It took only moments at a press conference for the world’s attention to be magnified on Los Angeles. The city has already entertained nearly one week of social protests and civil unrest, complete with curfews, arrests, and a scorched earth approach to select areas.
Senator Alex Padilla attended a press conference by Secretary Noem. While attempting to ask a question, he was taken over by ICE agents, detained, and later released. Those isolated moments have become a visual anthem for protesters across the country to raise their voices to be heard.
Tensions have heightened in the current administration, with strong language being expressed for those who continue to protest. The issues involved are not limited to those of a natural/illegal status in the U.S. The undercurrent of historic racist bias has boiled to the point of visible recognition. The response from those supporting and opposing these demonstrations colors America’s current socio-political fabric. Despite threats of forced removal, incarceration, detention, and exportation, and negative broadcasts, protestors remain vigilant in their stance, and the government has matched these steps with a presence of visible force.
Sen. Alex Padilla shoved out of press conference, handcuffed by U.S. Secret Service
“Sen. Alex Padilla attempted to interrupt a press conference Thursday with Department of Homeland Security officials, including Secretary Kristi Noem, who was discussing local immigration efforts. Video from the incident shows several individuals forcibly removing Padilla from the conference as he said, “I am Senator Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary.”
“A spokesperson for Padilla’s office said he was detained, handcuffed, and thrown to the ground outside of the room where the press conference was being held” (LA Times, June 12).
A question remains that has yet to be addressed: “Why did the ICE official jump to this action?” The question was not even finished being stated by Padilla before these agents began to take him into custody. Was there a sense of distress to the environment expressed by Padilla? Did the ICE agents believe the Senator was a regular participant? To be in attendance, credentials had to be shared. This would dictate that the agents knew who Senator Padilla was. Yet, once the Senator begins to ask his question, the temperature of the moment changes for the worse. It’s a puzzling question at the preface of this incomprehensible action.
White House calls Sen. Padilla’s disruption at DHS press conference an ‘immature, theater-kid stunt’
This news episode brings up an analysis that other news reports were skittish to discuss: the issue of race. One of the interviewees notes the culture and physical profile of Alex Padilla. Taking into account Senator Padilla’s casual attire, coupled with his “brown features,” this simple cocktail of diversity placed the Senator in the unknown crosshairs of oppression. If this line is followed, the simplicity of Alex Padilla’s question is all it took to trigger a reaction to sequester the Senator, who is assumed to be unknown by the ICE agents and the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Is this all it took, a stereotyped profile to initiate a highly visible, uncivil arrest and containment of a sitting Senator? What this matter does is frame the institutionalization of racism in American psychology. Internal racism is witnessed by many in the current administration’s Cabinet Secretaries. To move beyond internal racism to institutional racism, in a matter of minutes, is not as much a shock as it is a confirmation of the current racial integrity of the U.S.
To soften a pedagogical blow, there are narrow approved positions, comments, statements, and resources one can use to lecture about current institutionalized racism. These forums and class sessions are becoming more of an exception rather than a rule. The years when these and similar matters were argued, debated, and widely discussed on college campuses are long since gone. The current academic standard is not to discuss, present, or float ideas around any form of a counter culture or alternative discourse. This line of thinking is a threat to the current administration’s directive to homogenize the American culture. A “whitewashing” of the cultural fabric is being waved in plain sight.
‘I was forced to the ground’ and ‘handcuffed’: Sen. Padilla speaks out.
Following Senator Padilla’s forced removal, Cory Booker and Democrats continue to hold the Senate Floor. The time is passed to Senator Cory Booker, and only the long-haul, respectful artists will take the time to review and provide Senator Booker the laurels he deserves in speaking out over the Alex Padilla incident. It’s important to point out that Senator Booker spoke to the Padilla arrest about one hour after the matter took place.
The comments by Senator Jeffries after hours in between the initial Senate floor statement by Senator Cory Booker are more tempered but retain the same power as those of Senator Booker. The analysis provided by Leader Jeffries frames a path forward with a subtextual nod to the organized protests for the weekend, June 14. The coined “Day of National Protest” (aka “No Kings Protest”) coincides with the 250th anniversary of America’s military and President Trump’s 79th birthday. Leader Jeffries does not explicitly reference this event, but the leading comments point to the temperature of the days leading to these nationwide displays of dissatisfaction with the current administration.
Live updates on the LA protests can be found on Integra DIY.
‘Some of the grossest behavior I’ve ever seen’: Sarah Longwell on Krisiti Noem’s cosplay and antics, MSNBC, June 12.
What we have here is an expression of how poor the American educational system is, and how limited the working knowledge of the common man regarding politics and basic government structures is. The question asked by the Senator is typically introduced at the secondary school education level. To hold a Secretary status and be a member of the president’s Cabinet, and not know a credible answer to this question is more than concerning. It’s a visual illustration of how minimal the current educational framework is in the U.S. Following the recent closure and dismantling of the Department of Education, the question remains, “Will America’s future education survive past the current defeated position?”
The remainder of the video discusses the Alex Padilla issue with more commentary by the Secretary Noem. The remarks are in direct contrast to the abundant visual reports of the incident and the direct comments from Senator Padilla himself. Secretary Noem is left to linger on a frail thread to present a rationale for the incident that took place at her press conference. In the days following, multiple pundits and reports have continued to clog the news space, accurately displaying the actions and comments which unfolded at this mark in time. The result, further fuel for the ongoing civil response and protests, which have expanded beyond the borders of Los Angeles.
This reaction by Governor Gavin Newsom articulates a potential presidential campaign that is taking advantage of the negative media to advance his appearance, presumed power, and control. This critique is not noted to minimize the importance of this conference in light of the ongoing issues in Los Angeles. Yet, when looking and hearing past the rhetoric lambasting the president, Governor Newsom appears to be speaking from a hollow identity. There are plenty of talking points, but if this were his first press conference, the governor would not be talking in such a determined tone with fiery, headline-catching quotations.
In The Playing Field
“Judge orders Trump to return National Guard to California’s control. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has slammed President Trump’s move as “purposefully inflammatory” and has been locked in a tense standoff with the president for days” (Axios, June 12).
Hours after this San Francisco judge’s ruling, a counter ruling was passed and put into effect.
“In a late-night order Thursday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals paused a court order that would have required President Trump to return control of the thousands of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
“The 9th Circuit’s emergency stay came hours after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco ruled that Trump broke the law when he mobilized thousands of Guard members amid protests over immigration raids, and must return the troops to state control by noon Friday” (LA Times, June 12).
These rulings could not be any more different. A whiplash of rulings that leaves a less-than-credible view of California’s higher courts. What can be discerned from the subtext of these counter rulings? Is there a bias in the courts? What did one judge read that the other missed? The country has already seen how the current administration has been able to manipulate court rulings in its favor. Not that this last-minute change was done to support the president. But the timing, the ruling, and the lack of a response from the White House do lead one to wonder.
Alan Lechusza
