logo
L.A. protests: Glendale terminates detention contract with ICE, DHS

L.A. protests: Glendale terminates detention contract with ICE, DHS

Yahoo7 hours ago

June 9 (UPI) -- Officials in Glendale, Calif., abruptly cancelled the city's contract with Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs and Enforcement under which the local police department holds immigration detainees on their behalf.
The city said in a news release Sunday night, two days after large protests broke out in Los Angeles over ICE raids on Hispanic neighborhoods, that it had made the decision because its association with ICE had become too "divisive."
It said it had maintained "a highly regulated, locally-controlled facility providing clean accommodations, on-call medical care, family visitation, and legal counsel to detainees" for the past 18 years but that the step was necessary to ensure Glendale residents and businesses "do not suffer the consequences of the unruly and unlawful behavior of others."
"Despite the transparency and safeguards the city has upheld, the city recognizes that public perception of the ICE contract -- no matter how limited or carefully managed, no matter the good -- has become divisive," the statement said.
"And while opinions on this issue may vary -- the decision to terminate this contract is not politically driven. It is rooted in what this city stands for -- public safety, local accountability, and trust.
"Glendale is consistently ranked as one of the safest cities in the nation. That is no accident. The Glendale Police Department is trusted and supported by the residents and businesses. At this time, it is in our best interest to not allow that trust to be undermined."
Glendale said it regretted the step because the facilities it provided allowed detainees to be housed in good conditions in a centrally located detention center close to their families and community, rather than a remote or one run by a private contractor.
It acknowledged some families would face more hurdles trying to visit loved ones being held by ICE and that access to legal counsel may be more limited in alternative facilities.
At least three police officers were injured and about 60 people were arrested Sunday evening when the Los Angeles protests briefly spread to San Francisco, the city police department said.
In a post on X Monday morning, SFPD said it declared an unlawful assembly after some people taking part in a protest downtown became violent and began carrying out assaults and damaging property.
"While many left the scene, several individuals remained and continued engaging in illegal activity. Two officers suffered non-life-threatening injuries and one was transported to a local hospital for further medical assistance."
SFPD said the arrests took place after protesters who refused to disperse moved toward Market Street and Kearney Street where they attacked a patrol vehicle and vandalized buildings and property. One firearm was seized.
Neither DHS or ICE immediately commented on the development out of Glendale, although the announcement did come after 10 p.m. EDT on a Sunday night.
State and local law enforcement partner voluntarily with ICE, DHS and the Justice Department on a number of programs under which they are delegated to enforce limited elements of U.S. immigration law and in return receive training and federal funding.
According to ICE's website, state, county or municipal agencies in 40 of the 50 states have a least one active agreement in place under its so-called 287 (g) Program.
Glendale said it had not engaged in immigration enforcement and would not do so in future and that immigration law was not its responsibility,.
It stressed that the city was in in full compliance with California state law, which prohibits local law enforcement from using resources for immigration enforcement.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Most-Followed TikToker Khaby Lame Detained, Released by ICE Over Visa Issue
Most-Followed TikToker Khaby Lame Detained, Released by ICE Over Visa Issue

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Most-Followed TikToker Khaby Lame Detained, Released by ICE Over Visa Issue

