Trump Deploys National Guard Troops to Los Angeles
57:46 Share

Support for KQED Podcasts comes from Save the Bay, protecting and restoring San Francisco Bay for over 60 years. Community and corporate volunteer opportunities available along the shoreline to help drive positive change. More at savesfbay.org.

Summer's here, and Nordstrom has everything you need for your best dress season ever. From beach days and weddings to weekend getaways and your everyday wardrobe, discover stylish options under $100 from tons of your favorite brands like Mango, Skims, Princess Polly, and Madewell. It's easy, too, with free shipping and free returns, in-store order pickup, and more. Shop today in stores, online at nordstrom.com, or download the Nordstrom app. From KQED.

From KQED in San Francisco, I'm Mina Kim. Coming up on Forum, Los Angeles is calm but tense this morning after weekend protests against ICE raids saw President Trump take the extraordinary move of calling in the National Guard over a state's wishes. Governor Newsom called the move illegal and inflammatory and vowed to sue Sunday, saying Trump is trying to manufacture a crisis in L.A. County, deploying troops not for order, but to create chaos.

We talk with a legal expert and check in with local reporters on both the protests and the ice sweeps affecting immigrant communities. Join us. Welcome to Forum. I'm Mina Kim. Governor Newsom says California will sue the Trump administration over its deployment of the National Guard in response to weekend clashes between protesters and federal immigration authorities.

Newsom tried to call out protesters destroying property and throwing rocks and explosives in an NMSNBC interview last night, but put the blame for the escalation squarely on the president. They're just playing right into Donald Trump's hand and they need to be called out. They need to be arrested. It is wrong to destroy other people's property and it is wrong to create the conditions that only exacerbate this. But Donald Trump, at the end of the day, is the sponsor of these conditions.

Joining me first to talk about where those conditions stand is Saul Gonzalez, co-host of the California Report, who's been all over the Los Angeles area covering the protests and the landing of guard troops. Welcome, Saul. Hey, Mina. So describe the scene and mood in downtown L.A. today.

Well, right now, at this very moment, things are pretty calm. There's no protests happening that I know of, at least not large ones. But later today at noon, there is supposed to be a very large rally co-organized by civil rights leaders and labor leaders to draw attention to issues

the, the, the Trump administration's actions here in Los Angeles when it comes to immigration and to criticize those actions. And that is kind of the big thing on tap today here in LA. Yeah. So calm now, protest later. Last night, it was a very different scene. Tell us what you saw and learned. Well,

Well, last night, yesterday, and the Saturday, and Friday as well. So yesterday, the focal point of the protest was this federal complex in LA Civic Center. You have a federal courthouse there. You have the federal lockup is there. And some of the first contingent of 300 armed guards were sent there to stand guard with their vehicles.

at first or like really early in the morning, they're only journalists there and kind of social media types posting. But as the day continued, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people showed up both outside that particular facility and on surrounding streets.

Clashes broke out in the afternoon and then law enforcement started shooting like rubber rounds and tear gas at the protesters. There were also incidents of vandalism in the area and some cars were sent on fire. And then on Saturday, about 20 miles south of LA in the community of Paramount, kind of the same thing happened.

with federal agents clashing with protesters from the community. This was outside of a home supply store, and that went on for hours. I was there for three hours. It had already gone on. It started hours before I got there and continued hours after I left.

Yeah, those protests Saturday and also Friday. What led up to them? Tell us about the ICE raids. Well, the initial spark, I mean, there have been ongoing ICE actions in California and the Bay Area and here in Los Angeles. We know about that. But the initial spark for all of this was raids conducted on Friday.

ICE agents went out and they went out to really immigrant heavy neighborhoods of Los Angeles like Pico Union, the Garment District, and they seem to be targeting work centers, people where immigrant laborers gather looking for jobs. We've all seen these groups of guys out on the streets and people working in the garment industry.

and about some 40 some odd people were arrested that quickly got the attention of activists and just people in the community. And they came out to protest and that was kind of, that was the ignition point for everything that we saw happen after that.

And I should say, by the way, you do have like immigration groups have these fast response teams that go out when they hear about an incident. They head out there and their job is to let people who are threatened with arrest to let them know about their constitutional rights. So those those folks are out there as well. Hmm.

Well, Governor Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said in separate comments they believed local police could handle those initial protests. But President Trump federalized the state's National Guard and deployed them anyway. Here's L.A. Mayor Karen Bass.

It's the last thing our city needs. Our city is still trying to recover from the wildfires. And you just think about how so many people were impacted by that. And that's an example of where the administration was helpful. And to go from that situation to where we are now is just really tragic. And I think it's so unfortunate. It's the last thing Los Angeles needs.

So did you notice a shift in the intensity of the protests after the announcement that Trump was calling in the guard and after some of them landed in L.A. Sunday? Well, sure. Yeah. I mean, I think the proof in the pudding was what happened on Saturday, where there was also people noticed the unloading of kind of federal helicopters. I saw Blackhawk helicopters in the air, which, you know, is kind of a rare sight here in Los Angeles.

