洛杉磯移民遣送暴動：加州州長與川普的決裂與美國聯邦制度的限制

近期洛杉磯爆發的移民遣送暴動，不僅反映美國社會在移民政策上的深刻分歧，更凸顯聯邦政府與州政府之間的權力鬥爭。事件的起因是美國移民及海關執法局（ICE）在洛杉磯展開大規模突襲，逮捕數百名無證移民，引發拉丁裔社區強烈抗議，最終演變成警民衝突，甚至導致國民警衛隊介入鎮壓。

在這場危機中，加州州長加文·紐瑟姆（Gavin Newsom）與川普政府徹底決裂。紐瑟姆公開譴責聯邦政府的執法行動“殘酷且不人道”，並指責特朗普利用移民問題煽動政治對立。而川普則反擊稱加州“縱容非法移民”，甚至威脅要削減聯邦撥款。然而，儘管雙方劍拔弩張，川普卻無法直接撤換紐瑟姆的州長職位，這背後涉及美國憲法所規定的聯邦與州分權原則。

1. 美國州長的產生方式：民選而非聯邦任命

在美國的政治體系中，州長並非由總統任命，而是由各州選民直接選舉產生。加州作為美國人口最多的州之一，其州長選舉獨立於聯邦政府，紐瑟姆是2018年由加州選民投票選出的民主黨州長，並在2022年成功連任。這意味著，除非紐瑟姆主動辭職、被彈劾或觸犯法律，否則川普（或任何一位總統）都無權單方面罷免他。

2. 聯邦與州的權力劃分：憲法保障州自治權

美國憲法第十修正案明確規定，未授予聯邦政府的權力由各州或人民保留。這意味著移民執法雖然是聯邦管轄範圍（如ICE的職權），但州政府有權決定是否配合聯邦政策。加州長期奉行“庇護州”政策，限制地方執法機構與聯邦移民部門合作，甚至撥款設立法律援助基金幫助無證移民對抗遣返。

川普政府雖可施壓（如威脅削減撥款或提起訴訟），但無法強制要求州政府執行聯邦移民政策。例如，2017年特朗普曾試圖取消加州的“庇護城市”地位，但最終被法院駁回，因為憲法並未賦予總統干預州內事務的絕對權力。

3. 政治對立加劇：兩黨鬥爭下的聯邦與州衝突

加州是民主黨的鐵票倉，而川普代表共和黨的強硬保守派，雙方在移民、環保、槍支等議題上本就勢同水火。此次洛杉磯暴動進一步激化矛盾——紐瑟姆指責特朗普“製造人道危機”以爭取右翼選票，而川普則抨擊加州“放任非法移民危害國家安全”。這種對立本質上是美國兩黨政治全國化的體現，但憲法框架下，總統無權因政策分歧罷免州長。

4. 歷史先例：總統與州長的權力拉鋸

美國歷史上不乏聯邦與州政府對峙的案例，例如：

1960年代民權運動：聯邦政府強制南方州廢除種族隔離，但無法直接撤換抵制政策的州長。

2020年新冠疫情：特朗普要求各州重啟經濟，但紐約州長科莫（Andrew Cuomo）公開反對並維持封鎖。

這些衝突均顯示，總統的行政權力受限於州自治權，除非州長行為違憲（如拒絕執行聯邦法院判決），否則聯邦政府難以干預州內人事任免。

5. 未來影響：聯邦制的挑戰與政治極化

洛杉磯暴動再次暴露美國聯邦制的脆弱性——當聯邦與州政府立場對立時，政策執行可能陷入僵局。隨著2024年大選臨近，移民議題將持續發酵，而加州與共和黨總統（無論是特朗普或其他候選人）的矛盾可能進一步激化。然而，只要美國憲法維持現有分權結構，總統“換不掉”州長的局面就不會改變，這也正是美國政治制度設計中權力制衡的核心體現。

結論：制度設計下的權力邊界

美國的聯邦制度決定總統與州長是平行關係，而非上下級。川普可以批評紐瑟姆，甚至通過司法或預算手段施壓，但無法像某些中央集權國家那樣直接撤換地方領導人。這種制度既保障各州的自治權，也導致在重大議題上可能出現政策分裂。洛杉磯暴動只是最新例證，未來類似的聯邦與州對抗仍將持續，成為美國政治常態的一部分。

Los Angeles Immigration Deportation Riots: The Fallout Between California’s Governor and Trump, and the Limits of the U.S. Federal System

The recent immigration deportation riots in Los Angeles not only reflect the deep divisions in American society over immigration policy but also highlight the ongoing power struggle between federal and state governments. The crisis began when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) launched a large-scale raid in Los Angeles, arresting hundreds of undocumented immigrants. The operation sparked fierce protests in the Latino community, escalating into violent clashes between police and civilians, and eventually prompted the deployment of the National Guard to suppress unrest.

