The Trump ICE Raids: This Changes Everything.

You have the mayor of Los Angeles paying

them to evade law enforcement. That's a

crime. When

>> I heard this news about the

>> That's not what is happening. First of

all, they literally just said the mayor

of Los Angeles isn't the one quote

unquote footing the bill because charity

groups are doing it. Also, it's not

being paid to evade law enforcement.

It's receiving money so you could

survive. Which makes sense because

here's the thing. Our politicians have

screwed us as Americans. Look at this

stat right here. About 75% of

construction laborers in Los Angeles are

immigrants. Nearly half of those are

undocumented. What's on screen, by the

way, here, Camaro, this is where I go

bowling. This is where I fly. Camaro is

15 minutes away from me. All these

attacks against ICE agents, totally

unacceptable. But what's being shown

here, these protests, these attacks

against uh, you know, what a lot of

people call fascism, are really the

result of decades of politicians lying

to Americans and immigrants, saying that

come to America and if you follow our

laws, whether you come here legally or

illegally, eventually you'll be able to

get citizenship. Eventually you'll be

fine. and politicians have essentially

enabled this process of turning a blind

eye, both Democrats and Republicans, to

this massive immigration issue, which is

now evidenced by the fact that, you

know, half of the construction workers

in Los Angeles are undocumented. Now,

Los Angeles is also a sanctuary city.

But this idea that uh people are now

being round up because of their color of

the skin is problematic because it's

also not constitutional. Imagine if you

were born here or you're someone who has

citizenship and you get rounded up

because of the color of your skin.

That's inappropriate. And that's exactly

why a federal or a judge just issued an

order stopping these raids. And we can

actually see their ruling and look at

some of the components uh of their

ruling. So in their ruling, the judge

argues from the central district of

California federal judge. This is a

temporary restraining order that they've

implemented, mind you. So two temporary

restraining orders. one providing access

for people who are detained, the right

to confidential phone calls with uh

immigration assistance groups or

attorneys or both. Uh as well as the

requirement that reasonable suspicion be

used uh to ascertain that somebody is

indeed an illegal immigrant before just

arresting people because they look like

a Mexican or whatever, which is highly

unconstitutional.

Uh so in the brief here the judge cites

previous case law suggesting that what

you need are articulable fact

articulable facts. So basically specific

things that you could reference to say

here is why we believe we are going to

stop this person because we have reason

to believe they are an illegal

immigrant. I gave an example of this

earlier. I'll give you a quick recap of

an example. When I worked in law

enforcement as a volunteer for three

years, uh we were on the road once. So,

I'm sitting in I always like to call it

the co-pilot seat in the car. We get a

call out that there's a man uh who just

uh held up a barber shop with a gun or

brandished a firearm in some form of an

argument in a barber shop. Uh the male

suspect was fleeing on foot from Davy

Road westbound uh towards Nova

University at 9:00 p.m. at night, which

usually you don't have a lot of people

around at that time, wearing a black

hoodie and black pants, and they're

about 5'9 tall.

the car that I was in uh was on one of

the roads adjacent to Nova University.

And sure enough, within about 30 seconds

of the call, we see somebody who matches

that exact description. 5'9, black

hoodie, black pants. Uh, and the the

officer driving hops the curb, drives

right in front of the individual, lights

on, gun drawn, window down, uh, points

the gun at the individual, hands up,

takes him to the ground, pats him down,

clears him. Wrong guy. The reason I

share this story is because it gives us

an understanding of what a reasonable

suspicion is. Because most of us don't

know about the three criminal justice

standards in law enforcement. You can

have a casual encounter, which is really

where an officer just walks up to you

and asks you questions. You're not

required to uh answer those questions.

Certain laws do have requirements that

you identify yourself, which is

different from like I mean it could be

stating your name, which could be

different from providing an ID, but

really topic for a different video. Then

there's a reasonable suspicion standard,

which is an example like the one that I

gave you, where here's somebody at a

time where we have facts to suggest that

somebody matching this description has a

gun and was willing to brandish it based

on information that we're getting either

from calls or video or whatever dispatch

is receiving. That's enough to give an

officer reasonable suspicion to stop and

detain somebody, but only for the length

of the encounter. Now, after like you

can't pat this person down and go, "This

doesn't he doesn't have a gun. We sent a

picture to the barber shop. This isn't

the guy." We can't hold the person

anymore under reasonable suspicion. You

can only hold or detain somebody until

that reasonable suspicion rises to what

is called probable cause that they are

indeed the correct suspect or enough

time for you to ascertain that they are

not the correct suspect and then you

release them. So, reasonable suspicion

requires a lot more evidence than just a

hunch. Like, you can't apply this to

everyone. like let's let's pull over

everybody walking east or westbound now

towards university uh Nova University

that wouldn't be specific enough to rise

to the element of reasonable suspicion.

