Divided We Stand

In June 2025, I took part in the ‘No Kings’ demonstrations in Los Angeles as part of my coverage of illegal immigration in Southern California. This work began with the Borderlands project in 2024. These gatherings drew thousands of people denouncing the Trump administration’s immigration policy. Opposing the deployment of troops in the city, which was perceived as a form of intimidation, these engaged citizens called for an end to mass deportations and the release of those arrested under this policy. While most of the demonstrations remained peaceful, many clashes broke out between protesters and police and military forces. The most common consequences were traffic jams, property damage, vandalism and fires¹. This civil unrest was a direct response to the operations of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), which has been involved in stopping, questioning, and deporting undocumented or illegal migrants. Los Angeles, with its sizeable Hispanic population, has become an epicentre for tensions between federal authorities and local communities. The debate has become acutely polarised: the Trump administration and some conservative media outlets have labelled the protesters as rioters, while elected Democratic Party officials and their media supporters have accused the police and military of exacerbating tensions.

In the United States, the arrest and deportation of undocumented migrants is not exceptional, as all administrations have done it². Migrants making illegal border crossings are exploited by Mexican drug cartels, which control the main routes and impose a tax on anyone crossing through their territory. Many migrants use people smugglers who are associated with these mafia-like organisations. The money they acquire by trafficking migrants helps the cartels fund other illegal activities, such as the smuggling of guns and drugs, thereby extending their economic power and regional influence.

What were the demands of the Los Angeles protesters? I asked a number of them. Some said that they wanted a more open society, an end to ICE raids, and American citizenship for all. Many said that migrants play a key role in the economy by doing difficult and poorly paid jobs that others refuse to do. In my view, this plea in favour of cheap labour seemed to open the door to a variety of abuses. While the influx of migrants can effectively offset labour shortages, investments in education, training and housing are also required. Policies that favour a more lenient approach often generate hostile reactions in areas experiencing huge influxes of migrants. Populists view these developments as a threat to cultural identity and social cohesion. They argue that advocating for unlimited openness exposes society to the danger of ignoring the legitimate concerns of local populations with respect to safety and economic stability. When integration fails, it can lead to economic costs and social tensions. Many conservative thinkers are also concerned about the erosion of values and traditions in the face of globalisation and multiculturalism. These concerns form part of a broader debate about the long-term challenges posed by demographic change. “A nation is defined by its borders, its culture, and its people. If borders become permeable to the point where national identity is diluted, the nation itself could collapse”³. While the world is undeniably more interconnected today, civilisational identities continue to play a central role in global polarisation. Globalisation does not melt them away; rather, it lays them bare, forcing them into confrontation and hardening and reconfiguring them in the process.

As I document these events, I reflect on the extreme polarisation of current political discourse. Public opinion has never been so easy to manipulate, and doing your own research has never been more vital. Some protesters claim that this land was never legally ceded to the United States and that it was stolen from them by previous generations. Based on that historical injustice, they now demand citizenship as a right, as though a centuries-old debt were finally being repaid. Others, driven by the same anger, loot and burn the city they want to live in legally. To me, the chaos seems less the product of a genuine territorial debate than an ideological manipulation that most participants barely perceive. Questions of land and sovereignty are complex and almost unsolvable. Yet what strikes me most is the immediate danger of an entire nation’s social cohesion and sense of shared identity beginning to crack.