
Should Indians feel ‘ashamed' for speaking English?
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
29 minutes ago
- New York Times
Eric Holder on Why He Reversed Course on Gerrymandering
Eight years ago, Eric Holder, the attorney general in the Obama administration, embarked on a quest with a single, daunting goal: to eliminate politics from the process of drawing legislative districts. Through the organization he leads, the National Democratic Redistricting Commission, which has ties to Democrats, Mr. Holder has largely focused on fighting maps drawn by Republican legislatures, bringing legal challenges and political pressure in an effort to break Republican gerrymanders. And while he has not always been as critical of Democrats, Mr. Holder has chastised some Democratic-led states and their legislatures for drawing egregious gerrymanders as well, arguing that 'fairness for us is a weapon.' But this week, something changed. Amid a contentious, Republican-led redistricting effort in Texas, Mr. Holder reversed course, arguing that Democrats should respond in kind, with their own aggressive gerrymander as a temporary salve in an increasingly fraught battle. Democratic governors in several states, including California and New York, are considering rewriting laws or amending their states' constitutions in order to redraw their maps. In an interview on Friday, Mr. Holder explained the reasons behind his sudden shift and argued that Democrats needed to assert their power more aggressively. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution. Advertisement 'If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion,' the judges wrote. A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for September. Advertisement The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court Monday. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. Advertisement 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a 'victory for the rule of law' and said the city will protect residents from the 'racial profiling and other illegal tactics' used by federal agents.


New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
India Will Buy Russian Oil Despite Trump's Threats, Officials Say
Indian officials said on Saturday that they would keep purchasing cheap oil from Russia despite a threat of penalties from President Trump, the latest twist in an issue that New Delhi thought it had settled. Mr. Trump said last week that as part of his latest round of tariffs, he would impose an unspecified additional penalty on India if it did not cut off its imports of Russian crude oil. On Friday, he appeared to echo reports of a recent dip in the arrival of Russian oil to India. 'I understand that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia,' he told reporters. 'That's what I heard. I don't know if that's right or not. That is a good step. We will see what happens.' But on Saturday, two senior Indian officials said there had been no change in policy. One official said the government had 'not given any direction to oil companies' to cut back imports from Russia. Mr. Trump did not say what the penalty would be if India were to defy his call to cut off Russian oil imports. Some officials and analysts have said that Mr. Trump's focus on India's purchase of Russian oil could be a negotiating tactic as India and the United States try to conclude the early phases of a bilateral trade agreement. China and Turkey, two other major importers of Russian oil, have not faced similar penalties. India has drastically increased its purchases of Russian oil since the war in Ukraine began. Russia is now the source of more than one third of India's oil imports — up from less than one percent before the war. Bringing in more than two million barrels of crude oil a day, India is the second largest importer of Russian oil, after China. New Delhi faced strong pressure in the early months after the Russian invasion of Ukraine to cut down on its economic ties with Russia. That pressure continued as Indian oil imports spiked. But by the second year of the war, the tone began to shift on the imports of India, the world's most populous nation. It appeared that India had convinced its American and European allies that its expanded purchase of cheap Russian oil — at a price cap imposed by the European Union and Group of 7 — was good for keeping global oil prices in check. Early last year, senior officials at the U.S. Treasury Department visiting New Delhi said India was working within a formula that was proving effective: Keep Russian oil flowing into the global supply but at a cheap enough price that it would shrink Russia's revenue. 'They bought Russian oil because we wanted somebody to buy Russian oil at a price cap; that was not a violation,' Eric Garcetti, then the U.S. ambassador to New Delhi, said last year. 'It was the design of the policy.'