Panel: An immigration war in America?
53:41 Share

Daily news and analysis. We keep you informed and inspired. This is World Today. Hello and welcome to the panel discussion of World Today. I'm Ding Han in Beijing. In the United States, the conflict between California and the Trump administration over immigration appears to be further intensifying.

Federal immigration officials are carrying out enforcement activities in California, especially the Los Angeles area, as part of President Donald Trump's mass deportation policy. The raids have been sharply criticized by local officials, who say everything in their daily life is being affected by the activities targeting immigrant families.

At the center of the clash is the federal government's decision to order the deployment of National Guard members and Marines to LA after days of protests driven by anger over the raids. So, what can we tell from this clash regarding the wider social and political divisions in the United States? This question and much more in this edition of the program.

To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today. So joining us now on the line are Joseph Syracuse, Professor of Global Futures with Curtin University, and Andy Malk, Senior Research Fellow with the Center for China and Globalization.

So thank you very much for joining us today, gentlemen. Andy, to start with you, first of all, is the US federal government unleashing a decades in the making immigration war in America, in your opinion?

I think the short answer is yes, that this is what's happening. But it actually is deeper and more dangerous than that, in that we can think of this so-called unleashing a war against illegal immigration as a policy choice. But I think what is the deeper and more dangerous problem here, to use a very fancy philosophical word, is an ontological rift. Actually, it's a phrase because it's two words.

But what this means is that there are two very sizable segments of the American population that understand reality very, very differently. So those we could maybe call them on the right or MAGA, Make America Great Again, of course, with Trump as the current leader of this movement, sees the United States favorably

facing a number of existential threats, threats to the very continuation of the nation that need to be addressed. Those that oppose them, we could call them the progressives, the blue states, whatever, really see this, again, as a problem and maybe even not that big of a problem. Now, the danger here is that these ontological rifts

are not bridged, we can end up with an Israel-Palestine situation, a Northern Ireland situation with very real physical rifts resulting in an enduring cycle of violence.

So I would say, yes, this is definitely the culmination of long enduring concerns about immigration. But more deeply, I think it is an ontological rift that while the probability is still small, according to most experts, is still a very real danger of metastasizing into an open conflict, a civil war, if you will.

Professor Joseph Syracuse, I'm going to you talking about Los Angeles, which we know is the main battlefield of this so-called immigration war this time around. It is home to nearly a million undocumented immigrants, which represents the largest number of any place in the United States today.

Some people say the city's population structure, its local demographics, combined with its past the history of prominent protests or riots, so to speak, be it in the case of 1965 or 1992, make the city, make LA a strategic place for President Donald Trump to spearhead his agenda with regard to immigration. What is your observation?

Well, I mean, it's a good city for Trump to start if he wants to exert his, try to exert his influence and power. I mean, he's not there yet. He's picked the most populous state in the U.N.,

He has picked a city that's very prominent, 550 square miles. I might add that most of the rioting is taking place in six square blocks, so you know, the rest of it. And Los Angeles, California in general, have a long history of protesting. California, or of course Los Angeles this time around, has numbered the sanctuary states, which simply means that they weren't going to cooperate with federal authorities to get people thrown out. And there's a pretty good reason here. You know, Los Angeles has tolerated a large population like this.

undocumented workers because they are working they work in agriculture and hospitality and construction sites I mean if Americans didn't need all this cheap help to pick the lattice and help with buildings I doubt we'd have this kind of problem but look you know I'm 80 years old I've seen the riots before I was in Chicago in 68 when it was burning down and did

Dick Daly, Mayor Daly called Lyndon Johnson to look for help. So, you know, I've seen how this works. I mean, the idea though of the president putting his political personality

on top of this and testing and probing. This is a little bit different game. But look, in the long history of America, nativism, that is the locals have always found occasions to rise up against people. It was the Chinese in the 19th century, and then the Italians and the Greeks and other people. And of course, in the 1930s, about 1 million of Mexicans were forcibly

removed from America, presumably because they were taking jobs. Many of them left because they were going to get beaten up. So, you know, America has this long history of this. But in recent years, the border has been fairly porous because people are looking for work and they're looking for work that Americans don't do. These people aren't doing anything that Americans want to do, as a matter of fact. So, you know, there's been that kind of toleration. But look, if he wants to pick a fight,

with the next political opponent that is Governor Newsom. And he wants to pick a fight in a prominent place. He started in the right place. But look, he could have been in New York. He will be. Or Chicago or Philadelphia or a lot of other places that have a great deal of tolerance for this. So, President, if he wants to expand his powers and sort of eliminate his competition. But, you know, do mind, you know,

I'm old enough to think that Trump is taking this very personally, you know, and the past presidents have called in troops in different places to put down a rioting. I mean, cities were burning cities.

