LA Dodgers 'barred immigration agents from stadium'
LA Dodgers 'barred immigration agents from stadium'
Protesters gather outside gate A at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles. Photo: Reuters
The Los Angeles Dodgers said the club barred federal immigration agents from the team's stadium parking lot as a fresh wave of raids continued across America's second-biggest city.
The Dodgers, who have been criticized for their failure to comment publicly on the US government's immigration crackdown in Los Angeles, said on Thursday the team denied access to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who "requested permission to access the parking lots."
"They were denied entry to the grounds by the organization," the statement said, adding that the team's game later on Thursday would go ahead as scheduled.
Images and video shared on social media showed a line of unmarked trucks and masked agents at one Dodger Stadium entrance while protesters nearby chanted "ICE out of LA".
The Department of Homeland Security later clarified that the agents at the venue were from US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), not ICE.
"This had nothing to do with the Dodgers. CBP vehicles were in the stadium parking lot very briefly, unrelated to any operation or enforcement," a DHS statement said.
The incident comes against a backdrop of heightened tensions in Los Angeles, which has become ground zero of President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown across the United States.
The city has seen scattered violence but mostly peaceful protests in recent weeks, ignited by an escalation in federal immigration sweeps that have targeted migrant workers in garment factories, car washes and other workplaces.
Local media reported further raids across the city on Thursday targeting Home Depot stores, a home improvement retailer where day laborers often gather in parking lots seeking work.
The incident at Dodger Stadium on Thursday comes as the reigning World Series champions have faced criticism for their response to the immigration crackdown.
The team has a heavily Latino fan base, with some claiming a sense of betrayal over the franchise's failure to speak out against the ongoing raids.
As of early Thursday, the Dodgers have made no formal statement in regard to the immigration raids across the city.
The team's failure to condemn the immigration offensive came under scrutiny last weekend, when Latin American pop singer Nezza defied Dodgers officials and sang the US national anthem in Spanish before the team's home game.
Los Angeles Times sports columnist Dylan Hernandez has slammed the team's response to the immigration crackdown.
"The Dodgers boast that more than 40 percent of their fan base is Latino, but they can't even be bothered to offer the shaken community any words of comfort," Hernandez wrote. "How ungrateful. How disrespectful. How cowardly."
While the Dodgers have remained silent, the team's popular outfielder Enrique Hernandez lashed out against the raids in a statement on Instagram.
"I am saddened and infuriated by what's happening in our country and our city," wrote Hernandez, who is from Puerto Rico.
"This is my second home. And I cannot stand to see our community being violated, profiled, abused and ripped apart. ALL people deserve to be treated with respect, dignity and human rights." (AFP)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
2 hours ago
- Asia Times
US-India partnership key to re-establish Indo-Pacific deterrence
Originally published by Pacific Forum, this article is republished with permission. The advent of the second Trump administration has had a defining impact on Washington's engagement with the rest of the world. The US-India partnership – often called a 'defining relationship of the 21st century' – stands at a critical phase with opportunities to scale amid the rapid shifts in global geopolitics, geo-economics, and the exponential growth in dual-use technologies. In the last two decades, US-India relations, particularly defense ties, have seen greater military-to-military interoperability and bigger turnover in terms of defense trade. The last one-to-one meeting between President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in February produced a forward-looking joint statement that, among many other initiatives, aimed to forge a stronger defense partnership in tune with the demands of the dynamic balance of power in the Indo-Pacific region. As President Donald Trump, in his second term, recalibrates the US national security and defense strategies amid new terms of engagement with allies and partners, we argue that the US-India defense partnership has a new opportunity to scale cooperation in interoperability and defense industrial synergy to forge stronger deterrent capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region. In his remarks at the Shangri-La Dialogue in May, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that the United States' priority on foreign policy matters would be the reestablishment of deterrence, especially in (but not limited to) the Indo-Pacific region. It comes as no surprise that the purpose of this deterrence is countering the influence and the threat of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Hegseth stressed this administration's determination, like that of its predecessors, to remain engaged abroad, noting that the prosperity and security of Americans is linked to that of the rest of the Indo-Pacific. The 2025 Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community also contends that 'Russia, China, Iran and North Korea – individually and collectively – are challenging US interests in the world by attacking or threatening others in their regions, with both asymmetric and conventional hard power tactics.' In response to this threat, the US will not, in Hegseth's telling, 'preach' to other countries about how they govern themselves, nor does it seek to encircle China or execute regime change. It instead seeks to prevent war and prevent the PRC from carrying out its