‘Carry passports': Retired LA professor warns Hispanic stepchildren after ICE raids
Arenella is now based in Mexico with his Mexico-born wife Mia. His three adult stepchildren, however, are still in the United States. In a post shared on the social media platform X, the retired professor of law said he has urged his stepchildren to carry their passports with them at all times after one of them witnessed an ICE raid where people with 'brown skin' were taken into custody.
While initially peaceful, the stand-off against the police took a violent turn over the next few days, with police officers firing tear gas and flash grenades at the crowd of protestors. Amid escalating tensions, Waymo self-driving cars have been burnt down, riots have broken out in several parts of the city and an effigy of Donald Trump was violently beaten with sticks by protestors.
Arenella, 77, had a long and distinguished career as a law professor at UCLA. After retiring from active teaching in 2012, he and his wife Mia moved to Mexico to live out their retirement years. 'One of the many reasons I moved from California to my wife's tiny rural village in Mexico was the desire to experience a peaceful and safe environment,' he once revealed.
In his earlier posts, Arenella has mentioned that his wife moved to the United States with her four children after escaping an abusive marriage. She is today a legal American citizen with a US passport, but the recent climate of anti-immigration sentiments and fear of ICE has made her wary of travelling to the United States.
Her adult children, meanwhile, are still based in the United States. One of them witnessed an ICE raid in Los Angeles while shopping at a Home Depot.
'My wife's son was shopping at a Home Depot Sunday when ICE agents engaged in a massive sweep of the store where they detained many customers with brown skins,' Peter Arenella wrote on X.
'I have urged Mia's three adult children to carry their drivers licenses and passports with them at all times,' Arenella said in his X post.
'The fear and hysteria in LA has become so widespread that black and brown Latinos who always shop at public swap meets to purchase bargain items have become 'ghost' spaces because of the fear of ICE detention,' added the Harvard-educated retired UCLA professor.
Arenella said that the Latino and Hispanic communities in Los Angeles are living in fear because ICE agents focus on the colour of their skin while taking them into detention, not their legal status.
He ended his post with a criticism of US President Donald Trump and his policies - which Arenella says are a threat to freedom of speech.
'Such fascist terror tactics should enrage all Americans who care about their civil liberties and trigger large protests across the nation.
'My generation did so to protest the Vietnam war. However, Trump has discouraged such lawful and constitutionally protected conduct by instilling fear in the targeted communities,' wrote Arenella.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
What Donald Trump is teaching Harvard
At Harvard you can study negotiation. This being Harvard, there is in fact an entire academic programme dedicated to the craft. The principles are simple. Understand your alternatives—what happens if you fight rather than compromise—and your long-term interests. This being Donald Trump's America, Harvard itself is now the case study. Mr Trump has turned full guns on that supposed hotbed of antisemitism and left-wing indoctrination. America's oldest and richest university would be his most satisfying trophy and its capitulation would become a template for coerced reforms across higher education. The government has sought to review some of Harvard's coursework as Mr Trump has pressured it to hire fewer 'Leftist dopes' and discipline pro-Palestine protesters. When the university refused, his administration froze federal research grants worth $3bn and tried to bar it from enrolling foreign students. Harvard has fought back and sued the government twice. Its many constituencies have loudly supported this resistance. Seven in ten faculty who took part in a poll by the Crimson, a student newspaper, said the university should not agree to a settlement. Yet it seems likely that Harvard will fold in the manner of Brown University and Columbia; reports suggest it will pay up to $500m. Consider Harvard's options. Litigation has succeeded initially: a judge paused the ban on foreign students. Harvard had a sympathetic hearing in its lawsuit to restore government funding. Yet the university knows that it cannot count on the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority. Meanwhile, the potential damage from Mr Trump's campaign looks both acute and existential. Losing federal funds would transform Harvard from a world-class research university to a tuition-dependent one. They constitute 11% of the operating budget and represent almost all the discretionary money available for research. Making do without while maintaining current spending levels would see the university draw down its $53bn endowment by about 2% a year. That is possible for a while, though it would erode future income and much of the