25 American cities burned between 1965 and 1968. But on this occasion, he used rioting over the objections of the governor. He sent the national, he federalized the guard and sent, I think, 4,000. Now the Marines

Completely, this is overreach and a disproportionate response to what something that the L.A. police could have taken care of. There are nearly 10,000 cops in L.A., not to mention the greater L.A. area, which uses sheriffs. I mean, they had this well under control. But Trump is playing on this fear here and decided to...

Pick L.A. first because it's a good target. Andy, like you indicated earlier, indeed, different people have different narratives. Different people have their own version of truth that they hope to believe in.

But from the point of view of those people who are critical of California's local policy, do you think they have a point when they say that California's welfare subsidies for illegal immigrants and its

widespread sanctuary policies have really made the state a magnet for border crossing migrants and that California is a ground zero for the toleration of crime and disorder. Do you think these criticisms have a point?

So the short answer is yes, I absolutely do see Los Angeles County as ground zero for illegal immigration in the United States. So there's a couple of reasons for this.

So the first is almost 50% of the population, the 10 million population of Los Angeles County identifies as Hispanic or Latino. So as you know, it's easy to imagine if you're an immigrant, you would feel much more comfortable where there are your compatriots, people that share the same language, the same cultural background.

So I think that's one reason. Proximity, of course, is another. So this is in Southern California, which borders Mexico, which makes it, you know, I think much easier for people to literally walk across the border.

So I think we have that. Now, one thing I think it's important to clarify, and this is not a belief by people on the right, but this is, again, the issue of ontology is what you know to be real. So this is very, very important because if you believe something, your opinion can be changed. But if you see something as reality, it's much, much harder to change.

And one of the aspects of reality for those on the right is they also see the Democratic Party as using this as a way to build an enduring political majority that will permanently disenfranchise what I would call legacy Americans. So, again, this is what makes this such a difficult issue.

wicked problem to solve because again there are two competing perhaps incompatible realities here that are clashing and again what makes it so dangerous is that again this could end up being in Israel versus Palestine a Northern Ireland kind of situation hmm

So, Andy, the U.S. federal government's measure of sending the National Guard and the Marines to quell protests in L.A. has sparked a nationwide debate in America with regard to the use of military forces on the American soil. What is your take on whether these deployments are realistically necessary?

So this is a great question, right? So I think reasonable people can disagree. You know, the argument made by the Trump administration is if they had if Washington had not acted in this way, we would have a reprise, a replay of the George Floyd riots across the country. And it is through this timely action because of the incompetence or perhaps incompetence

being politically compromised. So the Los Angeles mayor, Karen Bass, the governor, Gavin Newsom, are not just Democrats, but they are incompetent and they are politically compromised. That this is why

DC had to take action by federalizing the California National Guard. Now, you know, again, those on, perhaps we can call them the left, would argue that the police had this under control. Washington DC has said that, you know, we don't, we see the political leadership in California as incompetent and compromised, politically compromised. Therefore we had to act.

I take your point. So, Professor Joseph Siracusa, do you think Democrats have a legitimate concern that the federal government's actions here could risk triggering further violence and that the administration's order could actually do damage to the military, to the U.S. military's relationship with the citizens that they are supposed to serve?

