ICE raids in LA

COVID lockdowns, and vaccination mandates, were examples of Federal and State control.
COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccination mandates are prime examples of government intervention at both federal and state levels. These measures showed how authorities can rapidly enforce sweeping policies to address emergencies. The same principle applies to civil unrest—when local governments delay action, events can quickly spiral, prompting higher-level intervention.

Recent events in Los Angeles highlight the consequences of delayed local action. If the LA Mayor had imposed a curfew on the first night of unrest and if LAPD had responded more swiftly, the situation may not have escalated to the point where the National Guard was needed.
This pattern isn’t unique to LA—other cities like San Francisco have faced similar challenges.

This is reminiscent of other crises, such as the Pacific Palisades fires or the BLM protests. In each case, criticism centered around mismanagement and delayed response, which allowed situations to worsen before effective action was taken.

Most people understand the rationale behind ICE raids—removing violent criminals from communities is widely supported. However, the protests are less about the why and more about the how: concerns over tactics, due process, and humanitarian treatment.

But the anarchists use the opportunity to intensify the protests and turn them in to riots. It defeats the purpose of the protests.

 

Yes to the former, but I wonder about the latter.

I've always been dubious about marijuana "legalization." I'm all in favor of it, of course, but states' nullification of federal laws isn't legal. In this case, it is merely tolerated.

Funny, but Americans seem to be tolerating (but not approving of) Trump's attempt to eradicate millions of people, including many (I assume) who grow the marijuana they so much approve of.

 

I wasn't locked down. Were you locked down? As I recall, I was free to leave my house and return at will. Now, I was prevented from joining congregations in public places, but that's hardly the same as being locked down.

One of our true joys was to go through the drive-thru at our favorite taco shop in Tucson (Nico's) and then go picnic at the deserted park, or up into the mountains, or wherever. It was a peaceful way to get out of the house, and I don't remember anyone trying to stop us.

Locked down?

 

Perhaps so. But that's not what Trump is doing. Thus, he's -11 points in the most recent poll about his handling of immigration.

 

The aggressive quotas of 3000 per day cause arrests of everyone who is deportable.
People in process of legalization and non-violent aliens etc., even some legal immigrants.

I can be mistaken, but I think Pr. Trump is going to adjust, at least I read, he is introducing a new order that will protect Farmers and Hospitality services etc.

"Donald Trump appeared to concede that his aggressive anti-illegal immigration campaign is debilitating American farmers and hotel businesses, marking a rare public admission that his promise of the “largest deportation operation in American history” comes at a significant cost.

“Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,” the president wrote on Truth Social on Thursday.

The president’s comments follow a series of workplace raids targeting farm workers in southern California, a meat production plant in Nebraska and dairy farm workers in Vermont, among other operations affecting multi-billion dollar industries that employ tens of thousands of undocumented people."

“This is not good. We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!” Trump wrote.

It is unclear what those changes would be and when they will arrive.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-admits-anti-immigration-agenda-191528451.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

 

There was no federal lock down. If there were, it would be based on public health, not “maintaining the peace”.

 

Who would stop him? The correct and only answer is "Congress" but there's little stomach for it there.

 

Quit being so technical for a minute. Just try to imagine the Supreme Court, or any Court, saying to Donald Trump, "Well, yes, you have a constitutional duty to take care that the laws of the United States are enforced but we don't think THIS law, whose constitutionality is unquestioned, should be enforced. So don't."

Or:"Yes, you have a duty to enforce this law but we think you shouldn't do it except by saying. 'Pretty please.'"

No, Trump has found a way to accomplish his goal of at least looking like a Strong Man and only a supine Congress could stop him. They won't. No one else can.

And don't think those cannabis dispensaries are safe. They're not. First, a good chunk of the Religious Right would like to see it "just because" and second, many Blue State politicians could be in the cross hairs for supporting and accepting contributions from organized criminal enterprise.

Judges are probably safe. Just sayin'.

 

Judge Says Trump Illegally Deployed National Guards in LA, Must Return Control.

https://apnews.com/article/california-immigration-national-guard-newsom-trump-lawsuit-aedf8cdd95ee899c9559d5e54a2e4833

 

Although the appeals process will begin, this is a clear sign that Trump is acting illegally. Again.

 

The judge seemed to indicate that it was an obvious ruling. A big bonus is that he said something like Trump is not King George. I love that line because Saturday is a humungous nationwide protest called "No Kings".

 

WOW!!

 

Okay, the 9th Circuit just stayed the District Court's order. Two things I've noted so far. First, the Administration made the "non-justicable" argument, which I believe is correct, and second, there's nothing at all that I can see about Trump using active duty Marines. The Posse Comitatus Act remains a dead letter.

 

This is what being “the President” means, people.

 

A well written and understandable column. But the Administration is hell-bent on enforcing federal immigration law. Even if Trump wanted to back down, I don't think he can at this point without sending a strong message that the federal government can't control undocumented immigration. That's the exact opposite of his goal.

Here's a thought, though. It well may be that the federal government in fact CAN'T enforce the existing law. What does that mean for the future?

 

But he isnt enforcing the law because he isnt following the law to begin with.
We have a process for deportations that every previous president, including he, have been able to follow in previous administrations. He has escalated to do illegal detentions and deportations. He is enforcing his reign of terror, but not the law.

 

Maybe so. I'm not there, watching.

 

This matter isn't a law enforcement issue. The government is perfectly capable of enforcing the law. It does so every day, and it deports several hundred thousands of people each year.

This is an administrative problem. (Assuming we want to keep deporting these people.) There is a backlog of several million cases, and this is because the government doesn't apply the resources necessary to adjudicate these cases.

Another way to resolve this is to accept the fact that these people are here adn legalize them. This would also require us to open the doors to more immigrants. But we know there is a segment of the population absolutely opposed to this. They say, "Immigrants should do it the right way," but they don't really mean it. If they did, they could solve it by the means I just mentioned: more resources to process immigrants. But NONE of this is about enforcing the law. It is ALL about getting a certain type of people OUT of the country--by any means necessary.

 

Reagan did exactly that in the 1980s.