Collateral Fallout

Why the ICE Protests in LA and California Will Likely Continue and Even Escalate

“Fallout” is a term few really understand. Most people associate it with “nuclear fallout” or the video game describing the same. They perceive it as the side effects of a nuclear strike. People survive but show the effects of radiation poisoning; loss of hair, horrible burns and scars, body mutations, etc.. The number of times in my life when I’ve heard misuse of this term have been many.

In fact, “fallout” is a statistical term. It describes the proportion of false positives to capturing the targeted population. The greater number of false positives, the greater the fallout. So if you cast an arbitrarily wide net looking for something, you’re going to get a lot of collateral fallout that does not deserve to be included in it. Nuclear weapons have a very broad range, and those impacted within it’s blast range can be many, resulting in a huge fallout proportionate to the target. In the context of a military strike, fallout is quantified by how many civilians or non-military targets are detrimentally impacted by the effects of a strike, and since those who are at ground zero are likely dead, the only visual depiction of it in that situation are those described in the first paragraph who survived. What I’m saying is that fallout is a number, not a classification of symptoms. In short, it’s quantified collateral damage.

Now, in the context of a lot of things, having some degree of fallout is not so bad. It just means you capture more stuff with your method and can remedy it by just casting erroneously retrieved stuff aside or throwing it back/away. If your goal is to capture everything, casting a wider net than necessary is one way to achieve that; then the question becomes how do you remedy the fallout by carving out false positives? But in the context of police actions, it has the potential for horrific consequences. Arresting people for things they didn’t do runs counter to everything we as a society hold dear. It’s why we have the Bill of Rights, civil liberties and due process. Rounding up 100 people for a crime only five may be guilty of results in a massive fallout of 95%. The consequences are that much greater when the penalty is prison or deportment (or both, as in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia) or even death.

To the Trump Administration, fallout is something they seem completely fine with when it comes to immigration policy¹. After all, it demonstrates an exceptionally broad action plan in dealing with illegal immigration and if some American citizens get caught up in the mix, so be it. That is, until it happens to someone MAGA supporters personally know such as what happened in small Missouri town recently. To a large extent, Trump doesn’t even care if an immigrant committed a crime or not, he just wants to be seen as kicking out as many people as he can. Whether the target was otehrwise a good community minded person or even a compliant american citizen doesn’t matter; if you look Hispanic, you’re immediately suspect. In fact, the Trump administration is so fine with fallout, not only do they turn a blind eye towards it, they call up the National Guard to double down on enforcing it.

Normally, we care about fallout’s antithesis, “precision,” in crafting policy. Making sure the administrative policy impacts the specified goal and targeted population it was meant to. Being precise means that there are actually very few false positives impacted. The greater the precision, the better the policy is working and the less fallout. If Trump’s stated goal of getting only the illegal aliens who were gang members and criminals out of the country were effective², it would have a high precision and most would (at least grudgingly) accept that the policy was working. However, it’s not effective, because Trump has empowered ICE to go after pretty much anyone he doesn’t like, without any due process proving criminality and finding the context to deport them later.

But let’s also look at the other side. When a policy is specifically targeting a certain population (in this case people of Latin American descent), and that population feels under attack, they circle the wagons and defend everyone in the group. It’s a tribal and familial instinct, and it’s common. In that sense, the group may be defending people who are indeed guilty of the crimes alleged, and helping them escape consequences. Now, as I mentioned before policy should be precise, and we have a criminal system that errs on the side of “better letting a guilty man go free than imprisoning someone who was innocent.” Along those lines, protesters defending innocent ICE targets and demonstrating against ICE policies is certainly within their First Amendment rights. However, the end result of that action is that some guilty people go free too; there are fallout consequences HERE as well, just not as contrary to our general mores as the policy seems to be.

So we have an overbroad policy, and an overbroad counter-defense of that policy. That has the makings of something that will only escalate, not diminish. Both sides have zero reason to back down, and after this weekend’s actions where Trump called up the National Guard in California,³ ⁴ even against Governor Newsom’s recommendation not to, there is the makings of a growing conflict between a President and a potential Presidential candidate wanting to make a point. Expect more of this.

Solving the Policy Problem

Of course, there is a very easy compromise available to diffuse the situation. Much of the clash stems from the policy and demonstrated status of Los Angeles being a “sanctuary” city and California as a “sanctuary” state. What does that mean? Well, when aliens are arrested for local crimes, the federal government may request they hold them longer than their arraignment so federal authrorities can pick them up and apply federal law against them too, mostly to initiate deportation proceedings against them. This puts a burden on local administration who then ends up footing the bills for longer enforcement until the feds come along. The “sanctuary” aspect of this are those cities that say “Nah, we’re not going to hold them. That’s your problem.” States are sovereign entities and aren’t under obligation to do what the federal government says based only on their say so. When this happens in other administrative areas, nobody tends to bat an eye. When it comes to immigration, FOX News turned it into a massive caravan infused upside down world where illegal immigrants ran amok.

The cruelty in which ICE is conducting it’s raids have not gone unnoticed. It’s received a backlash which has a lot of citizens sympathizing with the targeted. In Milwaukee , Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested by the FBI on April 25, 2025, and charged with obstruction and concealing an individual to prevent an arrest. She was accused of helping an undocumented man evade U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who were in her courtroom to arrest him. Judge Dugan was accused of misdirecting ICE agents and ushering the man out of a non-public door. She pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Neither side is exactly right to do what they are doing in this regard. However, it seems to me that there is a really easy way to thread this needle; when Federal Authorities present EVIDENCE of the federal wrongdoing, that is they show local authorities good reason to detain them further, that local authorities should comply. This idea, that there is, you know, “probable cause” for an arrest is key to our system of justice, yet seems to be utterly disregarded when it comes to this issue. The pretext Trump uses, and the idea underscored here, is to arrest and deport criminals, which is something most everyone can at least sympathize with as a community policy goal. To the extent local authorities can assist in that goal, they should. However, not every immigrant is a criminal⁵, and they don’t have to detain them as such; but whereas the Federal Government offers proof that one is (or very much may be), they should consider detaining them out of public safety. ICE saying “this person is an illegal alien” is simply not enough; if there is evidence of something greater, a threat to the public, then yes, it should be done.