That possibly could happen. But I'd like to touch on something Andy mentioned just before I go on to this one. The use of military force in Los Angeles, that is the use of the Marines, is completely indefensible. There's no argument that can be made for it.

to suggest that we need these people to protect other people who are perfectly capable of defending themselves is ridiculous. And it's a very, very bad precedent. And the president is pushing the envelope on this. I understand that a judge has ruled that this is probably not a good idea and Americans will probably turn against it. There isn't an argument in the world that would bring in the Marines because they are combat-ready troops. You know, their job is to kill the enemy.

not to contain the enemy. So, you know, they're in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I'm sorry they were dragged in. Now, look, the Democrats have every right to complain about what's going on because I think that the introduction of

Federal Guard introduction of all these federal employees from ICE and other people arresting people. You know, they're just arresting people on the street. You know, I understand a 11-year-old kid coming home from volleyball practice got picked up. I mean, this is just arbitrary and random. This is not a very good idea. It looks just like it is. It looks cruel and unusual, as a matter of fact. And I think the introduction of

force on top of the police force and federal people doing what they think they should be doing. I think it will incite more violence. You know, as a student, I should say radical in the 1960s, there were anti-war protests.

uh there was the women's movement i mean i've seen it all as soon as you bring in uh more troops that as soon as you add increase the violence increases on the other side you know it's measure you know what we learn in physics that for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction of course there's going to be more violence and there's going to be more violence as the sun sets and people start getting opportunistic with molotov cocktails and burning down businesses and there's always a

parasite element in there, stealing televisions and wrecking cars for no reason at all. I mean, we see it after Americans, after American cities win championship basketball or World Series games. They seem to go on a riot. Anyway, the Democrats should be able to make a fist of this. That is to suggest that the introduction of

an increased amount of troops will automatically bring in violence. And let me tell you, maybe that's the nature of things. You know, you just can't push people around without them responding. I mean, this idea that there is no law when I'm enforcing it on you and then telling people that they're going to be arrested for wearing masks. Just before this show began, I just saw on the American television

AP news that Trump is advocating one year prison sentence for anybody abusing the American flag. This goes right back to the 1917 laws that were designed against Imperial Germany. I mean, this kind of...

erratic behavior and excessive punishment for civil abuse, it will peter out. It'll have a bad ending. And of course, Trump feels free to do what he wants because he's a lame duck president. He only has this term to serve. He's not going to be serving the next term. So what he's doing is I think he's pushing all the envelopes to see what works and what doesn't work. And right now he's doing pretty well.

By the way, Andy, many people seems to be curious about one question. Do you think it is the Trump administration's decision here to mobilize the National Guard and the Marines that provoked the violence and riots in LA or rather the other way around, the violence in the city that prompted the president to mobilize the National Guard?

Yeah, so before I answer that question, Ding Hong, I think it's important to clarify here that the president actually is acting well within his constitutional authority by deploying the California National Guard. And here's why. So according to Title 10, the National Guard reports both to the governor and to the president of the United States. So

The normal, or I would say the more common way of activating the National Guard is through with a governor requesting that.

Now, however, legally, the president can federalize the National Guard legally. And this has been done, I believe this would be the fifth time in modern times. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson all have done this as well. However, this was all in the name of civil rights. This would be the first time for enforcing an immigration policy.

Now, the other, I think, very reasonable chain of logic here for why this was actually quite a sensible thing to do by the administration, by the federal government, is that they wanted to protect federal property, federal buildings, as well as ICE agents who are federal employees.

Now, when it comes to what the National Guard can do and what these Marines can do because of posse comitatus, they are legally restricted from law enforcement. However, they are not.

legally restricted from protecting, again, federal property. So this might be a distinction that goes past the heads of certain people, but this is a very, very important distinction. And by this measure, I think the administration is so far, so far following the laws and acting within its legal authority. Now, I am not sure. I also saw this article

This ruling by the judge that that this was considered illegal. But at the same time, I believe the Trump administration is appealing this and we might see this escalate even to the Supreme Court. And then then we'll see what happens.

So, I think again, Ding Hong, you know, we can, I think reasonable people can say, you know, that this was a smart preemptive action. I think reasonable people can also say that this is provoking further violence. And both can be true at the same time. And this is, again, what makes this such a complex, and again, I use this word, a wicked problem to resolve. Okay.

So, Professor Joseph Syracuse, as Andy indicated earlier, in the United States, the National Guard can actually be used for domestic policing purposes, either under the authority of state governors or with congressional or gubernatorial consent for federal missions, and in some cases, in some rare cases,

They can also be called into federal services without the consent of state governor, especially when state officials are seen as preventing the enforcement of federal law.

