Gosh. Think about who caused this mess in the first place. It was the Biden Administration who opened the borders and allowed in millions of illegal, unvetted, and unvaccinated migrants from all over the world and the majority of Democrats supported or said nothing and allowed it to happen. I am an unaffiliated voter and don't see how I can vote for any Democrat who can't stand for deporting illegal migrants criminals and who won't condemn the rioting and who continue to tell the majority of Americans who voted for law and order not to believe our eyes.
Sure, but shouldn't "anyone who supports pardoning rioters who trashed the nation's capitol in an attempt to overthrow the result of a democratic election" and "anyone who supports sending in the military to usurp local law enforcement against the wishes of a state's governor when it's not remotely necessary" make the list?
The J6 rioters were put through hell waiting to be tried, and they did time in prison. These rioters need to experience what the J6 rioters endured and maybe, just maybe, this chaos will end. But, no matter, Trump wants to nip this in the bud before it spreads, which it undoubtedly will to NYC and Boston. Again, I am an unaffiliated voter, but I want law and order!
That excuse can be used anywhere. As I said to another poster:
"If the military can be sent into LA with the quelling of this riot as a pretext, it can surely be sent into, say, San Antonio, Texas to stop this:
I mean, if their response qualifies as 'doing nothing' and is grounds for using the military, then surely we ought to send the military into San Antonio, Texas.
The January 6 incident was a relatively rare incident (within the past 50 years or so) of right-wing rioting. But the reason why it is so significant is that it was incited by the President of the United States -- who had sworn to oppose such assaults on the United States Constitution.
In saying this, I also abhor the role that the Biden administration (and Democrat officeholders in Minnesota and other states) played in excusing the riots that resulted from George Floyd's death while in police custody. Floyd was high on drugs that with reasonable understanding were the cause of his death. He was unquestionably driving under the influence of those drugs in a way that endangered the lives of innocent people. While the actions of the police in arresting him may not have been perfect, their trial was a travesty of justice conducted in a lynch-mob atmosphere promoted by Democrat politicians at the highest levels.
Riots by the left are many times more violent and devastating. The summer of love in Seattle, Minnesota, even Newberry Street in Boston was torched, and many others. Did the left riot with Obama deports thousands? This is Trump Derangement Syndrome plane and simple.
"Nobody was shot, nobody was killed ... Don’t think that somehow because they called out the National Guard there was violence. There was no violence. I was on the street, I know.”
-- Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.
There you have it. Nothing to see here. The 18-term Democrat's absurdly high-bar definition for what in her world constitutes violence.
"Invoking violence only gives Donald Trump the reaction he’s looking for. Attacking law enforcement officers just doing their job is unacceptable — period, full stop.
Protestors who participate in violence or vandalism must be held accountable."
Why, yes, of course. Sen John Fetterman (D-PA) is even more direct and responsive to Waters' absurdity.
Problem is, there's too much partisan absurdity, as evidenced by Halpin's YouGov poll citation showing that "Overall, 45 percent of adults disapprove of these protest actions, while 36 percent approve."
Agreed on the partisan absurdity, but that goes for Republicans, too--they should be condemning the insanely asymmetric response of sending in the military, given that these are small incidents compared to, say, the LA riots in '92, and especially since it's being done over the objections of the governor. They should also be up in arms about the overbroad nature of the executive order that authorized the use of the military--particularly if they're going to continue to claim to be the 'party of state's rights'.
I won't stretch this out tiresomely with you, but where basic rights and protections are concerned, the question of constitutional order and federal supremacy was decided more than 150 years ago in this country with the Civil War on the matter of slavery.
Gavin Newsom cannot play both Abraham Lincoln and Lester Maddox, at least not successfully at the same time.
1992 is not the example most people probably consider to be similar, but the 2020 Summer of Love.
More than 2 dozen dead, more than $2 billion dollars in property damage, an occupied Federal Court House set on fire, a police station and Target burned to the ground. Multitudes of small businesses lacked sufficient insurance never recovered.
Nationally, Marines standing around a federal building that has already suffered major vandalism, are probably not viewed as imposition, by most Americans. LA has nearly omnipresent crime in many areas. Surely some citizens are enjoying the additional safety. Ditto for the National Guard.
While I generally agree with Minsky, I recognize this as a situation similar to "broken windows policing" in which the all-to-typical response of Democrat politicians to rioting is to excuse it with the claim that it is "mostly peaceful" and involves "only property (destruction)." That rationalization has occurred even AFTER the rioting has spread out of local control, as it has done in Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, and elsewhere in the past few years.
I totally condemn Trump for his dereliction of duty in not using his power as Commander in Chief of the armed forces in refusing to suppress the January 6 riot by his supporters. And in this case, I would prefer that he could have limited federal intervention to National Guard troops rather than U.S. Marines. But I'll admit that I don't know the particular legal and logistical considerations of that decision.
While I agree with what Governor Newsom is saying in this video, it doesn't appear that he and his fellow Democrat office holders are following up on it with effective action, thereby providing a plausible reason for Trump to mobilize federal forces.
Both parties have an abiding interest in keeping the illegal work force here and working, it keeps wages depressed. The upper middle class and the wealthy are the biggest beneficiaries of low cost illegal labor. Stockholders even more so.
Imagine the labor for a typical mid priced restaurant bill of two couples going out to eat for a few hundred dollars. Before uber eats people had to cook. Does anyone actually clean their own homes? Mow the lawn? Less visible look at the hundreds busted at meat packing and the LA garment district this week. Millions of low wage workers translates into hundreds of billions of dollars of profits at mid sized businesses.
Dislodging the illegal work force is going to cause a lot of disruption.
Why can't we have work permits for people who want to come here? They must prove they have a job, and they must prove they have medical coverage. Only benefits they receive is public school for the kiddos and rights awarded to them under the Constitution. Zero other benefits. No citizenship, one strike and you're out.
