Tag: migrants
Fox Fantasizes About Migrant 'Insurrection' To Justify Tyrannical Response

Fox Fantasizes About Migrant 'Insurrection' To Justify Tyrannical Response

Fox News’ depiction of the protests that began in and around Los Angeles over the weekend is a grim fantasy — but one that encourages President Donald Trump to realize his vision of U.S. troops crushing left-wing dissent.

Prime-time host Jesse Watters laid out his network’s dominant narrative in a Monday night monologue.

“Democrats are causing mayhem in their cities, so when Trump restores order, they can label him a dictator and stir up even more hatred and violence against him,” Watters alleged. “They're burning their own cities just to prove to their bloodthirsty base that they're fighting Trump in the streets, burning their own cities for power.”

None of this is true. The LA immigration protests are an organic response to Trump’s dramatic escalation of immigration enforcement. Democratic politicians have vocally opposed the riots that have sometimes accompanied those protests. That rioting, while deplorable, has not engulfed the city. But Trump has used it as a pretext to deploy U.S. troops for the confrontation with protesters he has long sought.

It is a core function of the government to maintain order on the streets and enforce the laws. That is properly the responsibility of officials like Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who have condemned the rioting, attacks on law enforcement, and destruction of property that at times have occurred amid the protests and called for legal accountability for perpetrators.

By suggesting that those officials are instead actively supporting riots, while inflating the extent of those riots, Fox is creating a justification for Trump to step in. And given Trump’s drive to dominate his perceived enemies and his glorification of state violence, that could end very badly.

Immigration protests are an organic response to Trump’s escalation of enforcement

The Wall Street Journalpublished on Tuesday an extensive investigation of what it termed “The White House Marching Orders That Sparked the L.A. Migrant Crackdown.”

The story details how White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller — disappointed by a pace of daily deportations that was below what the Biden administration attained last year — instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to “just go out there and arrest illegal aliens” at targets like Home Depot and 7-Eleven.

According to the Journal, “ICE agents appeared to follow Miller’s tip and conducted an immigration sweep Friday at the Home Depot in the predominantly Latino neighborhood of Westlake in Los Angeles, helping set off a weekend of protests around Los Angeles County, including at the federal detention center in the city’s downtown.”

The story also provides this summary of the extraordinary tactics the Trump administration has used to try to increase its deportation numbers:

Federal agents make warrantless arrests. Masked agents take people into custody without identifying themselves. Plainclothes agents in at least a dozen cities have arrested migrants who showed up to their court hearings. And across the U.S., people suspected of being in the country illegally are disappearing into the federal detention system without notice to families or lawyers, according to attorneys, witnesses and officials.

Trump won the 2024 presidential election while promising an agenda of mass deportation. But the naked cruelty and questionable legality of these policies will inevitably spur dissent, and some who oppose them will exercise their First Amendment rights to speak out against them, including at public protests.

Democratic politicians don't support rioting that sometimes accompanied those protests

The civic core of Los Angeles has seen unacceptable levels of violence over the past several days. As the Los Angeles Times reported, “Protests have devolved into clashes with police and made-for-TV scenes of chaos: Waymo taxis on fire. Vandals defacing city buildings with anti-police graffiti. Masked men lobbing chunks of concrete at California Highway Patrol officers keeping protesters off the 101 Freeway.”

That rioting, according to LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, was caused not by “the people that we see here in the day who are out there legitimately exercising their First Amendment rights,” but “by masked ‘anarchists’ who he said were bent on exploiting the state of unrest to vandalize property and attack police.”

Fox propagandists like Watters, echoing Trump administration officials, have suggested that Democrats could instantly make the rioting stop but are refusing to do so because they support the violence.

They don’t offer evidence for this Democratic support for rioting. Democratic leaders have rightfully and repeatedly condemned the violence targeting law enforcement and destruction of property as anathema, as a simple perusal of their X accounts reveals. In addition to denouncing such tactics on their merits, they frequently point out that rioting plays into Trump’s hands.

Newsom’s messages to the public over the last few days have included:

Bass has likewise said:

Their statements are not anomalous. Sen. Alex Padilla’s (D-CA) “message to the people in LA” is “keep speaking out and protest peacefully.” His colleague Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) posted, “Los Angeles — violence is never the answer. Assaulting law enforcement is never ok.” Other caucus members who are as ideologically diverse as Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are on the same page, calling for peaceful protest while condemning violence. Indeed, the lack of support for rioting has led to condemnations of the Democratic Party from the left.

No one in a position of authority in the Democratic Party is following the path that Trump and his supporters at Fox took after the January 6 insurrection by making excuses for rioting and paving the way to pardon the offenders.

These riots, while deplorable, have not engulfed the city

Right-wing pundits have suggested that journalists are minimizing the violence by pointing out that the protests are occurring in a tiny fraction of a massive city where the vast majority of residents are unaffected by any violence that has occurred. But the scope of the problem really does matter in determining the appropriate government response.

