Birthright citizenship still in effect for now, but its future is uncertain

The great grandson of Wong Kim Ark protests the SCOTUS ruling.

"The legal upshot of the Supreme Court’s monumentally disastrous decision in Trump v. CASA (more commonly known as 'the birthright citizenship case') is chaos," reads the lede of the Nation's coverage of Friday's ruling by the activist jurists of SCOTUS.

"Utter legal chaos. In its ruling on Friday, the court’s usual six monarchists granted Donald Trump’s request to reexamine various nationwide injunctions preventing Trump and Stephen Miller from implementing their plans to revoke birthright citizenship to any American who doesn’t happen to be white."

 

I couldn't say it any better. Asian American legal advocates agree.

“Because of (the) 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court to limit nationwide injunctions, we now live in a country where some children would get citizenship and otherswouldn’t, largely depending onwhich circuit court they live near," says Niji Jain, legal director of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF). 

"Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the US Constitution, yet the administration is now empowered to continue its campaign to strip that right. Despite the unanimous response from all federal courts who have heard this issue to enterinjunctions preserving birthright citizenship,some children born in this country are now at risk of becoming stateless.”

In a scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor reminded her conservative peers to read the Constitution again. It clearly states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

She recognizes that this decision opens the door the court to a Trump-ordered elimination of birthright citizenship.

Even more ominous is that the ruling could be applied to other Trump orders, even if they are against the law. The power of the courts to curb actions of the executive branch has been significantly diluted.

“This Court endorses the radical proposition that the President is harmed, irreparably, whenever he cannot do something he wants to do, even if what he wants to do is break the law,” Sotomayor writes.

The Trump administration’s malicious attack on birthright citizenship continues to spread fear, anger, and confusion across immigrant communities. That includes the 3.6 million Asian Americans who are either undocumented, seeking asylum, or are in the US on student and work visas (e.g., H-1Bs).

The High Court's ruling means lower courts will have to determine to what extent, if any, the administration’s blatantly unconstitutional executive orders, including the one about birthright citizenship, can go into effect on a case-by-case basis.

 FYI: A copy of the court’s opinion is available here.

The decision took issue with the scope of the interim relief but did not disturb the fact that three District Courts concluded that the executive order is likely unlawful.

“Let me be clear: this case was never about the merits of the birthright citizenship executive order, it remains unconstitutional” explained John C. Yang, president and executive director of Advancing Justice | AAJC. “Birthright citizenship is a cornerstone of our constitution. The administration knows they have little chance of winning on this issue. Instead, they used the lives of millions of immigrants as a poker chip in an effort to curtail nationwide injunctions, which have been one of the best tools we have to hold this administration accountable for unlawful actions,” Yang said.

With the Administration refusing to challenge the opinions of three different courts on the blatant unconstitutionality of this executive order, the Court today allows them to continue to try to sidestep these three court orders blocking a ban to birthright citizenship. The executive order represents an unprecedented and dangerous overreach of executive authority. It is a fundamental attack on the principles that have defined America for over two centuries. 

“The rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this President’s anti-democratic agenda,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. Within 24 hours of the SCOTUS ruling Bonta joined a coalition of 19 other state Attorneys General suing Donald Trump.

In their lawsuit, the Attorneys General argue that the Trump's attempt to unilaterally end birthright citizenship violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution and Section 1401 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and should be immediately blocked from going into effect while litigation proceeds. In its decision, the Supreme Court announced a new standard for nationwide injunctions, sending consideration of the scope of the injunction back to the lower courts. The decision states that the executive order cannot go into effect for 30 days.

“The Supreme Court’s decision allows the lower courts to further consider the scope of the district court's nationwide injunction — which we believe is clearly necessary to provide full relief to the states," said Bonta. "We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable, creating administrative chaos for California and others and harm to countless families across our country. The fight is far from over, and we will continue working to ensure this unlawful, anti-democratic executive order never has the chance to be implemented.

“This decision potentially leaves many families unprotected against the Administration’s unlawful attack on birthright citizenship,” said Thu Nguyen, Executive Director of OCA. “Ever since the landmark case of the US v. Wong Kim Ark, the Asian American community has been at the frontlines of the legal fight to affirm birthright citizenship. Despite this setback, we will not stop,” says Nguyen.

The SCOTUS decision makes it easier for the court, now acting as the Trump administration's enabler, to continue its ultimate quest to eliminate birthright citizenship.

Birthright citizenship, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, grants citizenship to anyone born within the United States, regardless of their parents' immigration status. This principle was affirmed in the landmark case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the US to Chinese immigrants was a citizen.

In essence, birthright citizenship, as established by the 14th Amendment and upheld in the Wong Kim Ark case, ensures that individuals born in the US, including those of Asian descent, are granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' immigration status. 