And then the arrival of the guard fully early, early yesterday morning, which led to these, you know, very intense clashes yesterday. So absolutely. Of course, President Trump is saying, well, you know, I sent the guard in because to protect our ICE personnel and to protect federal facilities.

He's been very active on social media, justifying what he's done with usual Trumpian fashion. He says, you know, Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated if he had not sent the troops in. And he's also called the protesters paid protesters. And of course, there is no evidence of that. And as I look out my window, Los Angeles is still very much here. And I don't think that's because the National Guard was sent here.

Let me invite listeners into the conversation. Listeners, how are you reacting to Trump's National Guard deployment in Los Angeles? What questions do you have about it? What questions do you have about the ICE raids taking place in California? Have you or someone you know witnessed or been the target of

of one. Are you protesting? Or maybe you think the protests are not appropriate. You can email your comments and opinions and questions to forum at kqed.org. You can find us on Blue Sky, Facebook, Instagram, or threads at KQED Forum. And you can call us at 866-733-6786. Again, that's 866-733-6786. So Saul, what role have you seen the National Guard play so far?

So far, a very limited one. I mean, basically just standing guard outside, like in this federal facility where we were just spoke about, just standing guard outside of the entrance to the parking garage. And I think that's kind of symbolically loaded because this is a place where immigrants who were arrested were taken after they were arrested for processing and they were being kept there or maybe still are being kept there. So that's

All I saw personally with my own eyes yesterday, about 30 National Guard troops. I don't know where the other 270 are, but about 30 troops standing guard. But as the day wore on and more people gathered and words got heated, you sort of saw federal law enforcement personnel come out. And then they started coming out with, you know, with tear gas agents and and and.

and other things that could be used for crowd control. And quickly after that, the LAPD came out. Now the LAPD says we are not cooperating with ICE on immigration raids. We are not doing that. But you

but you will see us at these protests because it's all about crowd control and control of the street and kind of keeping civic order. So the LAPD came out and they had, things got really rough and ready when they used a mountain patrols to sort of push back the crowd. I personally saw it because it happened right in front of my eyes. One guy get one,

act again and again by an LAPD officer who was on a horse. And the crowd quickly moved out of the area. And I think the fear looking ahead in the coming days is that we will see more of that. And of course, the protesters, what they want is...

They will say, listen, what we want is very simple to understand. We want ICE out of our communities and we want ICE not being a threat to our families. Because when you talk to the protesters, so many of them are just like one or two generations away from people who are in this country illegally.

Yeah.

So L.A. is no stranger to a National Guard deployment, right? When's the last time? Oh, well, hey, I have some gray in my hair, so I could talk until the cows come home about this. So my first memory of the Guard coming to L.A. was 1992 after the civil war unrest.

and we had a heavy National Guard presence. We actually had the Marines come up the 5 Freeway from Camp Pendleton, which I know the Trump administration threatened to do now. So I've seen that. I've seen there was, we tend to forget recent history, but after George Floyd's murder, there was civil unrest here in Los Angeles.

again came out on the streets. And of course, they came out, they come out after natural catastrophes, after the 1994 Northridge earthquake. They came out this year, earlier this year in January and February. I was out with National Guard personnel as they were manning checkpoints into fire zones to keep those neighborhoods safe and to keep them safe from criminal activity and looting. So we've seen this a time or two before in Los Angeles.

But this is the only time where the governor has not requested the guards presence and local officials have not requested the guards presence to be in Los Angeles. Basically, you have a cadre of state and local leadership right now who are saying, we do not want these troops here. All they are doing is inflaming the situation.

And local leaders believe that is what President Trump wants. He wants a crisis atmosphere here in Los Angeles. And at least as of right now, he's gotten what he wants, if that's correct. Well, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Face the Nation yesterday said otherwise. Let's hear what she had to say.

Governor Newsom has proven that he makes bad decisions. The president knows that he makes bad decisions. And that's why the president chose the safety of this community over waiting for Governor Newsom to get some sanity. After the break, we're going to get into the legality of this administration's actions around the guard deployment. But before we go, I know you spoke with Congresswoman Maxine Waters yesterday. So tell us what she said.

Yeah, I don't know if we have that clip or not. If we don't have that clip, basically she just said, Trump hates us. Those were her first words to me, followed by her belief that, again, he is trying to incite this. He is trying to create a pretext to declare martial law of some scope in Los Angeles or California. And she says every single elected official should be out in the streets joining the protesters, of course, peacefully, nonviolently, but should be out on the streets protesting

joining the protesters. And she said that includes you, Governor Gavin Newsom. We're talking about what's happening in Los Angeles after the Trump administration deployed National Guard troops there yesterday. And we'll get into how ice sweeps are affecting immigrant communities in California and the legality of it all. Saul Gonzalez is co-host of the California Report for KQED. And Saul, I got to thank you so much for being out there all weekend and for bringing this report back to us. Oh, thank you. And thanks for your time on the topic.

