What would you do if friends and family and neighbors of yours for years, even decades, were pulled from their homes, places of work and worship, schools, etc?

Once the state sets its eyes on enemies, it doesn't stop adding to that list.

Use of the tools and techniques in place right now will continue to be used, and against "legal" citizens.

I worry how we turn the corner. I don't like what history says.

> What would you do if friends and family and neighbors of yours for years, even decades, were pulled from their homes, places of work and worship, schools, etc?

This was always a well-understood risk though.

8 U.S. Code § 1325 of the Immigration and Nationality Act makes it illegal to enter the country without authorisation. Are you implying that these people didn't know it was illegal, or are you arguing that the country should have no borders?

If you are an illegal alien you can be detained by virtue of being in the US illegally, that's my understanding.

This concept hinges on everyone walking around with ID at all times. If you don't have it on you we'll throw you into a concrete box for 8 hours while we sort it out. Cool? Oh you were a home birth in Wisconsin you say? Sounds vaguely Canadian.

This is why the 4th amendment exists. It is my favorite amendment. I wish people would take it more seriously.

As far as I understand, people are ID'd all the time in US. If police stops you, they will ask for an identification document; if you don't have it, they will ask for your SSN and if you can't remember it, they will run your name and address until they match you with a photo id on their systems. In the meanwhile, you're detained and you're not free to leave. Immigration aside, how are they supposed to identify you?

They can't detain you forever because they can't ID you. You can't be compelled to own an ID or carry it around with you all the time. Many naturally born americans have no passport, birth certificate, or even state license.

So many homeless here have zero identification.

They are basically just going after people who are too brown and even ending up grabbing people who are just here on vacation, legally.

This is illegal, notoriously, police can only request AND detain someone to provide ID if they are actually suspected of committing a crime. Potentially being illegal, a neighbor calling the police or stuff like that does not give them permission to detain. They can nicely ask, but that's all.

That's specific to ICE though, where they need a "warrant", not from a judge but just from some other ICE "supervisor".

I agree that in practice there is some kind of loophole: ICE gets a "warrant" for someone that by definition has no ID, so there is no point in identifying a detainee - the immigration court will do that, later. Effectively, they seem to get away with snatching people off the street that vaguely may resemble any "warrant" they have.

Okay, the president has decided to revoke your citizenship. You're now an illegal alien. What do you do now?

If I'm not born American, I suppose the right way of handling that would be negotiating a date to voluntarily leave the country (I think it's called self-deportation), which leaves you a bit of levee to put your things in order. If I was born American and I only have American citizenship, that would be a strange situation to be in. I suppose a bunch of other countries would have offered me instant citizenship just to spite Trump. I'm not sure what does it have to do with people who entered the US illegally and were never citizens in the first place though.

I can't overstate how absolutely separate this is from reality. Yes there are protests, largely peaceful and in a tremendously small part of Los Angeles. In fact, in terms of sheer size, its less than half the size, in sq miles, of the fires in January.

Rocks / debris came after tear gas.

The news has been startling in its mis-coverage.

> Yes there are protests, largely peaceful and in a tremendously small part of Los Angeles.

Firey but mostly peaceful protests are happening all over again. No, burning down cities is not peaceful. After just a few days, at least five officers, several journalists, and we don't know how many rioters have been injured so far. We don't yet have estimates of property damage, but tens of millions would be conservative. Similar riots have resulted in hundreds of millions in damages.

When the right does this, we call it what it is: violent riots. We acknowledge it's wrong to attempt to prevent the government carrying out its the duties it was democratically elected to carry out. We should hold that standard to the left as well. These rioters are anti-democratic.

What happens is that these protests start off very peaceful and then they become riots because the police make it so.

What you, and other's, need to understand is that the police have absolutely no mechanism to de-escalate anything. It's a concept completely foreign to American policing. As soon as the police are involved, the situation deteriorates rapidly.

For instance, almost all (95%+) of the BLM protests were completely peaceful. No violence or property damage. You wouldn't get that impression from the news. But, of the ones that did turn violent, every time the violence BEGAN with police overstepping. Pushing protestors, or shooting them, or throwing gas. And then, obviously, the situation deteriorates.

I think you've missed what the protest is. People are against the government action they are using the first amendment -- which is part of what makes america great -- to say they are against it.

You can say, rightly, there's a car on fire. You can also say the police shot at a journalist.

"burning down cities" would however be incorrect, as the person who literally lives here I can tell you that it is not happening.

Apparently we don't call it that when the right does it. It's only the "Radical Left" that actually gets these labels. And the tear gas comes first.

Well we should. American politics needs more integrity and consistency. Politics as a team sport is destroying the country.