However, Trump's Department of Justice attorneys argue that the 14th Amendment applies only to children of slaves and shouldn't be granted to generations of children born in the US to parents of immigrants from around the world.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor strongly dissented the SCOTUS ruling.

Sotomayor warns that the decision by the conservative Justices will have an impact beyond the birthright citizenship debate.

“The Court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution,” she writes.

“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”

What the ruling has done was essentially create two Americas, the 22 states which  abide by the three lower court injunctions and those to which they don't apply.

“The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other,” Sotomayor writes in her dissent. “It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge. Now on BlueSky.

Growing nervousness for refugees from Asia as they face the threat of deportation

Thanks to the Donald Trump administration and its conservative propaganda arms, (Fox News, Elon Musk's social media giant X and The New York Post are among the most prominent) there is a lot of confusion these days about immigrants, refugees and the undocumented immigrants.

During Immigration Heritage Month, June 20 has been designated as  World Refugee Day as the world's people flee  all sorts of unsafe conditions caused by war, famine and political, religious or racial persecution.

As of June 28, 2025, no official Presidential Proclamation for World Refugee Day has been issued by the White House. However, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations introduced a resolution on June 20, 2025, which was also referenced by the Refugee Council USA in their statement.

The resolution introduced by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on June 20, 2025, reaffirms the United States' commitment to supporting the safety, health, and well-being of refugees and asylum seekers and advocates for fair and humane policies to address forced migration and refugee challenges. It highlights the importance of the United States Refugee Admissions Program and asylum systems.

The resolution emphasizes several key points, including the urgency of establishing and following comprehensive, fair, and humane policies for forced migration and refugee challenges. It also reaffirms the bipartisan commitment to promoting the safety and well-being of refugees and asylum seekers, providing assistance to host countries, and including refugees and displaced populations in policy solutions. 

WORLD REFUGEE DAY

The resolution stresses the need to respond to the global refugee crisis by meeting robust admissions goals and addressing barriers faced by refugees with disabilities. It concludes by reaffirming the goals of World Refugee Day and the United States' commitment to protecting refugees and asylum seekers.

World Refugee Day is an international day designated by the United Nations to honour refugees around the globe. It falls each year on June 20 and honors the strength and courage of people who have been forced to flee their home country to escape conflict or persecution.

Although most of the radical rightwing media have focused their attention in negative portraits of refugees, particularly those from Mexico, Central and South America, many refugees from Asia have come to the United States, particularly since the 1970s following events like the end of the Vietnam War. The US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) formalized the process for accepting and resettling refugees, and it has admitted over three million refugees since its creation in 1980.

Key Points:

• Significant Numbers: Asia has been a major source of refugees resettled in the United States, with Southeast Asians making up the largest historical group due to the aftermath of the Vietnam War.
• Top Origin Countries: From 2010 to 2020, Myanmar, Iraq, and Bhutan were among the top countries for refugees arriving in the U.S. In more recent years (as of 2024), Afghanistan has also been a significant country of origin for refugees, with the Democratic Republic of Congo and Venezuela also being prominent.
• Government Policy: U.S. policies, like the Refugee Act of 1980, have established procedures for refugee processing. However, policies like the "travel ban" under the Trump administration temporarily impacted the entry of refugees from some Muslim-majority Asian countries.
• Resettlement Challenges: Many Southeast Asian refugees were resettled in areas with limited resources and faced challenges related to poverty, violence, and deportation, particularly those with past minor convictions. Advocates continue to work towards policies that support family reunification and address the unique challenges faced by refugees.

Many refugees from Asia have resettled in the United States, with the largest influx stemming from Southeast Asia following the Vietnam War.

The end of the Vietnam War in the 1970s led to a large-scale displacement of people, many of whom had supported the US war effort. The US responded by resettling over 130,000 Southeast Asian refugees through the Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975, with a total of 1.3 million resettled over three decades.

The US has a history of resettling refugees from various Asian countries, including Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and more recently, Afghanistan. Currently, a significant number of asylum seekers also originate from Asia, particularly from Afghanistan and mainland China. 

In the recent past, the US also granted asylum to those fleeing the dictatorial regime of Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos.

SOUTHEAST ASIANS

More recently, countries like Myanmar, Iraq, and Bhutan have also been significant sources of refugees resettled in the US.

Refugees from Southeast Asia, particularly those from Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, have faced significant challenges in the US, including the threat and reality of deportation. The US has been deporting those who have had run-ins with the law., no matter how minor the infraction might be.

Over 2,000 Southeast Asian Americans have already been deported to countries soe have never lived in. Approximately 15,000 are currently living with final removal orders. Deportation rates, particularly for Cambodians and Vietnamese, have seen significant increases in recent years.

There have been instances where individuals who have served time in jail or prison for a crime are met at the prison door by federal agents to begin the deportation process.

Advocacy groups view these deportations as a form of "double punishment" for individuals who have already served their sentences for past offenses and have established lives in the US.