And listeners, we want to hear from you. How are you reacting to Trump's National Guard deployment in L.A.? What questions does it bring up for you? What questions do you have about the ICE raids taking place in California?

Have you or someone you know witnessed or been the target of an ICE action? Are you a law enforcement officer with a perspective on the issue? Or are you protesting? Or maybe you are against the protests. Email Forum with your questions and comments at kqed.org. Find us on Blue Sky, Facebook, Instagram, or Threads at KQED Forum. Or you can call us 866-733-6786. 866-733-6786. More after the break. I'm Mina Kim.

Support for Forum comes from the University of San Francisco School of Management. Celebrating 100 years of partnership with the Bay Area business community, the USF School of Management connects students to the city's vibrant culture, hands-on internships, and a wealth of career opportunities.

where AI and sustainability are integrated into every facet of business education, and where students bring innovation, ethics, and entrepreneurial leadership to a planet in need.

The University of San Francisco School of Management. Change the world from here. Support for KQED podcasts comes from Earthjustice. As a national legal nonprofit, Earthjustice has more than 200 full-time lawyers who fight for a healthy environment. They wield the power of the law to protect people's health, preserve magnificent places and wildlife, and advance clean energy to combat climate change. Earthjustice fights in court because the Earth needs a good lawyer.

Learn more about how you can get involved and become a supporter at earthjustice.org. Welcome back to Forum. I'm Mina Kim. Los Angeles has become the center of the fight over President Trump's immigration crackdown and now his use of the National Guard.

On Saturday, Trump called for at least 2,000 guard troops to be placed under federal control and authorized the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to use the military to support them as necessary. This after scattered protests broke out in Los Angeles over immigration raids. Listeners were taking your questions about the ICE raids taking place in California and hearing your reactions to Trump's National Guard deployment in Los Angeles.

and the questions you have about it and the legality of it. Joining me now to get into that some more is Ahilan Arulanantham, Professor of Law and Faculty Co-Director at the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law. Hi, Ahilan. Thanks so much for being with us. Thank you for having me.

So, Ahilan, I understand the National Guard, it's a state-based military force of largely part-time troops that governors can direct to deal with a disaster or civil disorder, as Saul was explaining before the break. First, legally, when is the president allowed to deploy the National Guard over a state's objections? Basically, there has to be an invasion or a rebellion, basically.

And even then, the statute that the president invoked here asks that the or directs that the orders be issued through the governors of the states. And that's 10 U.S.C. 12406, which is what the president cited in the in the order on on the 7th.

So it's not clear at all that there's really any authority here to deploy the Guard in Los Angeles against the governor's directives. It also feels like it's not clear what federal troops can do to protesters if they feel threatened. Do you have any insight into this? Yeah, I mean, one thing which is very important to understand is that it's about the question of who is

enforcing the law is a different question from what the substantive rights are that people have and what authorities those forces have. So there's no suspension of the Constitution, there's no suspension of the Fourth Amendment or the First Amendment. Those rights still apply. I mean, normally the concept of the Guard or Armed Forces actually engaging in civilian-facing

Right. Which is coercive, like, you know, arresting people or something like that. It's only imagined in the context of a rebellion or an invasion or an insurrection under the Insurrection Act. And there, you know, people's substantive constitutional rights are are fewer because there is an actual invasion going on.

on. So that kind of paradigm doesn't make sense here, where you just have perhaps a few instances of unlawful conduct and what would normally be law enforcement activity. And so as a result, I think that's another problem with the legality of what the president's doing here. Because

Whether you're wearing fatigues as a soldier or you're a police officer or whoever, you still have to respect the Fourth Amendment rights and First Amendment rights of people. And under normal circumstances, that means cannot arrest without probable cause, cannot detain without reasonable suspicion, certainly cannot suppress pure speech activity like protest activity where there's no incitement to violence and similar constraints like that. Let me go to caller Norma in San Francisco. Hi, Norma, you're on the line. Go ahead.

Thank you. I want to say that I object to the premise that is used by this administration to call in the National Guard. Essentially, this is a manufactured crisis. There is no immigrant invasion, another falsehood. And in this case, the administration is targeting hardworking immigrants.

and it's absolutely outrageous. People are justifiably upset, and yes, those emotions will boil over, but let's understand that this was completely provoked and unnecessary, and this entire action is evil, cruel, and just designed to inflame the public. I would implore the community to continue to show up at demonstrations

And make your views known, but to do it peacefully, because when you engage in violence and destroy property, that just gives the police powers the reason to stop you and to then claim that the protest was a failure. So thank you for this opportunity. And let's continue to get out there and make our voices heard.

Norma, thanks for calling in and sharing your thoughts. Stephen says something similar. Who are the people destroying cars and setting fires? They're playing into Trump's hands. The anti-ICE and anti-Trump people must prevent property damage. Trump wants more violence and damage. Let me go to Thomas in Santa Rosa. Hi, Thomas. You're on.

