Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : Los Angeles, one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the United States, has become the flashpoint of a deepening constitutional and humanitarian crisis. What began as a federal crackdown on undocumented immigrants has now snowballed into mass protests, legal confrontations, and a dangerous standoff between federal authority and state governance. President Donald Trump’s fulfillment of his campaign promise to deport “millions and millions” of undocumented immigrants has triggered a sequence of events that many fear could push the republic to the brink.
The deployment of 4,100 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to enforce Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Los Angeles was ordered by the president under the Insurrection Act of 1807—an act traditionally invoked to suppress rebellion. However, this action was taken without the consent of California’s governor, in direct contradiction of the 10th Amendment which preserves the sovereignty of states. Governor Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and Attorney General Rob Bonta all denounced the deployment, with legal actions initiated to block federal troops from operating on state soil. They warned that this unprecedented federal intrusion amounted to a political stunt that undermines state rights and weaponizes the military against civilians.
During a contentious congressional hearing, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth defended the deployment but stumbled when asked to cite the exact legal basis for bypassing state authority. His testimony, marked by ambiguity and circular justifications, drew sharp criticism from lawmakers who viewed it as an alarming admission of executive overreach. Meanwhile, President Trump, addressing a rally, escalated the rhetoric further by declaring that anyone who burns the American flag will face one year in prison—despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Texas v. Johnson (1989) that flag desecration is protected under the First Amendment as symbolic political speech. This raised serious questions about how far the administration is willing to stretch constitutional limits to enforce its immigration agenda and silence dissent.
In the streets of Los Angeles, mass protests erupted. While the majority of demonstrations remained peaceful, isolated incidents of vandalism, arson, and clashes with law enforcement did occur. Protesters burned flags to express defiance, while authorities responded with rubber bullets and mass arrests. But unlike the 1992 Rodney King riots, this unrest was limited in scale and geography—mostly confined to a few downtown blocks—yet symbolically far more consequential. It revealed a nation increasingly divided on not just immigration, but governance itself.
Amid these developments, ICE operations came under further scrutiny when it was revealed that many of the agents conducting raids were not government employees but private contractors, incentivized by a pay-per-arrest model. Disturbing reports emerged of masked individuals in unmarked vehicles attempting to detain children from elementary schools, falsely claiming parental consent. Fortunately, school officials resisted, preventing what could have been a tragic episode. This bounty-style enforcement has drawn outrage from legal experts and human rights groups, who see it as a dangerous erosion of accountability and due process.
Los Angeles, with nearly 1 million undocumented immigrants, represents the very mosaic of modern America. Its residents are nearly 49% Hispanic, 23% non-Hispanic White, 11% Asian, and 9% Black. Many undocumented immigrants have lived here for years, pay taxes, and raise American-born children. Yet the aggressive, indiscriminate nature of ICE’s operations has swept up individuals based not on criminal records but on appearance, language, and origin. The result has been broken families, frightened communities, and a growing perception that this crackdown is more about optics than justice.
Several political leaders have added their voices to the chorus. While Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass described the military presence as unlawful and provocative, other national figures offered mixed responses. Senator Bernie Sanders warned of a dangerous descent into authoritarianism, while Senator Tom Cotton supported the move, urging a stronger show of federal force. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum demanded due process for Mexican nationals caught in the raids, insisting that most are law-abiding individuals, not criminals. These statements, although divergent, reflect the magnitude of concern shared by both domestic and international observers about the consequences of using military power to enforce immigration policy.
Equally telling is the sentiment of the general public, widely shared across social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter). Supporters of Trump’s actions argue that law and order must be preserved at all costs and accuse liberal cities of protecting criminals. Some even cheered the arrests and called for more aggressive crackdowns. Others, however, viewed the deployment of Marines and National Guard to detain immigrants as draconian and unconstitutional. Many feared that militarized immigration enforcement would soon be used as a broader political tool to intimidate opposition and suppress dissent. A recurring theme among dissenters was the belief that this kind of power grab represents not patriotism, but creeping authoritarianism. One viral comment read: “This is not law enforcement. This is political theater with tanks.”
While America has seen deportations under prior administrations, never has the strategy been so kinetic, so public, and so constitutionally ambiguous. The present approach tramples on due process and bypasses civilian courts, replacing legal mechanisms with brute force. If undocumented immigrants accused of crimes are to be deported, that must happen through established legal procedures—evidence, hearings, and rulings—not through masked arrests and military interventions. Otherwise, the very concept of justice is hollowed out.
What’s at stake now is far more than immigration enforcement. It’s about the rule of law, the balance of power, and the soul of the American republic. If the federal government continues to override states, silence dissent, and criminalize protest, the nation risks transforming its democracy into a centralized regime driven by executive fiat. There is an urgent need to pause, reflect, and correct course. Deportation of violent criminals may be justifiable, but it must be conducted through lawful and ethical means—not under the shadow of tanks and in violation of the Constitution.