AFGHAN REFUGEES

In the wake of the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, the US has been involved in evacuating and resettling Afghan refugees, including those with Special Immigrant Visas. Most of the latter included those Afghans who sided with the US or employed by the US government or mlitary, including translators and office staff.

More than 11,000 Afghan refugees are currently in the US legally fulling under.  Temporary Protected Status (TPS) but under Trump's orders, will soon end for thousands of legal immigrants who fled their home countries, including several from Asia.

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is terminating TPS for Afghanistan, with the termination effective on July 14, 2025. This action leaves many Afghan refugees vulnerable to deportation, as they will no longer be shielded from deportation or eligible for work permits.

Rahmat Mokhtar, who served as a military interpreter for US Marines in Afghanistan for 4 years came to America on a specal immigration visa in 2016, now works as an advocate for Afghan refugees settling in the US. He. warns that deportations could amount to a death sentence for many.

Mokhtar disputes Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem's claims that conditions in Afghanistan have improved.

"If you're a Christian, or if you're from LGBT community, no one knows what will happen to them," Mokhtartold the CBS. "They just disappear in [many] cases."

Shawn VanDiver is a veteran and founder of Afghan Evac, a volunteer organization working with the Office of the Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts, or CARE, said these refugees helped the US during wartime.

"Prosecutors and lawyers who put the Taliban away, female tactical platoon members who gathered intelligence for us. They partner with forces who trained, fought and bled alongside our Navy Seals and Green Berets," VanDiver told the CBS affiliate in San Diego.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge. Now on BlueSky.

Filipino American Rutgers player is the No. 2 pick in the NBA draft

SCREEN CAPTURE / ESPN

Dylan Harper and his mother Maria. were interviewed on ESPN after he was the No. 2 pick.

A Filipino American basketball player was the second overall pick in the National Basketball League Draft held Wednesday.

Dylan Harper, whose mother is a Filipino American, was the No. 2 selection in the 2025 NBA draft. Picked by the San Antonio Spurs, the 6'6" guard played only a year for Rutgers University in New Jersey before becoming pro.

During his lone year at Rutgers the 19-year old averaged 19.4 points, 4.6 rebounds, and 4.0 assists.

Harper had barely sat down in the Green Room after the No. 1 draft pick, Cooper Flagg, was selected by the Dallas Mavericks, when he heard his name.

Harper is the son of former Laker/Bulls player Ron Harper and his Filipino American mother, Maria Pizarro, who coaches boys' high school basketball at Don Bosco Prep in Ramsey, New Jersey.

Harper's mother was born in Bataan, Philippines and played college basketball at the Univeristy of New Orleans. Her other son, Ron, Jr., is in his third year in the NBA playing for the Detroit Pistons.

"We're playing the sport we love," Maria told Jersey Sports Zone in April 2023. "They're playing it, I'm coaching it. It's a family affair, and that's how pure it is in our family." 

Speaking about his mother, who raised Dylan, Ron, Jr., and their sister after her divorce from Ron Harpers, Sr. in 2012. “She means the world to me,” Dylan said. “She even coached me from first grade all the way to senior high school. For her to see this moment, and just to be there for my journey — I love my mom. Everything I do is definitely for her.”

While Dylan's father is already welll known for his five rings (3 with the Chicago Bullls and 2 with the Laakers), His mother almost stole Dylan's moment on draft night as she went viral on social media. 

Pizarro is not kidding when she says the basketball is the family's blood. Speaking to The Athletic in 2023, Maria's influence over Dylan was made very clear.

'I’m not big on girlfriends or house parties,' she said. 'We get up, we go to school, we have our activity, whether it’s basketball or it’s dance, we get our homework done, and that’s about it. That’s the tone that I set in the household.'

She said of Dylan's basketball skills: "What makes him good is that he’s a Swiss army knife. He sees the floor like an eagle. He knows how to get his teammates involved.

"He’s a very capable scorer if you need him to be, but because he has a point guard mentality, he wants his teammates to succeed, even before himself."

Harper and his mother, Maria Pizarro, spoke to the ESPN cameras moments after the he was picked by the Spurs.

'His flat-out love for the game, his determination, hard work and humility, day in and day out,' a visibly emotional Maria told ESPN when asked about what had led her son to the NBA.

With the addition of Harper, the Spurs could be a formidable force next season as the team fine-tunes its strategy of putting the best players on the floor, no matter The San Antonio team has the last two rookies of year in Victor Wembanyama (2023-2024) and Stephon Castle (2024-2025). In addition, the Spurs acquired already proven vet  De'Aaron Fox last year.

Dylan Harper joins a slowly growing list of active Filipino American players in the NBA: His brother Ron Harper Jr of the Detroit Pistons, Jordan Clarkson of the Utah Jazz and Jalen Green, who was recently traded to the Phoenix Suns and Jared McCain of the Philadelphia 76ers.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge. Now on BlueSky.

