Protests Against Donald Trump’s Deportations Erupt in Los Angeles
25:18 Share

The spirit of innovation is deeply ingrained in America, and Google is helping Americans innovate in ways both big and small. Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority is using Google AI to create smarter tolling systems and improve traffic flow for Texans. This is a new era of American innovation. Find out more at g.co slash American innovation. From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch.

The political battle over the Trump deportation agenda gets ugly as protests break out in the streets of Los Angeles. Over the weekend, Donald Trump sends in the California National Guard over the objections of that state's governor to restore order. But the protests got bigger on Sunday, and Governor Newsom calls the president's move needlessly provocative. So the deportation wars, that's our subject today on Potomac Watch.

I'm Paul Gigo, the editorial page editor of the journal, and I am here with Alicia Finley and Manet Ukweberua, two longtime watchers of the politics and policy of immigration. So the trigger here is that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is ramping up its deportation raids.

including at businesses and public places. They've been relatively quiet in the Trump administration so far, that is, the deportation rates have, but now they're expanding in L.A. ICE has forecast a month of raids in the city, targeting criminals in particular, but often surprise raids in businesses. Home Depot, for example, was one target on the weekend. And that's in a city of an estimated 700,000 people.

illegal migrants. So that's bound to cause a backlash. And so it is. Before we get into the protests and the response there, let's talk about the case for mass deportation. Trump has already, Alicia, closed the border successfully. He has been targeting gang members and criminals, ICE has, and I think relatively successfully. They've been moving a lot out of the country. But now Trump is moving on to a broader deportation agenda.

What do you think the case is for this? Is this prudent? I mean, he campaigned on doing it, no question. But of course, it's how you do it and how widely you do it. And there's a lot of discretion there for the president and the administration. Is this smart? Well, I think there's an open question exactly what they're doing. It's a little ambiguous. DHS, Department of Homeland Security, has come out and say, well, we were actually mainly targeting criminals and other people have gotten caught up in the sweeps, including that they were going into workplaces and then they were

actually to get people who had prior convictions, but the sanctuary city, LA, did not cooperate and provide information about when they were being released from jail. And so therefore they had to go to these public places, including workplaces, to do what they were going to do.

Now, the question is they put a goal of deporting 2,000 illegal immigrants every day. In LA, there were about 118 rounded up last week, which doesn't seem huge in the scheme of things. But 2,000 a day is a sizable number if they were to actually achieve that. This is nationwide? Nationwide, because I don't think there are 2,000 criminal illegal immigrants in the country.

So then you really do have to try to expand out to people who have been here potentially for years. And this could have an economic effect in terms of these are largely people who are working, who have families here and are involved in the communities. So you think they're not

2,000 migrants who've been accused of or charged with crimes? 2,000 every day. That would be over 600,000 in the country, right? There's got to be 2,000 overall. Right. And I'm sure that they—oh, easily. You probably could even have a couple hundred thousand. You're talking about 2,000 a day.

Manet, I want to get your take on the particular – on this issue of deportations. I mean I'll put my cards on the table. I think the public is there with closing the border, which he's succeeded at doing for illegals. They're there for changing the asylum law. They're there for targeting criminals and gangsters.

gang members. The CBS News poll says the country's even there for President Trump's deportation agenda. Broadly put, 54% in that CBS News poll that came out Sunday support the deportation agenda, though that number falls depending on who they're targeting and how broad it is. But what do you think about the wisdom of

of mass deportation. Well, I do think that if deportations continue at the scale and the pace that the Trump administration has recently ramped up to, you could see public opinion swing against it because of all of the factors that you just mentioned. There's very broad support for removing the criminal aliens from this country, but that begins to break down when it gets into people who are working and leading relatively ordinary lives.

And I think it's interesting to note that President Trump, over the course of his political career, has shown a lot of sense that this is the case. Even in 2016, when he was first running for president, he was able to garner broad support within the Republican Party for the idea of a crackdown on immigration when he mentioned that there are criminals coming across the border from Mexico. That was a core part of his pitch.

And the idea that these few migrants, and as he even said, most of them, I assume, are good people. So that was him essentially saying that most of these immigrants coming in are just seeking a better life. But we really want to crack down on the illegal immigrants in that mix who are actually committing crimes.