They are used, and then when the permit ends they stay on illegally. Also every job given via permit is a job an American could be doing if they offered more pay. Hard for people to work their way out of poverty if we continuously undercut wages.
They most certainly are being used. Oh, and my friend the cherry orchardist uses pickers who have worked for him for a long time. They are a family of Mexican-American CITIZENS from California, and they make good money doing it.
At least at my friend's orchard, they do much better than the virtue-signaling "progressives," who are largely white smugtivists from Eastern finishing schools and know NOTHING about agriculture, would ever want to even study, much less admit.
Yesterday, I stopped at a food truck nearby and bought two gigantic burritos, and had a fun conversation with a Mexican-American guy who was waiting with me in line for food. We chatted about "Latinx," and I told him that I had mostly laughed when that one came along a few years ago.
"Imagine that these people would inform 17% of the American population that their mother tongue is inferior and needs reform, and then think that they are doing a service."
I told him that, a few times, I had stopped laughing and gone after some of them with claws out. He said he had mostly laughed too, but sometimes was pissed off about it. I said that, for the last 35 years, I'd been kicking myself for studying German in high school instead of Spanish, and that if I were the emperor I'd require that every kid be educated in two languages starting in kindergarten.
Did any of those smugtivists study a foreign language in high school? English is a hard language because of the tenses, but one easier thing is that nouns aren't gendered except for the archaic "she" for ship. ALL of the Romance languages are gendered -- Spanish, French, Italian and I think Portugese -- with nouns either masculine or feminine. German has a neutral case, which is a real pain in the ass because of what it does to the endings and articles.
I said to him that one advantage of learning another language is that it gives some insight into different ways of thinking through the processing of words. Both German and the Romance languages put verbs in a different order than English, and that alone is worth knowing, and you can't know it without studying a different language.
I started German in high school, which is too late. We both laughed when I told him that I STINK at foreign languages but that I wish I'd learned Spanish because who in hell can ever use German in America anyway?
CBS/YouGov is one of the most biased and inaccurate polls out there. Call me names for being prone to the Idiot Flyover Country Fallacy involving numbers. It goes like this: "If you're going to base an argument on numbers, it might be a good idea to check the track record of the source of those numbers." Dang. Who'd a-thunk it? Not the smart guys, that's for sure.
This post is not based on the CBS/YouGov poll which precedes most of the events in LA but from YouGov's own work after the events. I linked to the CBS one to show positive ratings for Trump in terms of his goals on immigration. YouGov does good work and the question wordings cited here are about as straightforward as can be. No loaded messages to put the thumb on things one way or another.
I have never cherry picked polls. I look at all of them, and always have. YouGov has always been close to the bottom of the barrel among the most quoted. They're even more biased toward Democrats than Rassmussen is biased toward Republicans, which is quite an achievement.
Yougun is remarkably unreliable. Let me know when you have polling from Baris, from Basham, from Ras, from Trafalgar, or Insider. Those were dead on in 2024.
Meanwhile, apparently according to the reliable polls, Trump is up 20 with his immigration positions (but after last week, mark this down, those positives will increase).
Oh, and voter reg, those damn pesky numbers, just keep trending in the other direction, saying voter either really like those positions or really, really hate Democrats' positions. We now have a shift of over +1.05 million to Rs since November. Between Texas redistricting and the redistricting coming in 2030, Democrats, if they keep up this anti-ICE pro-illegal lunacy, will lost 15 house seats and an equal number of EVS.
Did Trump promise to only deport drug dealers and criminals as this article says?
From Google in AI mode,
In summary, while Trump's campaign rhetoric emphasized the deportation of criminals, his promises and statements also included broader plans for mass deportation that went beyond those with criminal convictions.
Time to pay up for uber eats and the cleaning lady.
Whatever Trump promised, we do have immigration laws. They were completely ignored for 4 years, but they did not disappear. 600-700K people walk the US with Final Deportation Orders. They had their day in Court and lost. Most then appealed, and lost. They were ordered to remove themselves from the US within 30 days. They refused. They require no more Due Process to deport.
Under Biden, 2 million people entered the US outside of a Valid Port of Entry. Unless they immediately turned themselves in, were trafficked against their will, or barring other exigent circumstances, they have lost the right to claim asylum. Only their identity and entry must proved to deport them.
Tens of thousands of more asylum applicants lied on their asylum applications. They claimed they had never had a felony level conviction, at home or abroad. They lied about their country of origin, family connections, health or other topics that now, mostly, bar them from seeking asylum. Tens of thousands of previously deported people, reenter the US each year. They are subject to incarceration and/or automatic deportation, again.
Dems just imported 10 million people without any plan or funding to feed, shelter, provide healthcare or education. In just 4 years the federal government alone, spent nearly 2/3rds of a trillion dollars on their care. If the new reality is we will only deport drug dealers and criminals, and anyone else can come in and stay forever, our laws should be changed to reflect that.
A goal was a million deportations this year, I don't see that happening, it's simply very labor intensive. Maybe the workplace raids will increase the numbers. At 7K to 8K "encounters" at the border monthly, assuming as many are "got aways", even with the vastly reduced crossings I don't see much of a net reduction.
For me the ultimate measure is wages, I like Hispanic people just fine. Construction labor here is from below min wage to $20.
I agree no one is deporting 1 million people a year. The real issue both sides are ignoring, is the end of US migrant welfare. Dems do not dare tell tax payers they must support migrants in perpetuity, and Reps do not want to appear more heartless than they already do.
Ethnicity has nothing to do with anything, the issue is the Math. The bottom quintile of US earners nearly doubles their disposable income via federal welfare. We provide for them not only because we were settled by Protestants or because we are generous. We subsidize them so mass poverty and homelessness, do not grow above certain levels.
The US is an extremely expensive place to live now. Without those subsidies many new arrivals with sparse educations and low skills are likely to end up homeless and/ or desperate. That is going to have nearly incalculable consequences. I have never stolen anything in my life, but if that was the only way to feed my kid, I would be a thief in a heartbeat, so would most others.
