logo
Lawless LA Riots for Illegals, Again

Lawless LA Riots for Illegals, Again

Fox News4 hours ago

An ICE immigration raid in LA went about as you'd expect in lawless LA!
I'm Tomi Lahren, more next.
I am fully convinced LA is unsaveable.
Here's another reason, a Friday ICE operation in LA went way south after illegal immigrant advocates went berserk, obstructed law enforcement agents and officers, blocked streets and demonstrated their typical feral behavior.
Dozens have already been arrested for their unlawful obstruction and unhinged behavior. Police also had to use flash bangs and tear gas to hold them back.
And even worse, you had everyone from the mayor to the LA police chief condemning and refusing to work with ICE and DHS to get illegal immigrants arrested, detained and removed.
They WANT the illegal aliens there, shielded and coddled- even the violent criminal ones.
This can only be described as treason in my book.
And like I said, I am fully convinced LA wants to crash and burn on purpose. There's no other explanation for this. Everyone in that godforsaken city seems to be in cahoots to destroy it.
If you live in LA and you've been able to somehow escape this mind virus, get out while you can. I know some say they want to stay and fight the good fight, but at some point, it's time to call it a day.
I'm Tomi Lahren and you watch my show 'Tomi Lahren is Fearless' at Outkick.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Tennessee prison riot contained after several hours; 3 inmates and 1 guard injured
Tennessee prison riot contained after several hours; 3 inmates and 1 guard injured

Washington Post

time11 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Tennessee prison riot contained after several hours; 3 inmates and 1 guard injured

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Inmates at a Tennessee prison sought to destroy property, compromised security cameras and set a few fires during a riot that took several hours to contain and caused minor injuries to three inmates and one guard, the facility's private operator said. On Sunday evening, a large group of inmates at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center from several housing units left their cells and accessed an inner yard, becoming 'disruptive and confrontational' and refusing to follow the staff's directions, according to CoreCivic spokesperson Ryan Gustin. The prison in Hartsville, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) northeast of Nashville, is the subject of an ongoing U.S. Department of Justice investigation .

Most-Followed TikToker Khaby Lame Detained, Released by ICE Over Visa Issue
Most-Followed TikToker Khaby Lame Detained, Released by ICE Over Visa Issue

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Most-Followed TikToker Khaby Lame Detained, Released by ICE Over Visa Issue

Khaby Lame, the most-followed TikToker in the world, was detained and released by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on June 6. On Monday, an ICE spokesperson confirmed that the Italian-Senegalese star had been detained at Las Vegas airport for alleged immigration violations. According to ICE, the 25-year-old TikToker, whose real name is Seringe Khabane Lame, had 'overstayed the terms of his visa' and was later granted voluntary departure. More from Rolling Stone Trump Continues Inflaming L.A. Protests: 'BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!' Republicans Say They're Cool With Trump Deploying Troops Against Protesters Trump's Response to L.A. Protests: What We Know 'U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained Seringe Khabane Lame, 25, a citizen of Italy, June 6, at the Harry Reid International Airport, Las Vegas, Nevada, for immigration violations,' an ICE spokesperson said in a statement. 'Lame entered the United States [on] April 30 and overstayed the terms of his visa.' According to ICE, Lame has since left the country. The influencer shared a photo of himself in São Paulo, Brazil, on Monday morning. A rep for Lame did not immediately respond to Rolling Stone's request for comment. The detainment of Lame comes as the Trump administration called for the military to be deployed against anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles. The protests, which began in response to raids on Friday, escalated over the weekend after Trump ordered the deployment of National Guard troops into the city. Gov. Gavin Newsom requested on Sunday that Trump revoke his federalization of the National Guard and withdraw them from the city. 'The decision to deploy the National Guard, without appropriate training or orders, risks seriously escalating the situation,' he wrote. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation.' Lame's detainment also comes as numerous artists and celebrities have faced visa issues under the Trump administration, including Grupo Firme and Julión Álvarez. Best of Rolling Stone Every Super Bowl Halftime Show, Ranked From Worst to Best The United States of Weed Gaming Levels Up

Contributor: Federalizing the state National Guard is a chilling push past the law
Contributor: Federalizing the state National Guard is a chilling push past the law

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Contributor: Federalizing the state National Guard is a chilling push past the law

The use of the military to quell protests is something associated with dictators in foreign countries, and as of Saturday night, with a president of the United States. When President Trump federalized 2,000 members of the California National Guard, deploying them because of protests against federal immigration authorities, he sent a chilling signal about his willingness to use the military against demonstrators. There are two relevant aspects of federal law: One allows the president to federalize a state's National Guard and the other permits the president to use the military in domestic situations. Neither, at this point, provides legal authority for Saturday's action. As for the former, a federal statute, 10 U.S.C. section 12406, authorizes the president to take over a state's National Guard if 'the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' This is the statutory provision Trump has invoked. But it is highly questionable that the protests against ICE agents rise to the level of a 'rebellion against the authority of the Government.' This statute does not give the president the authority to use the troops. Another law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the military from being used within the United States. The 2,000 National Guard troops are only deployed to protect ICE officers. However, even this is legally questionable unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act of 1807, which creates a basis for using the military in domestic situations and an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. On Sunday, Trump said he was considering invoking the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act allows a president to deploy troops domestically in three situations. One is if a governor or state legislature asks for the deployment to put down an insurrection. The last time this occurred was in 1992, when California Gov. Pete Wilson asked President George H.W. Bush to use the National Guard to stop the riots that occurred after police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. With Gov. Gavin Newsom opposing the federalizing of the National Guard, this isn't the case in Los Angeles today. A second part of the Insurrection Act allows deployment in order to 'enforce the laws' of the United States or to 'suppress rebellion' whenever 'unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion' make it 'impracticable' to enforce federal law by the 'ordinary course of judicial proceedings.' Since no one disputes the courts are fully functioning, this provision has no relevance. It is the third part of the Insurrection Act that is more likely to be cited by the Trump administration. It allows the president to use military troops in a state to suppress 'any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy' that 'so hinders the execution of the laws' that any portion of the state's inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right. President Eisenhower used this power to send federal troops to help desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., public schools when the governor defied federal court orders. This section of the law has additional language: The president may deploy troops in a state that 'opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.' This broad language is what I would expect Trump to invoke to use the troops directly against the anti-ICE protests. The Insurrection Act does not define crucial terms such as 'insurrection,' 'rebellion' or 'domestic violence.' In 1827, in Martin vs. Mott, the Supreme Court said that 'the authority to decide whether [an exigency requiring the militia to be called out] has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and ... his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.' There have been many calls over the years to modify the expansive language of the Insurrection Act. But since presidents have rarely used it, and not in a very long time, reform efforts seemed unnecessary. The broad presidential authority under the Insurrection Act thus has remained on the books as a loaded weapon. There is a strong set of norms that has restrained presidents from using federal troops in domestic situations, especially absent a request from a state governor. But Trump shows no respect for norms. Any use of the military in domestic situations should be regarded as a last resort in the United States. The readiness of the administration to quickly invoke any aspect of this authority is frightening, a message about the willingness of a remade federal government to quell demonstrations. The protests in Los Angeles do not rise to the conditions that warrant the federalization of the National Guard. This is not to deny that some of the anti-ICE protests have turned violent. However, they have been limited in size and there is no reason to believe that law enforcement could not control them absent military force. But the statutes Trump can invoke give presidents broad powers. In the context of everything that we have seen from the Trump administration, nationalizing the California National Guard should make us even more afraid. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, is an Opinion Voices contributing writer. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store