plans to annex Taiwan – and to do so via 'peace through strength': President Trump has also said that Communist China will not invade Taiwan on his watch. So, our goal is to prevent war, to make the costs too high, and peace the only option. And we will do this with a strong shield of deterrence, forged together with you—America's great allies and defense partners. Together, we will show what it means to execute peace through strength. While framed as a break from a previous administration that, in his telling, allowed deterrence to lapse, in at least one respect Hegseth built on the momentum of Trump 2.0's predecessor: developing bilateral ties with India. Hegseth had his first call with Indian Minister of Defense Rajnath Singh in February, in which they stressed accelerating 'our operational cooperation and defense industrial and technology collaboration to deter aggression in the Indo-Pacific,' along with continuing the 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue and concluding the next 10-year US-India Defense Framework later in 2025. The US-India relationship has seen a number of ups and downs, and the last two decades have been crucial in shaping the current contours. The relationship has the overall support of the major political parties on both sides, and the broader strategic convergence of counteracting China's assertive rise remains broadly intact, which is the mainstay of 're-establishing deterrence.' More than any domain in which the bilateral relationship has grown, the defense sector stands out, through habits of cooperation developed at the tri-service level and the growing defense trade. Moreover, the two defense industrial conclaves envision greater synergy, with a stronger role from the private sector, by following through on initiatives such as the US-India Roadmap for Defense Industrial Cooperation. Private sector partnerships include those between: Those are examples of how Indian and American firms are coming together to co-produce the necessary goods for meeting the security challenges ahead. Recognizing the disruptive impact of new technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing, both sides have also announced the Autonomous Systems Industry Alliance (ASIA) aimed at scaling 'industry partnerships and production in the Indo-Pacific.' During the last one-to-one meeting between President Trump and Prime Minister Modi, both sides showed intent to push ahead comprehensive cooperation through the US-India COMPACT (Catalyzing Opportunities for Military Partnership, Accelerated Commerce & Technology) for the 21st century. From the Biden-era iCET (Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies) to the US-India TRUST (Transforming the Relationship Utilizing Strategic Technology), a whole-of-government and whole-of-nation approach is envisioned to leverage technologies for partnership in multiple sectors. The integration of US-origin defense items into India's inventory in the last two decades appears significant, despite bureaucratic processes of defense sales and purchases that need fixing from both ends. From heavy-duty transport aircraft and high-end attack helicopters to complex combat vehicles, missile systems and long-endurance unmanned systems, the partnership is growing in sea, land and air-based military assets. The partnership will remain especially important for developing India's anti-submarine warfare capabilities in the Indian Ocean, along with other surveillance and reconnaissance systems for a more robust maritime domain awareness. Follow-up will becrucially required to realize the benefits of the announcements made to 'to streamline defense trade, technology exchange and maintenance, spare supplies and in-country repair and overhaul of US-provided defense systems' and to open negotiations on a reciprocal defense procurement. The Trump administration sounds bullish on the prospects of improving 'accountability and transparency through the foreign defense sales systems to ensure predictable and reliable delivery of American products to foreign partners and allies in support of US foreign policy objectives.' Therefore, it is imperative for Washington and Delhi to work harder on a better alignment of their strategic objectives in the Indo-Pacific region that would, in turn, help streamline their vision of co-development and co-production in defense products and heightened cooperation in 'overseas deployments of the US and Indian militaries in the Indo-Pacific, including enhanced logistics and intelligence sharing.' The US Congress-mandated Commission on the National Defense Strategy last year proposed, among other things, a US 'multi-force theater construct' to enable warfighting in simultaneous conflicts with multiple adversaries, and a pitch for an augmented use of the private sector in the US defense industrial base. Therefore, for a critical stakeholder and major defense partner like India, how Washington's 're-establishing deterrence' pans out in the next few years will be crucial, for scaling the growing bilateral defense cooperation, and in minilateral groupings, such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. India and the United States likely will never be fully aligned on matters of security cooperation, as their differing responses toward Ukraine and Islamic terrorism originating from Pakistan illustrate. However, these differences of opinion should not distract them, as both face a long-term challenge from a PRC that seeks to rewrite the rules of the Indo-Pacific region so crucial to both Delhi and Washington. Furthermore, as major Indo-Pacific powers with large populations and resources, both countries are well-situated to complement one another's efforts to deter Beijing's revisionism. The early signs from the Trump administration's interactions with the Modi government are promising, and it is imperative that the momentum between them continues. Monish Tourangbam ( is a senior research consultant at the Chintan Research Foundation (CRF), New Delhi. Rob York (rob@ is director for regional affairs at Pacific Forum.