So this is really important here because

in this case or in this ruling the judge

essentially outlines that you need to

have specific intelligence that you can

actually say hey here's why we stopped

that individual. We have a photo of them

being a rapist. this is what their

description is. They have tattoos on

their shoulder. We know they're illegal.

We know they're undocumented. We know

they're a criminal. Whatever. We have

evidence that we could point to that

suggests that person who works for that

company at that job site is a criminal

and is undocumented. That person, we

have a reasonable suspicion to believe

that they are a criminal or, you know,

undocumented or whatever. We're going to

arrest them to investigate it. Now, if

they pull out a passport and say, "Hey,

I'm a citizen." All right, reasonable

suspicion ends. You're not undocumented.

If they don't, then you could be

deported. But this idea of let's go

round up every brown person stops with

this executive order, which then of

course people then get fussy and then

they're like, wait, what's a brown

person? Like what about like our Indians

getting rounded up or people from

Pakistan or the Middle East or whatever,

right? People get really fussy when it

comes to like racial stuff. So let's

just keep it as neutral as possible.

Just be aware everybody's got something

to complain about generally when it

comes to race. But uh it's worth noting

they mentioned here that there just

isn't any case law to suggest that just

because somebody doesn't speak English

or speaks English with an accent is not

reasonable suspicion enough to suggest

that somebody is illegal. And the reason

for that is it would apply too broad of

an authority around too many people who

don't speak English and say, "Oh, okay.

Well, that means millions of people who

could be citizens are undocumented

simply because they don't speak

English." and that is being ruled as

unconstitutional by this judge. Now,

these restraining orders could get

overthrown. But the judge also argues

that is unreasonable to argue that, hey,

well, we're just going to go where

illegal immigrants tend to work, like

car washes or day laborers in the Home

Depot parking lot or construction sites.

We're just going to go there because

that's where there might be a higher

percentage of them, and round them all

up. Again, this being found

unconstitutional by this particular

judge because it's seen as applying too

broad of a quote unquote reasonable

suspicion. Instead, you'd need to have

very specific evidence. And the judge

cites that it seems like the ICE agents

are specifically targeting Latinos, that

they're not picking up people who are

Persian or Russian, uh, which Persian

would be like Iranian, right? Anyway, uh

it is well established that the

deparation of constitutional rights

unquestionably constitutes irreparable

injury. This is one of the standards for

applying a temporary restraining order.

Two of which were applied now. Uh and

what you'll find, this is where they

talk about how

people who are detained reserve the

right or must be given the opportunity

for confidential phone calls with their

attorneys, legal representatives, and

legal assistance at no charge. So, you

can't charge them 10 bucks or whatever

to get phone credits at a jail facility.

Uh, this is about some cartel. I thought

this was more uh ICE footage that Fox

was showing, but anyway. Uh, and you

need reasonable suspicion to actually

conduct these stops. And you cannot use

for your reasonable suspicion race or

ethnicity as as sort of like a sole

element or even a combination of these.

the type of work somebody does, being at

a particular location like a towy yard,

a pickup site, agricultural site or

whatever, being Spanish speaking or

speaking English with an accent or your

apparent race or uh ethnicity.

So, this is so ordered. This is the

latest order that sort of limits some of

these uh Trump raids in California uh

which have been widely considered a

violation of the fourth amendment uh

which remember the constitution provides

that anybody within the jurisdiction

thereof of the United States is

protected by our constitutional uh

amendments. Now, what's fascinating

about that is we do have what's called

expedited deport or expedited removal

processes which limit the due process

you're entitled to. If you can't prove

that you've been in the United States

for less than or sorry, for more than

two years. So, if you can't prove you've

been here for more than two years, you

could actually get removed from America

without due process anywhere in the

United States. Trump admin 1.0 I know

expanded that ruling to the entire

United States or application of the rule

to the entire uh United States. So

anywhere in the United States, ICE can

pick you up and if you can't prove

you've been here for less than 2 years,

you may never see an immigration judge.

Now there's an argument like is that

actually constitutional? But it's been

going on since even the Obama days

though. In the Obama days and even

George Bush days, it was typically

within uh 100 miles of the border and

for a more limited duration at one point

as low as just two weeks. Uh, of course,

the Department of Homeland Security

argues that, hey, like we're just

arresting murderers and MS-13 gang

members, pedophiles, and rapists. And

again, this is where a judge responds

and says, okay, well, then you should

have plenty of reasonable suspicion that

you could articulate why you were

specifically picking up one person.

