Arnold Schwarzenegger Blames L.A. ICE Raids on Republicans and Democrats' Lack of Immigration Reform: ‘They're All Political Hacks Rather Than Public Servants'
Arnold Schwarzenegger, former governor of California, commented on the Los Angeles immigration protests and ICE raids while on the red carpet for the Season 2 premiere of his Netflix series, 'Fubar.'
On the topic of President Trump's decision to send in the National Guard and the Marines to the site of the protests, Schwarzenegger told Variety, 'Well, I'm not so much interested in that as I am that the politicians have the responsibility to create immigration reform so we don't have to have this crap going on in the first place.'
More from Variety
Like Father, Like Son: Arnold and Patrick Schwarzenegger on Nepo Babies, Nude Scenes and 'Becoming the Greatest Star of All Time'
Ten Years After 'Kung Fury' Rocked Cannes, Director David Sandberg Unwraps 'Heartbreaking' Legal Chaos That Left Feature-Length Sequel in Limbo
'Kung Fury 2': Insane 10-Minute Sizzle Reel Leaked of Michael Fassbender, Arnold Schwarzenegger Action-Comedy Stuck in Legal Limbo Since 2020
'This is the result of Democrats and Republicans not being able to come together in this immigration reform. And so that's what needs to be done so that you don't have to go and start arresting people in the first place, so we know who is in this country and who is working here, who has the temporary working permit, who has the permanent working permit,' Schwarzenegger, who served as governor from 2003 to 2011, added.
In response to protests over the escalating ICE raids in L.A., Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops, which first arrived in the city Sunday. Since then, the president has sent an additional 2,000 troops as well as 700 Marines. The protests have so far been held around mostly around downtown L.A., where Mayor Karen Bass has imposed a nightly curfew.
'We don't even know who is in here,' Schwarzenegger said, referring to collecting data on undocumented workers. 'For decades now, they have been avoiding the subject because it's an advantage to both parties to not do it. So they're all political hacks, party hacks, rather than public servants.'
Gabriel Luna, who acted opposite Schwarzenegger in 'Fubar' Season 1 and currently appears in 'The Last of Us,' also commented on the ICE raids at the premiere.
'Abolish it. Abolish ICE altogether. It's a terrible waste of resources,' Luna, who is of Mexican descent, told Variety. 'Those resources could be funneled to some more effective ways of handling this immigration issue that they are saying we have. The 15 guys waiting to get a job at 5 a.m. at the Home Depot parking lot are not the ones we need to be worrying about, but that's who's getting scooped up,' he added.
The current wave of protests was initially sparked by growing threats of ICE raids late last week. A Home Depot in Paramount became the site of early protests when residents began seeing immigration authorities near the store last Saturday. 'I think everyone with a heart knows and stands on the right side of history…We're becoming increasingly more house cats. We need to be outside. We need to be in the street, and we need to show where we stand. Los Angeles is one of the biggest cities in the world, and the rest of the world goes the way that L.A., New York, Chicago, these places are going,' Luna continued. 'Today and yesterday, incredible, incredible marches in Chicago, incredible marches in New York. It just started, it really just started.'
Best of Variety
New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week
'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts?
