Was it necessary to deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles?

Probably. And the defiant stance of the city and state towards enforcement of our immigration laws is to blame.

This Washington Post editorial declares the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles “unnecessary.” According to the Post, “state and local law enforcement were getting the situation on L.A.’s streets under control.”

A reader of the Post’s news sections might wonder, what situation on L.A.’s streets? The Post isn’t covering the L.A. rioting. It’s only covering the Trump administration’s response and the pushback against it.

For example, the front page of yesterday’s edition contains three stories about the situation in Los Angeles. One discusses President Trump’s activation of more National Guard units and the order that 700 Marines deploy to L.A. The story rambles on and on about how unprecedented this is, but says nothing about the rioting to which Trump’s actions are a response.

Another story gives voice to Gavin Newsom’s claim that Trump’s talk of arresting him is an authoritarian step. Trump shouldn’t be talking about arresting a governor even in jest, which I hope was the case here. But there’s nothing in the report about the rioting that underlies Trump’s dispute with Newsom.

The third story informs us that “seizing” emergency powers is the key to Trump’s governing. It’s true, I think, that exercising emergency powers like those granted him by federal law to deal with the kind of lawlessness we’re seeing in Los Angeles is an important element of Trump’s presidency. But again, the Post does not discuss the events that prompted Trump to exercise these powers in Los Angeles.

Suppose a dozen Proud Boys, marching in any American hamlet, set fire to even one car. The Post would describe this event in great detail and probably declare it an insurrection. But the Post refuses to report on fire-setting, rock-throwing, and looting in one of America’s biggest cities.

How does the Post know that state and local authorities were “getting the situation under control?” Does it even have reporters on the ground? If so, their reports aren’t making it into the paper. I wonder why.

We know that some state and local officials claim they were controlling, or were about to control, the rioting. But these are self-serving claims by pro-illegal immigrant, anti-Trump figures.

Our eyes, if they watch news reports, tell us a different story. The lawlessness was there for all to see and did not seem to be abating before the National Guard was sent in.

To be sure, our eyes are not infallible in these cases. Channels like Fox News and even CNN, along with local news outlets, tend to make disturbances look as bad as possible. That way, they can keep the attention of viewers. But I’m more inclined to believe what I see than to believe politicians who say, in effect, nothing to see here.

I’m even more inclined to believe local officials who reject the official line. L.A.’s police chief, Jim McDonnell, did just that during a news conference on Sunday. Asked whether the city needed the National Guard deployed, he answered:

Do we need them? Well, looking at tonight, you know, this thing has gotten out of control.

I conclude, therefore, that calling in the National Guard was a reasonable response to the rioting in Los Angeles and might well have been a necessary one.

But even if that was not the case — even if state and local forces were getting the rioting under control — calling in the National Guard was probably a reasonable response to the obstruction of ICE officers trying to detain illegal immigrants and to the apparent unwillingness, or at a minimum reluctance, of the city to protect them.

Consider this statement from Mayor Bass:

We received reports of federal immigration enforcement actions in multiple locations in Los Angeles. As mayor of a proud city of immigrants, who contribute to our city in so many ways, I am deeply angered by what has taken place. These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city. My office is in close coordination with immigrant rights community organizations. We will not stand for this.

Clearly, the city was on the side of those resisting ICE’s efforts. Thus, the Trump administration had good cause to believe the city would not protect ICE personnel, but rather would support those trying to prevent them from doing their job.

Not surprisingly, the Los Angeles police force showed little appetite for protecting besieged ICE agents. According to ICE’s acting director:

As rioters attacked federal ICE and law enforcement officers on the L.A. streets, Mayor Bass took the side of chaos and lawlessness over law enforcement.

Our brave officers were vastly outnumbered, as over 1,000 rioters surrounded and attacked a federal building. It took over two hours for the Los Angeles Police Department to respond, despite being called multiple times. The brave men and women of ICE were in Los Angeles arresting criminal illegal aliens including gang members, drug traffickers and those with a history of assault, cruelty to children, domestic violence, robbery, and smuggling.

It’s all well and good for the city and the state to step up to the plate once the burning and looting begins (if they are doing that). But ICE personnel need protection from mobs in order to do their jobs. Unless city and state law enforcement forces are willing and able to provide that protection, use of the Guard is warranted — all the more so when the mayor and governor denounce ICE and state their support for those resisting it.

I should also note that the reluctance/unwillingness to protect ICE officers is more than a whim of the mayor and governor. It has a statutory basis.

The California Values Act prohibits local law enforcement from assisting federal authorities in conducting civil immigration detainments. Thus, it’s my understanding that when ICE faced opposition to its detaining of illegal immigrants, and were badly outnumbered, the local and state police could not engage until after the violence began. That’s not good enough.

___________________________________________________________________________

Governor Newsom and others on the left argue that the “root cause” of the rioting in Los Angeles is the Trump administration’s decision to round up members of the illegal immigrant community at large — not just the criminal element and recent arrivals who have skipped their immigration hearings. They claim that the administration is doing this to boost the number of deportations.

The administration’s policy is controversial. My feelings about it are mixed. But the policy is entirely consistent with the law.

To me, the root cause of the present difficulties is the decision of Los Angeles to become a sanctuary city and, relatedly, of California to enact its “Values Act.”

The city and the state chose to take a very open stance against ICE and against the enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws. (See this article by Heather Mac Donald for more details.) That stance is what gave rise to the current dispute.

Indeed, once Americans decided they were serious about enforcing these laws, and elected a president determined to enforce them, it was arguably just a matter of time until federal forces intervened on behalf of ICE’s enforcement efforts — with California the most likely venue for the intervention.