Let us be clear: restoring order does not require rejecting justice. Protecting borders must not mean abandoning freedoms. If America is to remain a beacon of democracy, then it must choose sanity over spectacle, principle over power, and law over lawlessness.
Peace be upon America, and peace be upon its people. May we remain governed by the Constitution—not by campaign promises written in anger and enforced through fear.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : In an X-post that barely exceeded a hundred words, President Donald Trump confirmed a 90-minute telephonic conversation with Chinese President Xi Jinping. While the statement appeared brief and deliberately vague, its subtext echoed far louder than the words conveyed. In reality, this seemingly hollow post symbolized a tectonic shift in diplomatic posture—less a show of power and more a subtle nod to reality: that America may no longer be in the driver’s seat of global economic and strategic dominance, at least not in its contest with China.
The call, notably, was initiated by Trump himself—an act that carries profound diplomatic symbolism. Here was a leader who, during both his presidencies, repeatedly condemned China for “plundering” the U.S. economy, decried the “unfair trade imbalance,” and accused previous administrations of capitulating to Beijing’s will. Trump once boasted that his harsh tariff regime would force China to its knees, expecting Chinese negotiators to flock to Washington, desperate for relief. But that fantasy never materialized. Instead, China absorbed the economic blows, diversified its global trade networks, and fortified its internal resilience.
Rather than the desperate supplicant Trump imagined, Xi Jinping held his ground. Now, ironically, Trump is the one initiating calls, complimenting Xi as a “great leader” and praising China as a “great country”—a stark contrast to his prior inflammatory rhetoric, which often painted Xi as the authoritarian figurehead of an exploitative communist regime.
Trump mentioned that the conversation focused primarily on rare earth minerals—an issue that indeed deserves attention. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), China accounts for over 60% of global rare earth mining and more than 85% of global rare earth refining capacity as of 2024. These materials are essential in semiconductors, electric vehicles, smartphones, wind turbines, and military defense systems. Trump’s veiled acknowledgment that China controls this economic chokepoint reveals the administration’s growing anxiety over America’s increasing dependency.
Yet, even more revealing was what Trump claimed was not discussed—Ukraine, Iran, and Palestine. In diplomacy, denial often implies focus. By explicitly stating these topics weren’t addressed, Trump tacitly confirmed they were. After all, in a 90-minute high-level dialogue, limiting discussion to minerals alone is implausible. These geopolitical flashpoints—Ukraine’s war, Iran’s nuclear program, and the Gaza conflict—are where U.S.-China tensions remain sharpest. And Trump, who famously declared he could “end the Ukraine war in 24 hours,” likely used this opportunity to test China’s position on global peace-brokering.
Taiwan, too, must have surfaced. The U.S. adheres to the One-China Policy yet continues to arm and politically support Taiwan. China regards this as direct interference in its sovereignty. U.S. military drills in the Indo-Pacific, including in the Taiwan Strait, are seen by Beijing as provocations. Trump’s new Defense Secretary recently reiterated America’s commitment to defend Taiwan—a message that no doubt reached Xi’s ears.
China’s military has responded by accelerating exercises in the South China Sea, fortifying artificial islands, and increasing joint military drills. Simultaneously, the U.S. has strengthened regional security arrangements, notably: AUKUS: A trilateral pact among Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, established in 2021 to enhance defense technology cooperation, QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue): A strategic forum involving the U.S., Japan, India, and Australia, aimed at ensuring a “free and open Indo-Pacific, EDCA (Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement) with the Philippines, granting the U.S. access to key military bases near Taiwan and the South China Sea and U.S.-ROK (South Korea) and U.S.-Japan bilateral defense treaties, alongside military cooperation with Vietnam and Thailand.

This telephonic détente comes as the 90-day pause on Trump-imposed tariffs nears expiration. If reinstated, tariffs would strike a broad range of Chinese exports—including electronics, machinery, plumbing tools, and household essentials—integral to the U.S. supply chain.
Working at a Home Depot in Macomb, Michigan, I see firsthand how deeply entwined U.S. retail infrastructure is with Chinese manufacturing. Roughly 90% of Home Depot’s tools, materials, and household items originate from China. With daily sales reaching $5–6 million per store nationwide, any disruption—through tariffs or supply chain blockages—could send shockwaves across the retail and logistics industries.
The broader implication is alarming. A full tariff regime would hike prices, shrink consumer purchasing power, and trigger layoffs from ports and warehouses to transport and sales. According to a U.S.-China Business Council 2023 report, U.S. imports from China underpin over 1 million American jobs in logistics, shipping, warehousing, and retail. While Trump’s administration projects toughness, it’s clear that economic interdependence leaves little room for bravado.