endowment is constrained by donor restrictions anyway. Already Harvard has frozen some hiring and laid off research staff. More trouble awaits. The Internal Revenue Service is considering revoking Harvard's tax-exempt status. Elise Stefanik, a Republican congresswoman, has suggested that the university committed securities fraud when it issued a bond in April and failed initially to tell investors about the government's demands. She wants the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate. The Department of Homeland Security has sought records about foreign students who participated in pro-Palestine protests. Alumni, faculty and students report pride in Harvard's president, Alan Garber, resisting Mr Trump's extortion scheme. Yet more and more faculty are calling for a deal, especially in medicine and science since they have the most to lose. Steven Pinker, a psychology professor, has argued for a 'face-saving exit': Mr Trump may be 'dictatorial' but 'resistance should be strategic, not suicidal'. A deal similar to Brown's would not be so hard to swallow. To restore its federal funds, that university will pay $50m to workforce-development organisations. A likelier model is the one reached with Columbia, which coughed up $200m to the government. Most of its federal funding, worth $1.3bn, was reinstated and probes into alleged civil-rights violations were closed. Viewed from the outside, the price paid by Columbia looks arbitrary—there was no explanation for how it had been calculated. Columbia also agreed to dismantle DEI initiatives and will hire faculty specialising in Israel and Judaism, among other concessions. An outside monitor will ensure compliance. Claire Shipman, the university's acting president, said Columbia had not accepted diktats about what to teach or whom to hire and admit. Maybe so, but the settlement was still a shakedown. Mr Trump skipped the legal process by which the government can cancel funds. By law the administration has to offer a hearing and submit a report to Congress at least 30 days before the cut-off takes effect. None of that happened. Of course coercive, bilateral deals are Mr Trump's métier—he has achieved them with law firms and trading partners. Harvard has been making changes on campus that may be labelled as concessions in any eventual settlement. Some do appear designed to assuage Mr Trump. Since January the university has adopted the government's preferred definition of antisemitism; ended a partnership with Birzeit University in the West Bank; removed the leadership of the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies; and suspended the Palestine Solidarity Committee, an undergraduate group. DEI offices have been renamed and their websites scrubbed. Harvard's lack of ideological diversity will not be fixed by fiat. In 2023 a Crimson poll found that less than 3% of faculty identified as conservative. Now the university is reportedly considering establishing a centre for conservative thought akin to Stanford's Hoover Institution. Across campus it is understood that too many students seem ill-equipped to deal with views that challenge their own, says Edward Hall, a philosophy professor. Another insight you will glean in a Harvard negotiation class is to grasp your opponent's interests. In Mr Trump's practice, this means bagging a deal and bragging about it. He wrote a whole book on the topic. It could go on a syllabus.
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Donald Trump puts 25% tariff plus penalty on India. Who is at risk?
US President Donald Trump's imposition of 25 per cent reciprocal tariffs on Indian goods and an unspecified penalty over purchases from Russia, which will take effect on August 1, could damage several sectors -- from textiles to pharmaceuticals. Announcing the 25% tariff, Donald Trump said that India's tariff rates were "among the highest in the World".(X/@narendramodi) In a post on Truth Social, Trump said that India's tariffs were "among the highest in the World", adding that New Delhi has the "most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers of any country". He also threatened a penalty due to India's energy and military purchases from Russia, against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine. The US's total goods trade with India stood at an estimated $129.2 billion in 2024. India's exports to the US totalled $87.4 billion in 2024, a 4.5 per cent increase from 2023. India's trade surplus with the US, which is its largest export market, stood at 1.2 per cent of the GDP in 2024. While there's no clarity right now on sectoral rates and the penalty level, pharmaceutical, textile, gems and jeweller are among the industries that potentially stand exposed to the Trump tariffs. Here's who could be at risk: Pharmaceuticals India is the largest exporter of non-patented drugs to the US at an approximate value of $8 billion per year. US accounts for nearly one-third of India's pharma exports -- around $9 billion in FY2024. Shares of some of India's biggest companies, including Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Dr Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. and Cipla Ltd., fell