Khaby Lame, the most-followed TikToker in the world, was detained and released by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on June 6. On Monday, an ICE spokesperson confirmed that the Italian-Senegalese star had been detained at Las Vegas airport for alleged immigration violations. According to ICE, the 25-year-old TikToker, whose real name is Seringe Khabane Lame, had 'overstayed the terms of his visa' and was later granted voluntary departure. More from Rolling Stone Trump Continues Inflaming L.A. Protests: 'BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!' Republicans Say They're Cool With Trump Deploying Troops Against Protesters Trump's Response to L.A. Protests: What We Know 'U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained Seringe Khabane Lame, 25, a citizen of Italy, June 6, at the Harry Reid International Airport, Las Vegas, Nevada, for immigration violations,' an ICE spokesperson said in a statement. 'Lame entered the United States [on] April 30 and overstayed the terms of his visa.' According to ICE, Lame has since left the country. The influencer shared a photo of himself in São Paulo, Brazil, on Monday morning. A rep for Lame did not immediately respond to Rolling Stone's request for comment. The detainment of Lame comes as the Trump administration called for the military to be deployed against anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles. The protests, which began in response to raids on Friday, escalated over the weekend after Trump ordered the deployment of National Guard troops into the city. Gov. Gavin Newsom requested on Sunday that Trump revoke his federalization of the National Guard and withdraw them from the city. 'The decision to deploy the National Guard, without appropriate training or orders, risks seriously escalating the situation,' he wrote. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation.' Lame's detainment also comes as numerous artists and celebrities have faced visa issues under the Trump administration, including Grupo Firme and Julión Álvarez. Best of Rolling Stone Every Super Bowl Halftime Show, Ranked From Worst to Best The United States of Weed Gaming Levels Up

Contributor: Federalizing the state National Guard is a chilling push past the law
Contributor: Federalizing the state National Guard is a chilling push past the law

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Contributor: Federalizing the state National Guard is a chilling push past the law

The use of the military to quell protests is something associated with dictators in foreign countries, and as of Saturday night, with a president of the United States. When President Trump federalized 2,000 members of the California National Guard, deploying them because of protests against federal immigration authorities, he sent a chilling signal about his willingness to use the military against demonstrators. There are two relevant aspects of federal law: One allows the president to federalize a state's National Guard and the other permits the president to use the military in domestic situations. Neither, at this point, provides legal authority for Saturday's action. As for the former, a federal statute, 10 U.S.C. section 12406, authorizes the president to take over a state's National Guard if 'the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' This is the statutory provision Trump has invoked. But it is highly questionable that the protests against ICE agents rise to the level of a 'rebellion against the authority of the Government.' This statute does not give the president the authority to use the troops. Another law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the military from being used within the United States. The 2,000 National Guard troops are only deployed to protect ICE officers. However, even this is legally questionable unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act of 1807, which creates a basis for using the military in domestic situations and an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. On Sunday, Trump said he was considering invoking the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act allows a president to deploy troops domestically in three situations. One is if a governor or state legislature asks for the deployment to put down an insurrection. The last time this occurred was in 1992, when California Gov. Pete Wilson asked President George H.W. Bush to use the National Guard to stop the riots that occurred after police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. With Gov. Gavin Newsom opposing the federalizing of the National Guard, this isn't the case in Los Angeles today. A second part of the Insurrection Act allows deployment in order to 'enforce the laws' of the United States or to 'suppress rebellion' whenever 'unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion' make it 'impracticable' to enforce federal law by the 'ordinary course of judicial proceedings.' Since no one disputes the courts are fully functioning, this provision has no relevance. It is the third part of the Insurrection Act that is more likely to be cited by the Trump administration. It allows the president to use military troops in a state to suppress 'any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy' that 'so hinders the execution of the laws' that any portion of the state's inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right. President Eisenhower used this power to send federal troops to help desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., public schools when the governor defied federal court orders. This section of the law has additional language: The president may deploy troops in a state that 'opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.' This broad language is what I would expect Trump to invoke to use the troops directly against the anti-ICE protests. The Insurrection Act does not define crucial terms such as 'insurrection,' 'rebellion' or 'domestic violence.' In 1827, in Martin vs. Mott, the Supreme Court said that 'the authority to decide whether [an exigency requiring the militia to be called out] has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and ... his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.' There have been many calls over the years to modify the expansive language of the Insurrection Act. But since presidents have rarely used it, and not in a very long time, reform efforts seemed unnecessary. The broad presidential authority under the Insurrection Act thus has remained on the books as a loaded weapon. There is a strong set of norms that has restrained presidents from using federal troops in domestic situations, especially absent a request from a state governor. But Trump shows no respect for norms. Any use of the military in domestic situations should be regarded as a last resort in the United States. The readiness of the administration to quickly invoke any aspect of this authority is frightening, a message about the willingness of a remade federal government to quell demonstrations. The protests in Los Angeles do not rise to the conditions that warrant the federalization of the National Guard. This is not to deny that some of the anti-ICE protests have turned violent. However, they have been limited in size and there is no reason to believe that law enforcement could not control them absent military force. But the statutes Trump can invoke give presidents broad powers. In the context of everything that we have seen from the Trump administration, nationalizing the California National Guard should make us even more afraid. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, is an Opinion Voices contributing writer. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Economic crisis, Evo Morales threaten Bolivia's election
Economic crisis, Evo Morales threaten Bolivia's election