Yes, good morning. As I sit back and am outraged through this whole time, I often hear, as today, that somebody is going to be suing the administration or the federal government. Newsom now will be suing about this. And I got to please enlighten us.

on what it does achieve for suing the federal government. And also, on the flip side of that, when they illegally detain somebody, like a college student who writes an op-ed, are they able to sue the federal government? The main question is, what does it achieve?

Because we got to get through. We have to have something that stops this from happening. And it's got to be very effective. Thomas, I hear your point. And let me go to Ahilan on this. Yes, Governor Newsom says he's going to sue President Trump and his administration over the deployment of National Guard troops. Thomas wants to know what this could achieve, should achieve. Is it worthwhile?

I think it's definitely important to distinguish between suing over the deployment of the guard and suing over the immigration raids.

A suit over the guard, certainly a court could order that the deployment is unlawful and that the guard be sent back, essentially. That wouldn't change what ICE is doing, though, when it comes to the immigration raids. I expect there will probably also be litigation challenging the immigration raids. But I think what's important to remember about that is, at least from what we've heard so far, the tactics they're using, ICE is using, are

are very similar to tactics that were found unlawful in prior eras of worksite enforcement. You know, particularly late during the Bush administration, there were worksite raids very similar to these in the Trump administration. There were worksite raids similar to these in other parts of the country, though not in Southern California.

And for the most part, the court said that, you know, people in these raids have Fourth Amendment rights. You know, this is not a show me your papers country. You can't detain everybody and interrogate them all and then figure out who's unlawfully present. But that's exactly what ICE is doing anyway.

And so I think there's a possibility that litigation could protect some of these people who have been arrested. But I actually think the caller's suggestion that, you know, that litigation is not enough in a sense to fix the problem of kind of ongoing unlawful action like this has something to it, unfortunately. I do want to get into the legalities of Trump's ICE actions and his administration's ICE actions, as well as the Department of Homeland Security's.

But I do want to ask you one question about the value of pushing back on the deployment of the National Guard. Legal analysts, the Times editorial board, they have called this move dangerous and

and troubling, asking questions about, I think it was the editorial board, asking questions like, what's the limiting principle? And others noting, essentially, that this particular order with regard to Los Angeles isn't limited to Los Angeles. So what value could there be in a suit challenging a president's ability to authorize troops in an occasion like this, where he called one out, Ahilan?

Yeah, I definitely think there's tremendous value in it and it is important to push back. I think that the core limiting principle question you ask

There is some difficulty at the margin to know when there's enough unlawful activity that what would otherwise just be crime becomes something more akin to a rebellion. And that's the reason why there have been National Guard call-outs, like your prior guest was mentioning, in the wake of the Rodney King attack.

uprising and the George Floyd protests later. But we're nowhere near close to that here. You know, obviously, this is just a few isolated incidents of unlawful activity coupled with a lot of legitimate protests, which was not unlawful, just entirely lawful First Amendment activity. And I do think it's very important to push back against that, because otherwise, the

if the government can call out the military or the National Guard, I should say the military presents even more serious problems and they haven't done that, right? So I don't want to- - Yes. - But even calling out the National Guard,

You know, calling out the National Guard in response to just widespread legitimate First Amendment protest activity is the hallmark of autocratic regimes. And we don't want to live in a country where they just suppress entirely lawful or almost entirely lawful protest with a military response. That's a terrifying prospect. We don't want to live in that world. So I do think it's important to push back against that for sure. Yeah, there are safeguards against specifically federal troops against autocrats.

you know, the citizens of its own country or people within its own country, which is, yes, another question with regard to where that idea in the

order saying that essentially the secretary of defense is empowered to support the federalized national guard with military troops yeah there's really two things they say they say one thing they say this is a form of rebellion they say these protests and acts of violence constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the united states and that's just that's

It seems like an outlandish claim. I mean, if every time, you know, there's a few people who throw rocks or stand, you know, lie down in front of ice cars or something, that that's a form of rebellion, then, you know, that essentially means that we can live in a military situation.

You know, something akin to a military dictatorship. And then the second thing is at the bottom, the order says, totally apart from the invocation of the National Guard, that the Secretary of Defense may employ any other members of the regular armed forces. And that is truly a terrifying prospect, the idea that we would have military officials come and do like actual active duty military have access.

direct person-to-person interaction with civilians on the streets of Los Angeles is terrifying. Well, TJ on Discord, I think, has a similar sentiment. TJ writes, What really happened doesn't match what we're being told. L.A.'s Pride Parade still happened. LAPD employees marched in pride. Only 300 California National Guard members were reported, and the video showed them waiting around with LAPD for something to do. Trump ice in TV news seems very watched riots, which just doesn't fit.

This other listener disagrees. As a connoisseur of irony, I've noted that the same liberals who criticized Trump for not sending the National Guard after three hours of riding are criticizing him for sending the National Guard after three days of riding. I don't remember the Proud Boys setting fires or smashing squad car windows. Presumably this listener is talking about J6, but are those equal comparisons? Yeah, I think obviously not. I mean, obviously the big difference is that the

January 6th protests were targeted directly at the congressional proceedings that were designed to transfer power. I mean, if those similar scale incidents were happening, you know, in some entirely different place untied to any important government proceeding, they'd still be somewhat different because they did break into a federal building and, you know, attack Congress.

police officers there and things. So it still, I think, would be somewhat different from what happened here. There's no evidence of anything like that happening here. But no, it's obviously different because of the fact that it was tied to the election. We're talking with Ahilan Arulanantham, professor of law and faculty co-director at the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA.

