Letters to the Editor: Mass deportations aren't just cruel. They're expensive, too
To the editor: Gustavo Arellano's column about the Department of Homeland Security's 'sanctuary cities' list was a little entertaining ('Homeland Security's 'sanctuary city' list is riddled with errors. The sloppiness is the point,' June 3). That Huntington Beach and Santee are on it must have been a bit upsetting to those cities' leaders.
But to clarify the cruelty aspect of what DHS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are doing: They're not merely deporting people they determine shouldn't be in this country (without due process). They're deporting people to locations where they will experience a greater chance of torture and death. And they're doing this at a huge taxpayer expense.
Wouldn't deporting the people back to their home countries, likely at a much lower cost, make more sense? But it seems that imperiling their lives is more important than how much it costs. Truly American exceptionalism.
Les Hartzman, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Human lives, the Constitution, her own dog: It seems they're all the same to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Get in her way and you deserve to be destroyed. Cruelty is one point, to be sure. Another is the risk we take in daring to challenge the head of a Cabinet department that is meant to protect, not endanger, us.
So much for democracy.
Joan Walston, Santa Monica
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new approach to Russia's war in Ukraine might be his worst yet
Donald Trump and his team have spent a fair amount of time recently trying to convince the public that the president's policy toward Russia's war in Ukraine is having a positive impact. In mid-March, for example, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt boasted, 'I can say we are on the 10th yard line of peace, and we've never been closer to a peace deal than we are in this moment.' Two months later, Trump participated in a two-hour phone meeting with Vladimir Putin, and the Republican touted the discussion as a possible breakthrough. 'The tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent,' the American president declared, adding that his chat would 'immediately' lead to new diplomatic negotiations. Soon after, Kyiv came under a large-scale Russian drone and missile attack, described by Ukrainian officials as the largest aerial assault on the country since the war began. It was soon followed by Ukraine's surprise drone attack that proved disastrous for Russia, and that jolted global perceptions. This in turn led Russia to launch one of the largest barrages of missiles and drones of the war at targets across Ukraine. This does not look like 'the 10th yard line of peace.' It was against this backdrop that Trump has apparently come up with a new metaphor. The New York Times reported: As Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, sat beside him watching in silence, President Trump compared Russia and Ukraine to two fighting children who needed to work out their differences for a while before anyone could intervene. 'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.' 'And I gave that analogy to Putin yesterday,' the Republican added. 'I said, 'President, maybe you have to keep fighting and suffering a lot, because both sides are suffering, before you pull them apart, before they're able to be pulled apart.'' So, a few things. First, comparing this conflict to a dispute among children on a playground is unhelpful, and Trump complaining about anyone engaging in juvenile behavior is unwise, given everything we know about his temperament and frequent tantrums. Second, the idea that the White House is prepared to let Russia and Ukraine 'fight for a while' overlooks the inconvenient fact that they've already been fighting for a while. Indeed, Russia invaded Ukraine back in February 2022 — more than three years ago — which Trump described at the time as 'genius' and part of a 'wonderful' strategy. But let's also not lose sight of the evolution of the American president's thinking. Trump's Plan A for the war in Ukraine was ending the conflict within 24 hours by way of a secret strategy he assured voters was real. When it became obvious that this strategy didn't actually exist, Trump moved on to Plan B: He told Russia that if it failed to end the conflict quickly, the White House 'would have no other choice' but to impose new economic sanctions. When Putin ignored those threats and Trump failed to follow through, the American president floated Plan C (international economic penalties designed to force a ceasefire), Plan D (Trump-backed bilateral talks between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy) and Plan E (bilateral talks between Trump and Putin). Plan F — White House passivity — is now increasingly coming into focus. Trump's latest plan to end the conflict is apparently to stop trying to end the conflict. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge approves Colorado law banning people under 21 from buying a gun
A federal judge upheld Colorado's restriction on firearms sales requiring buyers to be 21 or older after Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and two people looking to purchase firearms sued Democratic Gov. Jared Polis. Chief U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer agreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit's decision that age-based requirements for purchase do not fall under the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. The 10th Circuit and Brimmer agree that the issue falls under a "safe harbor" exclusion, placing it outside the scope of the Constitution. The only exceptions to Colorado's firearm purchase age restriction are for those in the U.S. Military and for peace officers. In both cases, the person must be making the purchase while on duty and is "serving in conformance with the policies" of their respective agency. Supreme Court Declines To Examine Appeals Over Maryland, Rhode Island Gun Control Laws "Governor Polis is