By Qamar Bashir
Loss Angeles, one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the United States, has become the flashpoint of a deepening constitutional and humanitarian crisis. What began as a federal crackdown on undocumented immigrants has now snowballed into mass protests, legal confrontations, and a dangerous standoff between federal authority and state governance. President Donald Trump’s fulfillment of his campaign promise to deport “millions and millions” of undocumented immigrants has triggered a sequence of events that many fear could push the republic to the brink.
The deployment of 4,100 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to enforce Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Los Angeles was ordered by the president under the Insurrection Act of 1807—an act traditionally invoked to suppress rebellion. However, this action was taken without the consent of California’s governor, in direct contradiction of the 10th Amendment which preserves the sovereignty of states. Governor Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and Attorney General Rob Bonta all denounced the deployment, with legal actions initiated to block federal troops from operating on state soil. They warned that this unprecedented federal intrusion amounted to a political stunt that undermines state rights and weaponizes the military against civilians.
During a contentious congressional hearing, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth defended the deployment but stumbled when asked to cite the exact legal basis for bypassing state authority. His testimony, marked by ambiguity and circular justifications, drew sharp criticism from lawmakers who viewed it as an alarming admission of executive overreach. Meanwhile, President Trump, addressing a rally, escalated the rhetoric further by declaring that anyone who burns the American flag will face one year in prison—despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Texas v. Johnson (1989) that flag desecration is protected under the First Amendment as symbolic political speech. This raised serious questions about how far the administration is willing to stretch constitutional limits to enforce its immigration agenda and silence dissent.
In the streets of Los Angeles, mass protests erupted. While the majority of demonstrations remained peaceful, isolated incidents of vandalism, arson, and clashes with law enforcement did occur. Protesters burned flags to express defiance, while authorities responded with rubber bullets and mass arrests. But unlike the 1992 Rodney King riots, this unrest was limited in scale and geography—mostly confined to a few downtown blocks—yet symbolically far more consequential. It revealed a nation increasingly divided on not just immigration, but governance itself.
Amid these developments, ICE operations came under further scrutiny when it was revealed that many of the agents conducting raids were not government employees but private contractors, incentivized by a pay-per-arrest model. Disturbing reports emerged of masked individuals in unmarked vehicles attempting to detain children from elementary schools, falsely claiming parental consent. Fortunately, school officials resisted, preventing what could have been a tragic episode. This bounty-style enforcement has drawn outrage from legal experts and human rights groups, who see it as a dangerous erosion of accountability and due process.
Los Angeles, with nearly 1 million undocumented immigrants, represents the very mosaic of modern America. Its residents are nearly 49% Hispanic, 23% non-Hispanic White, 11% Asian, and 9% Black. Many undocumented immigrants have lived here for years, pay taxes, and raise American-born children. Yet the aggressive, indiscriminate nature of ICE’s operations has swept up individuals based not on criminal records but on appearance, language, and origin. The result has been broken families, frightened communities, and a growing perception that this crackdown is more about optics than justice.
Several political leaders have added their voices to the chorus. While Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass described the military presence as unlawful and provocative, other national figures offered mixed responses. Senator Bernie Sanders warned of a dangerous descent into authoritarianism, while Senator Tom Cotton supported the move, urging a stronger show of federal force. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum demanded due process for Mexican nationals caught in the raids, insisting that most are law-abiding individuals, not criminals. These statements, although divergent, reflect the magnitude of concern shared by both domestic and international observers about the consequences of using military power to enforce immigration policy.
Equally telling is the sentiment of the general public, widely shared across social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter). Supporters of Trump’s actions argue that law and order must be preserved at all costs and accuse liberal cities of protecting criminals. Some even cheered the arrests and called for more aggressive crackdowns. Others, however, viewed the deployment of Marines and National Guard to detain immigrants as draconian and unconstitutional. Many feared that militarized immigration enforcement would soon be used as a broader political tool to intimidate opposition and suppress dissent. A recurring theme among dissenters was the belief that this kind of power grab represents not patriotism, but creeping authoritarianism. One viral comment read: “This is not law enforcement. This is political theater with tanks.”
While America has seen deportations under prior administrations, never has the strategy been so kinetic, so public, and so constitutionally ambiguous. The present approach tramples on due process and bypasses civilian courts, replacing legal mechanisms with brute force. If undocumented immigrants accused of crimes are to be deported, that must happen through established legal procedures—evidence, hearings, and rulings—not through masked arrests and military interventions. Otherwise, the very concept of justice is hollowed out.
What’s at stake now is far more than immigration enforcement. It’s about the rule of law, the balance of power, and the soul of the American republic. If the federal government continues to override states, silence dissent, and criminalize protest, the nation risks transforming its democracy into a centralized regime driven by executive fiat. There is an urgent need to pause, reflect, and correct course. Deportation of violent criminals may be justifiable, but it must be conducted through lawful and ethical means—not under the shadow of tanks and in violation of the Constitution.
Let us be clear: restoring order does not require rejecting justice. Protecting borders must not mean abandoning freedoms. If America is to remain a beacon of democracy, then it must choose sanity over spectacle, principle over power, and law over lawlessness.
Peace be upon America, and peace be upon its people. May we remain governed by the Constitution—not by campaign promises written in anger and enforced through fear.
About Writer :Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister at the Embassy of Pakistan to France
Macomb, Michigan, USA