The bottom line is many migrants will need lifetime subsidies or they must relocate to less expensive nations, where their ability to generate income, matches the cost of living. And neither Dems or Reps have any interest in addressing the issue.
Here is a political I.Q. test for the Republicans. Make it easier, or at least simpler, to become a naturalized American citizen, especially for anyone who's been here illegally before Biden threw open the borders after 2020.
Given the blunt ethnic bias against Mexicans demonstrated by the Democratic Party, a carefully crafted naturalization reform that would make citizenship conditional on crime-free behavior (not petty crimes, but serious ones) for a decade would pay enormous dividends.
Look at what's happened among Mexican-American citizens. As a group, they are finally seeing through the "progressive" con game of the last decade or so. Naturalization reform would cement gains not only in Texas and Arizona, but in unlikely states such as Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and others.
It will take intelligence and far-sightedness on the part of Republicans. We shall see.
There has been a masive reduction in illegal entries since Trump took office, putting the lie to Democrats claims that this wasn't posible. Ending legal status for some migrants for protected speach and sending migrants to foriegn prisons or rhird countries has also placed a pall on Trumps immigration record for some who might otherwise be supportive. Actual deportations is another very differant thing however!
Yesterday in USA Today: In a CBS News/YouGov poll conducted June 4-6, 54% of Americans said they approved of Trump's deportation policy, and 50% approved of how he's handling immigration.
Yes, I link to that poll in the first paragraph. There's a distinction between supporting the goals of deportations and how the administration is actually carrying them out. See below from that poll. Also, new data shows disapproval on Marines/National Guard deployment which is not surprising. People don't want to see an unnecessary escalation of conflict from either side. Remains fluid so we'll see...https://x.com/CBSNewsPoll/status/1931707418460729503/photo/2
Not true. 538 and Nate Silver both have high ratings for YouGov. They do good work. Did excellent work on the UK election and even evaluated their own polling for accuracy which did remarkably well on seat prediction.
CBS/YouGov has some of the lowest ratings out there. I followed the numbers very closely last year, and YouGov was consistently overpredicting the Democrats. I might add that I called Trump's popular vote and EC margins on the nose in 2024, and Hillary's popular vote margin on the nose in 2016. I didn't bother in 2020.
By the way, Silver has one of the more inflated reputations out there. His predictive track record is mediocre at best. To me is one of the many embodiments of the Washington, D.C. phenomenon of riding on one's reputation. It's not unique to D.C., but it's in full flower there. Make a good call or two, especially if it favors liberals, and you're an oracle forever.
The CNN stats kid gets so excited, he nearly jumps up and down. He is hysterically funny to watch. He reminds me of the Jurassic Park movie where the kid yells there's a monster outside his window, and his parents are telling him there is no monster. Then they turn around to see the T Rex in their backyard. That is Immigration for Dems.
Party leaders lipsticked the issue a bit, after it obviously cost them the Presidential election. 6 months later, they can no longer hide their actual desires. American voters should listen to what Dems are saying loud and clear. They want open borders. They also want the entire US morphed into a giant global home base. Set foot on US soil, and you can never, ever be removed, for any reason whatsoever.
We had raids in Omaha packing plants yesterday, employees using forged documents to pass eVerify. Local Dems here defend this because "they are paying taxes." So now Dems are on-board with identity theft.
It's not hard to see why there's disapproval, what's worrisome is that there's a sizable minority that approves!
There is simply zero proportionality here. The size of these protests in no way justified sending in the military. It's just a blatant authoritarian power grab--ever more so because we know Trump pardoned the people who rioted on his behalf. Yes, there was some violence going on--but nothing on the scale that was beyond the capacity of local police. Furthermore, the executive order that sent in these troops is unprecedented in its breadth--all prior executive orders that had the military replace local police were geographically specific and temporally bounded. They all said "We're sending troops *into Los Angeles/Alabama/Mississippi* for *x number of days*". Trump's order says "We're sending troops in to any place we determine there is 'likely to be a protest', for as long as we determine it's necessary", i.e., wherever the hell we want for however long we want.
Even crazier that this is being done over the objections of the state governor. It reeks of the fascist takeovers of the 1930s.
In the '30s it was Communists. Military takeovers of local police forces were justified to stop communist rioting, vandalism and thuggery, and communist attempts to overthrow the government. Now it's illegal immigrants and bad actors at the anti-ICE protests. And throughout every moment of these authoritarian takeovers, critics were dubbed "alarmists" and supporters of violence and disruptions of "law and order". Any self-respecting (small l) liberal should be creeped the hell out rn.
You and the rest of the "progressives" are once again on the wrong side. It's remarkable see the governor of California and the mayor of Los Angeles on the side of rioters for several days. Do all of you hate this country's guts?
Lol. Explain how arguing "we shouldn't give the president the authority to use the military to usurp local police whenever and wherever he wants, because history shows this always ends in the abuse of this power" puts me "on the side of the rioters".
Fun fact: Among the governor of California, the mayor of Los Angeles, and President Trump, there is only *one* person who has issued mass pardons for rioters--ones that ransacked the nation's capitol hoping to overturn a Democratic election no less--and that person is Trump.
I'm not excusing a single bad act whatsoever, I'm merely pointing out that Trump clearly doesn't care, which makes the overreach even more mendacious than it otherwise would be.
However, I *am* still waiting for you to explain with any semblance of rationality how, as I put it above, "we shouldn't give the president the authority to use the military to usurp local police whenever and wherever he wants, because history shows this always ends in the abuse of this power" puts me "on the side of the rioters".
Some of us who are actually independent didn't like that riot, or the pardons, and wouldn't use it as justification for doing nothing about riots in Los Angeles because Democrats are still angry about four years ago.
Well that qualifies as a bit of non-sequitur considering there is no indication police are "doing nothing" about the violence at the protests.
