SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Men dressed in tactical gear, operating unmarked vehicles without displaying credentials or agency affiliation, have infiltrated our neighborhoods," said Huntington Park Mayor Arturo Flores.
As U.S. President Donald Trump's "mass deportation" crusade continues, a mayor in Los Angeles County is calling on his city's police department to intervene, citing what he described as increasingly lawless conduct by federal immigration officers.
Arturo Flores, the mayor of Huntington Park, issued a statement on Saturday condemning what he called "masked abductions" by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which has spent the past month raiding workplaces, farms, and homes as part of the Trump administration's efforts to ramp up the deportation campaign.
"These are not lawful arrests. These are abductions," said Flores. "For more than a week, we have witnessed families being torn apart, children left without parents, and residents vanishing without explanation. Men dressed in tactical gear, operating unmarked vehicles without displaying credentials or agency affiliation, have infiltrated our neighborhoods in direct violation of our community’s values, civil rights, and the basic principles of due process."
Flores formally ordered the Huntington Park Police Department "to begin verifying the identities and authority of any individuals conducting such operations within city limits" and to enforce vehicle codes requiring cars to have visible license plates and agency markings.
On June 12, Huntington Park was turned into a national spectacle when it was targeted for a high-profile raid attended by Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS chief arrived with a squadron of masked, armed federal agents at a home DHS claimed was occupied by a dangerous criminal. But when they stormed the home with rifles, the only people inside were a pregnant mother and her four kids—all U.S. citizens.
The family was not arrested, but Flores said he has since received several reports of masked and unidentified federal officers snatching people off the streets in broad daylight.
"These actions have sparked rumors of unauthorized vigilantes or bounty hunters operating under the guise of federal enforcement, have triggered widespread fear and confusion throughout the community," he said.
Mayors across the country have issued strong condemnations to ICE's actions in their communities, while some have said they'd refuse to cooperate with federal immigration raids. However, Flores is one of very few who have gone a step further, urging local officers to intervene in situations where federal officers violate the rights of those they detain.
"This is not immigration enforcement. This is state-sanctioned intimidation," said Flores.
That sense of intimidation is spreading through communities across the Los Angeles area. As The Guardian reported on Saturday, the crackdown has left some of Los Angeles' Latino neighborhoods resembling "ghost towns" where people are afraid to leave their homes for fear of being snatched off the street next.
The sight of masked, unidentified officers in plain clothes abducting people without identifying themselves or giving any explanation for their arrests has become an increasingly common sight all across the United States as the Trump administration has turbocharged its efforts to round up undocumented immigrants, the majority of whom have no criminal records.
Though there is no federal statute requiring federal officers to identify themselves, past leaders of these agencies told CNN that masking has historically been reserved for highly sensitive work, like undercover operations.
"The way that they're carrying on without any visible identification—even that they're law enforcement, much less what agency they're with—it really is pretty unprecedented to see at this scale, and I think it’s very dangerous," said Scott Shuchart, a senior ICE official during the Biden administration.
Many videos have circulated of officers violating detainees' rights in flagrant ways while under the cover of anonymity.
On Saturday, multiple masked Customs and Border Protection officers were filmed brutally beating 48-year-old Narciso Barranco, the father of three U.S. Marines, in an IHOP parking lot in Santa Ana.
(Video: KTLA5, via @santaanaproblems on Instagram)
Video has spread across social media of officers forcing Barranco to the ground, striking him in the head at least six times, and kneeling on his neck, pushing his face onto the concrete before dragging the man, frightened and bloody, into an unmarked white van. According to Barranco's sons, he is undocumented, but has no criminal record.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) has called for the incident to be investigated.
"This is horrific, unacceptable violence by ICE—an increasingly rogue agency with zero respect for the law," she said.
In response to the attack on Barranco and others like it, two Bay Area legislators, state Sens. Scott Wiener (D-11) and Jesse Arreguín (D-7), introduced a bill on Monday that would require law enforcement at all levels, including federal, to identify themselves and bar them from wearing masks.
"People covering their faces, impersonating police officers—it erodes trust in law enforcement and it undermines community safety," Arreguín said.
The structural conditions that have historically preceded ethnic cleansing are now observable in the administration’s deportation efforts.
I have taught AP U.S. history for years, as well as Government and World History courses. I have written an original curriculum for Honors Economics. I coached successful Public Forum and Policy debate teams for five years. In addition to my professional experience, I am a close reader of both historical scholarship and current events. The conclusions that follow are drawn from a systematic comparison of this year’s immigration and due process developments with established patterns in the historical record.