The same thing during the 2024 campaign when he was talking about the Haitian residents in Ohio. The idea wasn't that it was so wrong that people wanted to escape Haiti and come to the United States for a better life, but people were worried about disorder that they might be causing. He was responding to rumors that they were stealing pets and

causing all sorts of problems in that community. And that's what garnered the support for removing those people. And he also said that he thought that there could be a backlash if there were too broad of a removals that people would see images of someone, a woman, for example, who is law abiding, a mother being torn apart,

away from her family. And so it seems as if there's a war within the administration. People who at the beginning said we're going to focus on removing the criminal aliens, knowing that that was the prudent and politically popular thing to do. But then there are also some voices within the administration, most notably Stephen Miller, who's a policy advisor and in charge of setting Trump's immigration agenda, who wants a much broader agenda.

deportation regime. And it seems as if for the moment, the more aggressive voices like Miller have begun to take the reins and are really driving the direction of the administration. A couple of points on that. The economic impact you mentioned, Alicia, is beginning to show up in the jobs market. We saw it, I think, in the May report.

where there was a big reduction in the number of workers employed. And I think Don Luskin, economic consultant who follows this, and I think has been in the forefront of arguing that the immigration during the Biden years really helped goose the employment numbers. Now that's begun to shrink. And that could have an impact on growth because you just can't find workers for a lot of these businesses, agriculture, healthcare, construction, hospitality, hotels, restaurants, if that's the case.

But Mene's right. Stephen Miller is driving this and his goal really is mass deportation. I mean if he can get all 11 million or 12 million or whatever it is out of the country, he wants to do it. Not that he thinks ICE can do it. But if ICE sets enough of an example by saying you're going to be hauled up when you don't know it.

He hopes to drive voluntary deportation, too. I think that's right. ICE just doesn't have the resources, the federal facilities to actually detain these people. They're overcrowded as it is. They don't have the planes to send them back. The immigration courts to actually handle all of this.

So no doubt this is intended as deterrent and to scare people into returning to their home countries. I don't think that's going to be terribly successful for those people who have been here for decades or more. And that's really the 10 to 11 million population you're actually looking at. There are another three or four million who came over in the recent wave under Biden claimed asylum.

And I don't think they're going to be deterred or go back to their home countries either because the economics, to your point, there aren't really economic opportunities there, whereas there are here and they can get jobs. We are going to take a break. And when we come back, we'll talk about the protests and the response by Donald Trump when we come back. The spirit of innovation is deeply ingrained in America. And Google is helping Americans innovate in ways both big and small.

The Department of Defense is working with Google to help secure America's digital defense systems, from establishing cloud-based zero-trust solutions to deploying the latest AI technology. This is a new era of American innovation. Find out more at g.co slash American innovation.

Welcome back. I'm Paul Gigo here on Potomac Watch, the daily podcast of Wall Street Journal Opinion. And I'm here with Manet Ukwe-Brua and Alicia Finley. All right. Let's move on to the protests which erupted in Los Angeles, which have garnered so many headlines and dominated cable news over the weekend.

They focus right now on Los Angeles, and there was some ugliness there. There were some challenges to the police. You had some burning cars, driverless cars, highways shut down. Some officers were hurt. The L.A. police chief said at one point that he said some of his officers were overrun in some places. Let's listen to President Trump explain on Sunday why he called in the National Guard and what could be going forward.

Even if you're not planning to vote for that insurrection act, do you still plan to send troops? Well, we're going to have troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country. We're not going to let our country be torn apart like it was under Biden and his auto pen. What's the bar for sending Marines? The bar is what I think it is. I mean, if we see danger to our country and to our citizens, we'll be very, very strong in terms of law and order. It's about law and order. Does this happen here?

We're going to see what we need. We'll send whatever we need to make sure that it's law and order. So the questioner mentioned the Insurrection Act, which is a law that in 1807 was last invoked by President George W. Bush in 1992 to quell the L.A. riots at the time. But...

That's not what President Trump used this time, Menae, in calling out the National Guard. California National Guard, 2,000 or so troops, despite no request from the governor or the mayor of L.A. And in fact, over the objections of Gavin Newsom. It's an obscure statute that they used, last used statute.

by Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1965. What do you make of it? I think that President Trump is on solid footing in the way that he has decided to respond to the riots in Los Angeles. I think particularly after the memory of the race riots in 2020, the American public has no appetite for this kind of public disorder and also has a very short understanding

Yeah.

When you have vehicles being set on fire, you have immigration officers who are being surrounded and obstructed from going about their legal law enforcement duties. These are very serious instances of public disorder that the federal government has an interest in preventing because obviously it's their officers who are at risk and who are going about conducting these enforcement activities. So I think you can separate the question of whether all of the raids that ICE is conducting are advisable from the

When you do see this public response by a lot of progressive groups obstructing them from their work, I do think that the president should be using every authority within his power to make sure that these riots are going to be suppressed and to restore public order. Alicia, however, Governor Newsom says it's illegal and that Donald Trump is a dictator. Let's listen to the governor.

