by Oui
Fri Oct 24th, 2025 at 06:16:32 PM EST
Populism and anti-immigration rules New Europe after modelling seen in America-UK-Italy and former USSR satellite states in Eastern Europe. A common denominator for Europe to be further Americanized with authoritarian Big Capitalism.
Crackdown: Deported Under Trump | Fault Lines - AJ Documentary |
Supreme Court lets Trump's controversial immigration raids continue in Los Angeles
US decision effectively allows immigration agents to use racial profiling to detain people, greenlighting sweeping raids.
Supreme Court allows federal officers to more freely make immigration stops in LA | SCOTUS Blog |
US decision effectively allows immigration agents to use racial profiling to detain people, greenlighting sweeping raids.
The Supreme Court on Monday paused a ruling by a federal judge in Los Angeles that imposed restrictions on the ability of federal agents to make immigration stops that the plaintiffs say are based on racial profiling. The order by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong barred agents in the Central District of California - an area with a population of approximately 20 million people - from making such stops without reasonable suspicion that the person being stopped is in the United States illegally. Reasonable suspicion, Frimpong added, cannot rest solely on any combination of four factors: "apparent race or ethnicity," speaking in Spanish or accented English, being present at a location where undocumented immigrants "are known to gather" (such as pick-up spots for day laborers), and working at specific jobs, such as landscaping or construction.
Monday's order by the Supreme Court puts Frimpong's ruling on hold while the Trump administration's appeals continue. In an opinion agreeing with the decision to grant the government's request for a stay, Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized what he characterized as the narrow role of judges in immigration cases. Judges, he wrote, "may have views on which policy approach is better or fairer. But judges are not appointed to make those policy calls. We merely ensure," he stressed, "that the Executive Branch acts within the confines of the Constitution and federal statutes."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from Monday's ruling, in a 21-page opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor described the court's action as "yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. We should not have to live in a country," she wrote, "where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost," she concluded, "I dissent."
You look Latino. You speak Spanish. You work hard. That's now probable cause. | LA Times |
When I was a young UCLA constitutional law major, we learned that the Constitution wasn't just parchment behind glass: It was a living promise, fragile and ferocious, meant to protect the people when power overreached.
But on Monday morning, the Supreme Court taught me something new: that those promises, in the hands of a certain kind of court, can vanish without argument, without a hearing, without even a signed name.
In Noem vs. Vasquez Perdomo, a majority of justices gave a silent blessing to immigration raids in Los Angeles that target people for looking Latino, speaking Spanish and working jobs that build this country but never pay enough to live in it.
The decision came down without full briefing. No oral argument. No record rich with evidence. Just a late-summer shadow cast from marble heights.
The ruling permits federal agents to resume raids across Los Angeles and surrounding counties -- raids where people are seized with no warrant, no particularized cause for suspicion. Just skin color, language and callused hands.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor refused to let it pass unchallenged. "We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job," she wrote. "Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent."
Her dissent is more than an objection. It is a warning.
What makes this moment chilling is not only the decision but how it came. The court used the so-called emergency docket -- a channel once reserved for true crises like wartime injunctions or halting imminent executions. No arguments were heard. No briefs debated. No facts weighed in sunlight. This is not ordinary.
.
Supreme Court allows Trump administration to resume immigration stops in L.A. area | CBS Face the Nation |
10 Key Lessons of the 2024 European Parliament Election
Trump LLC minding his own business in the White House ... just saying #Joe was corrupt 😊
Palantir META Google Lockheed invest in addition east wing ballroom 300 million budget
White House Releases List of Donors to Trump's Ballroom as Demolition Crews Raze East Wing | Democracy Now! |
The Trump administration has released a list of wealthy donors and corporations funding President Trump's $300 million construction of a 90,000-square-foot ballroom at the White House. Among the donors are Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, Palantir, Lockheed Martin and more.
Alphabet, the parent company of Google, is contributing $22 million, after settling a lawsuit Trump filed against YouTube for banning him from the platform after he incited his followers to attack the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
On Thursday, the Secret Service shut off public access to the Ellipse, a public park adjacent to the White House and one of the only spots to view the demolition.
America Big Corporations infiltrating decision making by EU Commission in Brussels by spending big money on lobbyists.
Big Tech Turns Its Lobbyists Loose on Europe, Alarming Regulators | The New York Times - 14 Dec. 2020 |
Silicon Valley is building a powerful influence industry in Brussels, which has "never seen this kind of money" spent this way.
A leaked document jolted the European Union capital of Brussels in October, laying out in painstaking detail plans by Google to undermine new legislation that could severely damage its digital advertising business.
"Academic allies" would raise questions about the new rules. Google would attempt to erode support within the European Commission to complicate the policymaking process. And the company would try to seed a trans-Atlantic trade dispute by enlisting U.S. officials against the European policy, according to a copy reviewed by The New York Times and confirmed by Google.
For many officials in Brussels, the document confirmed what they had long suspected: Google and other American tech giants are engaged in a broad lobbying campaign to stop stronger regulation against them.
As the European Union has become the global leader in tech regulation, these companies have increasingly focused on Brussels in hopes of choking off even stiffer rules before they spread.
GDPR is cracking: Brussels rewrites its prized privacy law | Politico |
Proposed changes to the GDPR, it is feared, could open a Pandora's box of EU tech lobbying.