During the turmoil, California Governor Gavin Newsom broke decisively with the Trump administration. Newsom publicly condemned the federal action as "cruel and inhumane," accusing Trump of weaponizing immigration to inflame political divisions. Trump, in turn, blasted California for “harboring illegal immigrants” and threatened to cut federal funding. However, despite the high tensions, Trump has no legal authority to remove Newsom from office—an outcome shaped by the U.S. Constitution's federalist structure.

1. How U.S. Governors Are Selected: Elected by the People, Not Appointed by the President

In the U.S. political system, state governors are not appointed by the federal government but elected directly by state residents. California, being the most populous state in the country, holds independent gubernatorial elections. Newsom was first elected as California’s Democratic governor in 2018 and re-elected in 2022. This means unless Newsom resigns, is impeached, or breaks the law, Trump—or any president—has no unilateral power to remove him from office.

2. Division of Powers: The Constitution Protects State Autonomy

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. This means that while immigration enforcement (like ICE operations) falls under federal jurisdiction, states have the right to decide whether or not to cooperate. California has long operated as a “sanctuary state,” limiting local law enforcement’s collaboration with federal immigration authorities and even allocating funds for legal aid to help undocumented immigrants fight deportation.

While the Trump administration can apply pressure—such as threatening to cut funding or filing lawsuits—it cannot compel state governments to enforce federal immigration policies. For example, Trump’s 2017 attempt to revoke California’s “sanctuary city” status was ultimately blocked by the courts, reaffirming that the Constitution does not grant the president unchecked authority over internal state affairs.

3. Escalating Political Polarization: Federal vs. State Conflict Under Partisan Tensions

California is a Democratic stronghold, while Trump represents the hardline conservative wing of the Republican Party. The two sides have long clashed on issues such as immigration, the environment, and gun control. The Los Angeles riots have only deepened the rift—Newsom accused Trump of “manufacturing a humanitarian crisis” to rally far-right voters, while Trump countered that California was “endangering national security by enabling illegal immigration.” This confrontation is a reflection of growing national political polarization, but under the constitutional system, a president cannot dismiss a governor simply due to policy disagreements.

4. Historical Precedents: Federal–State Power Struggles in the U.S.

Conflicts between federal and state authorities are not new in American history. Notable examples include:

• The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s: The federal government pushed to end segregation in Southern states but could not forcibly remove governors who resisted desegregation.
• The COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020: Trump urged states to reopen their economies, but New York Governor Andrew Cuomo defied him and maintained lockdown measures.

These examples show that presidential powers are limited by state autonomy. Unless a governor violates the Constitution—such as by defying federal court orders—the federal government cannot interfere with state-level personnel decisions.

5. Future Implications: The Challenge of Federalism and Growing Partisan Divide

The Los Angeles riots have again exposed the fragility of American federalism—when federal and state governments hold opposing views, implementation of national policy can stall. With the 2024 presidential election approaching, immigration will remain a flashpoint. Tensions between California and a Republican president—whether Trump or another candidate—are likely to escalate further.

Yet as long as the U.S. Constitution maintains the current balance of power, the scenario where a president can “fire” a governor remains impossible. This institutional design is a core feature of America’s system of checks and balances.

Conclusion: Constitutional Boundaries and the Limits of Executive Power

The American federal system establishes a parallel—not hierarchical—relationship between the president and state governors. Trump may criticize Newsom and apply pressure through legal or budgetary means, but unlike leaders in centralized political systems, he cannot directly dismiss a state leader. This structure protects state sovereignty but can also lead to fragmented policy responses on major national issues. The Los Angeles riots are just the latest example, and similar federal-state confrontations are likely to persist as a recurring feature of American political life.