> I can't overstate...

Your effort to overstate might have derailed your own reality.

Don't know about you, but I could never throw a brick at anyone. I couldn't and wouldn't put a mask on and head out with the intent to burn cars, throw rocks, loot, and cause criminal damage. That is the opposite of "largely peaceful."

The LAPD chief stated it's "out of control." Your attempt to imply tear gas was used on peaceful protesters doesn't fit the evidence. Many of the rioters are highly organised with supply runs of masks, fireworks and projectiles. I'm not sure what your agenda is but "accuracy" doesn't seem to be it.

AFAIK, I would not read much into the possession and use of gas masks - the bake-sale anarchist medics are pretty well organized and equipped.

There's a lot of people in LA with the skills and equipment to rapidly organize like this; got to see it in person during the Occupy protests, when a tiny village popped up around City Hall - complete with power and internet infrastructure; medical, porta-potties, meals, workshops and seminars... it was pretty impressive!

It's also worth noting the insanity that is July 4th in Los Angeles, so there being a lot of fireworks is uhhh... really, really not weird for LA? We usually get increasing amounts (in size and frequency) of illegal firework "shows" all throughout June.

Lastly - there's also a big difference between "out of our [LADP's] control" and "out of control" - that's (AFAIK) actually the norm for effective protests. A large protest that's under the LAPD's control is generally a "demonstration" instead (see the women's marches).

The LAPD don't have a very good track record for honesty in the last few decades. I'd take anything they say with a cellar of salt.

I don't know about you, but I could never fire tear gas at peaceful protestors exercising their right to peacefully protest.

Do you have evidence of tear gas fired at peaceful protesters? I'm getting a Greta Thunberg "help I've been kidnapped by IDF" vibe from the tear gas claim.

There's a lot of videos of the contrary - LAPD pelted with rocks by aggressive mobs who are there to fight against "nazi scum" or fight for "stolen land" as they wave every other flag than American.

All the footage I've seen and social media I've seen goes the other way: that the people watching and filming the ICE raids were then fired upon by ICE.

I suspect the usual media chicanery - everyone reporting the story that their viewers want to hear.

Anyway. My point was that I could not do this. If I was asked to fire teargas at a crowd who were protesting kidnapping people off the streets and taking them to concentration camps, I could not do that. I would refuse that order.

> "watching and filming the ICE raids"

You're posting misinformation. Tear gas is deployed when mobs surge in direct violation of orders not to, or to control violence and criminality by large crowds. Your attempt to frame it as "cops attacking peaceful onlookers" is in conflict with the evidence available.

Citation needed. I'm seeing videos of folks saying that ICE started it all.

Aljazeera is pretty good with unbiased coverage, and it doesn't lay the blame one way or the other [0]. It just says "(LAPD) declared the area an unlawful assembly, deployed tear gas, issued tactical alerts and made several arrests."

I would still read that as the cops fired first.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/11/how-the-los-angeles...

Literally the first thing listed is the declaration of an unlawful assembly. After that you have either compliance or non-compliance with the declaration.

Given the mountain of evidence of criminal damage, we can assume the declaration came after evaluating the scale of criminal behavior. Reading that as "cops fired first" sounds like cognitive bias.

Again, I think you're being fed different media reports than I am.

And the whole point of a protest is that it is defiance of authority. Having a protest declared "unlawful assembly" is kinda the point.

I'm curious what you saw from the "No Kings" protests from your point of view? Were they also unlawful, with mountains of evidence of criminal damage? The organisers estimate that 11 million people attended 2000 different locations around the USA, and it was almost entirely peaceful. What are you being told?

I saw the one where a journalist was shot with rubber bullets. What does the flag have to do with anything? Aren't you guys supposed to have freedom of expression?

The Australian journalist who wasn't wearing any media vest, standing in middle of road next to an unfolding high-tension incident so she could get a good shot? That journalist? The cop that shot her was in the wrong, but she didn't help herself attending the frontline of a riot in casual dress and going for the money-shot.

Freedom of expression isn't immune from ridicule or condemnation. In one NYC anti-ICE protest they're chanting "From Mexico to Gaza, globalize the intifada". You can argue that's freedom of expression, as is burning the US flag and other dopey unhelpful actions.

Back during the George Floyd riots, there were numerous videos of cops shooting rubber bullets at people just for lulz. There was one when a person standing inside and filming through the window got shot at, cracking the glass.

Most of those same cops are staffing PDs today, so they will behave exactly as they did back then. Nobody sane should give them any benefit of doubt.

She was being filmed by a camera crew, it was obvious she was from the press. Media vest - it's not Afghanistan - though deployment of military may give that impression. Really going for the 'she was asking' for it defense?