And in history, some past US presidents like Eisenhower, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, they have all used this particular authority to federalize the National Guard. But compared to those historical cases, do you think there is anything that is in one way or another different with regard to the Donald Trump administration's measure this time around?

Well, I agree with Andy that the president has every legal right to federalize the guard, even against the wishes of the governor, if he bothered to ask the governor, as a matter of fact. And so you can get away with that. There are a number of cases where in my lifetime when the president went in, Lyndon Johnson went into the American South in 1965 to save some people marching against segregation from getting killed.

And presidents have used this to bring, allow black children to enter America, southern schools in the past and the like. So now there are instances where the presidents have done things despite what the governor says. So that's OK. I mean, I understand that. But there are limits to what they can do. And as I say, they do sort of

raise the temperature a little bit when they go somewhere because there are people who severely object to this. But keep in mind here something else. There were 245 million Americans eligible to vote in the last election. 90 million chose not to vote.

So, you know, when we talked about the blue states and the red states today and the very different views, we got a number of Americans in the background. And look, they're not stupid. They're not indifferent.

They're watching and at the end of the day, they'll decide whether this is a good idea or a bad idea. In fact, the Americans who don't vote, we like to think that they're independents, but they're not. They just fed up with both systems, with both parties. The Pew researchers showed for the past 20 years that the majority of Americans have given up on Washington to do the right thing.

These 90 million are part of that that pure research. They they don't count on Washington to do the right thing So in that sense, there are a lot of people out there who are still a part of the jury and so I think President Trump is very wary of them too. He knows he knows who these people are He doesn't want to upset them now, you know in the in the past

attorneys general have always made a finding on behalf of the president to introduce troops you need the attorney general's office in fact you need the governor to ask the attorney general to make a finding

But this time, there wasn't much confusion. That is, the Attorney General in the United States would have agreed with the president. The Secretary of Defense would agree to the exit, will do anything the president says, because he's a loyalist. And the lady who's in charge of Homeland Security, I find her slightly different.

uh, slightly menacing actually. I mean, she, uh, she doesn't seem to know exactly what all these laws are, but she's determined to put her foot down. So, uh,

The president is not surrounded by people who are going to raise reasonable objections. He's surrounded by people who are looking for ways to enforce what he's doing. And, you know, they're doing it for political reasons. You know, they're all kind of queuing up to become the candidate in 2028. They know that Trump's going out the door and they know he's 79 years old on Saturday and he ain't going to be around forever. So, you know, we've got all these political motives. But at the end of the day...

I think the president is counting on his loyalists to pursue a policy which will, I think, historically be frowned upon. Okay, let's take a very short break here. And coming back, our discussion will continue. Stay tuned.

You are back with World Today. I'm Ding Han in Beijing. Today we are talking about the intensifying clash over immigration in the United States. Joining our discussion, Joseph Syracuse, professor of global futures with Curtin University, and Andy Malk, senior research fellow with the Center for China and Globalization. Andy, going back to you,

I mean, when protests erupted in mid-2020 following the police murder of George Floyd, President Donald Trump at the time also tried to send military forces into American streets to try to put down civil unrest. But back then, we saw the then U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper somehow acting as a brake on the president's impulse.

This time, why do you think Defense Secretary Peter Hack says strongly supports using active duty troops in Los Angeles? And how do you think his past experiences might have shaped his position here?

Well, I think this is another very interesting dimension of this issue, Ding Hong. So I would not necessarily center this around Hegseth, the SecDef. But if we go back, as I believe you rightly pointed out, that in the first Trump administration, the then SecDef blocked Trump from doing this. And this was one of many lessons, I believe, that

President Trump and his core group, his leadership circle recognize that you have to have your people in key positions. And this is one of the main reasons I think that Pete Hegseth was chosen, meaning there is absolutely no gap between what the president wants to do and what the Secretary of Defense is able and willing to do as well. Now, what is very, very interesting here is between

the president and the National Guard. There's not just the Secretary of Defense. There's also the head of the National Guard Bureau, who is a Biden appointee. And then the head of the National Guard in California is a man named Matthew Beavers, who was appointed by Gavin Newsom. And he is the man in the hot seat because

as an appointee of Gavin Newsom, you know, of course, he has to pay attention to the governor's desires and wishes. But at the same time, he can be court-martialed for not following the lawful orders of the

of the President of the United States. So he has to walk a very delicate balancing act here. So I think again, if we want to look into the mechanics, the chain of command here, it's important to note that there's not just the Secretary of Defense, there's also the head of the National Guard Bureau, there is the

