bad move. Marines are combat experts trained to kill and are simply not competent to deal with this situation. Overreaction and escalation is almost guaranteed. Take the example of using paratroops in Ireland from the 70s.
6.) What would you do in this situation if you were President (or governor)?
First, all those targeted should be given due process of the law and this should be made clear. If they are illegal then make it clear they will be deported to place of origin. Also, make it clear that peaceful protest is acceptable but violence will be dealt with by the police.
What if the local police won’t act because appearing to help ICE carry out lawful deportations by arresting rock-throwers would violate California’s sanctuary status? It seems that the mostly peaceful protests are intended to thwart the ability of ICE to arrest the people it’s looking for. Is that lawful protest? If it isn’t, how should the federal authorities respond in the face of non-cooperation by the local police?
Some newspapers have described the past four years of illegal immigration as an invasion. At first, I thought that was hyperbole. But then I thought, over about six years something like 13M people in the German Army invaded most of Europe. In our case over the course of four years, ~10M people broke through America’s borders and stayed. In that light this feels an occupation as well as an invasion. I say “broke through” because they came uninvited. (Don’t ding me for not getting the numbers exactly right.)