LA Dodgers say they denied immigration agents access to Dodger Stadium parking lot
LOS ANGELES :The Los Angeles Dodgers said they had denied U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents access to the parking lot at Dodger Stadium on Thursday, in the team's first sign of opposition to immigration raids that have rattled California's largest city.
The Dodgers, whose baseball fan base includes a significant Latino contingent, have come under criticism from fans and local media commentators in recent days for not speaking out publicly against raids by immigration agents across Los Angeles.
The raids sparked street protests, which in turn prompted President Donald Trump to send in the National Guard and U.S. Marines to protect federal personnel and property, fueling more protests and tension.
"This morning, ICE agents came to Dodger Stadium and requested permission to access the parking lots," the team said in a post on X. "They were denied entry to the grounds by the organization. Tonight's game will be played as scheduled."
The Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said CBP vehicles used the parking lot briefly.
"This had nothing to do with the Dodgers. CBP vehicles were in the stadium parking lot very briefly, unrelated to any operation or enforcement," DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement.
MSNBC showed video of a small number of protesters objecting to the presence of at least four uniformed agents and three vehicles and asking them to remove their facemasks. Los Angeles Times video showed protesters chanting, "Where are the Dodgers?"
The Dodgers, coming off a World Series championship in 2024, are a cultural touchstone in Los Angeles. Their Latino fan base has been a large part of the team's identity at least since the "Fernandomania" craze surrounding Mexican-born pitcher Fernando Valenzuela in the early 1980s.
After nearly two weeks of silence over the raids, the Dodgers were due on Thursday to announce plans to assist immigrant communities, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing a team spokesman.
The Dodgers did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
"It's kind of upsetting that they haven't spoken up," Kimberly, a fan who did not want to give her full name, told Reuters at Dodger Stadium before Wednesday night's game.
She praised Enrique "Kike" Hernandez, the popular utility player and Puerto Rican native, who recently posted that he could not stand to see the Los Angeles community being "violated, profiled, abused and ripped apart."
Hernandez received a huge ovation from the crowd when he came to bat on Wednesday.
Lifelong Dodgers fan Dmitri Turner said that while he would like to see the team use its platform to address the "bad things going on" with ICE detentions, he understood that the organization might want to keep its focus on the field.
"Maybe they'd rather leave that to the politicians and give the fans what they want, which is good baseball," he said in the parking lot of Dodger Stadium.
While the immigration raids may appeal to Trump's base of supporters over concerns about border security, many community leaders in heavily Democratic Los Angeles have publicly opposed the operations. Mayor Karen Bass has denounced them as provoking more tension and as harmful to the local economy.
Singer Nezza sang the U.S. national anthem in Spanish at Dodger Stadium on Saturday, injecting a form of protest into the patriotic tradition before the baseball game.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Independent Singapore
2 hours ago
- Independent Singapore
Is FIFA's Club World Cup flopping? Empty seats raise questions
FIFA has recently announced that the Club World Cup has sold close to 1.5 million tickets so far for the games. Spectators, however, are starting to notice that numerous stadiums had empty seats in some of the matches. This issue sparked a conversation on Reddit as one user asked if the Club World Cup is becoming a flop. The user wondered whether the competition is a 'good idea', given the half-empty stadiums and lack of fan interest — or if it might actually be 'bad publicity' for football. The user said, 'The Club World Cup may flop… Is soccer even popular in North America? The Club World Cup is compounded by political controversies surrounding the event. It seems disengaged audiences will diminish the competition's global appeal, failing to capture the excitement of football fans around the world and FIFA slashing Club World Cup ticket prices and offering free tickets to students and city workers due to low demand, just aiming at filling stadiums for tournaments, especially for television broadcasting.' Other Redditors commented on the post and expressed their opinions about this subject matter. One stated that the event should not have taken place in the United States, saying, 'America should not be hosting any football competitions. It would get more support if a South American country, a European country or even an African country. Americans aren't interested in football, and fans certainly don't want to travel to Trump's America. Too risky' Another commented about the location of the event. 