I mean, if their response qualifies as 'doing nothing' and is grounds for using the military, then surely we ought to send the military into San Antonio, Texas.
Well just because you're not paying attention or thinking it through doesn't mean it didn't happen. He took over the law enforcement functions of the LAPD over the express objection of the governor. And the executive order he wrote to authorize this takeover declared he had open-ended authority to send the military wherever and whenever he pleases, regardless of what anyone else says, so long as he and Hegseth agree it's cool.
Seems unlikely to happen. What is likely is escalation of conflict. Trump has long promised this and Newsome seems to be making the issue the centerpiece of his anticipated run for President. Media is inflaming the situation and as usual their content is devoid of historical context.
That old saying: "Well begun is half done" really applies here. We allowed too many undocumented/illegal immigrants to cross the border. It wasn't well begun. Now we are paying the price because there really aren't good solutions that are humane. But a solution is needed. I'm waiting for the protesters in L.A. to articulate a solution.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops says that immigration "enforcement measures should focus on those who present genuine risks and dangers to society, particularly efforts to reduce gang activity, stem the flow of drugs, and end human trafficking. Just enforcement also requires limiting the use of detention, especially for families, children, pregnant women, the sick, elderly, and disabled, given its proven harms and the pervasive lack of appropriate care in detention settings. Military personnel, resources, and tactics should not be used in immigration enforcement."
They should stay in church. So should the Southern Baptists, which called for the dismantling of gay marriage. So which theocrats do you want to put in charge?
"The dehumanization or vilification of noncitizens as a means to deprive them of protection under the law is not only contrary to the rule of law but an affront to God himself, who has created them in his own image. Further restricting access to humanitarian protections will only endanger those who are most vulnerable and deserving of relief." - Catholic Bishops
Do you have the Bishops position from the Biden years when daily we saw a flood of illegals crossing the border? The Democrats brought in millions of people who live without any legal help if they are abused. Having no protection guarantees they will be abused.
"An effective and sustainable response to increased migration must include efforts to address its root causes, especially in the case of forced migration. The preeminent right to life provides that people should be able to flourish in their homeland, with migration being a free choice. However, when the conditions for a dignified life are absent, people have the natural right to migrate, and countries have a duty to accommodate that right to the extent possible."
I just saw from CNN that 50% of adults approve of Trumps actions. I mean this was either yesterday or the day before. And they pointed out that as compared to his first term his approval on immigration went up. 22%. They also pointed out that when asked specific questions on immigration actions the approval held. So how are these two data points reconciled? Based on the accuracy of predicting 2024 presidential election I favor cnn although both were more negative than how Trump actually did. Inaccurate polls do not help the Democrats
I’m not sure it’s even true that ICE is targeting anyone but criminals, as promised. Since the media have given up on the issue of actually informing people, it is hard to know.
Interesting annalysas, but Trump actually promised mass deportations of unauthorized migrants, not just those with criminal records! With deportations less then many on the right had hoped and with high profile legal controversies domimating Trump's early secund term immigration news, things are now ramping up in a more predictable manner.
What I see now is that Democrats have taken largely to being apposed to all straight up immigration enforcement, which does involve detention and deportation of those lacking legal authorization to be in the US even if they lack criminal records or the like. It seems many Democrats have become so used to the idea that Illegal migrants are fully lagitamate members of sociaty who SHOULD have full legal status, and whom they still expected untill recently would be legalized in time, that they now find this shocking, even though it was still viewed as normal under president Obama. But they are still largely not being honest about this shift, or else genuinly see these immigrants as basically being legal (even though they are not) thus the "abductions" language.
This is partly I believe do to Democrats comming to view immigrants from Latin America especially as essential not just for agraculture but for all sorts of labor jobs, while simultaniously seperating themselves from (especially white) US born laborers, who have largely moved away from regions like most of coastal California or Greater Washington DC, NYC etc etc. in recent decades. And they have used immigrant workers (both legal and not) to do this, to buffer themselves!
Obviously, immigrants are important to many parts of rhe economy but there is a geographic dimention to this that is seldom clearly talked about and it has led many blue voters to become delusional. Many Democrat voting professionals and even many working-class Democrats now just can't picture say, some white (likely Trump supporting) tree trimmer or other laborer these days (even though the majority of tree trimming workers are Non Hispanic White nationally) or else are secretly horified by the thought if they still can! Sure, the first part isn't yet the case so much in a place like Portland, Oregon or Seattle, but it is still a trend and is already advanced in some highly populas regions with mainly Democratic voters. Group-think conformity takes care of the rest.
Policing is a local responsibility. The federal government, except in extreme circumstances, should defer to local authorities. The military is not trained to capture and detain civilians residing in the United States.
Gosh. Think about who caused this mess in the first place. It was the Biden Administration who opened the borders and allowed in millions of illegal, unvetted, and unvaccinated migrants from all over the world and the majority of Democrats supported or said nothing and allowed it to happen. I am an unaffiliated voter and don't see how I can vote for any Democrat who can't stand for deporting illegal migrants criminals and who won't condemn the rioting and who continue to tell the majority of Americans who voted for law and order not to believe our eyes.
Sure, but shouldn't "anyone who supports pardoning rioters who trashed the nation's capitol in an attempt to overthrow the result of a democratic election" and "anyone who supports sending in the military to usurp local law enforcement against the wishes of a state's governor when it's not remotely necessary" make the list?
The J6 rioters were put through hell waiting to be tried, and they did time in prison. These rioters need to experience what the J6 rioters endured and maybe, just maybe, this chaos will end. But, no matter, Trump wants to nip this in the bud before it spreads, which it undoubtedly will to NYC and Boston. Again, I am an unaffiliated voter, but I want law and order!