on Thursday as they earn at least 30 per cent of their revenue from America. However, drugmakers still hold the hope for a lower rate on these items. Namit Joshi, chairman of Pharmaceuticals Export Promotion Council of India, told Bloomberg News, "Tariff on Indian generic pharmaceuticals would pose huge challenges for US pharma supply chain. May be it will attract only a base tariff of 10 per cent." He further said that Pharma companies have been preparing themselves for years for some kind of levy that the US could impose by acquiring assets in America. According to IQVIA, four out of every 10 prescriptions in the US in 2022 were supplied by Indian pharma companies. Overall, medicines from India saved the American health care system nearly $220 billion in 2022 and a total of $1.3 trillion in the decade through that year. Textiles Indian home fabrics, apparel and shoe makers serve the global supply chains of massive American retailers, including Walmart Inc., The Gap Inc., Pepe Jeans and Costco Wholesale Corp. Shares of textile firms like Vardhman Textiles Ltd. were down six per cent, Welspun Living Ltd. 6.5 per cent, and Indo Count Industries Ltd. fell 7.4 per cent. This poses a "stiff challenge" for the textiles and apparel sector, said the Confederation of Indian Textile Industry in a statement. "It will seriously test the resolve and resilience of India's textile and apparel exporters as we will not enjoy a significant duty differential advantage," they added. Gems and Jewellery India's Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council said in a statement late Wednesday that the tariff is a "deeply concerning development" that could obstruct supply chains and threaten the livelihoods of thousands of people, with the gems sector being "severely impacted". America accounts for more than $10 billion worth of India's gems and jewellery exports. The trade group said that a blanket tariff will "inflate costs, delay shipments, distort pricing, and place immense pressure on every part of the value chain' from workers to large-scale manufacturers. Electronics India's smartphone exports to the US increased almost fivefold in the past three years. The nation overtook China to become America's top source for smartphones, after Apple Inc. moved to assemble more of its iPhones in India. The smartphone exports of India rose by 55 per cent to USD 24.14 billion in 2024-25 from USD 15.57 billion in 2023-24 and USD 10.96 billion in 2023-23. The top five nations where India registered the highest growth were the US, the Netherlands, Italy, Japan, and Czech Republic. Exports to the US alone surged from USD 2.16 billion in 2022-23 to USD 5.57 billion in 2023-24 and USD 10.6 billion in 2024-25. However, Trump's reciprocal tariff could put the smartphone exports at risk. "Apple's US iPhone sourcing strategy from India to circumvent China tariffs could be meaningfully set back if tariffs in India extend to 25 per cent," Bloomberg reported, citing its intelligence analysts. "A 25 per cent surcharge would most likely force Apple to revise this plan," they added. The impact would not be as straightforward as the Trump administration had in April placed smartphones, computers, and other electronics under exemption from reciprocal tariffs. After this, the US Commerce Department used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act to launch probes into sectors that are essential for national security, such as semiconductors. Until these investigations are complete, smartphone exports to the US will not face any tariffs. If Trump decides to use his powers under Section 232 to impose duties on iPhone imports to the US, then it could force Apple Inc. to limit suppliers, including those in India. Oil Refining The proposed penalty on Russian oil imports, if imposed, could hurt the major Indian refineries. Shares of state-run refiners like Indian Oil Corp., Bharat Petroleum Corp. and Hindustan Petroleum Corp. fell, with those of private firms like Reliance Industries Ltd. dropping 2 per cent. India gets around 37 per cent of its oil imports from Russia. The barrels from Moscow come at a discount to market rates and have played a key support role for gross refining margins. If Russian oil is no longer available, the cost of imports will surge, hurting the refiners' profits. Earlier this year, Reliance signed a deal to purchase as much as 500,000 barrels per day from Russia to become India's largest buyer of Russian crude. Auto components Among other sectors that take the most hit is 'auto components'. Though Indian automakers do not have much exposure in the US, parts makers like Bharat Forge and Sona BLW stand vulnerable in the face of Trump tariffs on India. Meanwhile, Tata Motors' Jaguar Land Rover unit is protected under the US-UK/EU trade arrangements. Capital goods and chemicals might also be hurt by the Trump tariffs. Companies like Cummins India, Thermax and KEI Industries reportedly have 5-15 per cent US exposure. (with inputs from agencies)
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
26 minutes ago
- First Post
Bending to China, tilting to Pak: Is Trump taking US on Nixon course all over again?