'America is not exactly a top travel destination for foreigners anymore. Especially not from South America… Even if you aren't an immigrant, it's not exactly a safe travel destination.' Some commenters chimed in with their thoughts. One wrote, 'It's going to flop because it's another competition that nobody asked for. The previous format made it a lot more prestigious, but people are finally getting tired of FIFA's greed ruining the sport… It's no different to a preseason tour. Nobody cares about the results, and most of the fans are neutral.' Another added, 'I must say that I like the idea of a club World Cup but 32 teams is too many and the timing sucks.' See also Oil-rich Malaysian prince puts Valencia in his sights Another Redditor argued that the Club World Cup won't flop—not because of sporting merit, but due to its financial appeal. 'It won't flop because you've misjudged what it's designed to do. It's not designed to bring together the world's best teams. It's not designed to decide the best team in the world. It's not designed to bring a love of football to the USA. It's not designed to help America figure out how to run big sporting events,' they wrote. They added, 'Teams are taking part because there's a load of money in it. It might, potentially, knacker their pre-season preparations, but these clubs exist to make money rather than win trophies; winning trophies is simply a way of making money.' Despite these, FIFA declared that fans from over 130 countries have purchased Club World Cup tickets, and they are expecting more than 50,000 fans to attend the next couple of matches as the Cup continues.
CNA
2 hours ago
- CNA
US social media vetting for visas: What should prospective students do?
SINGAPORE: The United States' move to tighten social media screening for visas has left some foreign students perplexed and contemplating deleting their online accounts. Experts meanwhile have highlighted the challenges in scrubbing digital footprints, as well as the potential chilling effect of the new requirements. President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday (Jun 18) ordered the resumption of scheduling appointments for international student visas after nearly a month-long pause. But all applicants will now be required to make their social media accounts public for review. In an internal state department cable dated Jun 18, US consular officers were directed to conduct "comprehensive and thorough vetting" of all student and exchange visitor applicants to identify those who "bear hostile attitudes toward our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles". New applicants who refuse to unlock their social media accounts and allow them to be reviewed may be rejected. The Trump administration on May 27 first ordered its missions abroad to stop scheduling new interviews for student and exchange visitor visa applicants as it prepared to expand social media vetting of foreign students. "HOPING THEY DON'T FIND IT" The move has left prospective students and those renewing their visas in a state of panic, with some turning online to try and clarify the new rules. One student wrote on social media platform Reddit that they were "not sure how to go about" the tightened vetting. The Swedish national was in the process of renewing their F-1 visa, which allows foreigners to enter the US as a full-time student at an accredited educational institution. The student said they had always only listed their Facebook account on the online nonimmigrant visa application form, known as DS-160; but also has accounts on Instagram and TikTok where they repost "political stuff". While the posts have since been removed, the student wondered if the best option may be to deactivate those accounts and indicate that they only used Facebook. Commenting on the discussion, another student said they deactivated all unused social media accounts such as those on Facebook and X, formerly known as Twitter. "I'm planning on deactivating my main Instagram account where I do repost political stuff too and it's private (I don't want to make it public), but I don't know if this is good advice," the Redditor wrote. Both students were also unclear if government officials would be able to find accounts that did not have their real names. "We don't know what tools they'll be using, it's all unclear now. I'm hoping they don't find it," one of them wrote. WHAT SHOULD STUDENTS DO? The US was likely looking for posts or comments that were critical of the country's policies and of President Trump in particular, as well as those that support causes the US is against such as the diversity, equity and inclusion or DEI programmes that have come under attack, said Dr Tracy Loh, senior lecturer of communication management at the Singapore Management University (SMU). She recommended avoiding posting or commenting on such issues or deleting such posts, noting that "safe" content would those that were personal in nature such as birthday celebrations and family gatherings. "Immigration officers will most likely randomly scroll through social media accounts to check. I doubt that they would have the time or expertise to recover deleted posts or to investigate the accounts in great detail," said Dr Loh, who teaches at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business. But if the US government does check thoroughly, it would be unlikely for anyone to hide their digital footprint entirely, said associate professor Brian Lee Chin Hin from the School of Humanities and Behavioural Sciences at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS). There may be screenshots or reposts by others and the US authorities may have already captured the posts that they deem questionable, said the head of the university's communication programme, adding that there are tools to check archived versions of posts. Last-minute mass deletion may also look like an attempt to hide dubious past activities. "One strategy is to focus on deleting