AEW star Brody King wears ‘Abolish ICE' shirt at show in Mexico
All Elite Wrestling star Brody King wore an 'Abolish ICE' T-shirt as the company held 'Grand Slam Mexico' in Mexico City on Wednesday night.
King was a part of a 14-person tag-team match with Adam Cole, Atlantis, Atlantis Jr., Bandido Daniel Garcia and Templario. The pro wrestling stars defeated the team of Dax Harwood, Hechicero, Josh Alexander, Konosuke Takeshita, Kyle Fletcher, Lance Archer and Volador Jr.
Advertisement
The event took place in Arena México and featured wrestlers from Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) — one of the top promotions in Mexico.
King's apparent call to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) came as he showed support for protestors in Los Angeles who were against the raids that took place in the city. The protesters took a violent turn at several points during the week, with law enforcement officers being injured, autonomous vehicles being set on fire and stores being looted.
He shared a post from Mexican makeup artist Jose Corella, which started 'Let me be clear.'
Advertisement
'What's happening in Los Angeles right now is not only morally reprehensible — it's legally indefensible. This is a sanctuary city, a designation that was democratically voted on and enacted into law by the residents of this city — not by political opportunists grandstanding from a golf course in Florida,' the message read.
'Let me be clear: being undocumented in the United States is not a criminal offense. It is a civil violation. That means it holds the same legal weight as running a stop sign on a bicycle, setting off a firework after a drink, or selling unlicensed fan merch on Etsy. It is subject to civil penalties — typically a fine — not imprisonment, not detention, and certainly not extrajudicial abduction.
Brody King wears an 'Abolish ICE' shirt during his entrance at AEW's 'Grand Slam: Mexico' event on June 18, 2025.
AEW
Advertisement
Brody King
Icon Sportswire via Getty Images
'Dragging someone off the street at gunpoint, without a warrant or due process, and forcing them into an unmarked vehicle operated by armed, plainclothed agents is not law enforcement — it is armed kidnapping. And armed kidnapping is a felony — a real one.
'So, if you're going to obsess over who is illegal, start by looking at the heavily armed individuals violating constitutional protections under the guise of enforcing the law. Because what they're doing is criminal, not the people they're targeting.'
Advertisement
Since then, similar messages have been shared by Los Angeles Dodgers infielder Enrique Hernandez and the National Women's Soccer League's Angel City FC.
President Donald Trump has since doubled down on his support of ICE in Los Angeles and called on ICE officers to expand their efforts to other cities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
15 minutes ago
- CNN
Federal agents seen outside Dodger stadium
CNN's Natasha Chen reports from outside Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles where federal agents were posted after being denied access to the stadium according the the Dodgers. The Department of Homeland Security stated that the agents who were at Dodger Stadium were not from ICE and their presence wasn't related to the immigration crackdown throughout Los Angeles.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Trump can keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles, appeals court rules
An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. 5 Members of the California National Guard and police officers wear gas masks as they form a barier at a loading dock of the Roybal Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles on June 12, 2025. AFP via Getty Images In its decision, the court concluded that 'it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority' in federalizing control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. 5 A protester holds flowers near members of the California National Guard guarding a federal building during 'No Kings Day' protests in Los Angeles on June 14, 2025. REUTERS 5 California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to the media after a federal judge halted President Donald Trump's orders to deploy the state's National Guard on June 12, 2025. JOHN G MABANGLO/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. 5 President Donald Trump sits in the Oval Office of the White House alongside members of his cabinet on June 10, 2025. 5 Protesters wave a Mexican flag on top of a destroyed car during the Los Angeles riots on June 8, 2025. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents can take control during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
ICE Insists That Congress Needs Its Permission To Conduct Oversight
This week, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released new guidance on "facility visit and engagement protocol for Members of Congress and staff." "ICE detention locations and Field Offices are secure facilities. As such, all visitors are required to comply with [identity] verification and security screening requirements prior to entry," it specified. "When planning to visit an ICE facility, ICE asks requests to be submitted at least 72 hours in advance." Incidentally, it's perfectly legal for members of Congress to visit ICE detention facilities, even unannounced. And ICE's attempt to circumvent that requirement threatens the constitutional system of checks and balances. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024, which funded the government through September 2024, specified that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may not "prevent…a Member of Congress" or one of their employees "from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens" or to modify the facility in advance of such a visit. It also clarified that the DHS cannot "require a Member of Congress to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility." ICE's new guidance tries to get around this by stipulating that "ICE Field Offices are not detention facilities and fall outside of the [law's] requirements." Nevertheless, it adds that "while Member[s] of Congress are not required to provide advance notice for visits to ICE detention facilities, ICE requires a minimum of 24-hours' notice for visits by congressional staff" (emphasis in the original). Further, "visit request[s] are not considered actionable until receipt of the request is acknowledged" by ICE. The new rules also stipulate that visiting members of Congress may not bring in cellphones or recording devices, they must be escorted by ICE staff at all times, and they may not "have any physical or verbal contact with any person in ICE detention facilities unless previously requested and specifically approved by ICE Headquarters." In recent weeks, Democratic lawmakers have tried to enter ICE facilities, only to be turned away or threatened with imprisonment. Last week, authorities charged Rep. LaMonica McIver (D–N.J.) with three felony counts of assaulting, resisting, or impeding federal officers. McIver and other lawmakers visited Delaney Hall Federal Immigration Facility in Newark last month. A scuffle apparently ensued when authorities arrested Newark Mayor Ras Baraka for trespassing, though those charges were later dropped. This week, four members of Congress who visited the ICE Processing Center in Broadview, Illinois, were apparently denied access when they arrived. "We have reports that immigrants are being detained here without access to their attorneys, sleeping on the floor and without food," Rep. Chuy Garcia (D–Ill.), one of the members in attendance, alleged in a post on X. The DHS replied from its official account, "Congressman, all members and staff need to comply with facility rules, procedures, and instructions from ICE personnel on site." On Wednesday, Reps. Jerry Nadler and Dan Goldman (D–N.Y.) visited an office in Manhattan where migrants were allegedly being kept, only to be denied entry by Bill Joyce, the deputy director of the field office. Joyce denied it was a detention facility, saying that even though migrants were being kept on-site, ICE was simply "housing them until they can be detained." In video captured at the scene in Manhattan, Goldman said he and Nadler had requested permission to visit—even though they "have the authority to show up unannounced"—but were denied. This isn't uncharacteristic of the agency: Earlier this year, ICE agents denied Reason's C.J. Ciaramella access to an immigration court at a federal detention facility in Miami, in defiance of both federal law and guidance listed on the agency's own website. (ICE later admitted the facility was "open daily to the public.") Regardless of the actual conditions of any ICE facility, it's clear Congress' intent was to establish its legislative oversight role over an executive agency. Checks and balances are a key feature of American government: Each of the three branches has the power to keep the others in check. For ICE to claim an all-encompassing right to operate in the dark, apart from the prying eyes of even a co-equal branch of government, flies in the face of the Constitution's clear meaning. "This unlawful policy is a smokescreen to deny Member visits to ICE offices across the country, which are holding migrants – and sometimes even U.S. citizens – for days at a time. They are therefore detention facilities and are subject to oversight and inspection at any time," Rep. Bennie Thompson (D–Miss.), the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement. "There is no valid or legal reason for denying Member access to ICE facilities and DHS's ever-changing justifications prove this….If ICE has nothing to hide, DHS must make its facilities available." The post ICE Insists That Congress Needs Its Permission To Conduct Oversight appeared first on