Going around and just picking up a 100

Mexicans because they're from Mexico is

a violation of our constitution. And

it's actually one that I disagree. I

totally agree with uh that like it is a

violation of the constitution. I

personally think we need uh and I I even

pitched this when I ran for governor in

2021. We need a comprehensive legal

immigration process. If you want to tell

everybody the border sealed now, we're

not giving anybody else immigration

who's coming in. Fine. Then set that

standard. But you need to deal with the

people who are here that were misled for

decades by our politicians. And going up

rounding everybody up just because they

look Mexican is just And yeah,

I'm going to use that word because I

think it's disgusting. Uh so like here

lead plaintiff of the lawsuit says he

and co-workers were sitting at a bus

stop waiting for their ride to a

construction job when armed mass agents

in plain clothes poured out of several

unmarked vehicles and ran towards them

grabbed and handcuffed them ever before

ever asking for identification was

arrested detained for three weeks and

now is facing deportation again like

there's not even a hey are you Jose

Gonzalez III

to artic, you know, to to verify your

reasonable suspicion that, oh, you were

the person we were looking for. It's you

look like an illegal out.

That's messed up. So, anyway, that gives

you a little bit of a breakdown of

what's going on here. And I guess if

anybody's concerned about it, we can

always end it with the usual. Make sure

to get life insurance in as little as

five minutes by going to mechan.comlife.

Paid sponsor of the channel. You can get

life insurance in as little as five

minutes. Apple Pay, Android Pay for it.

super easy to do. Uh, and um, I think

the younger you are, the cheaper it is

for you to sign up for it usually. And

it's probably a good idea to look up.

Uh, check it out at medcaven.com/life.

That's mekevin.com/life.

Cool.

Very well.

Let's look at some of the comments here.

So, somebody writes, "Hold up. So, it's

okay to hire and promote by race,

gender, or sexual preference, but not

stop somebody for asking for your

papers." Hm.

Where do you make up the like do you

just like pull this out of thin air

or something? Like who says it's okay to

hire based on race, gender, or sexual

preference? It's not okay to do that.

It's not okay to hire or promote based

on those things. These are protected

classes. Uh and then you're saying, "But

it's not okay to ask somebody for your

papers." That's not what they're doing.

They're not walking up to white people

going, "Hey, show me your legal."

They're not walking up to people who

look Russian or Ukrainian or Chinese.

You think Korea Town's getting raided?

You think ICE is wandering around

knocking on all the sushi joints uh in

in LA or or you know uh FA places going,

"Oh, Show me your papers." No,

they're targeting people who look

Mexican or Latino, and that's

unconstitutional.

So, like I I don't know where you come

up with a a comment like that. Like, who

wrote that for you? Uh it can't be you

because it's so unreasonable.

But uh let's see here.

Uh what else do we have? Let's see.

Somebody says Obama can be thanked.

Obama was a big uh uh proponent of using

expedited removal, but typically only

within a two week period and within a

100 miles of the border. Donald Trump

really uh you know expanded the use of

expedited removal which again I'm like

I'm surprised

I I won't be surprised to see that get

substantially challenged especially now

in the Supreme Court at some point in

the future.

Somebody writes took me three years to

get to America and five years to get to

citizenship not to mention $20,000 for

all the loyal fees and such legal fees

and such lawyer fees and such. Yeah,

it's such a im immigration is such a

messed up stupid process. Honestly, it's

it's really really really bad. Somebody

says, uh, while I don't agree with the

other commentary, isn't DEI precisely

based on race? Well, I mean, but that's

why everybody's like revoling against

that now. I mean, yeah, you're right.

DEI is a form of promoting over uh or

like in favor of race rather than, you

know, merit potentially or lower

standards, right? Uh this sort of goes

to the affirmative action debate which

kind of says oh well you were

disadvantaged as a child or you grew up

in a poor school environment so you

didn't have the opportunities that

richer people did to get a better

education to have better scores or to

work you know in a more efficient manner

or whatever and so you get aided by

affirmative action or DEI style

policies. Obviously Americans have

revolted against this because yes that

is racist. Like let's be real anytime

you look at those things it is a form of

racism. It's not, you don't even need to

use the word reverse racism. It's just

it's racism, right? Uh so like you pass

up a more qualified white doctor in

favor of, you know, a different race

who's less qualified. Like Elon says,

yeah, lives could be affected by that.

So you have to realize like there's like

there's wrong on both sides. This is why

immigration is so broken. Both sides

have wrongs. Uh but these are the

extremes of both sides, right? At the

extreme of the right is go round up

everybody who looks Mexican. The extreme

of the left is only promote people who

have lower scores to be doctors and save

people's lives because we need racial

equality

uh that is you know above and beyond the

uh statistical equality in a particular

community. For example, you know, should

50% of all doctors be one race and 50%

be of another race if in that

neighborhood the population is made up

of 90% one race and 10% the other,

right? So like what's your definition of

equality? So this is where you could see

there are the extremes of both the left

and the right. Why not advertise these

things that you told us here? I feel

like nobody else knows about this.

>> We'll we'll try a little advertising and

see how it goes.

>> Congratulations, man. You have done so

much. People love you. People look up to

you.

>> Kevin Pra there, financial analyst and

YouTuber. Meet Kevin. Always great to

get your take.