National organizing in the AANHPI communities is the legacy of Vincent Chin

Graphic / Vincent Chin Institute

Detroit named a street after Vincent Chin to remember the Chinese American was beaten to death with a baseball bat.

On June 19, 1982, Chin went with friends to a Detroit strip club in to celebrate his upcoming wedding. That night, two white men who beat Chin even though their friends correctly identified him as Chinese, not Japanese. The attackers were autoworkers and at the time, there was an growing anti-Asian  sentiment because of the growing popularity of Japan-made cars in the US.

Even though the two men pleaded guilty at their trial, they judge fined them only $3,000 each and zero prison time. 

“These aren’t the kind of men you send to jail,” Kaufman said in defense of the sentences. “We’re talking here about a man who’s held down a responsible job for 17 or 18 years, and his son is employed and is a part-time student. You don’t make the punishment fit the crime, you make the punishment fit the criminal.”

The outrageously light sentence sparked national outrage and fueled a movement for pan-Asian American rights.

“People knew from personal experience that we were lumped together (by non-Asian Americans),” says Helen Zia, a Chinese American journalist who participated in civil rights activism in Detroit after Chin’s murder trial. “But in terms of identifying as pan-Asian, the key thing was that a man was killed because (his murderers thought) he looked like a different ethnicity.” Not only that, “his murderers got off on probation—in other words, scot-free,” she told the Detroit Free Press.

“These aren’t the kind of men you send to jail,” Kaufman said in defense of the sentences. “We’re talking here about a man who’s held down a responsible job for 17 or 18 years, and his son is employed and is a part-time student. You don’t make the punishment fit the crime, you make the punishment fit the criminal.”

Kin Yee, president of the Detroit Chinese Welfare Council, argued the sentences amounted to “a license to kill for $3,000, provided you have a steady job or are a student and the victim is Chinese.”

Although Chin’s life was cut short at age 27, his death left an immense impact within Asian American communities locally and nationwide. His death and the court proceedings that followed are considered critical turning points for Asian American civil rights engagement. Within local and nationwide organizing, concerned community members and civil rights advocacy groups rallied for stronger federal hate crime legislation that protected Asian Americans. The public outcry to Vincent Chin’s murder contributed to the formation of Pan-Asian American identity and unity.

Fittingly, the Vincent Chin street is in Detroit's Chinatown. The city hopes to revitalize the ethnic enclave which has been hit with hard times recently.

“More than four decades later, Asian Americans continue to face discrimination, violence, and scapegoating,” said Thu Nguyen, Executive Director of OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates. 

“The ongoing surge of anti-Asian hate, sparked by the pandemic and fueled by xenophobic rhetoric and policies from national leaders, echoes the same racism and scapegoating that led to Vincent Chin’s death. His story remains a stark reminder of the consequences of unchecked hate and a call to action to confront racism in all its forms.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge. Now on BlueSky.

Hollywood slowly realizing that diversity in movies attracts more viewers

Steven Yeun, one of the few Asian leading men,  stars with Kristin Stewart in 'Love Me'
that can be viewed on Netflix.

Hollywood does a better job in diversity and inclusion in streaming films than those movies released in theaters. However, despite the progress in representation, Asian American presence lags behind other minorities.

The UCLA Hollywood Diversitiy Report 2025 released this week found that streaming platforms continued to chart paths forward for diversity, with gains for people of color in all major employment categories. Women also saw more opportunities in acting roles, the report found. These increases are in sharp contrast to how films on the big screen walked back opportunities for these same groups.

“Films should reflect the realities of this country in terms of representation,” said Darnell Hunt, executive vice chancellor and provost at UCLA, who co-founded the report series. “We’re past the point where we can let the wholesale erasure of people’s identities, perspectives and experiences slide.”

        FYI: The UCLA Hollywood Diversity Report 2025

Streaming platforms continued to chart paths forward for diversity, with gains for people of color in all major employment categories. Women also saw more opportunities in acting roles, the report found. These increases are in sharp contrast to how films on the big screen walked back opportunities for these same groups.

After 2023’s historic highs for people of color in theater-bound films, after Trump's attack on DEI policies, the rollback on diversity was evident, as people of color lost ground in all key employment areas and researchers found that 80% of directors and co-directors and 91.5% of writers and co-writers were white.

Researchers found that, for the first time, half of all leads were people of color, almost double the percentage for top theatrical films. For instance, 64% of streaming films had casts that were at least 30% minority actors, compared to 57% of theatrical films.

However, the UCLA report's findings on streaming films, indicated that while representation for people of color in lead roles on streaming platforms has improved overall, Asian actors remain underrepresented.

Other key findings:

• Underrepresentation in Lead Roles: Asian actors were still underrepresented among lead streaming roles, accounting for just 2% of these roles. This contrasts with their representation in the overall U.S. population, where Asians account for 6.4%.