The Adjutant General is his formal title of the California National Guard. And I would not be surprised, again, given the important political significance of these developments, that President Trump is not

overriding the chain of command to get direct briefings from the adjutant general. And of course, this would go against established norms in the Department of Defense. And this has not been reported yet. But again, you know, knowing President Trump's

norm-breaking, I guess, record that this shouldn't surprise anyone if we do learn this is going on as well. So yeah, I think there's a lot more to this story that will have long-term implications, not just for immigration, but the balance of federal and state power as well, which I think is a very, very important subject. Because here I would completely agree with Joseph.

that what Trump is doing for various reasons is looking to deepen and broaden executive power throughout the country. And, you know, some see this as frightening. Others see this as absolutely necessary to save the country. And there are two, again, almost incompatible sets of beliefs about this.

So, Professor Joseph Syracuse, looking at the situation that has unfolded so far, do you think this delicate balance of power between individual states and the US federal government is now under threat?

Well, it's being challenged. I mean, the states aren't afraid of the federal government. They've always fought the federal government when they thought their basic interests were at stake, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad reasons. Keep in mind, the United States is not just the president.

and the legislature, it's about these United States. And I'm thinking of the governors of Michigan and Illinois and other places who have been challenging the president. Newsom has directly challenged the president's ability or willingness to do these kinds of things. So I think the states haven't been overwhelmed yet and they have a lot of power. I mean, at the end of the day,

They're the ones in control of their own states. I mean, the federal government may collect the mail, but the states decide what happens within their states. So I think it's a typical challenge. It's a very healthy challenge. They haven't been overwhelmed yet. You know, at the end of the day, I think the president will have a tough time winning this battle, I mean, in the long run. And keep in mind, when you call out the National Guard, and, you know, aside from using rubber bullets and the like, many of them have access to live rounds and

and you know as soon as you you get people in los angeles shooting at other people in los angeles uh you're going into some very dangerous territory uh andy remarked that a lot of people are attracted a lot of mexican americans or those hispanic are attracted to l.a for a lot of reasons and one of the other reasons is they have a lot of relatives there you know and so they could find a place to stay and maybe look for a job and the rest of it

And there is a statistic that I've been playing with over the years. I've been writing about 50 books on American history. And I pointed out in 1979 in my book called The Changing of America that we're going to see a massive rise of Hispanics in the United States. And we have, you know, Black Americans account for 12% of the American population. Hispanic Americans, Spanish-speaking Americans, account for 19% of the population.

And we got people like Rubio and others in high places, you know, Secretary of State. They've gone to great lengths. And so I think it's a little different constituency here in the background. You know, while you might have a great Hispanic business leader in Miami who doesn't like people jumping the queue to get into the country, there's only so much abuse he's going to take there.

against hispanic-speaking people just because they look different or speak different and the rest of it i mean trump trump's not out of the woods yet i mean he's he's doing very well but you know these are just early innings we got a long way to go in this game okay so andy uh when we talk about this delicate balance of power between individual states and the federal government in the united states uh

Do you think this balance of power is a good asset or somehow a liability for today's America?

Well, I think that is the core question, Ding Hong, and I think it is actually an existential one. Because again, for much of the history of the United States, there was more or less a unified view of, again, what reality is. Now, of course, there were periods where the Civil War, of course, being one where there was actual armed conflict,

But the civil rights era as well, as Joseph talked about, also was an incredibly divisive period in American history. So again, not to over-dramatize this, but at the same time, I think we should not

underestimate the fear by those on the right or the red states, if we want to use this kind of dichotomy, that see the nation really under attack by illegal immigrants, you know, by other things that they find very, very alarming. And

Here, you know, those that are seen as supporting illegal immigration, undermining what it means to be an American, that these are not policy differences, but these are seen as, quote unquote, bad people. And again, this can lead to an escalating cycle of extreme behavior, which is very, very dangerous.