And China remains unfazed. During my August 2024 visit to a solar panel manufacturing plant in Shenzhen, I was told with calm confidence: “We’ll redirect to other markets.” That’s not an empty boast. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) now involves over 150 countries and 32 international organizations, making it the most expansive economic integration framework in history. With buyers across Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America, losing the U.S. market is an inconvenience—not a catastrophe—for Chinese exporters.
Meanwhile, the U.S. economic dependence is stark. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, China is the third-largest U.S. trading partner, with bilateral trade in goods reaching $575 billion in 2023, and China supplies over 80% of certain U.S. imports in electronics, rare earths, toys, and machinery. In contrast, the U.S. accounts for only 12% of China’s total exports, per data from China’s General Administration of Customs.
Trump’s announcement of a new negotiation team, including a former U.S. envoy to Iran, signals a broader recalibration of U.S. foreign policy. It suggests that Washington is open to involving China in thorny Middle Eastern diplomacy—particularly in the Iran nuclear negotiations, now being quietly brokered by Oman, Egypt, and other neutral states. With China’s status as Iran’s top oil customer and major investor in infrastructure, Beijing’s role could be transformative.
One telling sign of détente is Xi’s invitation for Trump and the First Lady to visit China—something Trump likely long sought but never received during the earlier phase of his presidency. That Xi now extends this gesture suggests a new diplomatic tone—perhaps not of equals, but certainly of recognition. Trump, once determined to isolate China, now finds himself vying for proximity.
All this underscores a sobering truth: America no longer holds all the cards. While Washington continues spending—$60 billion in Ukraine aid alone approved by Congress in April 2025—China is building infrastructure, accelerating digitization, and strengthening energy networks. While the U.S. wages wars, China builds roads, ports, and pipelines.
In the end, this 90-minute conversation may be remembered as more than just a phone call—it may be the quiet turning point when Washington recognized the need to talk with China, not down to it. As Trump’s once-fiery rhetoric gives way to phrases like “great leader” and “great country,” one cannot ignore the shift in tone. Respect—especially when reluctant—is the first indicator of acknowledged parity.
The upcoming rounds of dialogue will clarify whether this is a genuine turning point or a temporary pause in an economic cold war. But one thing is certain: this is no longer a zero-sum game. It’s either going to be a rare win-win outcome—or a lose-America, win-China equation, with global consequences.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : For decades, America has prided itself as a land of opportunity—a magnet for dreamers, workers, and refugees. But today, under the aggressive implementation of ICE-led deportations, spearheaded by President Donald Trump’s renewed enforcement drive, the country finds itself fractured. The issue is no longer just about legality—it has become a battleground of narratives, identity, and accountability.
President Trump insists that “millions and millions” of illegal immigrants—whom he categorizes as violent criminals, traffickers, sex offenders, and pedophiles—have “invaded” the U.S. According to him, his administration’s duty is to remove these threats through mass deportations, often carried out with military-style precision. ICE raids in cities like Los Angeles, where five individuals with criminal pasts were arrested on June 7, are presented as success stories. But a deeper question lurks behind these headlines: if such individuals are indeed dangerous and illegal, how did they get into the country in the first place?
As a legal immigrant myself, my family and I embarked on a long and arduous journey. We applied in 2007 for family-sponsored immigration and were not approved until 2024. Seventeen years of background checks, verification of employment, travel history, character assessment, and criminal records—all under the scrutiny of U.S. immigration services. It is a stringent, sometimes grueling, system that leaves little room for error. If followed diligently, it is almost impossible for someone with a dubious past to pass through.
This raises troubling questions. How do individuals with criminal records—those labeled as drug dealers, violent offenders, or sex criminals—make it into the U.S. undocumented? What loopholes exist? And more importantly, who allowed it?
Beyond bureaucratic lapse, another profound and often overlooked truth must be acknowledged: every wave of immigration has often been triggered by destruction caused by the United States and its allies. The Syrian crisis, spurred by U.S.-led regime change attempts, created millions of refugees—many welcomed into the United States. The U.S. invasion of Iraq unleashed chaos, civil war, and displacement, compelling thousands of Iraqis to seek shelter abroad. Libya, after being bombed into anarchy, witnessed similar refugee outflows. Palestinians displaced by decades of unending Israeli occupation, often with U.S. political and military backing, have also found refuge in America. The collapse of Afghanistan after two decades of NATO occupation led to a mass exodus—especially of Afghans who worked with Western forces. Most arrived with no paperwork or formal identity verification, given the country’s primitive recordkeeping systems. Yet, many were fast-tracked into the U.S., bypassing the very scrutiny imposed on legal immigrants from stable nations.