That excuse can be used anywhere. As I said to another poster:
"If the military can be sent into LA with the quelling of this riot as a pretext, it can surely be sent into, say, San Antonio, Texas to stop this:
I mean, if their response qualifies as 'doing nothing' and is grounds for using the military, then surely we ought to send the military into San Antonio, Texas.
https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2025/06/06/man-critically-injured-child-grazed-by-bullet-in-south-side-shooting-sapd-says/
A man was killed, and a child nearly killed, and clearly the police have "done nothing" because nearly a week later the killer is still on the loose.
It's crucial we send in the military ASAP, right? What if this turns into a killing spree? Trump has the authority, after all, so why not...?"
Law and order is the first and most basic obligation of government. It is not an “excuse”
I guess i'm missing your point. Texas vs. LA?
That J6 horse is beat to death. You cannot use that for excusing any and all bad behavior for all time.
Right! The J6 rioters were put through hell and did time in prison. Bring the same to these rioters.
The January 6 incident was a relatively rare incident (within the past 50 years or so) of right-wing rioting. But the reason why it is so significant is that it was incited by the President of the United States -- who had sworn to oppose such assaults on the United States Constitution.
In saying this, I also abhor the role that the Biden administration (and Democrat officeholders in Minnesota and other states) played in excusing the riots that resulted from George Floyd's death while in police custody. Floyd was high on drugs that with reasonable understanding were the cause of his death. He was unquestionably driving under the influence of those drugs in a way that endangered the lives of innocent people. While the actions of the police in arresting him may not have been perfect, their trial was a travesty of justice conducted in a lynch-mob atmosphere promoted by Democrat politicians at the highest levels.
Riots by the left are many times more violent and devastating. The summer of love in Seattle, Minnesota, even Newberry Street in Boston was torched, and many others. Did the left riot with Obama deports thousands? This is Trump Derangement Syndrome plane and simple.
"Nobody was shot, nobody was killed ... Don’t think that somehow because they called out the National Guard there was violence. There was no violence. I was on the street, I know.”
-- Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.
There you have it. Nothing to see here. The 18-term Democrat's absurdly high-bar definition for what in her world constitutes violence.
Shouldn't what the governor of the state says carry more significance than a single House rep?
https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/1932119365564170257
"Invoking violence only gives Donald Trump the reaction he’s looking for. Attacking law enforcement officers just doing their job is unacceptable — period, full stop.
Protestors who participate in violence or vandalism must be held accountable."
Why, yes, of course. Sen John Fetterman (D-PA) is even more direct and responsive to Waters' absurdity.
Problem is, there's too much partisan absurdity, as evidenced by Halpin's YouGov poll citation showing that "Overall, 45 percent of adults disapprove of these protest actions, while 36 percent approve."
Agreed on the partisan absurdity, but that goes for Republicans, too--they should be condemning the insanely asymmetric response of sending in the military, given that these are small incidents compared to, say, the LA riots in '92, and especially since it's being done over the objections of the governor. They should also be up in arms about the overbroad nature of the executive order that authorized the use of the military--particularly if they're going to continue to claim to be the 'party of state's rights'.
I won't stretch this out tiresomely with you, but where basic rights and protections are concerned, the question of constitutional order and federal supremacy was decided more than 150 years ago in this country with the Civil War on the matter of slavery.
Gavin Newsom cannot play both Abraham Lincoln and Lester Maddox, at least not successfully at the same time.
1992 is not the example most people probably consider to be similar, but the 2020 Summer of Love.
More than 2 dozen dead, more than $2 billion dollars in property damage, an occupied Federal Court House set on fire, a police station and Target burned to the ground. Multitudes of small businesses lacked sufficient insurance never recovered.
Nationally, Marines standing around a federal building that has already suffered major vandalism, are probably not viewed as imposition, by most Americans. LA has nearly omnipresent crime in many areas. Surely some citizens are enjoying the additional safety. Ditto for the National Guard.
While I generally agree with Minsky, I recognize this as a situation similar to "broken windows policing" in which the all-to-typical response of Democrat politicians to rioting is to excuse it with the claim that it is "mostly peaceful" and involves "only property (destruction)." That rationalization has occurred even AFTER the rioting has spread out of local control, as it has done in Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, and elsewhere in the past few years.
I totally condemn Trump for his dereliction of duty in not using his power as Commander in Chief of the armed forces in refusing to suppress the January 6 riot by his supporters. And in this case, I would prefer that he could have limited federal intervention to National Guard troops rather than U.S. Marines. But I'll admit that I don't know the particular legal and logistical considerations of that decision.
While I agree with what Governor Newsom is saying in this video, it doesn't appear that he and his fellow Democrat office holders are following up on it with effective action, thereby providing a plausible reason for Trump to mobilize federal forces.
Both parties have an abiding interest in keeping the illegal work force here and working, it keeps wages depressed. The upper middle class and the wealthy are the biggest beneficiaries of low cost illegal labor. Stockholders even more so.
Imagine the labor for a typical mid priced restaurant bill of two couples going out to eat for a few hundred dollars. Before uber eats people had to cook. Does anyone actually clean their own homes? Mow the lawn? Less visible look at the hundreds busted at meat packing and the LA garment district this week. Millions of low wage workers translates into hundreds of billions of dollars of profits at mid sized businesses.
Dislodging the illegal work force is going to cause a lot of disruption.
Freeing the slaves in the south cut into the profits of many businesses also.
Why can't we have work permits for people who want to come here? They must prove they have a job, and they must prove they have medical coverage. Only benefits they receive is public school for the kiddos and rights awarded to them under the Constitution. Zero other benefits. No citizenship, one strike and you're out.
We do have those permits. Study harder.
I know we have work permits, but why aren't they being used?
They are used, and then when the permit ends they stay on illegally. Also every job given via permit is a job an American could be doing if they offered more pay. Hard for people to work their way out of poverty if we continuously undercut wages.
They most certainly are being used. Oh, and my friend the cherry orchardist uses pickers who have worked for him for a long time. They are a family of Mexican-American CITIZENS from California, and they make good money doing it.