25 Hollywood Legends Who Deserve an Honorary Oscar
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
19 minutes ago
- Axios
Public media funding cuts hit Chicago: WBEZ, WTTW brace for impact
President Trump and the Republican-majority U.S. House moved one step closer to cutting funding for public media, putting local organizations in limbo. The latest: The House passed a bill Thursday afternoon to cancel over $1 billion in funding for PBS and NPR, via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This funding was included in the 2025 fiscal year budget, but this action removes it. Why it matters: Federal funding for public media could vanish — and Chicago stations like WBEZ and WTTW are bracing for the fallout. The big picture: The move breaks decades of bipartisan tradition treating CPB funding as apolitical and throws public media companies into budgetary chaos. What they're saying: "If approved, this cancellation of funding would eliminate critical investments, stripping resources that we use to power independent journalism, educational programming, emergency alerts and the infrastructure that supports the entire network of newsrooms nationwide," Chicago Public Media CEO Melissa Bell wrote to station members. "This could threaten the ability of PBS, and member stations like WTTW, to operate autonomously," a WTTW spokesperson said in a statement. By the numbers: The cuts would amount to about 6 percent of Chicago Public Media's budget, which the organization estimates to be about $3 million annually. That's not factoring in possible syndication costs handed down by National Public Radio, which is also losing funding from this bill. For WTTW, 10% of its 2024 budget came from federal funding. Zoom in: Chicago Public Media and WTTW (which also includes WFMT-FM) are among the largest public media organizations. Chicago Public Media (WBEZ/Sun-Times) reported revenue of $70 million for 2024, while WTTW had a total operating budget of $32.7 million. Both organizations receive significant revenue from member donations. Yes, but: Smaller Illinois radio stations, such as WILL-FM in Urbana, WUIS-FM in Springfield, and WNIJ-FM in DeKalb, have significantly higher federal funding, in some cases accounting for half of their budgets. Those stations are attached to local universities. Zoom out: It's unclear if the organizations will supercharge fundraising to attract more private donors or cut back on programming and staff. Chicago Public Media recently cut staff at both the Sun-Times and WBEZ. The intrigue: The rescission package aims to claw back funding that Congress previously approved for fiscal year 2025. It primarily consists of cuts identified by DOGE, which include funding for foreign aid programs such as USAID. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting's funding is usually allocated every two years, so this cuts the second year of funding and puts future allocations in serious doubt. The rescission bill is rare in government. Trump attempted to use it during his first term, but was defeated in the Senate. Between the lines: Republicans have increasingly painted public media as left-leaning and biased, citing PBS programs like "Sesame Street" as "woke propaganda." The other side: Public media offers a variety of independent programming from news, culture, food and children's programs, funded to avoid programming influenced by corporations and commercials.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mike Lee brings back proposal to sell public land in Western states
Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, participates in a forum hosted by the Sutherland Institute at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics on Oct. 14, 2024. (Katie McKellar/Utah News Dispatch) A version of this story originally appeared in the Utah News Dispatch. Utah Sen. Mike Lee is bringing back a proposal that would allow the federal government to sell off several million acres of public land in Utah, Colorado and other Western states. Lee says it will open up 'underused' federal land for housing and help communities manage growth — opponents, including a number of Democrats in Congress and environmental groups, say it's an attempt to pay for tax cuts and warn it will jeopardize access to public lands. Introduced Wednesday evening, Lee's amendment to congressional Republicans' budget bill, nicknamed the 'big, beautiful bill,' renews an effort initially spearheaded by Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, and Mark Amodei, R-Nevada, that sought to dispose of 11,500 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in southwestern Utah and some 450,000 acres of federal land in Nevada. But Lee's proposal is much broader — rather than earmark specific parcels of land for disposal like Maloy and Amodei's amendment, Lee wants to require the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture to sell off a percentage of land managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. According to the amendment, both agencies would be required to dispose of between 0.5% to 0.75% of land they manage, which amounts to about 2.2 million to 3.3 million acres. State and local governments would be allowed to nominate parcels of land, and would be granted priority to purchase. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Eleven states would be eligible — Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Notably, Montana is exempt, and Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke was instrumental in sinking Maloy and Amodei's original proposal, stating that selling public lands is a line he would not cross. Though the scope is much bigger, Lee's reasoning behind the proposal is the same as Maloy and Amodei's — identify parcels of federal land near high-growth areas, and sell them at market value to local governments to use for housing, water infrastructure, roads and other development. The amendment prohibits the sale of land that's already designated, like national parks, national monuments, wilderness areas or national recreation areas. Land that has an existing right, like a mining claim, grazing permit, mineral lease or right of way is also off limits. If it passes, the secretaries of the departments of Interior and Agriculture would have to prioritize nominating land that's next to already developed areas, has access to existing infrastructure or is 'suitable for residential housing.' The amendment also directs the secretaries to nominate land that's isolated and 'inefficient to manage,' and to reduce the checkerboard land pattern, the result of railroad grants in the 1800s that left small plots of private land scattered within swaths of federal land and vice-versa. 