[anonymid]

I agree - there seems to be talking past each other about some very fundamental things:

How extensive is the violence of the protests? I saw some images shared of cars that were burned, maybe some buildings damaged. But also lots of images from other protests from previous years. Are the images of the same 3 cars and storefronts or many? Trump says the riots are out of control, Newsom says the protests are largely peaceful.

A basic claude search suggests the overall level of violence is moderate, and smaller than many recent protests [link](https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/ef220c3d-c6d9-4b4b-bb3f-2...)

How much of a strain do undocumented immigrants place on the US? You can answer this question from a financial and criminal point of view. From the point of view of crime, Trump and ICE are parading every violent undocumented immigrant they can, but that is not statistics. Do undocumented immigrants account for a significant portion of violent crime in the country?

Studies overwhelmingly show that undocumented immigrants are significantly less violent than the general population [link](https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/a92623b8-5c02-4c3a-84ae-f...)

From a financial point of view, what resources are undocumented immigrants straining, and is it to a significant degree?

The economic picture is much more nuanced. On the cost side, a criticized study (FAIR) reported the cost at about $182bn annually (this is likely an over-estimate). For comparison, undocumented immigrants pay about $100bn in taxes, boost the GDP, and create jobs. Mass deportation is estimated to cost $315Bn.

Studies show that the impact on wages is small.

The biggest cost factor ($78bn but estimates vary) seems to be K-12 education, and that is mostly born by states. [link](https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/29f10fcf-c8a7-4655-979f-b...).

[jandrese]

From what I've seen the burned cars are Waymos, which have their own set of issues and the burning is probably more opportunistic than related to the protest in general. People have been protesting Waymo for years now, obstructing them with cones and other such vandalism. One big thing is that since Waymos are driverless the violence is not being perpetrated against people.

[kjkjadksj]

Its LA. When the dodgers won the world series they burned a metro bus in the streets. And those events were way bigger and drew a lot more chaos and crowds. But of course downplayed due to a lack of a political angle at the time to milk out of the event, unlike now.

[seanmcdirmid]

According to LaTimes, 5 waymos were burned, so Google temporarily stopped servicing the area affected by the protests.

[jasondigitized]

The key tell is.....CNN for example is mentioning with specificity how many cops and military are on the ground but only uses the word "large groups" when talking about how many protestors and rioters there are. Mentioning the actual small numbers of protestors / rioters doesn't allow them to sensationalize this.

[seanmcdirmid]

The police and military are giving numbers, so you can easily publish those. I don't think the protesters are counting themselves, or maybe you could use AI and drones to do a survey of how many protests are out?

[ralfd]

Even with you trying to be factual, how you present this still shows your bias. Plus you rationalize the opposite arguments away (“overestimate”) and boost the ones you agree with.

From the first Claude link:

> Damage remains far below 2020 George Floyd protest levels

Ugh. Is this the bar now?

Aside from quantifications, I see the disagreement largely on the qualitative/philosophical/ideological (tribal) side. An inverse of the Jan 6th insurrection (which also caused much less damage than the George Floyd riots, and much less than now in LA, so was it ok in retrospect?). But the damage was not in property, but that the state and its laws itself was attacked. The sides are just now switched again between left/right: the former shout rule of law, the latter want resistance/insurrection.

[anonymid]

I do have a bias, and I don't think that negates the points. I think that's the benefit of establishing a common factual basis. You can argue with the bias by presenting competing facts, or a different interpretation of the facts, but at least we can agree on what we're starting with.

I think the question is - why is the national guard and the military being sent to CA without the governor's consent?

Part of the justification for this from the administration is that the riots are out of control, are posing an immediate risk of violence and property damage. Based on what I've found of the actual violence and damage being done, this justification does not hold up, as the violence and property damage are lower than previous protests in which there didn't seem to be a need for interference.

The rule of law is a different argument. What is the rule of law that is being undermined? I think here too you can have an argument about the operations that ICE is conducting, are they lawful - given that they are being conducted in sanctuary cities? Who has jurisdiction in this case? Is the administration lawful in sending in the national guard without the consent of the governor? What about the military? Newsom is now suing Trump over deploying the marines and the national guard despite his wishes, so there is a claim that such actions were unlawful.

Based on my brief research into this, ICE was operating in an unconstitutional way and making many procedural violations. City Sancutary status is lawful and has been upheld in the court of law. Newsom's challenge of Trump's deployment of the National Guard also held up in court. [link](https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/99a64b2d-e3b6-4d37-956f-c...)

When you say that "the law is being attacked" in this case, what do you mean?