committed to making Colorado one of the ten safest states, and common-sense laws encourage responsible gun ownership and keep people safe. For decades in Colorado, you had to be 21 to purchase a handgun, per federal law. The requirement to be 21 was expanded to rifles and shotguns with the signing of SB23-169, and Governor Polis is glad to see the court affirm that Colorado's common sense law does not infringe on Second Amendment rights. Governor Polis is confident this law has and will help keep Coloradans and our communities safe," Polis' Communications Director Conor Cahill said in a statement to Fox News Digital. Brimmer acknowledged that Adrian Pineda and Matthew Newkirk — the two individuals under 21 who sued Polis together with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners — are part of "the people" as written in the Second Amendment. However, he referred to the 10th Circuit's decision, saying it had resolved the case back in 2023, according to Courthouse News Service (CNS). Read On The Fox News App Debate Over Whether To Ban Handgun Sales To Teens Could Soon Head To The Supreme Court The decision in Colorado comes in contrast to one issued by the Supreme Court in 2022 in which justices determined that New York issued unconstitutional requirements for carrying a concealed weapon in public. Then-President Joe Biden said he was "deeply disappointed" by the ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. He said that SCOTUS had "chosen to strike down New York's long-established authority to protect its citizens." "This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all," Biden said in a statement at the time. He went on to reaffirm his commitment to reducing gun violence and making communities safer. Brimmer is also going against a decision made by the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which struck down a federal restriction banning the sale of firearms to anyone below the age of 21. That court held that those aged 18 to 20 are protected under the Second Amendment, according to The Trace, an organization of journalists who report on gun violence in the U.S. "The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds' firearm rights during the founding-era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban," Judge Edith H. Jones wrote in the opinion. Several states, including New York, Massachusetts, California, Florida, Illinois, Delaware and Vermont have raised the age for purchasing firearms, according to the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. While some states have limited the age restrictions to handgun purchases, others have applied the restriction to any kind of article source: Federal judge approves Colorado law banning people under 21 from buying a gun
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The AI lobby plants its flag in Washington
Top artificial intelligence companies are rapidly expanding their lobbying footprint in Washington — and so far, Washington is turning out to be a very soft target. Two privately held AI companies, OpenAI and Anthropic — which once positioned themselves as cautious, research-driven counterweights to aggressive Big Tech firms — are now adding Washington staff, ramping up their lobbying spending and chasing contracts from the estimated $75 billion federal IT budget, a significant portion of which now focuses on AI. They have company. Scale AI, a specialist contractor with the Pentagon and other agencies, is also planning to expand its government relations and lobbying teams, a spokesperson told POLITICO. In late March, the AI-focused chipmaking giant Nvidia registered its first in-house lobbyists. AI lobbyists are 'very visible' and 'very present on the hill,' said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) in an interview at the Special Competitive Studies Project AI+ Expo this week. 'They're nurturing relationships with lots of senators and a handful of members [of the House] in Congress. It's really important for their ambitions, their expectations of the future of AI, to have Congress involved, even if it's only to stop us from doing anything.' This lobbying push aims to capitalize on a wave of support from both the Trump administration and the Republican Congress, both of which have pumped up the AI industry as a linchpin of American competitiveness and a means for shrinking the federal workforce. They don't all present a unified front — Anthropic, in particular, has found itself at odds with conservatives, and on Thursday its CEO Dario Amodei broke with other companies by urging Congress to pass a national transparency standard for AI companies — but so far the AI lobby is broadly getting what it wants. 'The overarching ask is for no regulation or for light-touch regulation, and so far, they've gotten that," said Doug Calidas, senior vice president of government affairs for the AI policy nonprofit Americans for Responsible Innovation. In a sign of lawmakers' deference to industry, the House passed a ten-year freeze on enforcing state and local AI regulation as part of its megabill that is currently working through the Senate. Critics, however, worry that the AI conversation in Washington has become an overly tight loop between companies and their GOP supporters — muting important concerns about the growth of a powerful but hard-to-control technology. 'There's been a huge pivot for [AI companies] as the money has gotten closer,' Gary Marcus, an AI and cognitive science expert, said of the leading AI firms. 