At least at my friend's orchard, they do much better than the virtue-signaling "progressives," who are largely white smugtivists from Eastern finishing schools and know NOTHING about agriculture, would ever want to even study, much less admit.
Yesterday, I stopped at a food truck nearby and bought two gigantic burritos, and had a fun conversation with a Mexican-American guy who was waiting with me in line for food. We chatted about "Latinx," and I told him that I had mostly laughed when that one came along a few years ago.
"Imagine that these people would inform 17% of the American population that their mother tongue is inferior and needs reform, and then think that they are doing a service."
I told him that, a few times, I had stopped laughing and gone after some of them with claws out. He said he had mostly laughed too, but sometimes was pissed off about it. I said that, for the last 35 years, I'd been kicking myself for studying German in high school instead of Spanish, and that if I were the emperor I'd require that every kid be educated in two languages starting in kindergarten.
Did any of those smugtivists study a foreign language in high school? English is a hard language because of the tenses, but one easier thing is that nouns aren't gendered except for the archaic "she" for ship. ALL of the Romance languages are gendered -- Spanish, French, Italian and I think Portugese -- with nouns either masculine or feminine. German has a neutral case, which is a real pain in the ass because of what it does to the endings and articles.
I said to him that one advantage of learning another language is that it gives some insight into different ways of thinking through the processing of words. Both German and the Romance languages put verbs in a different order than English, and that alone is worth knowing, and you can't know it without studying a different language.
I started German in high school, which is too late. We both laughed when I told him that I STINK at foreign languages but that I wish I'd learned Spanish because who in hell can ever use German in America anyway?
CBS/YouGov is one of the most biased and inaccurate polls out there. Call me names for being prone to the Idiot Flyover Country Fallacy involving numbers. It goes like this: "If you're going to base an argument on numbers, it might be a good idea to check the track record of the source of those numbers." Dang. Who'd a-thunk it? Not the smart guys, that's for sure.
Class dismissed. Got some potatoes to plant.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/rcp-pollster-scorecard/
This post is not based on the CBS/YouGov poll which precedes most of the events in LA but from YouGov's own work after the events. I linked to the CBS one to show positive ratings for Trump in terms of his goals on immigration. YouGov does good work and the question wordings cited here are about as straightforward as can be. No loaded messages to put the thumb on things one way or another.
I have never cherry picked polls. I look at all of them, and always have. YouGov has always been close to the bottom of the barrel among the most quoted. They're even more biased toward Democrats than Rassmussen is biased toward Republicans, which is quite an achievement.
Yougun is remarkably unreliable. Let me know when you have polling from Baris, from Basham, from Ras, from Trafalgar, or Insider. Those were dead on in 2024.
Meanwhile, apparently according to the reliable polls, Trump is up 20 with his immigration positions (but after last week, mark this down, those positives will increase).
Oh, and voter reg, those damn pesky numbers, just keep trending in the other direction, saying voter either really like those positions or really, really hate Democrats' positions. We now have a shift of over +1.05 million to Rs since November. Between Texas redistricting and the redistricting coming in 2030, Democrats, if they keep up this anti-ICE pro-illegal lunacy, will lost 15 house seats and an equal number of EVS.
Did Trump promise to only deport drug dealers and criminals as this article says?
From Google in AI mode,
In summary, while Trump's campaign rhetoric emphasized the deportation of criminals, his promises and statements also included broader plans for mass deportation that went beyond those with criminal convictions.
Time to pay up for uber eats and the cleaning lady.
Whatever Trump promised, we do have immigration laws. They were completely ignored for 4 years, but they did not disappear. 600-700K people walk the US with Final Deportation Orders. They had their day in Court and lost. Most then appealed, and lost. They were ordered to remove themselves from the US within 30 days. They refused. They require no more Due Process to deport.
Under Biden, 2 million people entered the US outside of a Valid Port of Entry. Unless they immediately turned themselves in, were trafficked against their will, or barring other exigent circumstances, they have lost the right to claim asylum. Only their identity and entry must proved to deport them.
Tens of thousands of more asylum applicants lied on their asylum applications. They claimed they had never had a felony level conviction, at home or abroad. They lied about their country of origin, family connections, health or other topics that now, mostly, bar them from seeking asylum. Tens of thousands of previously deported people, reenter the US each year. They are subject to incarceration and/or automatic deportation, again.
Dems just imported 10 million people without any plan or funding to feed, shelter, provide healthcare or education. In just 4 years the federal government alone, spent nearly 2/3rds of a trillion dollars on their care. If the new reality is we will only deport drug dealers and criminals, and anyone else can come in and stay forever, our laws should be changed to reflect that.
A goal was a million deportations this year, I don't see that happening, it's simply very labor intensive. Maybe the workplace raids will increase the numbers. At 7K to 8K "encounters" at the border monthly, assuming as many are "got aways", even with the vastly reduced crossings I don't see much of a net reduction.
For me the ultimate measure is wages, I like Hispanic people just fine. Construction labor here is from below min wage to $20.
I agree no one is deporting 1 million people a year. The real issue both sides are ignoring, is the end of US migrant welfare. Dems do not dare tell tax payers they must support migrants in perpetuity, and Reps do not want to appear more heartless than they already do.
Ethnicity has nothing to do with anything, the issue is the Math. The bottom quintile of US earners nearly doubles their disposable income via federal welfare. We provide for them not only because we were settled by Protestants or because we are generous. We subsidize them so mass poverty and homelessness, do not grow above certain levels.
The US is an extremely expensive place to live now. Without those subsidies many new arrivals with sparse educations and low skills are likely to end up homeless and/ or desperate. That is going to have nearly incalculable consequences. I have never stolen anything in my life, but if that was the only way to feed my kid, I would be a thief in a heartbeat, so would most others.
The bottom line is many migrants will need lifetime subsidies or they must relocate to less expensive nations, where their ability to generate income, matches the cost of living. And neither Dems or Reps have any interest in addressing the issue.