• Diverse Casts in Top Films: A majority of the top 20 streaming-only films released in 2024 featured diverse casts, and households identifying as Asian were among those who had a significant portion of their top 10 highest-rated films featuring such diversity.

• Driving Viewership: Like other people of color, Asian audiences drove viewership highs for streaming films, especially those with diverse casts.

• Limited Representation in Specific Roles: There were no Asian female leads in the top theatrical films in 2024, and while the streaming report focuses on streaming, it is important to note this finding from Part 1 of the report.

• South Asian Minimal Representation: South Asians were minimally represented in top films.

“Our data shows that diverse storytellers and actors draw in and engage people from every demographic,” said co-author Jade Abston, a doctoral candidate in cinema media studies. 

The report found that diversity was beneficial economically. The increased diversity behind and in front of the camera increased viewership among the streaming audience. 

“People across the country support diverse films regardless of whether it’s in a theater or from the comfort of their couch,” said Ana-Christina Ramón, co-founder of the report and director of the Entertainment and Media Research Initiative at UCLA. “Streaming films are one of the few places where the stories and faces that reflect the people of this country can be found.”

Most of the top 20 streaming films by overall household ratings featured casts that included more than 30% people of color. When audiences were broken into different demographic groups, households that defined themselves as Asian, Black, Latino, white, or other race/ethnicity had at least eight, if not more, of their top 10 highest-rated films featuring casts that included such diversity.

The report also looked at film budgets, as well as the 175 film deals made in 2024 overall.

Just over 65% of the top streaming films had budgets of less than $20 million, compared to 34.6% for theatrical films. On the higher end, only 4.4% of streaming films had budgets of $100 million or more, which is almost six times less than the 26% share in top theatrical films. Men were the only streaming film directors with this level of resources.

“We’re glad to see gains for diversity with streaming films, but the gap between movie budgets for streaming and theatrical releases gets wider and wider,” said Michael Tran, a sociologist and co-author of the report. “It’s especially troubling since only a select few, specifically men, are given the chance to dip into the upper echelons of financial backing.”

While streaming has seen gains in diversity, the report also highlights the need for continued investment in diverse storytellers to remain relevant and attract new audiences.

Particularly key to the success of streaming films was the viewership of certain groups: Households of color were overrepresented for 19 of the top 20 streaming films ranked by total household ratings. Women were the majority of viewers, and audiences aged 18-49 were also overrepresented among 15 of the same top 20 films.

In summary, the UCLA Hollywood Diversity Report 2025 streaming edition highlighted both positive trends in overall streaming diversity and the continued need for improvement in Asian representation, particularly in lead acting roles.

“Having diverse stories pushes the boundaries of what we know and understand. Inclusive storytelling is needed now more than ever,” Hunt said.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge. Now on BlueSky.

Pope Leo's appointment of the first Vietnamese American bishop sends a message supporting all immigrants

FACEBOOK

San DIego's Bishop Michael Pham is the first Vietnamese American bishop.

As one of his first acts as head of the Catholic church, Pope Leo XIV picked Bishop Michael Pham to head the Diocese of San Diego. 

Pham is the first Vietnamese American to lead an American diocese and is the seventh Bishop of San Diego. But more significantly, he is a refugee, having fled communist Vietnam as a child.

Pham's appointment may be a statement by the new Pope because Pham, as a refugee, is an outspoken critic of Donald Trump's immigration policies.

In one of his first acts as San Diego's new bishop, Pham, along with auxiliary bishops Revs. Ramon Bejarano and Felipe Pulido, sent a letter to faith leaders in the Diocese of San Diego suggesting they visit federal court buildings next week “to stand in solidarity” with immigrants making court appearances.

“We know that migrants and refugees find themselves in the difficult predicament of being called to appear, which is what the government asks of them, and then being given orders for expedited removal from our country,” the group wrote in the letter.

“This group of priests and faith leaders will simply be present during this process as it has been experienced that the presence of faith leaders makes a difference in how migrants are treated. Unfortunately, it will most likely not change the outcome.”

Not coincidentally, the day chosen for this act of support for immigrants is June 20th, is also International Refugee Day.

Pham's Mass installing him as San Diego's bishop will be held on July 17.

The new Bishop sent this letter to clergy and faith leaders in the San Diego diocese.

“With profound gratitude and blessing, I receive my appointment to be the seventh Bishop of the Diocese of San Diego. I cannot express enough how grateful I am to God for blessing me with graces to serve God’s people. I am deeply thankful to Pope Leo XIV who entrusted me with this portion of the Lord’s vineyard. It brings an added sense of awe as I am a son to this diocese. It is an honor to serve ‘my home,’ where I received my call and vocation to the priesthood more than 31 years ago," Pham said.