The federal government is executing a coordinated legal and administrative campaign aimed at the identification, arrest, and removal of millions of undocumented immigrants. These efforts rely on expanded authority for military and federal agencies, the criminalization of municipal noncooperation, and the systematic dismantling of legal protections previously afforded to vulnerable populations. Though presented as standard immigration enforcement, the structure and language of these measures reflect a state-directed attempt to displace a racially and ethnically defined group. The legal apparatus includes provisions for indefinite detention, the arrest of elected officials, and the use of private contractors to operate beyond traditional channels of accountability.
These policies are not theoretical. They are codified in executive orders, agency directives, and prosecutorial actions. The stated goal exceeds the undocumented population, and enforcement does not rely on individualized findings of legal status. It is categorical. The administration describes its targets as “invaders” and “vermin” and frames sanctuary jurisdictions as criminal conspiracies. These terms do not function as rhetoric. They define policy. Laws criminalizing refusal to comply with deportation efforts are designed to eliminate legal and institutional resistance.
The most effective deterrent to escalation remains noncompliance at every level of implementation.
What follows is a chronology of recent actions taken or proposed during the second Trump administration, aligned with legal precedents from early Nazi Germany. These are not metaphors. Each section pairs language from contemporary United States policy with that of the 1930s German state, using identical structure and phrasing where historically appropriate. The purpose is to allow for clear legal comparison of governance models used to execute racialized mass removal.
In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14159 titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” The order suspended habeas corpus protections for undocumented immigrants, expanded federal authority over sanctuary jurisdictions, and authorized indefinite detention and mass deputization of local police under 287(g) agreements.
On February 28, 1933, Adolf Hitler enacted the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State. The decree suspended habeas corpus, granted the central government power over state authorities, and permitted indefinite detention and mass deputization of local police to suppress declared enemies of the state.
In April 2025, the Trump administration began removing civil servants based on prior involvement in diversity or civil rights programs. A directive issued April 2 targeted officials for dismissal or reassignment solely for ideological nonconformity.
On April 7, 1933, Hitler’s regime enacted the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service. This measure removed Jews and political opponents from public office based on ancestry or beliefs and mandated reassignment or termination for ideological deviation.
In May 2025, the Department of Justice ordered the identification of state and local officials who refused to assist with federal immigration enforcement. These officials were targeted for prosecution under statutes related to obstruction and harboring.
In March 1933, the Nazi regime began detaining opposition party members and regional officials who resisted centralized directives. Local leaders were prosecuted or removed for obstructing enforcement of national laws.
In February 2025, the Trump administration revoked federal support for PBS and NPR and initiated reviews of media funding for ideological violations. The stated aim was to eliminate sources of disinformation and enforce loyalty to national priorities.
In March 1933, the Nazi government enacted the Editors Law, revoked press credentials from noncompliant outlets, and placed all broadcast content under state control. The purpose was to remove disloyal voices and ensure total ideological conformity.
In May 2025, a Wisconsin judge was arrested for allegedly aiding an undocumented immigrant. Federal officials warned that similar acts of judicial noncooperation could be prosecuted as subversion.
In July 1933, the Nazi regime dismissed judges deemed politically unreliable and established special courts. Judges who issued rulings contrary to regime policy were disciplined or removed.
In April 2025, Trump officials proposed turning military bases into detention centers for families without legal review. These facilities would be operated by private contractors under emergency protocols.
In June 1933, Nazi authorities converted military and industrial sites into concentration camps. The camps detained prisoners without court oversight and were run by SS forces under emergency powers.
In May 2025, the Department of Homeland Security announced it was considering the arrest of Democratic members of Congress who protested at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. They were accused of obstructing federal officers and interfering with detention protocols.
In March 1933, the Nazi regime arrested parliamentary members and accused them of obstructing national authority. Resistance to regime policy was criminalized as a threat to public order.
Trump has constantly proposed legislation to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented parents. His proposals aim to redefine legal membership in the national community.
In 1935, the Nazi regime enacted the Reich Citizenship Law. The law stripped Jews of citizenship and redefined the legal criteria for national belonging.
The current phase of the Trump administration’s immigration policy reflects an early stage rather than a peak of repression. The legal and operational structure for targeted mass removal is being assembled through executive orders, bureaucratic purges, and prosecutorial test cases that redefine the limits of federal authority.
