Dodgers pledge US$1mil to families affected by immigration raids
The Los Angeles Dodgers have a heavily Latino fan base. (Getty Images/AFP pic)
LOS ANGELES : The Los Angeles Dodgers, criticised for failing to comment on the US government's immigration crackdown, today committed US$1 million toward assistance for families of immigrants 'impacted by recent events in the region'.
The reigning World Series champions have faced criticism for their response to an escalation in federal immigration sweeps that have targeted migrant workers in garment factories, car washes and other workplaces.
Los Angeles has become ground zero of president Donald Trump's immigration enforcement across the US and the Dodgers have a heavily Latino fan base, with some claiming a sense of betrayal over the franchise's failure to speak out against the ongoing raids.
'What's happening in Los Angeles has reverberated among thousands upon thousands of people, and we have heard the calls for us to take a leading role on behalf of those affected,' Dodgers president Stan Kasten said in a statement.
'We believe that by committing resources and taking action, we will continue to support and uplift the communities of Greater Los Angeles.'
The Dodgers said the funds would be used for 'direct financial assistance' for the families.
They added that in the coming days the team planned additional announcements with local community and labour organisations that are directly supporting youth and families with food insecurity, basic essentials and mental health services.
Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass welcomed the Dodgers' involvement.
'I want to thank the Dodgers for leading with this action to support the immigrant community of Los Angeles,' Bass said in a statement.
'These last weeks have sent shockwaves of fear rippling through every neighbourhood and have had a direct impact on our economy,' she said.
'My message to all Angelenos is clear: We will stick together during this time and we will not turn our backs on one another – that's what makes this the greatest city in the world.'
Bass and other California officials have heavily criticised Trump over his use of the national guard and a contingent of marines, sent to purportedly protect federal property and personnel in Los Angeles after demonstrations over the immigration sweeps.
An appeals court has ruled that Trump could continue to control the California national guard, which would normally fall under governor Gavin Newsom's authority.
The announcement comes a day after the Dodgers said they barred federal immigration agents from the team's stadium parking lot as raids continued across America's second-biggest city.
The department of homeland security later clarified that the agents at the venue were from US customs and border protection (CBP), not immigration and customs enforcement (ICE).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
7 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Can Xi, Trump, Khamenei, and Anwar get along? Yes — If the world rediscovers strategic civility — Phar Kim Beng
JUNE 28 — In a world marked by sanctions, suspicion, and soundbites, the idea that Xi Jinping, Donald Trump, Ayatollah Khamenei, and Anwar Ibrahim could ever get along may seem far-fetched. But it is not impossible. The world has long misunderstood the difference between ideological differences and strategic necessity. In an era of multipolar competition and post-normal crises, the ability to disagree without destabilizing the global order is no longer a luxury—it is a prerequisite. The answer to whether these four leaders can find common ground is 'yes'—but only if the world learns to value strategic civility over ideological conformity. And only if we recognize the role of strategic convenor powers—like Malaysia under Anwar Ibrahim—in brokering spaces where dialogue, not dogma, prevails. Four leaders, four civilizational trajectories Xi Jinping leads a China determined to reclaim its historical stature through the revival of Confucian governance principles, Party supremacy, and economic statecraft. China's global posture is one of confidence—sometimes defiant, but often methodical. Donald Trump, back in office, rules through disruption. His foreign policy may seem erratic, but there is a pattern: transactionalism, spectacle, and a preference for leverage over long-term entanglements. While he loathes multilateralism, he is not instinctively drawn to war either. He wants deals—big, visible, and beneficial to domestic constituencies. Ayatollah Khamenei, presiding over a beleaguered but resilient Islamic Republic, blends revolutionary theology with geopolitical pragmatism. Despite decades of sanctions and confrontation, Tehran has always kept a channel open for diplomacy—when treated with dignity. And Anwar Ibrahim—a Muslim democrat, intellectual, and reformer—brings moral clarity without moral posturing. He is not just the Prime Minister of Malaysia; he is Asean's most articulate proponent of civilizational dialogue, advocating for coexistence between Islam, the West, and the Confucian East. His track record shows a consistent commitment to rule-based order, justice, and multilateralism anchored in ethics. When strategic interests overlap, so can leaders What connects these four leaders is not their personal affinity but their converging interests. All four, for different reasons, now operate in a world where overreach brings blowback, and where the line between strategic deterrence and economic disaster grows thinner by the day. Trump wants trade wins and less global policing. He remains open to deals that avoid new wars, especially if they burnish his legacy and strengthen