Tom home in the borders are said to me yesterday. He did not rule out Literally arresting you. Yep, nor mayor bass if you interfere in his hadn't yet. He's a tough guy Wasn't he do that? He knows where to find me But you know what let your hands off four-year-old girls that are trying to get educated Let your hands off these poor people are just trying to get live their lives man Trying to live their lives paying their taxes been here ten years the fear of

The horror, the hell is this guy? Come after me, arrest me. Let's just get it over with. Tough guy. You know, I don't give a damn, but I care about my community. I care about this community. The hell are they doing? These guys need to grow up. They need to stop and we need to push back. And I'm sorry to be so clear, but...

That kind of bloviating is exhausting. So, Tom, arrest me. Let's go. Well, clearly Newsom has no reluctance to be taking on Donald Trump, but separate the politics from the law here on this case, calling in the National Guard despite no request from the governor.

He says that's illegal. Is it? I don't think so. I think I agree with Monet. If you read the statute, it says the president can do that when there is a quote unquote rebellion against the federal government. Is there a rebellion though? I think when you're defacing federal property and actually attacking ICE officers, I think that that could constitute a rebellion in that context. And that's what's been happening is they've actually been taking hammers, sledgehammers to the ICE buildings, the federal facilities and throwing them at officers.

officers. And so maybe I'm reading it a little too broad, but I think that it's a colorblind question. And I think you could argue that that is a rebellion. Now, the politics, I think to Monet's point, I agree too. I think it plays in Trump's favor. The unrest, the Americans don't have any patience for this. Trump was elected on a kind of a restoring law and order message. They were

losing patience with the Biden administration's failure to do anything in these big cities when you had these kinds of riots. So I think he is very much on a strong political footing there. We're going to take another break and when we come back, we'll talk about Governor Gavin Newsom's political calculations and the dilemma he faces on deportations when we come back. The spirit of innovation is deeply ingrained in America. And Google is helping Americans innovate in ways both big and small.

The Air Force Research Laboratory is partnering with Google Cloud, using AI to accelerate defense research for air, space, and cyberspace forces. This is a new era of American innovation. Find out more at g.co slash American innovation. Don't forget, you can reach the latest episode of Potomac Watch anytime. Just ask your smart speaker. Play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast. That is Play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast.

From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch. Welcome back. I'm Paul G. Goh here on Potomac Watch, and I'm here with Alicia Finley and Manet Ukwe Berua. Why is Gavin Newsom taking...

taking such a strong position in protest against this action by the federal government, Monet. What's his calculation? Because you couldn't have been more clear than he was in saying, you know, I'm protecting and defending my community from this overzealous ICE enforcement of deportation law. Right. I think on the question of the National Guard, Newsom's reading is probably that

President Trump has taken an action which is nearly unprecedented. As you mentioned, it is almost always in cooperation with a governor as opposed to over their objections that the National Guard is sent in. And so I think that he's saying that it's possible the courts are going to rein in Trump and that public opinion will oppose Trump going over the head of the local authorities. But I frankly think that like a lot of things in government today,

The past president's refusal to do that was probably more of a gentleman's agreement. It was owed to certain norms of governance, which have broken down today as the country has become more polarized. So Newsom has a case based on tradition about what Trump is overstepping, but probably isn't likely to succeed in court for the reasons that Alicia mentioned earlier.

And then in terms of Newsom's angling politically, I think that he is right to think that we are reaching a turning point for progressives in terms of their ability to absorb what President Trump is doing in terms of deportation. At the beginning of the administration, when it was focused on criminal migrants, you actually saw a lot of Democrats in Congress

siding with the administration and saying, we need to show people that we're doing more to cooperate with removing dangerous people. Now that ICE is focused on removing a lot of people who have been law-abiding since they came to this country, people who have been here for a long time, Democrats like Gavin Newsom are saying,

we can't stand for this, our base is not going to stand for this, and we need to show that we're resisting very strongly. And they are betting that the American people are going to turn in their direction when they see how far President Trump is going. So I think, as always, Gavin Newsom is posturing for 2028, and he thinks that it's going to be a winning issue for him, both in the Democratic primary, and then also in a potential general to say, I'm defending law-abiding migrants in this country.

Well, that's a pretty big gamble on Newsom's part. Now, I think you're right, Manet. That's what he's calculating in terms of the Democratic base. But it's a bigger gamble, I think, when it comes to the general election and the overall public.