“‘The Good Shephed knows his sheep, and they know him.’ I find great joy and hope in these words as I assume my new role as bishop, shepherd, and brother to a wonderful community of bishops, priests, religious men and women, deacons, and lay leaders who have ministered alongside me all these years. I look forward to continuing the mission of our diocese as we embrace the call to be a synodal church where we listen, dialogue, and advance forward with a grateful heart.”

Pham fled Vietnam as a 13-year-old refugee in 1980, accompanied by his older sister and a younger brother, arriving first at a refugee camp in Malaysia, before being sponsored a year later in 1981 by an American family and relocating to Minnesota. A few months later, another sister came to live with them and in 1983 the remainder of his family – four more siblings and his parents – arrived in Minnesota. His family moved to San Diego in 1985.

He graduated from San Diego State University with a bachelor’s and started a master’s degree in aeronautical engineering before transferring to St. Francis Seminary at the University of San Diego. He completed his seminary training at St. Patrick’s Seminary in Menlo Park. He was ordained a priest of the San Diego Diocese in 1999. In 2009, he completed a Master of Science in Psychology. In 2020, he completed a Licentiate in Sacred Theology.

He has been serving as diocesan administrator since mid-March, following the departure of Cardinal McElroy to the Archdiocese of Washington.

In one of his most noteworthy assignments, he served as Vicar for Ethnic and Intercultural Affairs, where he did groundbreaking work bringing together more than 20 of San Diego’s ethnic Catholic communities.

Pham's appointment is underscore's Pope Leo's sentiment against Trump's harsh policies of immigrants, citizens and those without documentation.

Pham's call to action by Catholic leaders highlights growing faith-based opposition to Trump's mass deportation policy, which has drawn criticism from religious groups and the Vatican.

Just after Pope Leo was elected in May, his brother John Prevost told the media that his sibling is "not happy with what's going on with immigration."

Since he took office, Trump has used immigrants, US citizens or undocumented,  to whip up fear and hate against those people (of color) entering the US. Last week, federal agents arrests of immigrants at their workplaces and at immigration offices sparked mass protests in Los Angeles.

The protests grew so much so fast that Trump federalized California National Guard and called up a contingent of US Marines to protect federal property and the agents from ICE and Homeland Security.

Pham's letter went on to say, that on June 20 they hope "the presence of faith leaders makes a difference in how the migrants are treated."

"The people of faith stand with immigrants and refugees," the letter said.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge. Now on BlueSky.

Filipino American is the star witness against Sean "Diddy" Combs

Actress and singer Cassie Ventura, right, with Sean "Diddy" Combs.

If rapper Sean "Diddy" Combs is found guilty of numerous abuse allegations, it will because of the testimony of his Filipino American Casandra "Cassie" Ventura, one of his former girlfriends.

There would be no federal case against Combs without Ventura and her bombshell 2023 lawsuit accusing him of physical abuse and sexual coercion.

Spending four days on the witness stand last month, Ventura accused Combs of rape as well as physical and emotional abuse. She said over their 11-year relationship, Combs coerced her into participating in drug-fueled “freak-offs,” in which she would have sex with male escorts.

She claimed Combs filmed these alleged encounters and supposedly threatened to ruin her budding singing and acting career by releasing the footage.

Ventura's initial suit was settled one day after it was filed in November of 2023, but that didn't end Comb's troubles.

Her lawsuit created a domino effect, resulting in several additional lawsuits against Diddy and a federal investigation into the allegations. The rapper was arrested in September 2024 and indicted on charges of sex trafficking, racketeering and transportation to engage in prostitution.

Since then, new witnesses have emerged, including other former girlfiends and former employees, some using psuedonym, have corroborated Ventura's allegations as they recounted their own alleged abuse by Combs.

FYI: If you or someone you know is struggling with intimate partner violence, there are resources available, including the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

According to the indictment, prosecutors claim that Combs forced or coerced women into participating in "freak offs" and would allegedly leverage his power and influence to do so.

"The case rises and falls with Cassie. Especially the sex trafficking charges,” says former prosecutor Mark Chutkow. She testified last month.

Ventura, 38, is at the center of many of the charges, and other witnesses, including her friends and mother, have corroborated her testimony.

Still, Chutkow believes hotel the hotel's surveillance video from 2016, in which Combs is seen beating Ventura and kicking her while she’s on the ground, is damning to Combs' not guilty plea and overrides any single testimony. “You can’t really cross-examine videotape,” he says. “It’s like a crime scene frozen in time.”

The details of these allegations have become a central focus of both the civil lawsuits and the criminal proceedings against Combs have shed light on serious allegations of abuse and exploitation.

According to Ventura's testimony last month, Combs began physically, sexually and emotionally abusing her in 2007, around the same time the two of them began dating.

She had just recorded her biggest R&B hit, "Me & You," and was seen as an upcoming star in the recording and motion picture industry.