U.S. industry. Xi seeks global stability to ensure China's continued rise. Tensions with the U.S. must be managed, not escalated. A rare earth agreement with Washington was recently signed—proof that economic logic can prevail over decoupling rhetoric. Khamenei, behind the veil of defiance, sees value in a stable regional order. Iran's pivot eastward, especially toward China and Asean, reflects a desire to diversify diplomacy and find breathing room from Western isolation. Anwar, more than any other, recognizes that leadership today means navigating contradictions, not escaping them. Under his stewardship, Malaysia is stepping up as a strategic convenor power—offering a rare neutral space for diplomacy between conflicting blocs. The post-normal world needs convenors, not commanders In this post-normal world—characterized by chaos, contradiction, and complexity—what is urgently missing is not hard power, but bridging power. Countries that can bring opposing sides together without being seen as biased are crucial. This is where Malaysia's role as a strategic convenor power becomes indispensable. Malaysia does not lecture. It listens. It does not impose. It hosts. Its voice resonates across the Islamic world, the Global South, and East Asia—not because it is large, but because it is trusted. The Asean Regional Forum, the East Asia Summit, and now growing Asean-GCC-China trilateral dialogues all reflect Malaysia's convening capacity. Anwar's proposal to address global problems through neutral ASEAN mediation, or to build a global moral coalition against Islamophobia and Sinophobia, are not fringe ideas—they are blueprints for how strategic convenors should behave in the 21st century. Lessons from Asean's quiet success The Asean model, for all its imperfections, thrives on strategic civility—a concept the West often mistakes for weakness. ASEAN has shown how ten countries with vastly different systems can pursue consensus, non-interference, and cooperative security without military blocs or coercion. This 'Asean way,' when applied globally, indeed, turned into Asean Will, could moderate the extremes of U.S. unilateralism, Chinese assertiveness, and Iranian resistance. But for that to happen, countries like Malaysia must be given the diplomatic space to facilitate, not just participate. Ayatollah Khamenei, presiding over a beleaguered but resilient Islamic Republic, blends revolutionary theology with geopolitical pragmatism. — AFP pic Toward a new diplomatic quadrilateral Can Xi, Trump, Khamenei, and Anwar sit at the same table—perhaps not literally, but diplomatically? If the terms are mutual respect, economic stability, and non-imposition of political systems, the answer is yes. China wants a stable periphery and global markets. The U.S. wants reduced costs and visible wins. Iran wants security guarantees and economic inclusion. Asean—led by Malaysia—wants a world where small states are not trampled by the rivalry of giants. It is not only possible, but necessary, for this emerging diplomatic quadrilateral to form. Conclusion: Replacing clash with convening The time of zero-sum diplomacy is over. No single power—American, Chinese, or Islamic—can impose its version of order without backlash. What the world needs are strategic convenor powers that can host the moral imagination of all civilizations, offering an architecture of dialogue when architecture of dominance is crumbling. Anwar, by not siding with any ideological camp, but standing for values rooted in justice and dignity, is uniquely placed to midwife this new order. Yes, Xi, Trump, Khamenei, and Anwar can get along—if the rest of us choose convening over coercion, civility over confrontation, and realism rooted in respect. * Phar Kim Beng is Professor of Asean Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia and a former Head Teaching Fellow at Harvard University. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Malay Mail
8 hours ago
- Malay Mail
‘I don't understand it well': Immigrants and advocates seek clarity as US Supreme Court ruling clouds citizenship rights
Supreme Court ruling causes confusion over birthright citizenship Lawyers and advocates field calls from anxious clients Uncertainty remains on policy across different states WASHINGTON, June 28 — The US Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the US Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. 'There are not many specifics,' said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. 'I don't understand it well.' She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. 'I don't know if I can give her mine,' she said. 'I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality.' Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed US agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the US who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate US district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating 'an extremely confusing patchwork' across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. 'Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?' she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. Worried calls Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. 'He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,' she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the US annually from receiving automatic citizenship. 'It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights,' said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organisation United We Dream. 'That is really chaotic.' Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation — CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project — would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organisations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a US citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the US from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. 'I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born,' she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. 'She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen,' she said. 'If her child is born in Louisiana ... is the baby going to be a citizen?' — Reuters