Asia Times
4 hours ago
- Asia Times
Bunker busters: what Israel needs and Trump must decide
As Israel escalates its confrontation with Iran, Donald Trump faces a defining foreign policy test. The choice before him is not between diplomacy and war. Diplomacy has largely been exhausted; war, in some form, is already underway. The real question is more consequential and more concrete: should the United States supply Israel with its most formidable non-nuclear weapon—the 30,000-pound bunker buster? These Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs) are designed for a singular purpose: to destroy deeply fortified targets, such as Iran's hardened nuclear facilities. Fordow, Iran's mountain-buried enrichment facility, was built to survive conventional airstrikes. Only the MOP can breach it. For years, US policy rested on a mix of sanctions and diplomacy, backed by the unspoken threat of these weapons. That deterrent is now being tested. Israel, having demonstrated its military capabilities in Gaza and against Hezbollah, is now striking Iranian nuclear scientists and sites and senior military commanders. There is growing confidence in Jerusalem that it can push further, potentially taking out Iran's political leadership. Trump himself recently claimed to have vetoed an Israeli request to target Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. From Israel's perspective, Iran is advancing too close to nuclear breakout, and the margin for delay is vanishing. Yet Israel still lacks the means to destroy Iran's most hardened assets. Only the US can fill that gap—and must now decide whether to do so. The strategic case for such collaboration is clear. If the US wishes to avoid a protracted regional war, it must consider helping Israel strike preemptively—precisely and decisively—before Iran can entrench itself behind proxies or lash out at other US allies. Whether through direct transfers of MOPs or joint US–Israeli operations, Washington's willingness to act could send an unmistakable message: the free world is willing to act to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed power. Trump's instincts may align with this moment. No modern US president has embraced Israel's security priorities more overtly. From relocating the US embassy to Jerusalem to recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, Trump has built deep credibility with Israeli leadership. That credibility now grants him a narrow but meaningful opportunity to lead a coalition not of occupation but deterrence. This confrontation, however, is not solely Trump's to own. Netanyahu has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to bring the US into alignment with Israel's regional posture. In Gaza, the Biden administration maintained rhetorical distance while continuing to supply weapons. The current dilemma is a logical extension: will passive support become active cooperation? There is also a psychological layer to this moment. The memory of President Obama's unenforced 'red line' in Syria continues to haunt US credibility. When America declined to act after Assad's use of chemical weapons, adversaries took note. Iran, Russia and North Korea learned a critical lesson: US threats could prove hollow. That precedent now shapes this moment. Will the next move be guided by strength, by strategy, or by ego—or, as history often shows, a combustible mix of all three? Diplomacy remains relevant, but it is increasingly unclear whether it can contain Tehran's ambitions. The US is left debating whether treaties can hold Iran in check or if MOPs are the only remaining lever. One uncomfortable truth looms: the trajectory and intensity of this conflict—and perhaps the future of nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East—will depend largely on whether Washington chooses to act. Both allies and adversaries are watching and adjusting their calculations accordingly. Critics will warn of escalation. Transferring MOPs or employing them directly risks igniting open war, destabilizing oil markets and fueling anti-American sentiment. Yet these risks are not new. They have existed since Iran began inching toward the nuclear threshold. What is untenable is the illusion that inaction preserves peace. The current path is one of slow, steady escalation with no clear off-ramp. By enabling Israel to target Iran's nuclear infrastructure with surgical precision, the US may not be choosing the most aggressive course, but the least dangerous one. The only thing more dangerous than using the bunker buster now may be failing to use it when the time calls for it. This is not about boots on the ground. It's about recognizing a geopolitical moment that demands clarity, not caution. Iran has built its nuclear program under mountains for a reason. The question now is whether the United States is prepared (and believes it is right) to help Israel reach beneath them. The answer may be as consequential as any the US has made in the nuclear age. Kurt Davis Jr is a Millennium Fellow at the Atlantic Council and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is also an advisor to private, public and state-owned companies and their boards as well as creditors across the globe on a range of transactions, including debt and equity financings, M&A and special situations (including financial restructurings). He can be reached at .
South China Morning Post
5 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
By air, land and sea, nations race to evacuate citizens from Israel and Iran
Governments around the world are evacuating thousands of their nationals caught up in the rapidly spiralling Israel-Iran conflict, organising buses and planes and in some cases assisting people crossing borders on foot. Advertisement Foreigners have rushed to leave both countries after Israel launched an unprecedented bombing campaign last Friday targeting Iran's nuclear and military facilities, sparking retaliation from Tehran. The evacuations gained new urgency as US President Donald Trump announced on Thursday he will decide within two weeks whether the US military will get directly involved in the conflict. Trump has been weighing whether to attack Iran by striking its well-defended Fordo uranium enrichment facility, which is buried under a mountain and widely considered to be out of reach of all but America's 'bunker-buster' bombs. With Israel's air space closed and the two countries exchanging heavy missile fire, many people are being evacuated via neighbouring countries. Advertisement European countries have already repatriated hundreds of their citizens from Israel.