Trump claimed on Sunday that Los Angeles “has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals” and that action is needed “to liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion, and put an end to these Migrant riots.” On Monday, an official Defense Department social media account reported that “Los Angeles is burning, and local leaders are refusing to respond.”

The more extensive the destruction, the more justification there is for federal action.

In 1992, for example, President George H.W. Bush deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles in response to days of widespread rioting following the acquittal of the police officers who were videotaped beating Rodney King. Time reported of the LA riots:

Over the course of several days, more than 60 people died, while another 2,000 were injured. More than 1,000 buildings were defaced, leading to damages that amounted to some $1 billion.

Bush called up the National Guard under the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the President to deploy the typically state-controlled military force in certain situations involving invasions or insurrections, on the third day of the riots.

“What followed Wednesday's jury verdict in the Rodney King case was a tragic series of events for the city of Los Angeles: Nearly 4,000 fires, staggering property damage, hundreds of injuries, and the senseless deaths of over 30 people,” Bush said in an address at the time. He went on to announce the commitment of thousands of additional troops to the city “to help restore order” at the behest of the governor and mayor, and the federalization of the National Guard.

The violence against law enforcement and property damage that has occurred since Friday is unacceptable, and the governor and mayor are right to try to control the chaos. It’s also not on the scale of the Rodney King riots, happening over what amounts to a handful of city blocks, as these graphics from The New York Times show.

But Trump has responded in unprecedented fashion. He has federalized and deployed roughly 4,000 soldiers of the California National Guard, an order the state called “unlawful” and that Newsom said came without the president “conferring with the state.”

He also deployed 700 U.S. Marines, which “are typically not trained or equipped to deal with civil disturbances,” as retired Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré toldTask and Purpose. Absent clear coordination, the arrival of those forces “presents a significant logistical and operational challenge for those of us tasked with safeguarding this city,” according to McDonnell.

Trump is determined to get an escalation

The president has been described as a fascist by those who served at the highest levels of his first administration, including his former White House chief of staff, retired Gen. John Kelly, and former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, as well as by Gen. Mark Milley, who served under him as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

He promised on the campaign trail to “root out the communist, Marxist, fascist and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country,” and floated using the National Guard or even the military against “the enemy from within,” which he described as “radical left lunatics.”

He reportedly considered invoking the Insurrection Act during the 2020 civil unrest following the murder of George Floyd, was rebuffed by Esper and Milley, and said that he regretted not “immediately” sending in the military.

He has selected more pliant defense officials for his second term, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former Fox host who supported the domestic deployment of the military and is known for defending U.S. service members who had been accused and convicted of war crimes.

Trump has praised the Chinese government’s murderous response to student protesters at Tiananmen Square, saying it showed “the power of strength,” and has repeatedly urged law enforcement officers to use rougher, more brutal tactics in dealing with those they apprehend.

And the president does not appear to observe a distinction between peaceful protest and violent riot — if the perpetrators aren’t his supporters, it’s all insurrection to him.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Kristi Noem

Homeland Security Scheme Offers Migrants $1000 To 'Self-Deport'

The Trump administration is offering undocumented immigrants a paltry $1,000 if they choose to “self-deport” in a “dignified” way.

A Monday release from the Department of Homeland Security said immigrants would be paid the stipend “after their return to their home country has been confirmed” through Customs and Border Protection’s Home App.

“This is the safest option for our law enforcement, aliens and is a 70% savings for US taxpayers,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote in a post on X.

The announcement is a new focal point of President Donald Trump’s ongoing and chaotic policy of mass deportation, with the goal of purging the United States—a nation formed by immigrants—of immigrants. The Trump administration has already been executing that policy by abducting people, some in broad daylight, and forcibly transporting them to foreign nations and the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador. Some, like Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia, are legally qualified to be in the United States but have nonetheless been removed by Trump’s goons.

The notion that undocumented immigrants would go to such extraordinary lengths to come to the United States, only to upend the life they’ve built for a mere $1,000 is ridiculous on its face. Furthermore, immigration experts who have ridiculed such “self-deportation” policies in the past said migrants who take this offer would often be facing terrible financial straits, violence, or worse in their countries of origin.

Even nonexperts have said such policies are “crazy,” “maniacal,” and “mean-spirited”—at least, that’s how Trump himself described the idea when it was proposed by failed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said the DHS claim in its release that people opting to take the stipend could possibly return to the U.S. after self-deporting was “wildly deceptive.”

“For many people, this is a lie. Leaving will make their cases much worse,” he wrote. Reichlin-Melnick noted that if a person took the offer, a deportation order could then be handed down in court for failing to appear in court.

Even more concerning is Trump’s long history of lying and misleading on matters both big and small. There is little guarantee based on his track record in the presidency and in his private life that Trump’s administration would fulfill a promise to a migrant.

There are also signs that the policy announcement was intertwined with efforts to promote pro-Trump propaganda on the right-wing Fox News network.

Fox reporter Bill Melugin posted on Monday that he had been given “exclusive” early access to the announcement. He then promoted the announcement in an on-air segment on America’s Newsroom. DHS official Tricia McLaughlin did an interview with that program’s hosts to tout the idea as well.

