The Los Angeles protests

Migration tensions between state and federal governments

Migration policy in the United States is a federal responsibility, and is therefore managed not by the states themselves, but by the central government. Under the Biden administration, tensions arose between Texas, which declared itself invaded, and Washington, D.C. These did not lead to violence, but to symbolic protests in which migrants were taken by bus to Washington or New York, where they remained until these Democratic states took responsibility for their choices. On the border, local forces could be seen scowling at federal forces.

California riots and support from local authorities

Now that the presidency has shifted to the Republican side, it's the turn of the Democratic states to oppose Washington's policy of enforcingillegal immigration law. In California, Mexico's neighbor, a federal agency,ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), was attacked by migrant rioters who were joined by the most resolute militants in the Democratic camp. The difference is obviously in the nature of the protest: as in France, it was rioting and looting, resulting in injuries and a few deaths; but there was no real confrontation, which would be the sign of the beginning of a civil war.

However, the local authorities, led by Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, have endorsed the riots, which naturally expresses their desire to fight back. Local police were forbidden to take part in ICE actions, and public institutions were forbidden to house captured illegal immigrants awaiting deportation.

This is not the first time in recent history that a state has balked at implementing federal measures: in 1958,Arkansas opposed President Eisenhower 's intention to enforce new federal laws that contradicted the racial segregation then practiced in the state. But the President has the power to impose the will of the Federation:section 12406 of title 10 of the United States Code authorizes him to deploy the National Guard if he finds it "impossible, with regular forces, to execute the laws of the United States". Eisenhower used it, as Mr. Trump does today. Governor Newsom described these measures as " illegal, immoral and unconstitutional ". Three important words, from which we can immediately remove "immoral", which has no political definition, but from which we can retain "illegal" and "unconstitutional". On this point, even the dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, which is renowned for its orthodox wokism, admits that "unfortunately, President Trump probably has the legal authority to act in this way". Note the adverb "probably", which sounds odd in the mouth of a jurist: an act is legal or not, it's the law that decides, not probability.

A political divide between two visions of America

But precisely this vocabulary speaks volumes about the divide between the two Americas, Republican and Democrat. For the time being, the protests are no more violent than in France; on the other hand, most of the rioters claim an identity other than American, brandishing Mexican flags (like a shimmer of history, in these formerly Mexican regions) or Federation flags deliberately sewn backwards, and scrawling anti-American slogans on the walls: " Death to America", "Fuck the US "... Such images are likely to arouse public opinion against their perpetrators, which explains why the mayor of Los Angeles herself was forced to declare a curfew on her own initiative.

Nevertheless, the vision of two Americas continues to divide Americans. This is not a division between states as in 1861, but between two irreconcilable visions of collective life, likeSpain in 1936. Mr. Trump's victory may have led those who feared a civil war there to believe they were wrong. But let's not forget that the country whose reins he took over this year is deeply sick, and that passionate antagonisms remain.

Sources :