logo
The forgotten man who was California's original king of deportation

The forgotten man who was California's original king of deportation

He sent federal immigration agents into Southern California communities, farms and workplaces vowing to drive 'illegal aliens' back across the border.
His raids regularly netted hundreds of arrests a day and he once boasted about apprehending 70,000 people in a single month in San Diego County alone.
When L.A. declared itself a 'sanctuary city' for Central American migrants, he vowed to have Washington cut off the city's federal funding. He took pride in arresting undocumented workers when they showed up to collect their lottery winnings.
Time magazine once captured him surveying a crackdown on the border that netted nearly 2,800 arrests in one 24-hour period.
'Isn't this fun!' he said.
Before Donald Trump and Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem, there was Harold Ezell.
Ezell was a mid-level manager in the federal immigration bureaucracy who nonetheless ran one of it — not the — biggest deportation operation in California history. His title was regional commissioner of the Immigration and Nationalization Service. But with the blessing of Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, Ezell eagerly emerged as a national figure of both scorn and love, railing against illegal immigration and using his troops to, as he put it, turn back the 'invasion' and return America to 'Americans.'
'The reason why you have control of immigration is that you can assimilate a certain number of people every year into your culture, into the American way, into America, America's lifestyle,' he once explained to Times reporter Laurie Becklund. 'Already, you need to know Spanish to navigate your way around downtown.'
Ezell is a largely forgotten name in a largely forgotten immigration war.
It was an era before a powerful immigrant rights movement, before the rise of Latino politics in California. Until recently, it seemed to many like a throwback to an outdated, crude form of border enforcement we'd probably never see again.
But it's worth considering Ezell's war and its aftermath as we try to make sense of what's happening before our eyes on the streets of Southern California.
Federal agents have arrested 2,800 people since the beginning of President Trump's immigration sweeps a month ago.
It feels like a stunning number, a quantification that adds to the sense of terror and upheaval spreading across immigrant communities.
But compared to the heights of the Ezell raids, these numbers seem small by comparison.
Of course, California was a different place in the 1980s – much more white, more Republican (Reagan won big in 1980 and 1984) and, according to polling, much more concerned about illegal immigration. As late as 1993, a Times poll found a whopping 86% of respondents said illegal immigration was a problem.
Ezell is easier to understand from the prism of Reagan's 'Morning in America' era. The son of a pastor from Wilmington, Ezell made his name as an executive at the Wienerschnitzel hot dog chain before getting into Republican politics (he once quipped 'It's hamburgers that hire illegals because they have kitchens.').
Even critics who considered his policies cruel and racist – and there were many – admitted that behind the bluster there was the charm of a true believer. There was a scorched-earth quality to his raids. The feds targeted race tracks (forcing Del Mar to temporarily close), public transit and, notably, factories with the hope employers would get the message and hire citizens. This traffic sign — showing a family running across a road —came to symbolize his era.
But it did not take long to see a certain futility in the crackdown.
Ezell himself admitted in 1986 that all the arrests were not keeping up with the estimated 2,000 new border crossings each day. He insisted it was about sending a message. That same year, Congress passed the landmark Immigration Reform and Control Act, which gave a path to citizenship to more than three million immigrants here illegally. Ezell turned to getting the word out about amnesty, infamously donning a mariachi hat and singing 'Trio Amnestia' at one event.
Ezell eventually became a major supporter of Proposition 187, the California measure that prohibited undocumented workers from receiving public assistance. The measure passed, but it began a political backlash to anti-immigration policies. Changing attitudes and demographics made California much more supportive of immigration as a benefit to the economy and the culture.
Ezell died in 1998 and did not live to see the remarkable transformation.
But as my colleague Gustavo Arellano noted in his excellent podcast on Prop. 187, the extremism of the 1980s and 1990s anti-immigration movement were also the seeds of its destruction.
I asked Arellano about all this. 'Stephen Miller should learn well from Ezell, but not in the way he would like to think.' History has not been kind to Ezell, he said, and 'that's how history is already remembering Miller. It's not too late to change that.'
William Barnes writes: 'My favorite California beach is the one of my youth, Moonlight Beach in Encinitas, Calif.'
Jot McDonald writes: 'Ancillary Beach. It has the whitest sand!'
Amy writes: 'Easy. Huntington Beach.'
Email us at essentialcalifornia@latimes.com, and your response might appear in the newsletter this week.
A selection of the very best reads from The Times' 143-year archive.
Have a great weekend, from the Essential California team
Diamy Wang, homepage internIzzy Nunes, audience internKevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@latimes.com. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Top Republicans rally around Bondi as MAGA rages over Epstein
Top Republicans rally around Bondi as MAGA rages over Epstein