'The Trump administration is too chummy with the big tech companies, and basically ignoring what the American people want, which is protection from the many risks of AI.' Anthropic declined to comment for this story, referring POLITICO to its March submission to the AI Action Plan that the White House is crafting after President Donald Trump repealed a sprawling AI executive order issued by the Biden administration. OpenAI, too, declined to comment. This week several AI firms, including OpenAI, co-sponsored the Special Competitive Studies Project's AI+ Expo, an annual Washington trade show that has quickly emerged as a kind of bazaar for companies trying to sell services to the government. (Disclosure: POLITICO was a media partner of the conference.) They're jostling for influence against more established government contractors like Palantir, which has been steadily building up its lobbying presence in D.C. for years, while Meta, Google, Amazon and Microsoft — major tech platforms with AI as part of their pitch — already have dozens of lobbyists in their employ. What the AI lobby wants is a classic Washington twofer: fewer regulations to limit its growth, and more government contracts. The government budget for AI has been growing. Federal agencies across the board — from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to the IRS and the Department of Veterans Affairs — are looking to build AI capacity. The Trump administration's staff cuts and automation push is expected to accelerate the demand for private firms to fill the gap with AI. For AI, 'growth' also demands energy and, on the policy front, AI companies have been a key driver of the recent push in Congress and the White House to open up new energy sources, streamline permitting for building new data centers and funnel private investment into the construction of these sites. Late last year, OpenAI released an infrastructure blueprint for the U.S. urging the federal government to prepare for a massive spike in demand for computational infrastructure and energy supply. Among its recommendations: creating special AI zones to fast-track permits for energy and data centers, expanding the national power grid and boosting government support for private investment in major energy projects. Those recommendations are now being very closely echoed by Trump administration figures. Last month, at the Bitcoin 2025 Conference in Las Vegas, David Sacks — Trump's AI and crypto czar — laid out a sweeping vision that mirrored the AI industry's lobbying goals. Speaking to a crowd of 35,000, Sacks stressed the foundational role of energy for both AI and cryptocurrency, saying bluntly: 'You need power.' He applauded President Donald Trump's push to expand domestic oil and gas production, framing it as essential to keeping the U.S. ahead in the global AI and crypto race. This is a huge turnaround from a year ago, when AI companies faced a very different landscape in Washington. The Biden administration, and many congressional Democrats, wanted to regulate the industry to guard against bias, job loss and existential risk. No longer. Since Trump's election, AI has become central to the conversation about global competition with China, with Silicon Valley venture capitalists like Sacks and Marc Andreessen now in positions of influence within the Trump orbit. Trump's director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is Michael Kratsios, former managing director at Scale AI. Trump himself has proudly announced a series of massive Gulf investment deals in AI. Sacks, in his Las Vegas speech, pointed to those recent deal announcements as evidence of what he called a 'total comprehensive shift' in Washington's approach to emerging technologies. But as the U.S. throws its weight behind AI as a strategic asset, critics warn that the enthusiasm is muffling one of the most important conversations about AI: its ability to wreak unforeseen harm on the populace, from fairness to existential risk concerns. Among those concerns: bias embedded in algorithmic decisions that affect housing, policing, and hiring; surveillance that could threaten civil liberties; the erosion of copyright protections, as AI models hoover up data and labor protections as automation replaces human work. Kevin De Liban, founder of TechTonic Justice, a nonprofit that focuses on the impact of AI on low income communities, worries that Washington has abandoned its concerns for AI's impact on citizens. 'Big Tech gets fat government contracts, a testing ground for their technologies, and a liability-free regulatory environment,' he said, of Washington's current AI policy environment. 'Everyday people are left behind to deal with the fallout.' There's a much larger question, too, which dominated the early AI debate: whether cutting-edge AI systems can be controlled at all. These risks, long documented by researchers, are now taking a back seat in Washington as the conversation turns to economic advantage and global competition. There's also the very real concern that if an AI company does bring up the technology's worst-case scenarios, it may find itself at odds with the White House itself. Anthropic CEO Amodei said in a May interview that labor force disruptions due to AI would be severe — which triggered a direct attack from Sacks, Trump's AI czar, on his podcast, who said that line of thinking led to 'woke AI.' Still, both Anthropic and OpenAI are going full steam ahead. Anthropic hired nearly a dozen policy staffers in the last two months, while OpenAI similarly grew its policy office over the past year. They're also pushing to become more important federal contractors by getting critical FedRAMP authorizations — a federal program that certifies cloud services for use across government — which could unlock billions of dollars in contracts. As tech companies grow increasingly cozy with the government, the political will to regulate them is fading — and in fact, Congress appears hostile to any efforts to regulate them at all. In a public comment in March, OpenAI specifically asked the Trump administration for a voluntary federal framework that overrides state AI laws, seeking 'private sector relief' from a patchwork of state AI bills. Two months later, the House added language to its reconciliation bill that would have done exactly that — and more. The provision to impose a 10 year moratorium on state AI regulations passed the House but is expected to be knocked out by the Senate parliamentarian. (Breaking ranks again, Anthropic is lobbying against the moratorium.) Still, the provision has widespread support amongst Republicans and is likely to make a comeback.