I'm sorry, you're flat wrong. That is exactly what Freedom of Speech means.

You obviously disagree with it, but that doesn't mean it's not protected.

Nice bit of victim blaming there.

it is HN special :) “not the rapist fault, it was the short skirt…”

The protests usually are very well attended organised and peaceful. The organisers of the protests want people to go home afterwards and most do.

But some people hang around after it's ended and then the sun goes down and the protest is actually over and the police try to get people to leave. Then it's a people Vs police confrontation that may escalate. Then it's a riot. Usually these deescalate and the police have training in how to do that.

It's not the protests that is violent it's what happens after the protest finishes. Riots by definition are out of control!

Some protestors would claim that the violence is orchestrated by the police. There has been some evidence of that in some places of the world. Mostly it's a riot of violent people, criminals, kids usually, who are thrilled by the violence and chaos and hatred. Mob mentality creates a mob.

Agreed. And if I was out there, actually peacefully protesting, and people around me started throwing rocks, looting, or causing criminal damage I would leave. If I was gassed with tear gas, I would leave. I wouldn't attack the police.

LAPD on Sunday night live with NBC 4 Los Angeles confirmed that most of the Sunday night looters were arrested. They also confirmed that most of the looters were part of a retail-theft gang attempting to use the protests as cover, and that at least one of the looters was actually a far-right-wing activist (unsuccessfully) attempting to stage a false flag operation to justify the use of military force.

> LAPD on Sunday night live with NBC 4 Los Angeles confirmed that most of the Sunday night looters were arrested

I trust this is true. But the comment would be stronger with a source.

  A combined 42 arrests were made by the Los Angeles Police Department, California Highway Patrol and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, the LAPD said early Monday. Alleged crimes included attempted murder, looting, arson, failure to disperse, assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer and other offenses.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/la-protests-arrests...

is one source, others may have more or less detail. It supports arrests being made wrt looting, not the assertion that most of the looters were arrested.

Bad as these things are, the Governor of California currently believes their own law enforcement can handle the situation without the National Guard. If he felt he needed support, he'd have requested it using the provided legal mechanisms.

Note that Trump's DoD did not seem to be in a hurry to deploy the National Guard on 6th January, despite multiple requests to do so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_response_to_th...

What the governor of California believes does not matter when federal agents are being attacked. The President has a responsibility to protect his agents. If California is not doing that sufficiently, the President is more than justified in sending reinforcements.

Maybe those agents should identify themselves as such instead of hiding like cowards, making them impossible to determine from crazed vigilantes?

The government of California is not preventing ICE agents from working, so under what authority, with evidence, does the President justify using the National Guard?

> My understanding is that the National Guard are being deployed because ICE is being impeded from carrying out their operations. If California were allowed to constructively block the Federal government from carrying out policy of democratically elected administrations, that would be effectively a declaration of secession.

The California government are not blocking the Federal government from carrying out ICE raids. If you believe otherwise, please show the evidence that Trump has presented.

California has decided not to prevent the rioters from impeding federal enforcement officers. This forces the Federal government to use Federal resources.

Evidence please.

The Gov of CA is not a neutral actor.

Sure, whatever, but he's also the leader of CA. Something something state's rights? I don't know, doesn't that matter or only when it's you guys?

Where’s your evidence that he’s blocking ICE agents from doing their jobs?

> One man was taken into custody for allegedly throwing a Molotov cocktail at an officer and a motorcyclist was arrested for ramming a police skirmish line

So less violence towards law enforcement and insurrection than January 6th. Action the President endorsed in January by issuing pardons.

Honestly, if a Democrat were to match Trump's energy, they'd be promising pardons to protesters who damaged ICE property or torched a Trump property. They're not. In part because they're rudderless. But also because they're still gripped by the notion that we're not in the midst of a coup.

I like how the federal government actually enforcing federal law is a “coup” to you.

If Trump wanted to match Democrat energy he would declare the LA riots an insurrection and devote 40% of the FBI to identifying, rounding up, and imprisoning all of the protestors.

You don't get to ignore Everyone's right to due process and then insist you are enforcing federal law. ICE is not enforcing federal law by ignoring the constitution.

> the federal government actually enforcing federal law is a “coup” to you

The Marines aren’t enforcing squat. That’s on ICE and the LAPD, the only ones doing the arresting.

> he would declare the LA riots an insurrection and devote 40% of the FBI to identifying, rounding up, and imprisoning all of the protestors

If they broke into a federal building? Absolutely.

> The Marines aren’t enforcing squat.

You’re the one hyperventilating about a “coup”; do you care to clarify what you actually meant by that or should I just write it off as a paranoid delusion?