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Economic crisis, Evo Morales threaten Bolivia's election

ASUNCIÓN, Paraguay, June 9 (UPI) -- Bolivia's Supreme Electoral Tribunal has approved 10 presidential tickets for the Aug. 17 election, confirming that former President Evo Morales will not be allowed to run. The announcement comes amid heightened political, economic and social tensions, including a supply crisis and protests organized by Morales' supporters, who are demanding his reinstatement as a candidate. The tribunal said Morales does not meet the constitutional requirements to seek office again, and that the party with which he attempted to register -- the Partido de Acción Nacional Boliviano, or Pan-Bol -- has been legally disqualified. President Luis Arce's government also filed a criminal complaint against Morales on Thursday, accusing him of eight criminal offenses, including terrorism, incitement to commit crimes, attacks on public infrastructure and obstructing the electoral process. The charges are based on an audio recording shared by a rural union leader that allegedly captures Morales urging supporters to step up protests and block major cities, including La Paz. Morales has denied the recording's authenticity, calling it a fabrication, and says the demonstrations reflect public discontent over the economic crisis and his disqualification from the presidential race. Morales' supporters have erected roadblocks and continue to demand his inclusion in the race under the slogan, "No elections without Evo." Morales has reiterated his intention to return to office, saying, "Only the people can ask me to withdraw my candidacy." The protests have mainly affected Cochabamba and Santa Cruz, causing significant economic losses and worsening nationwide shortages of fuel and food. The Arce government says the demonstrations are aimed at destabilizing the administration and has threatened to deploy the military in response. "Evo Morales lies when he says he acts for the well-being of Bolivian families. He lies when he says his protest is about inflation, the economy or basic necessities. He lies when he claims to be 'obeying the people,' and Bolivians know it," Arce wrote on X. He added that Morales and his allies "are pursuing my resignation and that of the entire government, solely to force his own candidacy." Among the tribunal-approved candidates are former Minister of Government Eduardo del Castillo, backed by Arce, and Senate President Andrónico Rodríguez. Rodríguez has emerged as a prominent figure in Bolivian politics. Long considered the "natural heir" to Morales, he has positioned himself as a moderate and unifying candidate, distancing himself from Morales and Arce. The opposition has attempted to form coalitions to challenge the ruling party, but ideological and personal differences have hampered efforts to unify. As a result, several opposition candidates are running separately, including former President Jorge "Tuto" Quiroga and businessman and former minister Samuel Doria Medina. The International Monetary Fund recently issued a critical report on Bolivia's economy, warning that current policies are unsustainable. The IMF projects inflation will reach 15.8% in 2025 -- more than twice the government's estimate -- and forecasts just 1.1% economic growth, the lowest in Latin America. It also warns that public debt has climbed to 95% of GDP, and that international reserves are critically low, contributing to shortages of foreign currency and fuel. Fuel shortages worsened in 2024, triggering long lines at gas stations and major disruptions in transportation and agriculture. The crisis stems largely from a drop in domestic hydrocarbon production and a shortage of foreign currency needed for imports. Truckers and other sectors have launched protests demanding urgent action from the government.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store