'We're opening underused federal land to expand housing, support local development and get Washington, D.C. out of the way for communities that are just trying to grow,' Lee said in a video address. 'We're talking about isolated parcels that are difficult to manage, that are better suited for housing and infrastructure. To our hunters, anglers and sportsmen, you will not lose access to the lands you love. Washington has proven time and again it can't manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands.' But that reasoning didn't fly for a number of environmental groups, including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which called Lee's proposal an attempt 'to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.' 'Senator Lee's never-ending attacks on public lands continue. His hostility stands in stark contrast with Americans' deep and abiding love of public lands. Senator Lee's plan puts Utah's redrock country in the crosshairs of unchecked development,' said Travis Hammill, Washington, D.C. director for the alliance. 'In Utah and the West, public lands are the envy of the country — but Senator Lee is willing to sacrifice the places where people recreate, where they hunt and fish, and where they make a living.' The Center for Western Priorities, a public lands advocacy group, called Lee's amendment 'a shameless ploy to sell off pristine public lands for trophy homes and gated communities that will do nothing to address the affordable housing shortage in the West'; the National Wildlife Federation dubbed it a 'fire sale' that is 'orders of magnitude worse' than Maloy's proposal; The Wilderness Society said it was 'a betrayal of future generations and folks on both sides of the aisle' and warned that could spark political backlash. Maloy's proposal identified parcels owned by the Bureau of Land Management to sell to Washington and Beaver counties, the Washington County Water Conservancy District and the city of St. George. The land would have been used for water infrastructure (like reservoirs and wells), an airport expansion in St. George, new and widened roads, recreation and housing. The proposal was widely celebrated by the water district and local governments, who said it would help them make adjustments as the region continues to experience rapid growth. But nearby tribes, environmentalists and politicians from both sides of the aisle were skeptical. Utah News Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Utah News Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor McKenzie Romero for questions: info@ SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge blocks Trump's firing of Consumer Product Safety Commission members
BALTIMORE (AP) — A federal judge has blocked the terminations of three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission after they were fired by President Donald Trump in his effort to assert more power over independent federal agencies. The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump announced last month his decision to fire the three Democrats on the five-member commission. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden. After suing the Trump administration last month, the fired commissioners received a ruling in their favor Friday; it will likely be appealed. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued the case was clearcut. Federal statute states that the president can fire commissioners 'for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause' — allegations that have not been made against the commissioners in question. But attorneys for the Trump administration assert that the statute is unconstitutional because the president's authority extends to dismissing federal employees who 'exercise significant executive power,' according to court filings. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox agreed with the plaintiffs, declaring their dismissals unlawful. He had previously denied their request for a temporary restraining order, which would have reinstated them on an interim basis. That decision came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority declined to reinstate board members of two other independent agencies, endorsing a robust view of presidential power. The court said that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members 'without cause.' Its three liberal justices dissented. In his written opinion filed Friday, Maddox presented a more limited view of the president's authority, finding 'no constitutional defect' in the statute that prohibits such terminations. He ordered that the plaintiffs be allowed to resume their duties as product safety commissioners. The ruling adds to a larger ongoing legal battle over a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president. During a hearing before Maddox last week, arguments focused largely on the nature of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and its powers, specifically whether it exercises 'substantial executive authority.' Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted the difficulty of cleanly characterizing such functions. He also noted that Trump was breaking from precedent by firing the three commissioners, rather than following the usual process of making his own nominations when the opportunity arose. Abigail Stout, an attorney representing the Trump administration, argued that any restrictions on the president's removal power would violate his constitutional authority. After Trump announced the Democrats' firings, four Democratic U.S. senators sent a letter to the president urging him to reverse course. 'This move compromises the ability of the federal government to apply data-driven product safety rules to protect Americans nationwide, away from political influence,' they wrote. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president's party. They serve staggered terms. That structure ensures that each president has 'the opportunity to influence, but not control,' the commission, attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission's independence. Attorney Nick Sansone, who represents the three commissioners, praised the ruling Friday. 'Today's opinion reaffirms that the President is not above the law,' he said in a statement.