Joining us now is Gustavo Solis, an investigative border reporter for KPBS. Gustavo, really appreciate you being here with us. Thank you. So one of the things that we have been talking about and what Ahilan alluded to was just the shift in the behavior at immigration authorities, which sparked these protests. And I know that you've been following the change in ICE's approach and its effects, that it's no longer the administration itself.

appears to be prioritizing the removal of migrants who've committed violent felonies, but the approach is far broader. What in your reporting leads you to report that? Oh, they're all sorts of examples of how enforcement has changed to what we see now. Some of them go back to some of Trump's earlier executive orders.

or different policy changes, right? One I can think of is the Biden administration had a prohibition on enforcement around sensitive locations, right? Schools, hospitals, courthouses. The Trump administration did away with that. Similar with this priority of funding

folks with violent criminal convictions, right? The Biden administration had this policy where they wouldn't really do collateral arrest, meaning they're looking for one individual, but let's say they live in a house with five other folks without legal status, they take everyone. That would be a collateral arrest. Under the Biden administration, they would just go for the targeted arrest. So that has shifted as well.

And then more recently, the workplace rates, which we have seen here in San Diego and other parts of the county as well. And one big thing that we're seeing in other states but not California is a lot more involvement from local law enforcement, a lot more coordination than we're used to seeing the last couple of years. Yeah. You reported on ICE raids at two local Italian restaurants two weeks ago that also captured national headlines. What happened there?

It was similar to what we saw in Los Angeles, right? It was a workplace raid. It was a Friday around 5, 6 p.m., you know, in a very crowded, walkable part of San Diego, the South Park neighborhood. And we just saw a lot of people, a lot of people in the restaurant, passersbyers, people dining, the patrons just reacting very angry to the incident.

The raid, it was very similar that you saw in Los Angeles. You saw HSI agents, Homeland Security investigations, armed with long rifles, with body armor, really military style operation in a restaurant that the warrant says their only crime was working in the country without legal status. So nothing violent, no property theft or anything like that. And that's been one of the big criticisms, right?

violent military operation with more than 20 agents to get four people who were working here illegally. That's been a big criticism. You also did a profile of a soccer coach, Jorge Lopez, I believe. Tell us about Jorge.

Yeah, so Jorge was one of the gentlemen detained in the first immigration workplace right here in San Diego. That was in an unincorporated part of the county right outside of El Cajon. Jorge has been here since he was in high school. He married his high school sweetheart who's a U.S. citizen. He has four children. All of them are U.S. citizens. He was in the process of adjusting his status when he was detained.

He was held in the Otay Mesa Detention Center, which is a privately funded, privately run, I should say, taxpayer-funded, privately run detention center for several days. And what that meant was that

In a night, the family lost his primary earner. His wife has had to work double, triple shifts ever since the detention. Now that he's out, he still can't work. He's under an ankle bracelet. So the wife, two months later, is still struggling to keep up with mortgage payments, struggling to keep up with everything that their children need. So you can kind of see the long-term impact, but also the direct impact on U.S. citizens that this deportation campaign is having.

Ilan, last month, the federal court in Fresno blocked certain types of raids on Fourth Amendment grounds and certain types of arrests. Does that apply here to what Gustavo is describing?

It doesn't apply as a technical matter because that injunction was specific to the Border Patrol's activity in sort of central California, Fresno, Bakersfield, and that sort of geographic district.

But absolutely, it does in the sense that the legal principles that the court was enforcing there would also render the kinds of enforcement tactics that Gustavo was talking about unlawful, both San Diego and in L.A., what we just saw the last few days in L.A. As I mentioned earlier, just not respecting the Fourth Amendment rights of a

the people who are being detained in these kind of dragnet worksite enforcement activities. And that's essentially a legal search and seizure? Yes, exactly. So the basic principle of the Fourth Amendment in this context is

You cannot detain someone, even for a short time, unless you already have a reason to believe that they have violated some law and for immigration, it's going to be an immigration law. So when they go into a work site because they have intel that there's some unlawfully present people at the work site and they just detain everyone, throw them all up against the wall and then question them and pat them down

and just try to pick up the people who are unlawfully threatened. We'll have more about the legality of all of this after the break. I'm Mina Kim.