Here is a political I.Q. test for the Republicans. Make it easier, or at least simpler, to become a naturalized American citizen, especially for anyone who's been here illegally before Biden threw open the borders after 2020.
Given the blunt ethnic bias against Mexicans demonstrated by the Democratic Party, a carefully crafted naturalization reform that would make citizenship conditional on crime-free behavior (not petty crimes, but serious ones) for a decade would pay enormous dividends.
Look at what's happened among Mexican-American citizens. As a group, they are finally seeing through the "progressive" con game of the last decade or so. Naturalization reform would cement gains not only in Texas and Arizona, but in unlikely states such as Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and others.
It will take intelligence and far-sightedness on the part of Republicans. We shall see.
There has been a masive reduction in illegal entries since Trump took office, putting the lie to Democrats claims that this wasn't posible. Ending legal status for some migrants for protected speach and sending migrants to foriegn prisons or rhird countries has also placed a pall on Trumps immigration record for some who might otherwise be supportive. Actual deportations is another very differant thing however!
Yesterday in USA Today: In a CBS News/YouGov poll conducted June 4-6, 54% of Americans said they approved of Trump's deportation policy, and 50% approved of how he's handling immigration.
I've seen other polls with the same numbers.
Yes, I link to that poll in the first paragraph. There's a distinction between supporting the goals of deportations and how the administration is actually carrying them out. See below from that poll. Also, new data shows disapproval on Marines/National Guard deployment which is not surprising. People don't want to see an unnecessary escalation of conflict from either side. Remains fluid so we'll see...https://x.com/CBSNewsPoll/status/1931707418460729503/photo/2
You based an entire posting on one of the worst polling outfits of the bunch.
Not true. 538 and Nate Silver both have high ratings for YouGov. They do good work. Did excellent work on the UK election and even evaluated their own polling for accuracy which did remarkably well on seat prediction.
CBS/YouGov has some of the lowest ratings out there. I followed the numbers very closely last year, and YouGov was consistently overpredicting the Democrats. I might add that I called Trump's popular vote and EC margins on the nose in 2024, and Hillary's popular vote margin on the nose in 2016. I didn't bother in 2020.
By the way, Silver has one of the more inflated reputations out there. His predictive track record is mediocre at best. To me is one of the many embodiments of the Washington, D.C. phenomenon of riding on one's reputation. It's not unique to D.C., but it's in full flower there. Make a good call or two, especially if it favors liberals, and you're an oracle forever.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/rcp-pollster-scorecard/
They do better at elections than at public opinion.
The CNN stats kid gets so excited, he nearly jumps up and down. He is hysterically funny to watch. He reminds me of the Jurassic Park movie where the kid yells there's a monster outside his window, and his parents are telling him there is no monster. Then they turn around to see the T Rex in their backyard. That is Immigration for Dems.
Party leaders lipsticked the issue a bit, after it obviously cost them the Presidential election. 6 months later, they can no longer hide their actual desires. American voters should listen to what Dems are saying loud and clear. They want open borders. They also want the entire US morphed into a giant global home base. Set foot on US soil, and you can never, ever be removed, for any reason whatsoever.
We had raids in Omaha packing plants yesterday, employees using forged documents to pass eVerify. Local Dems here defend this because "they are paying taxes." So now Dems are on-board with identity theft.
I'm not making this up.
eVerify is a joke. Employers are forbidden from checking to see if documents are authentic or shared. The whole thing is a dodge by both parties.
But social security does do verifications and workers do get fired for not passing. The process is still deeply flawed to be sure.
It's not hard to see why there's disapproval, what's worrisome is that there's a sizable minority that approves!
There is simply zero proportionality here. The size of these protests in no way justified sending in the military. It's just a blatant authoritarian power grab--ever more so because we know Trump pardoned the people who rioted on his behalf. Yes, there was some violence going on--but nothing on the scale that was beyond the capacity of local police. Furthermore, the executive order that sent in these troops is unprecedented in its breadth--all prior executive orders that had the military replace local police were geographically specific and temporally bounded. They all said "We're sending troops *into Los Angeles/Alabama/Mississippi* for *x number of days*". Trump's order says "We're sending troops in to any place we determine there is 'likely to be a protest', for as long as we determine it's necessary", i.e., wherever the hell we want for however long we want.
Even crazier that this is being done over the objections of the state governor. It reeks of the fascist takeovers of the 1930s.
In the '30s it was Communists. Military takeovers of local police forces were justified to stop communist rioting, vandalism and thuggery, and communist attempts to overthrow the government. Now it's illegal immigrants and bad actors at the anti-ICE protests. And throughout every moment of these authoritarian takeovers, critics were dubbed "alarmists" and supporters of violence and disruptions of "law and order". Any self-respecting (small l) liberal should be creeped the hell out rn.
You and the rest of the "progressives" are once again on the wrong side. It's remarkable see the governor of California and the mayor of Los Angeles on the side of rioters for several days. Do all of you hate this country's guts?
Lol. Explain how arguing "we shouldn't give the president the authority to use the military to usurp local police whenever and wherever he wants, because history shows this always ends in the abuse of this power" puts me "on the side of the rioters".
Fun fact: Among the governor of California, the mayor of Los Angeles, and President Trump, there is only *one* person who has issued mass pardons for rioters--ones that ransacked the nation's capitol hoping to overturn a Democratic election no less--and that person is Trump.
As I said above, you can't use J6 to excuse all bad acts in perpetuity. J6 rioters ended up jail for 4+ years. They paid the price.
I'm not excusing a single bad act whatsoever, I'm merely pointing out that Trump clearly doesn't care, which makes the overreach even more mendacious than it otherwise would be.
However, I *am* still waiting for you to explain with any semblance of rationality how, as I put it above, "we shouldn't give the president the authority to use the military to usurp local police whenever and wherever he wants, because history shows this always ends in the abuse of this power" puts me "on the side of the rioters".