Malay Mail
9 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Even as markets rally, Trump's policy shifts keep investors on edge
Investors see rally to fresh highs as fragile Analysts describe environment of 'extreme policy uncertainty' Options market shows little sign of euphoria Wide bid/ask spreads, diminished liquidity characterise US stocks NEW YORK, June 28 — As Wall Street puts April's tariff shakeout in the rearview mirror and indexes set record highs, investors remain wary of US President Donald Trump's rapid-fire, sometimes chaotic policymaking process and see the rally as fragile. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq composite index advanced past their previous highs into uncharted territory on Friday. Yet traders and investors remain wary of what may lie ahead. Trump's April 2 reciprocal tariffs on major trading partners roiled global financial markets and put the S&P 500 on the threshold of a bear market designation when it ended down 19 per cent from its February 19 record-high close. This week's leg up came after a US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran brought an end to a 12-day air battle that had sparked a jump in crude prices and raised worries of higher inflation. But a relief rally started after Trump responded to the initial tariff panic that gripped financial markets by backing away from his most draconian plans. JP Morgan Chase, in the midyear outlook published on Wednesday by its global research team, said the environment was characterised by 'extreme policy uncertainty.' 'Nobody wants to end a week with a risk-on tilt to their portfolios,' said Art Hogan, market strategist at B. Riley Wealth. 'Everyone is aware that just as the market feels more certain and confident, a single wildcard policy announcement could change everything,' even if it does not ignite a firestorm of the kind seen in April. Part of this wariness from institutional investors may be due to the magnitude of the 6 per cent S&P 500 rally that followed Trump's re-election last November and culminated in the last new high posted by the index in February, said Joseph Quinlan, market strategist at Bank of America. 'We were out ahead of our skis,' Quinlan said. A focus on deregulation, tax cuts and corporate deals brought out the 'animal spirits,' he said. Then came the tariff battles. Quinlan remains upbeat on the outlook for US stocks and optimistic that a new global trade system could lead to US companies opening new markets and posting higher revenues and profits. But he said he is still cautious. 'There will still be spikes of volatility around policy unknowns.' Overall, measures of market volatility are now well below where they stood at the height of the tariff turmoil in April, with the CBOE VIX index now at 16.3, down from a 52.3 peak on April 8. Unstable markets 'Our clients seem to have become somewhat desensitised to the headlines, but it's still an unhealthy market, with everyone aware that trading could happen based on the whims behind a bunch of' social media posts, said Jeff O'Connor, head of market structure, Americas, at Liquidnet, an institutional trading platform. Trading in the options market shows little sign of the kind of euphoria that characterised stock market rallies of the recent past. 'On the institutional front, we do see a lot of hesitation in chasing the market rally,' Stefano Pascale, head of US equity derivatives research at Barclays, said. Unlike past episodes of sharp market selloffs, institutional investors have largely stayed away from employing bullish call options to chase the market higher, Pascale said, referring to plain options that confer the right to buy at a specified future price and date. Bid/ask spreads on many stocks are well above levels O'Connor witnessed in late 2024, while market depth — a measure of the size and number of potential orders — remains at the lowest levels he can recall in the last 20 years. 'The best way to describe the markets in the last couple of months, even as they have recovered, is to say they are unstable,' said Liz Ann Sonders, market strategist at Charles Schwab. She said she is concerned that the market may be reaching 'another point of complacency' akin to that seen in March. 'There's a possibility that we'll be primed for another downside move,' Sonders addded. Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital in Washington, said he came up with the term 'Snapchat presidency' to describe the whiplash effect on markets of the president's constantly changing policies on markets. 'He feels more like a day trader than a long-term institutional investor,' Spindel said, alluding to Trump's policy flip-flops. 'One minute he's not going to negotiate, and the next he negotiates.' To be sure, traders seem to view those rapid shifts in course as a positive in the current rally, signaling Trump's willingness to heed market signals. 'For now, at least, stocks are willing to overlook the risks that go along with this style and lack of consistent policies, and give the administration a break as being 'market friendly',' said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at Interactive Brokers. — Reuters