Support for Forum comes from the University of San Francisco School of Management. Celebrating 100 years of partnership with the Bay Area business community, the USF School of Management connects students to the city's vibrant culture, hands-on internships, and a wealth of career opportunities. Where AI and sustainability are integrated into every facet of business education.

and where students bring innovation, ethics, and entrepreneurial leadership to a planet in need. The University of San Francisco School of Management. Change the world from here. Greetings, Boomtown. The Xfinity Wi-Fi is booming! Xfinity combines the power of internet and mobile. So we've all got lightning-fast speeds at home and on the go. That's where our producers got the idea to mash our radio shows together. ♪

Through June 23rd, new customers can get 400 megabit Xfinity Internet and get one unlimited mobile line included, all for $40 a month for one year. Visit Xfinity.com to learn more. With paperless billing and auto-pay with store bank account, restrictions apply. Xfinity Internet required. Texas fees extra. After one year, rate increases to $110 a month. After two years, regular rates apply. Actual speeds vary.

You're listening to Forum. I'm Mina Kim. We're talking this hour about what's happening in Los Angeles after the Trump administration deployed National Guard troops there yesterday, and how ice sweeps are affecting immigrant communities in California, and the legality of all of it with Ahilan Arulanantham.

UCLA law professor in immigration law and policy and with Gustavo Solis, investigative border reporter for KPBS. And with you, our listeners who are reacting to Trump's National Guard deployment in L.A. and asking questions.

about it. Let me go to Brenda in Menifee. Hi, Brenda, you're on. Hi, thank you so much. Good morning. Yes, I have several questions. On TikTok, I just heard that the city of Glendale in Southern California, part of LA County, just canceled their contract with ICE. Can the entire state of California cancel any and all contracts with ICE?

So that way, you know, this targeting of working families comes to an end. Also, what does it mean when a city cancels ICE? And lastly, how does ICE determine when they choose sites like the working job sites like Paramount, Home Depot, LA Fashion District? How do they decide to raid that? Do they decide because they're supposed criminals there or just because they know they are likely areas of undocumented immigrants, criminal or not?

Brenda, thanks. So yeah, Ahilan, let me go to you on that. What is the effect when a city cancels an ICE contract? It definitely can help because certain kinds of information sharing between cities and ICE contribute to ICE's ability to do immigration enforcement in those regions. But I think the important thing to understand in this context is that even if you get rid of all that cooperation, it doesn't stop ICE from coming in to try to do its own street-level work.

enforcement operations in California. So there's already actually quite robust sanctuary city protections and sanctuary state protections in California that limit the extent to which those information sharing arrangements take place.

And yet still ICE can, you know, it's part of California is part of the US too, right? So ICE has authority to come in even without cooperating at all with state and local entities and do enforcement here. So it's on the limits of sanctuary laws. To Brenda's second question with regard to how ICE chooses the sites it goes after.

I think some of the times they have intelligence that there is some unlawful employment in these situations. It seems like in some of these cases, it's very dragnet. And other times, maybe there are particular individuals who they think have false employment documents.

So I think that varies, but either in either event, it seems like what they're doing once they get to a work site is just detaining everybody there. You know, that's why I say, I think there's a really systematic violation of the fourth amendment happening here. But you know, the other part of your question was about people with criminal histories. And I think it's important to understand this is what Gustavo was mentioning earlier. Now ICE is actively targeting people who have no criminal histories, lots and lots of people. There's something like a nine fold increase in,

in the number of people with no criminal history at all who have been targeted for arrest and detention since the new administration came into power. Let me go to caller Bruce in Oakland. Hi, Bruce, you're on.

Hi, thank you for taking my call. I do have one specific question. Why are ICE agents wearing black masks? I've never heard of anyone getting arrested in the United States by people wearing black masks. It sounds like it's an intimidation tactic. I know, like in Mexico,

soldiers wear black masks because they're afraid of retaliation by cartels and they want to keep their identities private. But what is this in the United States with people wearing black masks to arrest people? Yeah, thanks. Gustavo, I know you have certainly noted what ICE has been wearing and how they have sort of changed in terms of their approach and dress. Is what Bruce is saying something you've noticed as well?

Yes, I've noticed it here in San Diego and throughout the country in photos and videos that I've seen. I can tell you what the...

The official answer to that question is what DHS and CBP and ICE are saying. And the official answer is that they are doing it for their protection, that they don't want their agents to come under attack by showing their face, that they are scared of people identifying them and potentially threatening them and their houses and their family. I don't know how...

How legitimate that is, I don't know if there have been documented examples of this happening, but that is how they're rationalizing it to the public.

And I should say one other thing. It's not just ICE, right? We've seen here in San Diego, DEA has been involved in some enforcement activities up in Los Angeles. The FBI has also been engaged. ATF is another federal agency that is helping with immigration enforcement. So we are seeing, again, another example of a Trump executive order pulling the entire force of the federal law enforcement bureaucracy into immigration enforcement right now.

John writes,

Also, Kevin Kiley, a Republican representing California's third congressional district in the Sierra Nevada, posted on X Saturday, Karen Bass and Gavin Newsom would rather ICE not conduct targeted immigration operations. There's a simple solution. Stop being a sanctuary city and sanctuary state. Cooperate with federal authorities and stop egging on.

violent agitators. Ilan, I want to ask you about something you noted earlier with regard to a shift in tactics, which is people being arrested at courthouses and at immigration offices. And these are people who are arriving for court dates. And so this tactic feels new, is it?