This uncomfortable truth demands moral clarity: if undocumented immigrants are subject to the full weight of the law, then those policymakers and officials who created the conditions for their displacement, or allowed their entry without due diligence, must also be held accountable. It is a shared responsibility—one that begins not at the border, but in the war rooms and foreign policy chambers where these crises were ignited.
There appears to be no structured inquiry or investigation into the root causes. No commissions, no accountability frameworks to identify the officials, agencies, or politicians who enabled mass illegal entry. Immigration enforcement in the U.S. has historically vacillated depending on who is in power. One administration turns a blind eye, quietly encouraging mass entry. The next tries to reverse it through high-profile crackdowns. But in the absence of institutional accountability, this cyclical dysfunction persists—feeding public anger and polarizing communities.
ICE is now being weaponized not just to remove the undocumented, but to reassert political dominance. The use of unmarked vehicles, masked officers, and sudden, forceful detentions—often in front of children and elders—conveys a message of fear. It is not surprising that over 10,000 protesters recently marched through downtown Los Angeles against these raids. Many carried Mexican flags—none carried the American flag. This wasn’t just a protest; it was a symptom of deeper social unrest.
Critics argue that these ICE actions, while legal under the Supreme Court’s allowance of 24-hour deportation notice, are being carried out in a manner that undermines constitutional due process. Rights of asylum seekers, refugees, and even undocumented residents with long-standing ties to communities are brushed aside in the name of executive orders. A nation built by immigrants is now turning its state machinery against them.
Supporters of Trump’s policy, on the other hand, insist that deporting illegals—especially criminals—is not just constitutional, but necessary. They point to the Clinton-era deportations of over 12 million people, Obama’s deportation of 5 million, and Bush’s expedited removal protocols. “This is not new,” they argue. “It’s enforcement overdue.”
But many dissenters challenge this logic. They argue that Trump is not fixing immigration—he’s weaponizing it. He’s framing all undocumented migrants as threats, fueling fear for political gain. His critics claim that this dehumanization is less about justice and more about re-election. Trump’s rhetoric plays to a base who feel left behind—using immigrants as scapegoats for economic and social frustrations.
This divide is not only ideological—it’s generational, racial, and geographic. Many immigrants, including legal ones like myself, find ourselves in a complicated space. On one hand, we support the rule of law. On the other, we reject the vilification of all migrants and the blanket criminalization of entire communities.
Let us remember: America is a nation of immigrants. Even Donald Trump is the grandson of Friedrich Trump, a German immigrant who arrived in the U.S. in 1885. The German Chancellor once presented Trump with his grandfather’s immigration file during a White House visit—a reminder that no one, not even the president, is far removed from the immigrant experience.
The real issue is not race, religion, or ethnicity. The only legitimate distinction should be between legal and illegal entry. But even that must be addressed humanely, within the framework of rights and due process. It cannot become a pretext for racial profiling, family separation, or fear campaigns.
The lack of systemic accountability is the root of this chaos. Who failed to enforce border laws? Who allowed the lapse? Was it intentional? Was there bribery? Was it negligence or political strategy? These are the questions no one in Washington wants to answer.
The consequences of this negligence go beyond borders. As seen in the Los Angeles protest, foreign governments—like Mexico—may begin to leverage their diaspora as political tools. If unchecked, this tactic could be replicated by other countries, introducing a dangerous element of foreign interference in domestic American affairs.
In my observation of reactions on X (formerly Twitter), two dominant narratives have emerged: one, defending ICE’s actions and Trump’s policies as lawful and overdue; the other, denouncing the excessive force and racial undertones as unconstitutional and inhumane. Some comments suggest this is less about criminals and more about silencing immigrants—legal and illegal alike—through fear and exclusion.
What, then, is the way forward?
First, No society or country elsewhere in the world may be destroyed, and no country, especially one as powerful as the United States, should ever tolerate illegal immigration. The law must be upheld. But enforcement must be precise, proportional, and humane.
Second, there must be rigorous accountability. Politicians, departments, and border enforcement agencies that failed in their duty must face consequences. Only then can the system regain public trust.
Third, investment must be made into technology, manpower, and processes that make it virtually impossible for undocumented migrants—especially those with criminal records—to enter undetected. The U.S. has done this before during the post-9/11 anti-terrorism era. It can do it again.
This is not just about protecting borders. It’s about preserving the spirit of America—a land where laws are enforced, but justice is never blind to humanity. If illegal immigration is the dragon, it must be slain at its roots. Not with brutality, but with policy, accountability, and moral clarity.
Let us hope that sanity prevails. Let us hope that the United States rises above political theatrics and embraces a model of immigration that is lawful, just, and worthy of the ideals it claims to defend.