the most sensitive content rather than trying to erase all posts, or making an account private all of a sudden," Assoc Prof Lee said. He added that in his opinion, back-up mechanisms by various social media platforms and web archives would make it "unlikely" to wipe off all the posts entirely from the internet. Both experts also cautioned against having undisclosed accounts. "If you hide, lie or have fake accounts and get found out, such actions will most probably be held against you," said SMU's Dr Loh. Those who do not have any form of social media presence may be required to justify why, and creating a new account or profile last minute would look too "staged", said Assoc Prof Lee. Students who come under this group could thus also be "negatively" affected besides those who actively post their views that may be deemed problematic to the US authorities. On the implications of the vetting process, Dr Loh said this creates a "chilling effect" and constitutes censorship. SUSS' Assoc Prof Lee, meanwhile, called the situation "unfortunate".
Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Straits Times
US court lets Trump keep control of California National Guard for now
FILE PHOTO: A demonstrator raises his hand holding flowers as members of the National Guard stand in formation outside a federal building during the No Kings protest against U.S. President Donald Trump's policies, in Los Angeles, California, U.S., June 14, 2025. REUTERS/Daniel Cole/File Photo US court lets Trump keep control of California National Guard for now WASHINGTON - A U.S. appeals court let Donald Trump retain control on Thursday of California's National Guard while the state's Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the Republican president's use of the troops to quell protests in Los Angeles. Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on U.S. soil and inflamed political tension in the country's second most-populous city. On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extended its pause on U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's June 12 ruling that Trump had unlawfully called the National Guard into federal service. Trump probably acted within his authority, the panel said, adding that his administration probably complied with the requirement to coordinate with Governor Gavin Newsom, and even if it did not, he had no authority to veto Trump's directive. "And although we hold that the president likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage," it wrote in its opinion. Newsom could still challenge the use of the National Guard and U.S. Marines under other laws, including the bar on using troops in domestic law enforcement, it added. The governor could raise those issues at a court hearing on Friday in front of Breyer, it said. In a post on X after the decision, Newsom vowed to pursue his challenge. "The president is not a king and is not above the law," he said. "We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.s. military soldiers against our citizens." Trump hailed the decision in a post on Truth Social. "This is a great decision for our country and we will continue to protect and defend law-abiding Americans," he said. "This is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should state and local police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done." Breyer's ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Trump's action brought by Newsom. Breyer ruled that Trump violated a U.S. law governing a president's ability to take control of a state's National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor. It also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist. Breyer ordered Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom. Hours after Breyer acted, the 9th Circuit panel had put the judge's move on hold protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Trump's immigration raids, the president on June 7 took control of California's National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops against Newsom's wishes. Trump also ordered 700 U.S. Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard. Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilization. At a court hearing on Tuesday on whether to extend the pause on Breyer's decision, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Trump's authority to deploy the troops. The law sets out three conditions by which a president can federalize state National Guard forces, including an invasion, a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the government or a situation in which the U.S. government is unable with regular forces to execute the country's laws. The appeals court said the final condition had probably been met because protesters hurled items at immigration authorities' vehicles, used trash dumpster as battering rams, threw Molotov cocktails and vandalized property, frustrating law enforcement. The Justice Department has said once the president determines that an emergency exists that warrants the use of the National Guard, no court or state governor can review that decision. The appeals court rejected that argument. The protests in Los Angeles ran for more than a week before they ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed. In its June 9 lawsuit California said Trump's deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state's sovereignty and U.S. laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. The 9th Circuit panel is comprised of two judges appointed by Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