It's mostly new. There have been isolated instances of people being arrested at check-ins in the past, but not in a widespread manner like this. And the courthouse arrests, I think, are almost entirely unprecedented, if not entirely. I've certainly not heard about it happening in a widespread way before in the 25 years that I've been working on this. So yeah, I think those tactics, we can safely say, are new.

I want to bring into the conversation now Jimmy Gomez. Jimmy Gomez is a congressman representing downtown L.A. and parts of northeast Los Angeles, including the federal facilities area in Westlake, which was the site of a Home Depot raid on Friday. Congressman Gomez, appreciate you coming on. Of course, of course. Thank you for having me.

Before I ask you about the deployment of the National Guard, I do want to ask you about concerns you have about what's happening to immigrants once they're being detained. What are you hearing? Why are you worried about that?

Well, I was first informed of a situation that was going on in the downtown detention center in my district on Friday morning where they were saying that people were showing up for their normal ICE check-in. That is part of the process once you apply for asylum. And that they were basically being all of a sudden detained and put into the cell in the basement. And some of the people also had...

So people that were also supposed to be allowed to stay here and go through the process. So what we were informed of is that it was overcrowded, that people didn't get enough water or food, that they were sleeping in makeshift tents.

So we wanted to see for ourselves because one of the things that members of Congress can do according to what is law is we can check in on any facility without notice, present our ID card, and be able to conduct an oversight check on the well-being of the individuals inside. We're told that this place can hold up to 100 people, but it's 100 people that are sitting and standing, not staying overnight. So this place is only supposed to have...

12 hours or less in detention in this facility. So that's why I showed up to see what the conditions were and how people are being treated to make sure that their rights were not being violated in any way. The fact that you weren't given access, are you feeling confident that

Are that your action is drawing more attention to this and that conditions will improve? Or are you concerned that it's still very poor treatment in these facilities? Well, I think that it's a couple of things. One, I showed up just so I could

I just showed up again and asked to enter the facility again. And this time, I spoke to the point of contact here for Congressional Affairs. They came down and they said that they're no longer in control of the building, the local...

leadership, that all requests have to go to headquarters, and that basically they weren't allowing in because of my own safety. And I said, well, if it's unsafe for you, then it's... Like, if it's unsafe for me, it's probably unsafe for you or anybody else. I said... And they said it because of the protests. Well, there were...

There's no protest early in the morning on Saturday or even now. So they say that none of that is happening. But if they're not allowing us to conduct oversight, we can't report what is or is not happening. So that's kind of the point, right? If I went inside, I can say, okay,

You know, it's not overcrowded. This is what's going on. But because of that, we're going to we're going to think that it is. We're going to keep assuming that it is until we actually get inside so that we can see for our own eyes. What was the protests Saturday and Friday that prompted the president to deploy the California National Guard against Governor Newsom's wishes? What do you make of that? What do you think is driving the president's decision to do that?

President Trump has been looking and itching for a fight with California for a long time. And I have friends who used to work at the Department of Defense on the civilian side. They were always afraid that he was going to federalize the National Guard at some point. That's exactly what he did. So this is not anything that is unexpected. He wanted it. They're trying to say that it's a lawless city.

It is complete nonsense. Are there protests? Yes. Are there, on the separate hand, are there agitators that are getting in fights with police and other law enforcement officials? Yes. And the folks that are the agitators will be held accountable. But the local police have it under control. And this step that the president took...

it's so unprecedented it hasn't happened since the nineteen sixties and when it happened then it was in the south to protect the civil right and uh... the right of individuals

of the African-American community. This is nothing like that. So we have to be careful. What I'm telling folks who want to protest, work with immigrant rights groups, work with labor, show up, do it in a way that tells people what's going on here in L.A., but in a way that doesn't give Trump and the far right anything.

an excuse to declare martial law or to send in the military. That is a whole different step that will make things even worse. So right now, I think Donald Trump just wants this fight. He wants to kind of send this message. But we have to make sure that people know that we're not going to back down, but we're going to do it in a way that upholds the rule of law, not like this administration.

Are you seeing this fight by President Trump, as you put it, prompting Democrats to take a more defiant stance against the Trump administration for its immigration crackdowns? No, I think that Democrats have always said that one of the things that we need to do is respect the rule of law. But this president does things that are outside the bounds of law when it comes to

Not, you know, federalizing the National Guard without the consent or a request of the governor is a big deal. Deporting an innocent, somebody who they said was connected to Trend de Agua, a Venezuela gang, but then there was no connection and they would refuse to bring him back.

and other people that are citizens that they detained. This is a lawless administration. You know, they believe the law only applies to everybody else except them.