Some of us who are actually independent didn't like that riot, or the pardons, and wouldn't use it as justification for doing nothing about riots in Los Angeles because Democrats are still angry about four years ago.
Well that qualifies as a bit of non-sequitur considering there is no indication police are "doing nothing" about the violence at the protests.
I mean, if their response qualifies as 'doing nothing' and is grounds for using the military, then surely we ought to send the military into San Antonio, Texas.
https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2025/06/06/man-critically-injured-child-grazed-by-bullet-in-south-side-shooting-sapd-says/
A man was killed, and a child nearly killed, and clearly the police have "done nothing" because nearly a week later the killer is still on the loose.
It's crucial we send in the military ASAP, right? What if this turns into a killing spree? Trump has the authority, after all, so why not...?
I haven't noticed Trump grabbing any power in CA. You should go easy on the Godwin stuff, sounds silly.
Well just because you're not paying attention or thinking it through doesn't mean it didn't happen. He took over the law enforcement functions of the LAPD over the express objection of the governor. And the executive order he wrote to authorize this takeover declared he had open-ended authority to send the military wherever and whenever he pleases, regardless of what anyone else says, so long as he and Hegseth agree it's cool.
That, my good fellow, is a power grab.
~ you lost me at YouGov. Check out Mark Mitchell & Rich Baris' polling, then re-write your story. ~
Seems unlikely to happen. What is likely is escalation of conflict. Trump has long promised this and Newsome seems to be making the issue the centerpiece of his anticipated run for President. Media is inflaming the situation and as usual their content is devoid of historical context.
Good article. Thanks for summarizing the data.
That old saying: "Well begun is half done" really applies here. We allowed too many undocumented/illegal immigrants to cross the border. It wasn't well begun. Now we are paying the price because there really aren't good solutions that are humane. But a solution is needed. I'm waiting for the protesters in L.A. to articulate a solution.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops says that immigration "enforcement measures should focus on those who present genuine risks and dangers to society, particularly efforts to reduce gang activity, stem the flow of drugs, and end human trafficking. Just enforcement also requires limiting the use of detention, especially for families, children, pregnant women, the sick, elderly, and disabled, given its proven harms and the pervasive lack of appropriate care in detention settings. Military personnel, resources, and tactics should not be used in immigration enforcement."
They should stay in church. So should the Southern Baptists, which called for the dismantling of gay marriage. So which theocrats do you want to put in charge?
"The dehumanization or vilification of noncitizens as a means to deprive them of protection under the law is not only contrary to the rule of law but an affront to God himself, who has created them in his own image. Further restricting access to humanitarian protections will only endanger those who are most vulnerable and deserving of relief." - Catholic Bishops
Let's face it: Democrats love the rioters, the criminal gangs, the human trafficking, and the fentanyl. You hate this country's guts, and it shows.
They hate church as well, unless it's left-wing Catholic, Methodist, or Presbyterian.
Do you have the Bishops position from the Biden years when daily we saw a flood of illegals crossing the border? The Democrats brought in millions of people who live without any legal help if they are abused. Having no protection guarantees they will be abused.
"An effective and sustainable response to increased migration must include efforts to address its root causes, especially in the case of forced migration. The preeminent right to life provides that people should be able to flourish in their homeland, with migration being a free choice. However, when the conditions for a dignified life are absent, people have the natural right to migrate, and countries have a duty to accommodate that right to the extent possible."
Thank you. Do you have the date of this statement?
January 2025. You can find the complete statement at this link https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform
I just saw from CNN that 50% of adults approve of Trumps actions. I mean this was either yesterday or the day before. And they pointed out that as compared to his first term his approval on immigration went up. 22%. They also pointed out that when asked specific questions on immigration actions the approval held. So how are these two data points reconciled? Based on the accuracy of predicting 2024 presidential election I favor cnn although both were more negative than how Trump actually did. Inaccurate polls do not help the Democrats
I’m not sure it’s even true that ICE is targeting anyone but criminals, as promised. Since the media have given up on the issue of actually informing people, it is hard to know.
Interesting annalysas, but Trump actually promised mass deportations of unauthorized migrants, not just those with criminal records! With deportations less then many on the right had hoped and with high profile legal controversies domimating Trump's early secund term immigration news, things are now ramping up in a more predictable manner.
What I see now is that Democrats have taken largely to being apposed to all straight up immigration enforcement, which does involve detention and deportation of those lacking legal authorization to be in the US even if they lack criminal records or the like. It seems many Democrats have become so used to the idea that Illegal migrants are fully lagitamate members of sociaty who SHOULD have full legal status, and whom they still expected untill recently would be legalized in time, that they now find this shocking, even though it was still viewed as normal under president Obama. But they are still largely not being honest about this shift, or else genuinly see these immigrants as basically being legal (even though they are not) thus the "abductions" language.
This is partly I believe do to Democrats comming to view immigrants from Latin America especially as essential not just for agraculture but for all sorts of labor jobs, while simultaniously seperating themselves from (especially white) US born laborers, who have largely moved away from regions like most of coastal California or Greater Washington DC, NYC etc etc. in recent decades. And they have used immigrant workers (both legal and not) to do this, to buffer themselves!
Obviously, immigrants are important to many parts of rhe economy but there is a geographic dimention to this that is seldom clearly talked about and it has led many blue voters to become delusional. Many Democrat voting professionals and even many working-class Democrats now just can't picture say, some white (likely Trump supporting) tree trimmer or other laborer these days (even though the majority of tree trimming workers are Non Hispanic White nationally) or else are secretly horified by the thought if they still can! Sure, the first part isn't yet the case so much in a place like Portland, Oregon or Seattle, but it is still a trend and is already advanced in some highly populas regions with mainly Democratic voters. Group-think conformity takes care of the rest.
Policing is a local responsibility. The federal government, except in extreme circumstances, should defer to local authorities. The military is not trained to capture and detain civilians residing in the United States.
Is that true when federal law enforcement officers and buildings are under seige?