Nixon's realpolitik with China and Pakistan finds echoes in Trump's foreign policy, where strategic interests often outweighed values read more (File) US President Richard Nixon and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger stand on Air Force One during their voyage to China February 20, 1972. Reuters US President Donald Trump has some uncanny similarities with Richard Nixon, the controversial former US president from the early 1970s. Both came from the Republican Party. Their presidencies were marred by scandals. While Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment over Watergate Scandal, Trump was twice-impeached but got relief from the Senate. There is one more connection: both looked vulnerable in dealing with China and pampered Pakistan. In February 1972, Nixon's historic visit to China marked a monumental shift in US foreign policy. After more than two decades of hostility and frozen diplomatic ties, the trip symbolised the beginning of a new era in Sino-American relations. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The decision, announced dramatically in July 1971, followed months of clandestine diplomacy, including National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger's covert visit to Beijing. This rapprochement not only thawed icy relations but also recalibrated global geopolitics during the Cold War, wrote Dave Roos in History. Nixon's intention was not only to normalise ties but also to play China and the Soviet Union against each other to America's strategic benefit—a move some analysts now interpret as the foundation of a triangular balance of power. By inviting China into the 'society of nations,' the Nixon administration hoped to gain leverage in its Vietnam negotiations and in its nuclear arms talks with Moscow. Nixon and the Indo-Pak War While Nixon's China outreach made global headlines, a lesser-known but equally significant aspect of his foreign policy was his administration's support for Pakistan during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War. Despite an official US arms embargo, Nixon and Kissinger orchestrated a covert strategy to ensure that Pakistan received military aid through third-party nations like Jordan and Iran. Declassified documents revealed how, shortly after hostilities broke out in December 1971, the Nixon administration moved to circumvent American restrictions to bolster Pakistan's defences. President Nixon reportedly approved the transfer of 17 fighter jets from Jordan to Pakistan, fearing that India's military success could destabilise the region and fragment Pakistan. Kissinger, in a private conversation, supported the idea of using allies like Iran to provide military aid, exposing the administration's strategic bias. Realpolitik over principles This tilt toward Pakistan came at a severe moral cost. As reports of genocidal violence by the Pakistani military against Bengali civilians in East Pakistan emerged, the Nixon administration maintained its silence. Internal opposition to the White House's stance was led by US officials on the ground, most notably Archer Blood, the Consul General in Dhaka. In what became known as the 'Blood Telegram,' American diplomats stationed in East Pakistan condemned the US inaction as a 'moral bankruptcy' and called out the administration's alignment with a regime committing mass atrocities. Despite this, Nixon remained unwavering, viewing India as an ally of the Soviet Union and a threat to regional equilibrium. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Echoes in the Trump era Fast forward to the Trump presidency, there is a striking resemblance in the US foreign policy pattern — particularly in its dealings with China and Pakistan. While Trump's tone towards Beijing oscillated between confrontational and transactional, his administration maintained a peculiar softness on Pakistan, even after episodes of terror extremism that strained US-Pakistan ties. Like Nixon, Trump appeared to favour strongman diplomacy, choosing pragmatic engagements with rival powers over value-driven alliances. Trump's strategic ambivalence echoed the Nixon-Kissinger realpolitik doctrine, where geopolitical advantages were pursued even at the cost of moral credibility. The enemy of my enemy Nixon's cold calculation — 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' — was central to both his China and Pakistan policies. At the height of Sino-Soviet tensions, the US exploited the mistrust between the two communist giants to assert itself as the balancing power. China, wary of Soviet aggression, found a temporary partner in Washington. Similarly, Pakistan served as a conduit for Nixon's secret diplomacy with Beijing, acting as a backchannel that paved the way for Kissinger's surprise visit in 1971, the piece in History said. This triangulation approach, though successful in reorienting Cold War alliances, had ripple effects that would shape South Asian geopolitics for decades. It also laid the groundwork for a precedent where US foreign policy prioritised short-term strategic goals over long-term democratic values and human rights. Spectacle and symbolism Nixon understood the power of optics. His China visit was meticulously staged to convey a narrative of reconciliation and geopolitical vision. The handshake with Premier Zhou Enlai, which symbolised a dramatic reversal from the 1954 Geneva Conference snub, was broadcast globally and left an indelible imprint on public consciousness. In contrast, his administration's behind-the-scenes manoeuvering during the 1971 Indo-Pak War was cloaked in secrecy and exposed only years later. These contrasting modes — public diplomacy with China versus covert militarism in South Asia — illustrate the dual nature of Nixon's foreign policy which is overt peacemaking paired with covert power plays. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Legacy and lessons The parallels between Nixon's maonoeuvres and recent American foreign policy under Trump serve as a cautionary tale. While strategic diplomacy can realign international relationships and strengthen national interests, it often comes at the expense of ethical considerations. Nixon's China gambit reshaped global diplomacy, but his support for Pakistan during a period of human rights abuses remains a stain on his legacy. As the world becomes more divided with many powerful countries, some people are tempted to return to Nixon's strategy of playing major powers against each other. But the experience from the 1970s shows that strong and lasting partnerships can't be based only on quick deals or short-term benefits. A good foreign policy also needs to consider what is right and responsible.