Of course, NEITHER side views it that way. ICE and Trump view it as rounding up anyone with a suspect name and the Hispanic community rightly interprets that as a threat to anyone and everyone who migrated north of the border, whether legal or not. Trump’s policy execution is excessively broader than the goal, being conducted by perceived thugs covering their faces, against people offering zero due process rights. It is no wonder everyone looks at this and sees authoritarian tendencies unchallenged. On the flip side, California has made the conscious decision that enforcing laws against illegal immigration and illegal immigrants is politically unpopular and unwise and simply chooses not to really do it. There are an equal number of protesters itching for a fight, also covering their faces, wanting to take a stand against Trump and his perceived Fascism. Neither side intends on actually fixing the actual problem, and instead, chooses to accept the resultant fallout that occurs.

The damage will be wider and bigger than most Americans conceive or would even want. The Trump Administration, particularly Stephen Miller, seem particularly happy to be fighting on this ground and getting into a much larger fight. I read someone call it “Trump’s Reichstag Moment”- I don’t think it’s that yet, but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if he tries to leverage this into making it a bigger issue. Let’s hope rational minds across the political spectrum change the course of where this is going.

PurpleAmerica’s Legal Aside

Trump’s decision to summon the National Guard overruled the authority of California Governor Gavin Newsom, who normally would have control in his state for police actions like this. At least 118 immigrants were arrested in operations across the city over the past week, which led to tense scenes as crowds gathered outside businesses thought to be raided. The LA County Sheriff's Department said crowds "became increasingly agitated, throwing objects and exhibiting violent behavior", prompting police to use tear gas and stun grenades. Governor Newsom, along with the LA mayor and a California congresswoman said in separate comments they believed local police could handle the protests. Twenty-nine people were arrested, according to local officials. Trump called up the National Guard anyways.

So you may be asking, can Trump do that?

The National Guard acts as a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Typically, a state's National Guard force is activated at the request of the governor. In this case, Trump has circumvented that by invoking a specific provision of the US Code of Armed Services titled 10 U.S.C. 12406, which lists three circumstances under which the president can federalize the National Guard.

If the US "is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation"; "there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the government; or "the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States".

So Trump could have said that he was unable to execute his immigration plan with regular ICE forces and used that as a predicate to calling up the National Guard. Trump didn’t do that. Instead, Trump said in his memorandum requesting the National Guard that the protests in Los Angeles "constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." He was basically calling Californian protesters insurrectionists in rebellion against the U.S.. Note, he did not do that on January 6th when the violence was far bigger and broader, the Capitol was under seige and people were calling to kill members of Congress and hang the Vice President. He also had more authority on January 6th since D.C. is much more subject to federal jurisdiction than states typically are.

One other note about calling up the National Guard in this instance. It means that the military is now acting as a police force in Los Angeles. There are lots of reasons you would not that to happen. Adam Kinzinger talks at length about what is going on there, including how that fact impacts what is going on on the ground in L.A..

Video: Explainer, LA and Troop Activation

PurpleAmerica’s Obscure Fact of the Day

The last time the National Guard was called up to take control in California was in 1992, during the Rodney King riots, at the request of the Governor, Republican Pete Wilson. It made sense then, since the city was basically under seige and the policemen were too few and too ill-equipped to deal with the widespread mayhem occurring.

The last time the National Guard was called up without Governor consent or request was in 1965 Alabama, over George C. Wallace’s disregard for protecting African American Civil Rights. But in that case, they were defending the rights of protesters.

PurpleAmerica’s Final Word on the Subject

There was no reason to call up the National Guard in this instance. The fact Trump did it, and that Stephen Miller has been particularly eager to do this, should scare the shit out of most of us. The casualness of how they want to invoke the Insurrection Act should give many of us pause.

LIKE WHAT YOU SEE? MAKE SURE TO SUBSCRIBE AND SHARE!!!

Footnotes and Fun Stuff

1. Or criminal law generally.

2. And let’s be honest, that was NEVER the overall goal. It was just the pretext he used to do what he is doing now. Fentanyl was not a huge problem coming in from Canada, yet he used it as a pretext for tightening the border with our neighbor to the north and starting a trade war with them. It’s nonsensical.

3. Something he refused to do on January 6th, when he had far more federal authority to do so.

4. It should be pointed out too that when Trump activated the National Guard in this instance, he was not only ignoring the Insurrection Act in doing so, he was handing over control to the military police control of a portion of a sovereign state. States Rights Republicans should be morally offended by this action; all those Tea Parties with their Gadsden flats should be IRATE. Are they? Nope.

5. Yes, I know that inherent in the phrase “illegal alien” is the idea that being an illegal alien is by definition being a criminal. What I mean by what I am saying is that “criminality” in this regard is something more than just a prohibited status. As Hailee Steinfeld responds to Matt Damon in True Grit, it is a question of whether something is wrong because it is merely prohibited (the legal term for this is “malum prohibitum”), or that it is wrong in itself as measured against our society’s ideas and mores (“malum in se”).