And again, I would say here that, you know, for, you know, most reputable experts, they say that the probability of this happening is real, but very low at this point. But the whole, I think, essence of prudent governance is to recognize low probability events that can be very,

very, very dangerous and take preventive measures. So again, you know, from the Trump administration's perspective, it needs to extend executive authority over the states and

over educational institutions like Harvard, over the media, as we see with these lawsuits against CBS and other large media platforms, against law firms, etc. So these are not arbitrary actions by President Trump, but they are all part of an integrated, coherent worldview.

And again, I would say that, you know, with President Trump almost being assassinated, that, you know, he may even see the hand of God at work here, that he was spared to precisely save the United States through these measures. Yeah.

Now, Professor Joseph Siracusa, some anonymous White House officials have told media that they are actually quite satisfied with the way that the LA confrontation has unfolded. They believe it highlights their focus on immigration and the law and order and places the Democrats on the wrong side of both.

Do you think the Democrats are in a weak position where they are defending the indefensible?

Well, they're not there yet, but I'll tell you what, they're on the back foot. To oppose the president right now in a general way puts you on the side of the people who are protesting, some of whom may be doing terrible things at the end of the day. So you don't want to be seen on the side of law and order breaking down. So the Democrats have to be very careful here.

about how they defend principle. Governor Newsom has tried to talk about what's being done as opposed to what's being done on the ground. So in that sense, the Democrats are

They sort of are on the back foot, but you know, sometimes tennis matches go a long time. And so it's very hard for them to argue on behalf of migrants coming in like this, particularly one of whom may have committed a terrible crime or committed murder or whatever it is.

And so, you know, the president can say, well, look, he's defending so and so. I saw this in congressional testimony the last couple of days. Someone, Stefanik from New York, is asking these governors, you know, are you responsible for what happened here or there? And of course, they're on the back foot because these people, some of these people did terrible things.

So it puts him in a difficult position. On the other hand, the Democrats, this decision to go, the president's decision to go after them has sort of galvanized them in a way. I mean, they were sort of...

Oh, spirit was broken disorderly after the Kamala Harris fiasco. And so, you know, they're looking for new leadership. They're looking for a new way to push back. They don't really know how to do it. They don't want to go after Trump's personality. They don't want to impeach him again. Where does that go? Nowhere. And so, you know, they're thinking about the larger issues and how it might play out in American living rooms. So they have an opportunity here to regroup.

to refocus on 2028. And I think a lot of the people who are opposing the president right now would like to be in the Oval Office in 2028. We cannot underestimate the political ambition of people who want to get into the White House. I mean, they'll do almost anything and they will fight the president. And I think in the last couple of weeks, Governor Newsom has made it very clear he doesn't care what Donald Trump thinks. He does care what he does.

And he's defending Californian rights, Angeleno rights for protests and all the rest of it. And he's also suggesting, as the mayor, Mayor Bass is, is that the more troops that are on the street, the greater the possibility of provocation of violence, which is true. You know, two and two does equal four. You can't get away from that. So but they have to, you know, walk a very fine line here between defending rights and privileges, while at the same time not to be,

seen on the same side as people who break the law, some of them very badly. Now, Professor Syracuse, we know California Governor Gavin Newsom, he once regularly sparred with Trump on several issues, including immigration, health care, and gun rights.

But after President Trump was re-elected in 2024, Newsom somehow promised to work with presidents and to put aside their differences. Why do you think he is now making it quite clear that his truce with the president, so to speak, is over? It's over, all right. Look, when you've been opponent of somebody who is into the White House,

and you really don't want to work with them, but you have to work with them. The story is that you respect the office of the presidency, so you'll work with them out of this official obligation to respect the office on everything that's reasonable. As far as Newsom's concerned, the president has been

unreasonable. He's lied to him, lied to the public about what they said as far as he's concerned. And then he's provoked this population in California. He's overreaching, overreacting. And so I think Governor Newsom has washed his hands of even looking normal around President Trump. They will be enemies probably till the day they die. Newsom's finished with Trump.

And Trump, of course, is contempt for Newsom, is bottomless. So there was nothing lost there, as a matter of fact. But I think Newsom has given up trying to get anything out of the president of the United States. Now, Andy, so do you think President Donald Trump's clash with Governor Newsom over protests in Los Angeles, for example, has the potential to influence the next U.S. presidential race in 2028?