And here's the thing, that our government cannot function that way. Our government and our country can't function that way. The law has to apply equally across the board. But the only people it applies to right now are people that don't look like Donald Trump or most of his followers. They look like me. They look like the people in Los Angeles and L.A. County. 34% of the people here in L.A. County are born foreign-born. They were born somewhere else. And he's trying to say that

Most of us are criminals. And then he says, oh, we're only targeting criminals. But he goes to a work site at a car wash or a Home Depot. I don't know of any MS-13 gang member working at a car wash or a Home Depot. So I think that he's trying to use that as an excuse for a broader crackdown. So I think this is not just about immigration. This is about our country as a whole and the rule of law. Well, Sanchez Congressman Jimmy Gomez, thanks so much for talking with us. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Let me remind listeners, you're listening to Forum. I'm Mina Kim. Let me go next to caller Chawa in Oakland. I was just trying to grab it, but now here we go. Chawa, you're on. Yeah, hi, good morning. I've been undocumented for 20 years. And I think one of the

The thing that I keep hearing is what is the solution, what is the solution to prevent a lot of these things from happening? And I still haven't heard the words immigration reform. Regardless of how you vote, whether it's Republican, conservative, Democrat, liberal, or somewhere in the middle, we undocumented people cannot vote. But we are the ones that are being disappeared. We are the ones that are being detained.

And it's enraging. It's terrifying. And the protests happening in L.A., whether they are peaceful or violent, they are very much pointing to the issue that we are being detained, we are being disappeared, but we have no say. Shawa, thanks for sharing that. I'm wondering what, if there's a specific reform or action you would really like to see people take.

Yes. Call the people in power and demand comprehensive immigration reform now. Comprehensive immigration reform now. Chawa, I think Nancy agrees with you. Nancy writes, I think that the fact that we do not have clear and obvious ways for hardworking immigrants to become citizens, or at least green card recipients, has greatly contributed to this awful situation in Los Angeles.

Let me again thank the caller. So, Gustavo, what are public attitudes towards Trump's immigration enforcement policies, the polls that you're aware of?

Well, first, I just kind of want to acknowledge what Chavez said. I think he nailed it on the head. There has been two decades of inaction from Congress and both parties to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. And what we're seeing now is the result of that inaction in Congress. In terms of polls, there's a couple of interesting ones.

One that Pew put out a couple months ago was looking at deportations and support for deportation, and specifically what category of immigrant we would like to deport. And it showed substantial agreement. More than 90% of the people said that we should prioritize deporting people with violent criminal convictions. But support for those deportations quickly dropped when you counted other factors.

Have they been in the country 15 years or longer? Are they working? Are they married to a U.S. citizen or do they have U.S. citizen children? When you ask about those questions, support for deportation drops to just 5%. So you can see why the administration is using this talking point. We're going after criminals and the worst of the worst. There's support for that. There's not a lot of public support for deporting restaurant workers, grandmothers, parents.

who are basically in our community, our neighbors, our friends. The other poll that was just from last week saw...

It looked at support for Trump's immigration policy specifically, and it showed that since the inauguration, he's still in the positive. There's still, I think it was plus seven support for his immigration policy, but it started at 0.12. So you're seeing a four point decrease in support for President Trump's immigration policies. Ahilan, you said something interesting and we're coming up to the end of the hour, but you said that you don't think the administration actually wants to or maybe logistically can deport immigrants.

11 million people. So what is mass deportation about then, you think? I think it's about keeping people in the shadows. It's really what your caller talked about a minute ago. You can deport a few hundred, a few thousand people, definitely interior enforcement deportations are rising now substantially. But even if they

far surpassed record numbers. You'll never deport 11 million people and people who have lived here for decades. But what you can do through those kinds of policies is prevent comprehensive immigration reform, prevent them from having a pathway to legal status, which gives them more security in the employment market and the ability to advance economically and become full members of the society. Ah, he'll honor, will honor them.

UCLA Law Professor Gustavo Solis, Investigative Border Reporter for KPBS, thank you both. And my thanks to Susie Britton for producing this segment. This is Forum. I'm Mina Kim. Funds for the production of Forum are provided by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Generosity Foundation, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Support for Forum comes from the University of San Francisco School of Management. Celebrating 100 years of partnership with the Bay Area business community, the USF School of Management connects students to the city's vibrant culture, hands-on internships, and a wealth of career opportunities. Where AI and sustainability are integrated into every facet of business education.

and where students bring innovation, ethics, and entrepreneurial leadership to a planet in need.

The University of San Francisco School of Management. Change the world from here. Support for KQED podcasts comes from Earthjustice. As a national legal nonprofit, Earthjustice has more than 200 full-time lawyers who fight for a healthy environment. They wield the power of the law to protect people's health, preserve magnificent places and wildlife, and advance clean energy to combat climate change. Earthjustice fights in court because the Earth needs a good lawyer.

Learn more about how you can get involved and become a supporter at earthjustice.org. Hey, Forum listeners, it's Alexis. Did you hear that Forum is launching a video podcast? It is true. Each week, we'll drop a video recording of a recent Forum episode on the KQED News YouTube channel. We can't wait to bring you into the studio for our conversations on Bay Area culture, California news, and beyond.

Our first few episodes are out now. Just visit youtube.com slash kqednews to see it all. That's youtube.com slash kqednews.