As the Trump administration invokes the "insurrection clause" to send troops to suppress immigration protests in Los Angeles, California remains firm in asserting its state autonomy. In this head-on collision triggered by immigration policy, Los Angeles has evolved from a mere city into a national stage for a power showdown. Below is an analysis from foreign media for your reference. Note that different positions require critical evaluation. #Los Angeles Riots #US Deportation of Immigrants #Trump Centralization of Power
Trump's immigration crackdown sparks a storm of protests, bringing state and federal authorities to a showdown.
Recently, large-scale protests ignited by Trump's tough immigration policies have escalated rapidly in Los Angeles. The confrontations between protesters and federal law enforcement officers, burning shopping carts, and the use of rubber bullets and tear gas have once again exposed the deeply divided reality of American society under the spotlight. However, the root cause of this turmoil goes far beyond immigration issues; it represents an intense struggle over the boundaries of power between the federal and state governments.
Raid escalation: ICE detains over 100 people in a day, enraging the Latino community.
The conflict initially erupted in Paramount, a Los Angeles suburb. The federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided a meat processing plant and a Home Depot warehouse within less than 24 hours, arresting 121 immigrants. Many protesters claim that their relatives have no criminal records and are merely " undocumented." Yet, these raids were conducted without warning on a massive scale, triggering collective panic and outrage within the community.
In subsequent protests, law enforcement employed flashbang grenades, pepper balls, and even rubber bullets. Protesters responded with glass bottles and fireworks. A shopping cart was set on fire and used as a barricade, plunging the streets into temporary chaos.
Governor Newsom denounces a "political show," as the federal government deploys troops unilaterally.
California Governor Newsom strongly opposes the federal government's direct intervention, labeling it "a political drama." He states, "We are not short of law enforcement; what we lack is restraint from the federal government." What shocked the state government even more was that despite California not requesting any military assistance, National Guard convoys were dispatched to Los Angeles that very night.
The Trump administration cited the "insurrection clause" used by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 during the civil rights movement to justify its troop deployment, characterizing the protests as a "national insurrection."
White House takes a hardline stance: "If you don't deport them, you're surrendering."
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller claimed on social media, "Deport the invaders or surrender to the insurrection—these are the only options." Trump's border affairs chief, Homan, bluntly stated, "No one can stop us; we won't cease."
Such harsh rhetoric is reminiscent of the nationwide protests following the George Floyd incident in 2020. At that time, although Trump threatened to deploy the military, he ultimately did not follow through. This time, however, there is no hesitation.
Marine Corps on alert: Federal deployment of active-duty troops stirs concern.
More alarmingly, Secretary of Defense Hegseth announced that active-duty Marine Corps stationed at Camp Pendleton have been placed on high alert and could be deployed into the city at any moment. The last time active-duty troops were mobilized without a governor's request was nearly 60 years ago.
The federal government claims this move is to "protect ICE and federal facilities," but the underlying political motives are becoming increasingly apparent. As the election season approaches, this "tough stance" conveniently responds to conservative voters' heightened concern over immigration issues.
"Nowhere is safe": From targeted investigations to large-scale crackdowns, immigration raids are being comprehensively escalated.
Unlike past actions that focused on undocumented immigrants with criminal records, Trump's new strategy centers on "workplaces": garment factories, construction sites, fast-food chains... Within a week, ICE averaged over 2,000 arrests daily, most of which were carried out in dawn raids supported by intelligence from the FBI and IRS.
The strategy is explicit: swiftly increase arrest numbers through sweep-style raids and send a clear message to undocumented immigrants—"Not even a laundry room is safe."
Businesses hit hard, employers caught in legal dilemmas.
ICE operations have also severely impacted US small and medium-sized enterprises reliant on immigrant labor. Industries such as construction, gardening, hospitality, and dining typically have as high as 20% of their workforce consisting of undocumented immigrants. A Cleveland contractor admitted, "If you drive these people away, our industry is finished."
What further anxieties employers is this: if they fire employees suspected of having undocumented status, they may face discrimination lawsuits; yet, if they take no action, they risk becoming targets of ICE. As an immigration lawyer summarized, "You're in trouble if you act, and equally in trouble if you don't."
This is a legal operation, but more so a political spectacle.
Trump clearly understands media dynamics—the flaming carts, armed National Guardsmen, angry crowds, and rolling tear gas smoke will all become material for his campaign videos. What he needs is not a victory in law enforcement but a "visual victory" that can be disseminated.
Under such manipulation, the real immigration issues and the agenda for institutional reform are once again overshadowed. "Immigration" once more becomes a political symbol for mobilizing voters rather than a policy challenge requiring rational solutions.
The asylum state system faces its ultimate test: Has the US entered a new phase of constitutional governance?
The issues sparked by this unrest go far beyond immigration itself. They directly challenge the fundamental boundaries between federal and state authority: when a state government opposes federal policies, does the federal government have the right to intervene militarily under the guise of "insurrection"?
The Trump administration's memorandum is filled with legal jargon, but its core logic equates protest actions with "insurrection." Should this logic prevail, any local government that fails to comply with federal policies in the future may risk military suppression.
People cannot help but worry: Are the constitutional pillars of the First Amendment, local autonomy, and the separation of powers still intact?
When the tear gas dissipates and the streets return to calm, the questions left for the entire nation continue to burn—Is this the beginning of Trump's new round of tough governance? Or is it the federal government's final attempt to suppress state autonomy?
Regardless of the answer, one thing is certain: the US has entered a new political era, and Los Angeles marks this turning point.
评论
发表评论