Well, that's a long ways away, Ding Hong. So people in American politics say that a month is an eternity. The other thing I would say about the next election, even though it is quite a long time away, is I don't think we should rule out a third Trump term. Now, of course, he has joked about this. A few on the right have raised this.

The more important political event, I think, is the upcoming midterm elections in 2026. Because if the if the Republicans lose the House and if they, you know, then we may see more impeachments of President Trump, even though that really hasn't gone anywhere in the past. But certainly this would complicate.

the second Trump administration's ability to implement its policy objectives. So, and Ding Hong, I do want to mention here, as important as this immigration question is,

We also, it's important to point out that there are a set of interlocking issues that the Trump administration sees as very, very important. So one is the whole issue of federal governance, the bloated sclerotic federal bureaucracy, which Doge, that he's

that Elon Musk was heading, was tasked with a divorce, is the tax system. So the one big, beautiful bill is, you know, taxes are a big part of it. But again, a lot of other structural changes are being attempted. The re-industrialization of the United States is seen also as an existential problem slash opportunity. So there is a lot.

that they're looking to accomplish, which I think then also shows the need for not only visionary, but leadership continuity as well. So, you know, let's stay tuned for what happens in the midterms and then let's see what happens in 2028 with the presidential election, which is still quite a long ways off. - Professor Syracusa,

We know one of the main reasons why California today is a Democratic supermajority state is because back in 1994, the Republican Party supported a punitive anti-immigrant initiative called Prop 187. So with that in mind, do you think the Trump administration's attempt in terms of clamping down on California's undocumented immigrants

actually run a risk of backfiring politically for the Republican Party.

Yeah, I think it can backfire if it's not handled properly. I mean, if the president's policies are seen as excessively counterproductive and the like, it'd be very hard for Republicans, particularly in districts in California where there might be a very large number of Hispanic voters. I mean, it's very hard to explain to Hispanic voters why your president is beating the bejesus out of Hispanic migrants

hundred miles away in Los Angeles. It's very hard to reconcile this kind of thing. So it might make it more difficult for them at the end of the day. But it isn't just that proposition that turned California liberal. And that is, you know, the cities there tended to be magnets for liberal politicians who, by the way, it wasn't always a dirty word. It was

about very intelligent people who've been governors and mayors of California. And I mean, there always has been some kind of riots there, whether it was Rodney King or something else. But California's had some very, very good people, smart people, has produced some great senators and produced, of course,

Governor Reagan went into the White House after doing an interesting job in California. So, you know, it's not just the immigration thing, but I'll tell you what, people, when this thing settles down,

people will see how it was handled, you know, on the Monday after the game. And Andy's right, by the way, about that 2026 election. What happens in 2026 will, of course, maybe determine a little bit what happens in 2028. But as soon as the House of Representatives, as soon as one party gets 218 votes the way the Democrats did,

after Trump's first term. They're going to start impeaching him and they're going to impede his policies. It's the House that raises money and passes spending bills and all the rest of it so they can make the White House's life miserable. And I think it'll be very easy for the Democrats to win over the House of Representatives for the other issues. You know, when the president gets up in the morning,

morning isn't just his war with California. He's got tariff wars and he's got what's going on in the Middle East today and Tehran and other places and he's got the problems in Ukraine and those tariffs. Those tariffs are going to be the end of him if he doesn't bring them under control. So you know the president has a lot of things on his plate in the morning. California is just one of them but it's a very important part of the plate.

Now, Andy, it seems much of the U.S. public is now quite supportive to a policy of mass deportation because a recent CBS poll found that 54% of the respondents in the survey said

approved of President Donald Trump's deportation policy. On the other hand, like Professor Joseph Siracusa mentioned earlier, many of those unauthorized immigrants in America are actually involved in jobs that Americans won't do like construction, etc. So there is a real concern that expelling them would really sink some businesses and slow services in many communities.

