The aggressive immigration enforcement actions initiated by President Donald Trump’s administration have stirred significant controversy in Southern California. Despite ongoing lawsuits and a recent court order, the operations show little indication of slowing down.
These operations, which commenced in early June in the Los Angeles region, have primarily targeted small-scale businesses including car washes, strip malls, and Home Depot parking lots. The crackdown escalated last week with raids on two farms associated with one of California’s largest cannabis companies, where a tragic incident occurred, resulting in the death of a worker who fell from a greenhouse roof during the raid. Authorities arrested 361 individuals in connection with the operations.
Tom Homan, President Trump’s chief border policy advisor, acknowledged the unfortunate outcome tied to the enforcement actions during an interview with CNN. “It’s obviously unfortunate when there are deaths,” he remarked. “No one wants to see people die.” Homan clarified that the individual who died was not in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at that time.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem emphasized that the administration intends to intensify its immigration crackdowns. This aggressive approach is supported by funding from the recently passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which totals approximately $150 billion aimed at bolstering Trump’s immigration and border enforcement strategies. Speaking at a news conference, Noem asserted, “We’re going to come harder and faster, and we’re going to take these criminals down with even more strength than we ever have before.”
Despite these efforts, support for strict immigration enforcement seems to be waning among the public. A Gallup poll released recently indicates a significant drop in support for stringent border measures since June 2024. The proportion of individuals wishing to reduce immigration plummeted from 55% to 30%, reversing a previously rising trend regarding immigration concerns.
The decrease in the desire for less immigration is observed across major political affiliations, most notably among Republicans, who reported a 40% decline in their preference for reduced immigration. Independents showed a 21% drop, and there was a 12% decrease among Democrats according to the poll’s findings.
Additionally, the poll revealed a record-high 79% of adults now view immigration as beneficial to the country, while only 17% view it negatively, marking the lowest percentage recorded for the latter sentiment.
In contrast, a Quinnipiac University poll from June highlights an unfavorable view of President Trump’s overall presidency, with 38% approval against 54% disapproval. Trump’s handling of immigration issues starkly reflects this discontent, with 54% of respondents disapproving of his approach and 56% opposing deportations.
Legal battles are further complicating the administration’s immigration strategies. Recently, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, appointed by President Biden, issued a temporary blockage on federal agents in Southern California from employing racial profiling in immigration arrests. This ruling emerged from evidence suggesting that agents were unfairly using race, job status, location, and language as basis for detaining individuals.
In response, the Trump administration has vowed to challenge the ruling. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated, “No federal judge has the authority to dictate immigration policy — that authority rests with Congress and the president.” Jackson asserted that enforcement operations entail skills and planning outside the jurisdiction of the courts, and indicated the administration’s confidence in reversing the ruling on appeal.
On Monday, the administration requested a federal appeals court to lift the judge’s order, seeking to resume immigration raids across seven counties in California. Legal experts express skepticism concerning the government’s chances of success in appealing the ruling, especially given the political landscape.
Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, commented on the complexities of the litigation, noting, “This is different from a lot of the other kinds of Trump litigation because the law is so clear in the fact-finding by the district court. So if you follow basic legal principles, this is a very weak case for the government on appeal, but it’s so hard to predict what will happen because everything is so ideological.”
Historically, it has been uncommon for appeals courts to intervene in such matters, but recent trends suggest potential shifts in judicial behavior.
For instance, in June, the U.S. Supreme Court authorized the federal government to deport convicted criminals to “third countries,” despite a lack of previous connections. The court also ruled 6 to 3, limiting federal district judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions blocking presidential policies, traditionally a check on executive power.
Still, experts caution that the legal terrain in this case may be less favorable for the administration than in other instances. Ahilan Arulanantham, professor of practice at the UCLA School of Law, emphasized the deep implications of such cases on citizens: “Obviously the immigration agent doesn’t know in advance when they come up to somebody whether they’re a citizen or a noncitizen or if they’re lawfully present or not.”
The continuation of the immigration sweeps has also led to a surge of additional lawsuits contesting the Trump administration’s strategies. Moreover, reports indicate significant staffing losses within the Justice Department’s unit tasked with defending the administration’s legal challenges, including policies on birthright citizenship, with nearly two-thirds of the unit’s personnel having departed.
The administration’s handling of last week’s raids on the cannabis farms has drawn increasing scrutiny from both Democrats and activist groups, with claims of disproportionate force. Representative Salud Carbajal (D-Santa Barbara) described the operation as “overkill,” highlighting the questionable appropriateness of targeting immigrant labor in a legal industry.
Representative Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles) critiqued Trump’s focus on immigrant farmworkers, noting their essential role in food production. He remarked, “How many MS-13 gang members are waking up at 3 a.m. to pick strawberries? O’yeah, zero! Trump said he’d go after ‘bad hombres,’ but he’s targeting the immigrant farm workers who feed America. Either he lied — or he can’t tell the difference.”
In defense, the White House addressed Gomez’s comments directly, posting on X, “That ain’t produce, holmes. THAT’S PRODUCT.”
Tragically, one of the workers affected by the recent immigration raids, Jaime Alanís Garcia, 57, succumbed to injuries sustained during the turmoil of the Camarillo operation. His family confirmed he was taken off life support following a catastrophic 30-foot fall from a greenhouse rooftop while attempting to evade immigration agents. Despite assurances from the Department of Homeland Security that Alanís was not among those being pursued, his family is seeking justice. A GoFundMe page initiated by his niece has garnered significant support, raising over $159,000 to aid the family, well above its initial $50,000 goal. “They took one of our family members. We need justice,” his niece stated.
image source from：latimes