Fox News also pushed the policy in an online story.

Noem has become notorious for engaging in laughable cosplay while doing public relations appearances pushing Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda. It looks like that hobby is a better use of time and taxpayer funds than the administration’s new and unworkable self-deportation plan.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg

Judge Threatens White House With Contempt Over Deportation Order

Citing a “willful disregard,” Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has found probable cause that the Trump administration could be held in criminal contempt of court after officials defied his order to not remove Venezuelan migrants from the country based on a centuries-old wartime law.

Boasberg, first appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush, on Wednesday “said he would launch proceedings to determine whether to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt,” The Washington Post reported.

Pointing to the “broader showdown between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary,” the Post reported that Boasberg “[said] the Trump administration’s actions on March 15, as the removal flights proceeded despite his order to the contrary, ‘demonstrate a willful disregard … sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.'”

The judge wrote: “The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory.”

But Boasberg also offered the administration some options: essentially, file “a declaration explaining the steps they have taken and will take to do so,” or, file “declaration(s) identifying the individual(s) who, with knowledge of the Court’s classwide Temporary Restraining Order, made the decision not to halt the transfer of class members out of U.S. custody on March 15 and 16, 2025.”

Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick explains that Boasberg ordered “them either to fix their mistake, or identify who made those decisions (presumably for further sanctions).”

“The Constitution,” Boasberg also wrote, citing previous rulings, “does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely ‘annul the judgments of the courts of the United States’ would not just ‘destroy the rights acquired under those judgments’; it would make ‘a solemn mockery’ of ‘the constitution itself.’

Watch CNN’s report below or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Deportation 'Error': When Judicial Pigs Fly -- In Formation!

Deportation 'Error': When Judicial Pigs Fly -- In Formation!

Our alleged Supreme Court last night upheld a district court’s order to return the Salvadoran migrant Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, whom the government had wrongfully deported to El Salvador, where he has been held in the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center prison for the last 26 days.

“The order properly requires the government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” The Supreme Court's order, issued in response to an appeal by Garcia that he had been wrongfully seized and deported along with some 200 alleged Venezuelan gang members, cautioned District Court Judge Paula Xinis that she should define more precisely what she had meant by the word “effectuate” in her order to return Garcia, whom she said the government had deported by a “grievous error.”

The Trump administration had alleged without evidence that Garcia is a member of the violent street gang MS-13. Garcia has been a resident of the United States with protected status for 10 years, during which time he has never been arrested. He is married to a U.S. citizen. Judge Xinis found that the “evidence” against Garcia “consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie and a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York — a place he has never lived.” Garcia has been a resident of Maryland and claimed never to have been to New York.

For its part, the Trump DOJ admitted in court that Garcia had been deported in an “administrative error” and claimed that there was nothing that could be done to return him to the U.S. because he was being held by a foreign nation, to which the U.S. government had turned him over. Garcia had been given no due process to challenge his deportation under the Alien Enemies Act. In a separate order earlier in the week, Chief Justice John Roberts had temporarily allowed the government to continue using the 200-plus year old law but said that future deportees had to be given due process notice of the proceedings against them and were entitled to challenge their deportation in court. Garcia had been given none of the due process now ordered for future use of the Alien Enemies Act by the Trump administration.

The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, signed a “statement” as part of the court’s otherwise unsigned order. Justice Sotomayor wrote that the Trump DOJ had asserted that it could refuse to return Garcia to the U.S., against the order of a federal judge, “for no reason recognized by law,” and that the Trump administration position “implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.” `We could get down in the weeds as to why the court’s order was issued without naming its author or giving even a hint of what the vote might have been, but the most likely reason is that Roberts, Alito, Thomas et. al. had no interest in putting their names on a legal ruling that is bound to draw fire from Donald Trump and his political and legal sycophants.

The Supreme Court’s order in the Garcia matter is a victory for the wrongfully deported Salvadoran migrant but does not address either the fate of the Venezuelans deported along with him or the use of the Alien Enemies act to justify their deportation. The Alien Enemies Act allows the government to deport persons in a “time of war” who are considered dangerous to the country’s national security. There has been no declaration of war against Venezuela or any other country. The deported Venezuelans, many of whom claim they are not gang members and were rounded up on the basis of their soccer team tattoos and nothing else, are not “enemies” under any definition of that word.

How much leeway the Supreme Court will end up giving the Trump administration to use the Alien Enemies Act is not yet known, but today’s order provides hope that at least some due process will be observed in the deportation of migrants from this country. Under today’s order, the Trump administration will be forced to return at least one wrongfully deported migrant, and the court ordered the government to “be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps” with respect to the return of Garcia. That smells suspiciously like judicial oversight of the Trump DOJ and Department of State, which until this moment have acted in their enforcement of the laws and in judicial proceedings as if they are being run by a criminal gang.

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. He writes every day at luciantruscott.substack.com and you can follow him on Bluesky @lktiv.bsky.social and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Lucian Truscott Newsletter.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World