The scale of proposed removals exceeds historical precedent but has not yet reached full execution. Institutional resistance is inconsistent but has not been eliminated. Local and state officials retain procedural leverage if they choose to apply it. The most effective deterrent to escalation remains noncompliance at every level of implementation.
The policy direction is explicit. Continued repression is not a possibility but a stated intention. The presence of Latino Americans in federal agencies and military institutions has not prevented policy targeting based on national origin or perceived foreignness. Participation does not provide exemption from removal. The structural conditions that have historically preceded ethnic cleansing are now observable. The determining factor will be whether enough people act before enforcement becomes normalized.
A majority of voters are compassionate toward immigrants and understand that having 11 million people living and working without legal protections is not good for them or for working people in general.
In a recently conducted YouGov survey, designed by the Center for Working Class Politics and the Labor Institute, 63% of 2024 voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin said they supported “granting legal status to all illegal immigrants who have held jobs and paid taxes for at least three years and have not been convicted of a felony.”
Supporters surprisingly included 36% of those who voted for U.S. President Donald Trump last year.
That wording was taken directly from the American National Election Studies survey (ANES) of 28,311 respondents between 1996 and 2020. In my book, Wall Street’s War on Workers, I used the ANES survey to zero in on white working-class voters’ opinions across the country. The results were startling:
In 2016, only 32% supported granting legal status to undocumented (“illegal”) residents. By 2020, support had jumped to 62%.
We expected that voters of all shades and persuasions may have turned against immigrants after Trump highlighted the issue in his three campaigns, focusing attention (with the often-relentless help of Fox News) on a number of horrific but rare violent crimes apparently committed by the undocumented. He threatened the mass deportation of undocumented residents in 2016 and 2020 and then began a campaign of highly visible deportations after winning the presidency in 2024. But as the chart below shows voters in key swing states, all of which voted for Trump, still supported legalization, as of April 2025. (3,000 voters were surveyed.)
Here are the results broken down by the 2024 presidential vote in the same four states.
By party identification:
By ideology:
By class:
And by ethnicity:
The survey also shows that support for legalization is highest among younger voters: 76% of those 30 years of age and younger support legalization.
But isn’t immigration the big right-wing issue?
There is a big difference between controlling immigration at the border and criminalizing hard-working undocumented residents. You can be for secure borders and restrained immigration while also supporting legalization of the 11 million undocumented workers now living in the shadows.
Our analysis shows that a majority of voters are compassionate toward immigrants and understand that having 11 million people living and working without legal protections is not good for them or for working people in general.
Undocumented workers find it very difficult to exercise their rights. They can be forced to work for lower wages in poor conditions and have no easy recourse to complain about it without fear of being reported by their employers to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Those we surveyed clearly understand that this places downward pressure on wages in many occupational categories, hurting American workers as well as immigrants.
Arguing that undocumented workers do jobs that U.S. citizens no longer want to do completely misunderstands the labor market. If wages are pushed up, instead of down, good-paying jobs would be filled both by U.S. citizens as well as legalized immigrants.
So why aren’t the Democrats on it?
Honestly, I’m not entirely sure. But I suspect that the Democrats have drifted so far away from the working class that they don’t understand that legalization of undocumented workers is a working-class issue. I don’t know who does their polling, but I would bet they are not asking the kind of questions we are asking. They have long ago stopped trying to understand the needs and interests of working people.
For whatever reasons, the Democrats are letting Trump stomp all over undocumented workers. Yes, there is concern about specific immigrants who have been illegally detained and deported. Yes, there is mumbling about providing citizenship for Dreamers—those born here with undocumented parents. But there is radio silence about hard-working undocumented workers receiving legal status. This is a fight the Dems are choosing to avoid.
Trump’s weaponization of the immigration issue might have Democratic politicians on the defensive, but there might be another reason they’re choosing not to engage. The group that most wants immigrants to stay in the shadows are those who profit from low-wage labor.
There is a vast ecosystem of sub-contractors and temp agencies that supply undocumented workers for warehouse operations like Amazon’s and food-processing plants, like those of JBS and Tyson. Tens of billions of dollars in extra profits are made off the backs of these workers, few of whom have any way to exercise normal employee rights, much less fight to unionize. They can and are being exploited.
The employers who have their hooks into these undocumented workers also have their hooks into both political parties. They are not keen on uplifting their lowest-paid employees or having those who receive their political donations fighting for their rights.
The travesty of the two political parties not fighting the rights of these working people, even with strong polling supporting such a fight, is just one more reason why we need a new political entity, one that focuses on the needs and interests of all working people.
The billionaires have two parties: We need one of our own!