Axios

time30 minutes ago

  • Axios

Top Republicans rally around Bondi as MAGA rages over Epstein

Senior GOP lawmakers are rallying behind Attorney General Pam Bondi, largely siding with President Trump that she should stay in her office. Why it matters: The Republican Party is tearing itself apart over the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, with MAGA faithful turning on Trump for the first time in his second term. "It's definitely a full reversal on what was all said beforehand, and people are just not willing to accept it," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) told the New York Times on Monday. "The president is just forgiving her, because she's a loyal soldier and he likes her and he doesn't want to go through the messy confirmation process of getting someone else," Megyn Kelly said on her radio program on Monday. But Trump's congressional Republican allies are backing him up. "The president seems happy with her," Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters on Monday. "My assumption is she's making the best out of a situation that has been hanging around for a long time." Asked if he has confidence in Bondi amid the Epstein fallout, House Speaker Mike Johnson said: "I do." Zoom out: Trump is trying to tamp down the tension in his party and has urged his "boys" to stop criticizing her handling of the Epstein files. "LET PAM BONDI DO HER JOB — SHE'S GREAT!" he said, calling Epstein "somebody that nobody cares about." Trump isn't prepared to change course over how his administration has handled the Epstein evidence, Axios' Marc Caputo reported Monday. But his team is considering at least three ways Trump could try to defuse the issue, including appointing a special counsel. The bottom line: "I have all the confidence in the world in" Bondi, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told Axios. "I'm with the president on this one."

The Trump Administration Is About to Incinerate 500 Tons of Emergency Food
The Trump Administration Is About to Incinerate 500 Tons of Emergency Food

Atlantic

timean hour ago

  • Atlantic

The Trump Administration Is About to Incinerate 500 Tons of Emergency Food

Five months into its unprecedented dismantling of foreign-aid programs, the Trump administration has given the order to incinerate food instead of sending it to people abroad who need it. Nearly 500 metric tons of emergency food—enough to feed about 1.5 million children for a week—are set to expire tomorrow, according to current and former government employees with direct knowledge of the rations. Within weeks, two of those sources told me, the food, meant for children in Afghanistan and Pakistan, will be ash. (The sources I spoke with for this story requested anonymity for fear of professional repercussions.) Sometime near the end of the Biden administration, USAID spent about $800,000 on the high-energy biscuits, one current and one former employee at the agency told me. The biscuits, which cram in the nutritional needs of a child under 5, are a stopgap measure, often used in scenarios where people have lost their homes in a natural disaster or fled a war faster than aid groups could set up a kitchen to receive them. They were stored in a Dubai warehouse and intended to go to the children this year. Since January, when the Trump administration issued an executive order that halted virtually all American foreign assistance, federal workers have sent the new political leaders of USAID repeated requests to ship the biscuits while they were useful, according to the two USAID employees. USAID bought the biscuits intending to have the World Food Programme distribute them, and under previous circumstances, career staff could have handed off the biscuits to the United Nations agency on their own. But since Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency disbanded USAID and the State Department subsumed the agency, no money or aid items can move without the approval of the new heads of American foreign assistance, several current and former USAID employees told me. From January to mid-April, the responsibility rested with Pete Marocco, who worked across multiple agencies during the first Trump administration; then it passed to Jeremy Lewin, a law-school graduate in his 20s who was originally installed by DOGE and now has appointments at both USAID and State. Two of the USAID employees told me that staffers who sent the memos requesting approval to move the food never got a response and did not know whether Marocco or Lewin ever received them. (The State Department did not answer my questions about why the food was never distributed.) In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told representatives on the House Appropriations Committee that he would ensure that food aid would reach its intended recipients before spoiling. But by then, the order to incinerate the biscuits (which I later reviewed) had already been sent. Rubio has insisted that the administration embraces America's responsibility to continue saving foreign lives, including through food aid. But in April, according to NPR, the U.S. government eliminated all humanitarian aid to Afghanistan and Yemen, where, the State Department said at the time, providing food risks benefiting terrorists. (The State Department has offered no similar justification for pulling aid to Pakistan.) Even if the administration was unwilling to send the biscuits to the originally intended countries, other places—Sudan, say, where war is fueling the world's worst famine in decades—could have benefited. Instead, the biscuits in the Dubai warehouse continue to approach their expiration date, after which their vitamin and fat content will begin to deteriorate rapidly. At this point, United Arab Emirates policy prevents the biscuits from even being repurposed as animal feed. Over the coming weeks, the food will be destroyed at a cost of $130,000 to American taxpayers (on top of the $800,000 used to purchase the biscuits), according to current and former federal aid workers I spoke with. One current USAID staffer told me he'd never seen anywhere near this many biscuits trashed over his decades working in American foreign aid. Sometimes food isn't stored properly in warehouses, or a flood or a terrorist group complicates deliveries; that might result in, at most, a few dozen tons of fortified foods being lost in a given year. But several of the aid workers I spoke with reiterated that they have never before seen the U.S. government simply give up on food that could have been put to good use. The emergency biscuits slated for destruction represent only a small fraction of America's typical annual investment in food aid. In fiscal year 2023, USAID purchased more than 1 million metric tons of food from U.S. producers. But the collapse of American foreign aid raises the stakes of every loss. Typically, the biscuits are the first thing that World Food Programme workers hand to Afghan families who are being forced out of Pakistan and back to their home country, which has been plagued by severe child malnutrition for years. Now the WFP can support only one of every 10 Afghans who are in urgent need of food assistance. The WFP projects that, globally, 58 million people are at risk for extreme hunger or starvation because this year, it lacks the money to feed them. Based on calculations from one of the current USAID employees I spoke with, the food marked for destruction could have met the nutritional needs of every child facing acute food insecurity in Gaza for a week. Despite the administration's repeated promises to continue food aid, and Rubio's testimony that he would not allow existing food to go to waste, even more food could soon expire. Hundreds of thousands of boxes of emergency food pastes, also already purchased, are currently collecting dust in American warehouses. According to USAID inventory lists from January, more than 60,000 metric tons of food—much of it grown in America, and all already purchased by the U.S. government—were then sitting in warehouses across the world. That included 36,000 pounds of peas, oil, and cereal, which were stored in Djibouti and intended for distribution in Sudan and other countries in the Horn of Africa. A former senior official at USAID's Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance told me that, by the time she'd left her job earlier this month, very little of the food seemed to have moved; one of the current USAID employees I spoke with confirmed her impression, though he noted that, in recent weeks, small shipments have begun leaving the Djibouti warehouse. Such operations are more difficult for USAID to manage today than they were last year because many of the humanitarian workers and supply-chain experts who once coordinated the movement of American-grown food to hungry people around the world no longer have their jobs. Last month, the CEOs of the two American companies that make another kind of emergency food for malnourished children both told The New York Times that the government seemed unsure of how to ship the food it had already purchased. Nor, they told me, have they received any new orders. (A State Department spokesperson told me that the department had recently approved additional purchases, but both CEOs told me they have yet to receive the orders. The State Department has not responded to further questions about these purchases.) But even if the Trump administration decides tomorrow to buy more food aid—or simply distribute what the government already owns while the food is still useful—it may no longer have the capacity to make sure anyone receives it.