She signed with Combs' Bad Boy Records to a long-term contract, which in hindsight, she says, was a means of control. She nver replicated her first hit despite several

Under oath, Ventura said that during her 11-year relationship with Combs, she recorded hundreds of tracks under his direction. She now calls those efforts busywork, saying that her main job was organizing and participating in multi-day marathons of sex and drug use directed by Combs, which Ventura alleged happened "hundreds" of times over the years.

Combs' defense lawyers say her participation was entirely consensual, and Combs has pleaded not guilty to all the criminal charges against him.

The 38-year old actress/singer's husband, Alex Fine, whom she married in 2019, was in the courtroom during her testimony The couple share two daughters,  and welcomed their third child, a son, later last month.

INSTAGRAM / CASSIE VENTURA

Rod Ventura, Cassie Ventura's father, with one of her children.

While her parents have been mostly out of the spotlight, she has been vocal about their support throughout her life. During a February 2007 conversation with The New York Times, Ventura opened up about her parents' influence, saying, "My parents raised me right."

"I work hard, and I want to prove I deserve what I have. I talk to them every day,” she said, adding that they "keep (her) focused."

Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty to charges of sex trafficking, racketeering and transportation to engage in prostitution. If found guity, Combs could face life imprisonment.

Ventura was raised by her parents — an "army brat" mom and "navy brat" dad — in Connecticut, as she said during a January 2008 interview with Blackfilm.

"My Dad is Filipino and my Mom is Mexican, Black and West Indian."

"My childhood was fun," she told the outlet, adding that it was "pretty carefree."

"I tried a little of everything when I was little," Cassie said. "I tried karate, I tried ballet, I tried piano lessons and singing lessons. ... I was a pretty normal kid, for the most part."

Friday is the 23rd day of Combs' trial. Because he was denied bail, Combs remains in detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, while the trial continues.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge. Now on BlueSky.

L.A. protests: “Donald Trump is creating fear and terror," says governor

National Guard soldiers were ordered to 

The heavy-handed tactics used by federal immigration authorities has sparked angry  protests and a lawsuit against Donald Trump and his questionable use of the California National Guard that appears to be escalating the tension and anger in Los Angeles.

Trump's use of the National Guard to quell protests against tactics used by federal immigration agents in Los Angeles has California's Filipino American Attorney General Rob Bonta filing his 24th lawsuit against Donald Trump and his administration

Bonta and California Governor Gavin Newsom are suing Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth in response to their orders seeking to federalize the California National Guard for 60 days under 10 U.S.C. § 12406.

 In the early hours of Sunday morning, the US Department of Defense, at the direction of Donald Trump, redirected hundreds of National Guard troops from San Diego to Los Angeles, without authorization from the Governor and against the wishes of local law enforcement. In total, the Department intends to deploy 2,000 troops from across the state, an inflammatory escalation unsupported by conditions on the ground. 

Lawsuit filed against Trump

In the lawsuit filed Tuesday, Bonta and Newsom asks the court to hold unlawful and set aside the Trump’s order federalizing the National Guard by way of a rarely used law, arguing that such action exceeds the federal government’s authority under the law and violates the Tenth Amendment.

“President Trump’s order calling federalized National Guard troops into Los Angeles – over the objections of the Governor and local law enforcement – is unnecessary and counterproductive. It’s also deeply unfair to the members of the National Guard who are hard at work every day protecting our state, preparing for and responding to emergencies, and training so that, if called, they can fight our nation’s wars,” says  Bonta. 

        RELATED: California challenges Trump's tarriffs

“Let me be clear: There is no invasion. There is no rebellion. The President is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends," says Bonta. "Federalizing the California National Guard is an abuse of the President’s authority under the law – and not one we take lightly. We’re asking a court to put a stop to the unlawful, unprecedented order.”

“Donald Trump is creating fear and terror by failing to adhere to the US Constitution and overstepping his authority. This is a manufactured crisis to allow him to take over a state militia, damaging the very foundation of our republic,” says Newsom. 

On Friday and Saturday, June 6 and 7, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted multiple immigration raids in downtown Los Angeles; at a Home Depot and at apparel manufacturers Around 3 p.m. Friday. Crowds began gathering in shouting at the federal agents and trying to stop the federal agents' vehicles.

These raids were met with multiple protests. 

Following threats to send in the National Guard from several Trump Administration officials, on the evening of June 7, Trump issued a formal memorandum entitled “Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions,” purporting to authorize the Department of Defense to call up 2,000 California National Guard personnel into federal service for a period of 60 days. 

In implementing this directive, the Department of Defense circumvented authorization from the Governor and began deploying National Guard troops to Los Angeles over the objections of local law enforcement actively on the ground. Notably, by the time the National Guard arrived Sunday morning, the protests had dissipated and streets were quiet, but soon after the National Guard arrived, tensions reignited, leading to the very sort of unrest the National Guard was supposedly sent in to quell. 