Do you think when this economic reality becomes clearer, the public support for a policy of mass deportation would recede? Yeah, that's another great question, Ding Hong. So let me start by the justification. So besides the fact that I think Trump, Stephen Miller, a lot of these key people in, again, this leadership circle,

passionately believe that illegal immigration is a very bad thing for the United States. But they also say that they have received a clear and resounding mandate from the American people that this is what their priority should be. And I would say here, we need to recognize that the Hispanic American block in the United States is not monolithic. And in fact, when you look at the gains

that the Republicans, largely because of Trump, made among Hispanic Americans, largely, I think, not for the only reason, but an important part of their support, that they're abandoning the Democratic Party, is because of Trump's stance on illegal immigration.

So, yes, so I say yes, that clearly many people in the United States believe in this. The other big issue that I think we're witnessing is that, again, this is an ontological issue, that how Americans understood the world was that economics drives politics. So once upon a time, there was a saying, what's good for General Motors is good for America, meaning what's good for business is good for the country.

I think what Trump represents is another ontological universe, and that is that politics drives economics and that for a country to be strong, it must be willing to make short term economic sacrifices. And again, the Trump argument is that this is what the American people want. You know, and of course, there is a sizable minority who

disagree with this passionately, not yet violently, but they passionately disagree because they see reality in a very, very different way. So I guess that's why in a new economist poll conducted during the LA protests, 53% of the surveyed Americans say that their country is heading in the wrong direction, Andy.

Absolutely. That is exactly why Ding Hung. And, you know, I would actually put California as in some sense quite an outlier because when we look at other states, Texas, Arizona, Florida, they also have large Hispanic American populations and yet red states. Right. So California is very, very interesting for a number of reasons, despite the

again being quite a political outlier. It has also produced, as Joseph alluded to, two of the most consequential Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. So California is a very, very interesting place.

So, Professor Joseph Syracuse, the final question before we let you go. The United States is generally seen as a nation of immigrants. That's the way we Chinese students have been taught in our middle school or university textbooks.

With regard to the anti-immigrant sentiment that has risen in America over the past several decades, over the past four decades, according to some people, what problems in this country do you think this trend is pointing to? Yes. Well, look, full disclosure here. I had four grandparents from Sicily who made their way to America in the 1880s, down to New Orleans and then up to Chicago.

and they did pretty well for themselves. You know, at the end of the day, our relatives played center field for the New York Yankees. You know, as soon as Joe DiMaggio is playing center field for the Yankees and marries Marilyn Monroe, people don't worry about the anti-Italian feeling. There was a lot of that in the United States and a lot of other feelings. Americans are immigrants. Okay. It's part of the immigrant experience. And there was the

the thing that sort of distinguishes them from everybody else is what oscar hamlin the great harvard historian said in his book the uprooted americans who are derived from immigrant families uh feel like uh are sometimes made to feel like perennial sojourners and visitors in their own country they always feel that tug and that's because whether they live in a multinational neighborhood in chicago or new york or the bronx whatever it is you know you got

German neighbors, Irish neighbors. And, you know, in America, you're defined as your last name. Italian American, Irish American, Jewish American, whatever it is. I mean, it's still a very immigrant place. Now, Americans are not so much down on immigration. They're down on people jumping the queue. They're down on illegal immigration. No one has any problem with people coming through the door on a regular legal basis. But when they start jumping the border and you start getting, you know,

millions and millions of people just showing up and then you get people like in texas and other places you get people who in texas who then ship them off to new york or chicago showing the american north what they got on their hands and you got all kinds of problems and the immigration in the last i think 20 30 years is more about anti-hispanic you know they're not worried about can

Cambodians who wound up in Minnesota or something like that after the Vietnam War. It tends to be very specific. It tends to be sort of this anti-Mexican kind of thing. And that's a very bad sign because it's sort of putting a special slant on it. But, you know, as immigrants, Americans like immigrants because they are all immigrants. They come from somewhere. But they're opposed to people coming in illegally. That is, they're opposed to

immigrants without papers. And once they wind up on death row after committing horrific murders, people say, well, this person shouldn't have been in this country. That's exactly correct. And that's the dilemma here is how do you maintain the law without drifting into these other anti-nationalistic feelings?

Well, a big thank you to our panelists. Joseph Syracusa, professor of global futures, West Curtin University, and Andy Mauck, senior research fellow, West Center for China and Globalization.

That's all the time for this edition of the program. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today. I'm Ding He in Beijing. Thank you so much for listening. Bye for now.