And a lot will depend upon how this evolves, right? I mean, if it gets much worse and Trump feels he has to trigger the Insurrection Act, which would allow more military, not just the National Guard, to be patrolling the streets, then that would be, I think, an escalation that we'd see how it'd play out. But I suspect...

that it plays to Trump's advantage, Alicia, because, Manay, and you have said, the public just has no appetite for shutting down streets, stopping commercial affairs, daily life, disorder in the streets, much less violence. And Trump is on a strong position there. And so I suspect...

I don't know this for a fact, but I strongly believe that Trump and Miller, Stephen Miller, have been aching for an illustration like this, that they could use this law in California or elsewhere, but especially California because it's run by Democrats.

And then I think they'll also use the Insurrection Act if they have a chance to do it. As I said earlier, George H.W. Bush used it in 1992 to quell riots in LA. And I think Trump, looking back at 2020 when you had the George Floyd riots, I think he regrets that he didn't use it then to put down some of the unrest at that time.

I think this puts Democrats in a very tough position because on the one hand, they're caught between the base and the activists, the progressive activists. Frankly, they support illegal migration and migrants. And then on the other hand, you have the public's desire for order. Democrats could get pincered between those two. Oh, I think that's exactly where they are right now. I also would add that this

probably doesn't help their cause of supporting more legal migration in terms of the public is seeing these footage of the riots, some of them waving or the quote unquote protesters, I'd call them rioters, or some of them are waving Mexican flags and claiming that there's no illegal immigration when you're on stolen land, suggesting that we Americans took over

or annihilated the Native Americans and took over there and colonized, right? Giving California back to Mexico is not a winning political issue in the United States. I'm sorry. I think we're probably very happy if that happened, though.

Yeah, maybe some folks in the inland parts of California would be if you could have off the coast. But it's just not going to be a winner. And to see that, I mean, waving that Mexican flag, that guy on the car or in the motorcycle, I guess. There was a burning car, too. Yeah. I mean, that's just a loser.

And I think that plays right into the hands, Monea, of Donald Trump. And, you know, there was a quote from the congresswoman in L.A. who said, I want these protests to grow and grow and grow.

well, that's also not a winning position. Yeah, I think that there is a large, robust, progressive base within the Democratic Party. It's not particularly concerned with whether that is a political winner if they really believe in these things. Again, we saw it in 2020, the idea that these demonstrations, violent riots in protest of

their own causes is something that is going to stir the public, is something that's a matter of justice. And you see democratic politicians constantly considering what can we do to show the American center that we're on their side without basically putting themselves completely at odds with this base who they depend on for votes, who they depend on for fundraising, et cetera. And it is just too big of a gap for them to effectively straddle. And so we're going to have to see

governors like Gavin Newsom essentially choose sides. And as we've described, it seems like Newsom right now is casting himself on the side of resisting the Trump administration and their response to these riots. But I guess the only hope is that you'll see certain democratic politicians go the other way. And we can wait and see if a voice is going to emerge for someone who takes the opportunity to say that some members of our program

progressive base have gone too far, that these riots aren't defensible and trying to be a voice of reason. Yeah, and that gets to the sanctuary city and state issue, Alicia. I think some of the smarter Democrats would love their party to drop that kind of program. But you've got Pritzker in Illinois and a lot of the big city Democrats who feel that they can't do anything else. They have to be there.

My own view is that Newsom at some level understands the dilemma he has here. But I think he would be much smarter, notwithstanding the risks of his own standing in the Democratic Party. But to stand up and say...

stop it, no protests. You know, we can't have violent protests. You want to peacefully demonstrate, get a permit, do what you're supposed to do in a law-abiding fashion. And he can say, you know, I think Trump is going too far here. But as long as there's violence and law-breaking and waving of Mexican flags and burning cars—

He's going to be on the losing end of this debate. Right. And I'm surprised that he didn't try to get out in front of this sooner and try to deploy more state forces to try to quell the riots or to try to head some of this off. And it's surprising that he also hasn't put out a more forceful message denouncing the violence. To both of your points, he's tried to position himself for 2028. He's been

attacked for not being confrontational enough with Trump. And Pritzker is kind of taking that lane. So he's trying to maneuver and actually take back some of that base. All right. This is going to be an evolving story. And I think we're going to see the Trump administration ramp up its deportation efforts even more because it thinks it is a very politically winning country.

issues. So thank you, Manay. Thank you, Alicia. Thank you all for listening here on Potomac Watch, where we are here every day. Thanks for listening. The spirit of innovation is deeply ingrained in America, and Google is helping Americans innovate in ways both big and small. The Department of Defense is working with Google to help secure America's digital defense systems, from establishing cloud-based zero-trust solutions to deploying the latest AI technology. This is a new era of American innovation.

Find out more at g.co slash American Innovation.