Three Democrats win double-digit support in early 2028 presidential primary poll
Three Democrats win double-digit support in early 2028 presidential primary poll

New York Post

timean hour ago

  • New York Post

Three Democrats win double-digit support in early 2028 presidential primary poll

Former Vice President Kamala Harris is the 2028 Democratic presidential primary frontrunner by a substantial margin, according to a poll released Monday. Harris, who lost the 2024 race in a landslide to President Trump, received 26% support from Democrats and Democrat-leaning voters in the survey conducted by Echelon Insights. 3 Harris has reportedly been planning a political comeback since losing the 2024 presidential election to Trump. REUTERS Advertisement Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and California Gov. Gavin Newsom were the only other Democrats to muster double-digit support at 11% and 10% respectively. Rounding out the top five were Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), whom 7% of Democrats said they would vote for if the primary were held today, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who garnered a 6% backing. At 3%, entrepreneur Mark Cuban led the group of political outsiders included in the survey, with sports commentator Stephen A. Smith and comedian Jon Stewart receiving 1% apiece. Advertisement Thirteen percent of voters indicated that they were unsure who they would vote for, with the primaries still more than two years away. Support for Newsom and Buttigieg increased slightly when Harris – who is reportedly mulling a run for governor in California – was not included in the poll, with both polling at 12%. Ocasio-Cortez (9%) topped and Booker (8%) in that scenario, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (7%) jumped into the top 5. 3 Newsom traveled to South Carolina last week, the state that will hold the first Democratic primary of the 2028 cycle. AP Advertisement 3 Buttigieg was the mayor of South Bend, Ind., before he served four years in the Biden administration. AP On the Republican side, Vice President JD Vance – at 42% support – held a commanding 33-point lead over his closest rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who was backed by 9% of GOP and GOP-leaning voters. Secretary of State Marco Rubio (7%), former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (6%), Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (5%) and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy (4%) were within striking distance of DeSantis, but well behind Vance. Sixteen percent of respondents were unsure about who they would vote for.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store