Concerningly, Trump has already made clear his intention to expand the use of these National Guard troops to conduct interior civil immigration enforcement activities normally conducted by civil immigration law enforcement officers, creating fear and terror in California communities.

Trump’s unprecedented order attempts to usurp state authority and resources via 10 U.S.C. § 12406, a statute that has been invoked on its own only once before in modern history and for highly unusual circumstances — when President Richard Nixon called upon the National Guard to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service Strike. This is also the first time since 1965 — when President Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators — that a president has activated a state’s National Guard without a request from the state’s governor. 

In this case, Newsom did not request that the state’s National Guard be federalized, as local authorities were managing the situation on the ground, and openly expressed concern that bringing in the National Guard could inflame the situation. After the President plowed ahead with his order, the Governor sent a letter to Secretary Hegseth requesting that the Department of Defense rescind its unlawful deployment of troops in the state and return them to his command.

In the lawsuit filed Tuesday, Bonta and Newsom asks the court to hold that Trump's and Department of Defense’s orders federalizing the California National Guard are unlawful, arguing that:The federalization of the California National Guard deprives California of resources to protect itself and its citizens, and of critical responders in the event of a state emergency.

Newsom had filed an emergency motion with the courts Tuesday in an attempt to prevent Trump's expansion of the military in LA - a federal judge denied it and set the hearing for Newsom's lawsuit for Thursday

        FYI: A copy of the lawsuit is available here.

10 U.S.C. 12406 requires that the Governor consent to federalization of the National Guard, which Newsom was not given the opportunity to do prior to their deployment.

Trump’s unlawful order infringes on Newsom’s role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and violates the state’s sovereign right to control and have available its National Guard in the absence of a lawful invocation of federal power.

“State and local law enforcement have repeatedly said they have the resources necessary to handle the situation. It is completely un-American and needlessly provocative for Donald Trump to deploy the National Guard and Marines to Southern California," said California Rep. Ted Lieu, whose district includes part of Los Angeles. 

"So, I want to talk about the National Guard first. Their legal authority Trump is using is 10 U.S.C. Section 12406. I encourage all of you to read it. It very specifically says the only way he can do this is through the orders of the Governors of the states. Governor Newsom clearly has not given this order; the National Guard troops are following unlawful orders. I ask every National Guard person who is under this order to read the order, to see if it came from Governor Newsom and then to read the law and then decide for themselves if they are following unlawful orders," Lieu implored.

“Like millions of Americans across the country, I am deeply concerned by the administration’s use of aggressive tactics against immigrant communities. Armed agents have raided schools, workplaces, and homes—terrorizing our neighbors and ripping families apart,” said Congressmember Grace Meng (NY-06), chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. 

“This is not about public safety, this is about exerting control and striking fear in immigrant communities," said Meng. "As Members of Congress, we will continue to exercise our legal authority to conduct oversight of detention centers and demand accountability from the administration, and we will fight for immigration policies that reflect our nation’s values of fairness and dignity for all—not cruelty disguised as law and order.”

Protestors take to the streets

The protests were in response to raids by ICE and Homeland Security at workplaces, schools and when immigrants arrived at their immigration check-ins which they agreed to in order to remain in the country.

“Mass raids without warrants has been what has started this whole thing,” alleges Rep. Judy Chu, D-CA., “It was started by Donald Trump.”

On Friday, June 6, the federal government, through IICE, began conducting widespread operations throughout Los Angeles without providing notification to local law enforcement. During the course of these operations, ICE officers took actions that inflamed tensions, including the arrest and detainment of children, and military-style operations that sparked panic in the community. The Department of Homeland Security reported that its enforcement activities on June 6 resulted in the arrest of 44 individuals, two of whom appear to have been minors. Only five of those arrested reportedly had any criminal history.

In response, community members began protesting to express opposition to these Gestapo-like tactics, the Trump’s heavy-handed, violent immigration agenda, and the arrest of innocent people, and to express solidarity with and concern for the individuals and families most directly impacted by the enforcement actions taking place in their community. 

Protests continued for two more days, and although some violent and illegal incidents were reported — leading to justified arrests by state and local authorities — these protests were largely nonviolent and involved citizens exercising their First Amendment right to protest. 

As the protests moved into a third day, Tuesday night L.A. Mayor Karen Bass instituted a curfew in downtown Los Angeles. Small bands of people ignored the curfew and the LAPD began making arrests.

At no point did these protests necessitate federal intervention, and local and state law enforcement remained in control of the situation. Local law enforcement, despite no communication or advanced notice from the federal government, responded quickly and did not request federal assistance.

“Every governor, red or blue, should reject this outrageous overreach," says Newsom. "This is beyond incompetence — this is him intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities, and endangering the principles of our great democracy. It is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism. We will not let this stand.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge.