.JPG&w=3840&q=100)
I'm proud Miami Beach is standing up against anti-immigrant rhetoric
With unanimous support, the city commission adopted a resolution I sponsored condemning the use of dangerous and dehumanizing rhetoric against immigrants.
This resolution doesn't concern itself with partisan politics or border policy. It doesn't call for open borders, nor does it question the need for lawful and orderly immigration. It draws a moral line — one that people of conscience, regardless of party, should be able to agree on.
It says: 'The Miami Beach mayor and commission strongly oppose dehumanizing and violent rhetoric targeting immigrants, including the Alligator Alcatraz detention facility and statements by national leaders and is affirming the dignity and contributions of Hispanic and immigrant families in Miami Beach...'
This resolution makes Miami Beach one of the first cities in Florida to formally oppose Alligator Alcatraz and the national political discourse that supports it.
I understand the complexity of immigration in this country. And I welcome robust, even passionate debate about how to fix the system. But that debate cannot happen if we begin by stripping people of their human dignity.
If we can agree to speak with respect about immigrants, we may clear away enough of the static to begin a more thoughtful, less performative conversation about real solutions.
As a proud son of Cuban exiles, I grew up with a deep appreciation for the promise of this country — and I've always worn my roots with pride. But today, I meet people who feel the need to hide theirs — not out of shame, but out of fear.
That fear is not a reflection of their character — it's a reflection of ours. It means the promise of America that once welcomed my family is slipping further out of reach.
That promise now feels endangered by a rising tide of anti-immigrant rhetoric designed not to inform, but to inflame.
Political leaders have repeatedly referred to immigrants as 'animals,' 'vermin,' 'poison' and 'parasites.' That's not just offensive — it's dangerous.
We're seeing the consequences unfold. I have constituents — law-abiding immigrants — who are afraid to call 911, afraid to seek medical attention, even afraid to show up for a court hearing. Others, including TPS and DACA recipients, and young professionals like doctors with valid work permits, live in constant fear that their lives will be uprooted.
Some are being held in detention facilities under conditions no American would accept for themselves or their loved ones — no access to attorneys, limited medical care, no clergy, family separation and stripped of hope.
The people experiencing this are not faceless hypotheticals — and they are not all criminals, as some political rhetoric suggests. These are our neighbors. They cared for our aging loved ones, taught music to children, built our homes and contributed in countless ways to our community.
Local businesses are struggling to retain talented immigrant workers. Immigrant tourists — vital to our economy — are being driven away by the growing sense that they're unwelcome. Words have real consequences.
For months, I've struggled with the limits of what I can do legally. As a Hispanic elected official, I've wanted to do so much more — but the laws are real, and my fear has always been that even well-intentioned efforts could invite retaliation that harms the very people I want to protect.
In the absence of stronger protections, this resolution is about doing what I still can — standing up for dignity.
We are also answering the call of faith and humanity. Days ago, Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski reminded us of Pope Francis's teaching in Fratelli Tutti — 'we belong to one another.' That truth must guide our words, especially in moments like these.
In his homily, the Archbishop recalled the haunting moment when political leaders stood before cages at the makeshift detention center and made light of the fear and pain of those inside. He asked if we could truly say, in that moment, that 'we belong to one another,' that the dignity of others was being recognized.
I believe that this week, Miami Beach answered that question with moral clarity.
Alex Fernandez is a Miami Beach commissioner.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
7 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
John T. Shaw: Philanthropy leader fights fear and envisions a better world
One need not be a cultural anthropologist to appreciate that the most powerful force now driving American life is not hope, or optimism, or confidence. It is fear. This fear has been ignited by President Donald Trump and has been fueled by his combative administration and the complicit Republican majority in Congress. It's been inadvertently fanned by a dispirited, seemingly hapless, Democratic Party and the capitulation of critical institutions such as law firms, corporations and universities that are more focused on self-preservation than honoring their historic missions. The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides these antonyms for fear: audacity, nerve and guts. Michelle Morales, president of Woods Fund Chicago, possesses these qualities in abundance. And others as well, such as resolve and determination. 'I have been dismayed at the amount of fear and by the silence of institutions that have bent to the will of this administration,' she told me in a recent interview. 'It's been scary to see how many people have changed, or stayed quiet, or realigned their work. We need to push back, even if there are ramifications for pushing back.' Morales' philanthropic statesmanship is based on courage, resilience and her vision of a 'reimagined world' rooted in racial and economic justice and basic humanity. The child of parents from Puerto Rico, Morales was born in Yonkers, New York, and grew up as a self-described 'military brat.' She attended DePaul University as an undergraduate, fell in love with Chicago and has lived here since. She has been a teacher, community organizer and executive director of the Illinois chapter of the Mikva Challenge, which promotes youth civic participation and leadership. Morales assumed the presidency of Woods Fund Chicago in 2019. It is a private foundation with assets of more than $65 million. Many of its grants support community organizing for racial and economic justice and public policy advocacy. Morales may run a relatively small foundation, but she has a strong, forceful and authoritative voice. She is an outsized force. Inside Philanthropy, a respected journal that covers the sector, published a story in June about the quiescence of philanthropy to Trump's attacks on civil society. 'Many funders have opted for silence,' the article says. But it then describes several leaders, including Morales, who have stepped forward, spoken up and refused to be submissive. 'Early on in philanthropy, in the first months of the Trump administration, there was quite a bit of silence,' Morales said. 'It's been heartening to see more and more foundations speak out in the last few months, but the initial silence was scary. It's important for foundations to take a stand and come out from under the radar.' She credits the community's rallying to a Unite in Advance campaign that was launched in April by John Palfrey, president of the MacArthur Foundation; Tonya Allen, president of the McKnight Foundation; and Deepak Bhargava, president of the Freedom Together Foundation. They urged the philanthropic community to aggressively defend cherished values. 'We know the risk of standing up to a hostile government. But complacency is complicity. Foundations must lead — not just with grants but with guts,' their organizing essay declared. Morales argues that this is a deeply consequential moment. She has pushed WFC to go far beyond its traditional annual payout of 5% of assets for current programs. Its expanded financial commitment began in 2020 in response to the pandemic and has accelerated this year, reaching 15%. 'If COVID was the rainy day, this is the monsoon,' Morales said. She is a passionate advocate for robust diversity, equity and inclusion programs, a commitment WFC has long embraced. Morales was encouraged, but skeptical, when many corporations and universities rushed out statements supportive of diversity, equity and inclusion in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder by a Minneapolis police officer. She has been disappointed, but not surprised, that many have retreated, given opposition from the Trump administration. 'I am concerned about the pulling back. DEI, racial justice work, is not illegal. It's not unconstitutional. Structural racism is still very real in this country,' she said. Morales is gearing up for a protracted battle with the administration. But she is also determined to strive for what she calls a reimagined world with strong and effective social programs and commitments to racial and economic justice. And while seeking this better world, she insists that philanthropy must continue to support initiatives that improve the daily lives of those who are struggling. 'As cheesy as it may sound, I have to hold out hope. I believe that the work I'm doing is not only planting seeds but also creating the conditions for the reimagined world I believe in. We may not get there in my lifetime, but I'm going to keep working for it,' she said. 'If I allow cynicism to creep in, I'm done for. I won't have the energy or the passion or the joy for the work. But I won't lie. It's hard to bear witness to the amount of suffering that is occurring.'
Boston Globe
7 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Today in History: Army airplane crashes into Empire State Building
Advertisement In 1914, World War I began as Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. In 1945, an Army B-25 crashed into the 79th floor of New York's Empire State Building, the world's tallest structure at the time, killing 14 people. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson announced he was increasing the number of American troops in South Vietnam from 75,000 to 125,000. In 1976, an earthquake devastated northern China, killing at least 242,000 people, according to an official estimate. In 1984, the Los Angeles Summer Olympics officially opened; 14 Eastern Bloc countries, led by the Soviet Union, boycotted the Games. In 1995, a jury in Union, South Carolina, rejected the death penalty for Susan Smith, sentencing her to life in prison for drowning her two young sons (Smith will be eligible for parole in November 2024). Advertisement In 1996, 8,000 year-old human skeletal remains (later referred to as Kennewick Man) were discovered in a bank of the Columbia River in Kennewick, Washington. In 2004, the Irish Republican Army formally announced an end to its armed campaign against British rule in Northern Ireland. In 2015, it was announced that Jonathan Pollard, the former U.S. Naval intelligence analyst who had spent nearly three decades in prison for spying for Israel, had been granted parole. Also that year, a four-game suspension of Patriots quarterback Tom Brady for his role in using underinflated footballs during the AFC championship game was upheld by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. In 2018, Pope Francis accepted the resignation of U.S. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the emeritus archbishop of Washington, D.C., following allegations of sexual abuse, including one involving an 11-year-old boy. Both died in April of 2025. In 2019, a gunman opened fire at a popular garlic festival in Gilroy, California, killing three people, including a six-year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl, and wounding 17 others before taking his own life.
Time Magazine
8 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
The Chaotic, Fantastical World of Donald Trump's Tariffs
President Donald Trump has vociferously portrayed import tariffs as an instrument of economic policy for rewriting the global trade script in favor of the United States. The sales pitch is alluring: tariffs as a tool to negotiate better terms and extract concessions from trading partners, boost government revenues, eliminate trade deficits, and revive manufacturing jobs on American soil. As is well understood by economists, a country's trade policy, which includes tariffs, is not an important determinant of its balance of trade. Any country's trade surplus or deficit is determined by its macroeconomic conditions, as reflected in the gap between what that country saves and what it invests. The core drivers of trade deficit or trade surplus are fiscal and monetary policies: the government's decisions on taxation and public spending and those by a central bank to influence the money supply and credit conditions. Moreover, import tariffs won't generate the revenues Trump promises as the U.S. negotiates numerous bilateral trade deals. And Trump's pitch of bringing back manufacturing jobs for American workers is wishful thinking. If manufacturing revives in the U.S., those jobs will go to robots; the firms won't be hiring American workers, whose high wages they can't afford. The seductive rhetoric of Trump tariffs hides a combination of contradictions, wishful thinking, and superficial understanding of economics, which sells America a mirage and threatens to weaken the stability of the global trading system. The fault with the numbers Combining economic nationalism with his flair for the dramatic, President Trump christened April 2 as 'Liberation Day' and announced 'reciprocal tariffs' on imports from virtually all countries. The tariff hikes were calculated to eliminate the U.S. trade deficit with each country by reducing its imports by an amount equaling America's current bilateral trade deficit with that country. Then, a 50% discount was applied on the calculated tariffs and the 'reciprocal tariffs' were announced. And a base rate of 10% was put in place to ensure taxation on imports from every country. The tariffs imposed by the U.S. were hardly reciprocal: 46% on Vietnam, whose own average import tariff is 9%; 32% on Taiwan, whose own import tariffs on average are barely 2%; 26% on India, with an average import tariff of 12%; and 25% on South Korea, whose import tariffs average 8%. Foreign exporters alone don't pay for tariffs. The Trump Administration significantly underestimated the impact these tariffs would have on American consumers. The administration's calculations incorrectly assume that American consumers of imports—including American producers who use imported inputs—bear only 25% of the cost of tariffs. But most high-quality studies show that nearly all the cost of tariffs is passed on to these consumers and businesses. If that faulty assumption were corrected, the 'reciprocal tariffs' would have been half their proclaimed rates and much less costly for America's trading partners, its own consumers and import-using producers. Equally important, the Trump Administration overstated the benefits of its tariffs and underestimated their economic costs by neglecting the role of exchange rates and the nature of global supply chains. An increase in tariffs induces exchange rate movements that at least partially offset the effects of the tariffs on the trade balance. American industries rely on global supply chains, and imported inputs are necessary for the production of American exports. Import barriers also act as export barriers and higher import tariffs hobble the competitiveness of American corporations in global markets. Moreover, the Trump Administration has been inconsistent with its stated objective of using tariffs to eliminate their bilateral trade deficits. The administration announced a baseline 'Liberation Day' tariff of 10% even on countries—Australia and Brazil, for instance—with whom the U.S. has a trade surplus. The U.S. generally has a surplus in service trade with many countries but the administration seems to have disregarded it. One of the most important American service exports is higher education but the Trump Administration in this case has displayed blatant disregard for trade balance with its multi-pronged attack on universities and its hostility to international students. Read More: Trump's War on Education Is Driving Academics Like Me to Europe Rattling the global economy Unsurprisingly, the Trump 'reciprocal tariffs' had an immediate negative impact on global stock markets and the U.S. bond market and forced a 90-day pause in their implementation. The administration announced that during these 90 days, the U.S. will be clinching 90 trade deals. The deadline for finalizing bilateral trade deals was extended from early July to August but the likelihood of concluding even a small fraction of the Trump Administration's target of 90 deals by then is remote. Trade deals have been finalized with the United Kingdom in June, with the Philippines and Japan in July. Framework deals with China and Vietnam have been agreed upon, and a mini-deal with India is expected soon. The Trump tariffs shocked the emerging economies, which have benefitted considerably from free trade and globalization over past three or four decades. China, India and Vietnam have experienced phenomenal annual economic growth—six to 10%—and lifted hundreds of millions of their citizens above the poverty line. They are bound to resist barriers on their products entering the massive American market. Economic nationalism and domestic politics impose important constraints on every country. Major economies like China and India have been negotiating trade deals with the U.S. and so far they have strongly resisted being bullied into accepting all of Trump Administration's demands. In fact, they have been quite aggressive in their negotiations with the U.S. and ready to retaliate. Beijing responded to Trump's 145% tariff rate with a 125% tariff rate of its own. After that dangerous escalation in their trade war, the U.S. and China agreed to a temporary truce in May. China reduced its tariffs on American imports from 125% to 10% and the U.S. reciprocated by reducing its tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 55%. In late June, Washington and Beijing arrived at a framework agreement to make their temporary truce more permanent. The U.S. has relaxed restrictions on visas for Chinese students. Beijing has adopted a system of licenses to somewhat ease rare-earth export controls and Washington has lifted some controls on technology-related exports. India is a strategic ally but that doesn't make it a pushover as it negotiates a trade deal with the United States. The considerable political power Indian farmers wield has led New Delhi to refuse the American demand for complete access to the country's agricultural and dairy markets. Washington complained at the World Trade Organization (WTO) of India's protectionism, objecting to its veterinary certification requirements for dairy products coming in. India proposed imposing retaliatory tariffs—that comply with WTO rules—in response to the high steel, aluminum and auto-parts tariffs by the U.S. An interim mini-deal between India and the U.S. is expected to be completed by August to avoid India being slapped with the 'Liberation Day' tariffs. The deal is expected to incorporate the straightforward parts: a reduction in U.S. import tariffs on Indian textiles and apparel from 26% to 10%; Indian tariff reductions on U.S. grown nuts and some fruits. And some reductions on the automotive sector. The trickier questions of food grains and major dairy products are expected to be left out for now. The mini-deal will likely be transformed into a more comprehensive one by late fall. A framework deal with Vietnam, a much smaller country and a strategic partner, has been much more asymmetric than in the case of India and China. The Trump Administration agreed to a reduction in the 'Liberation Day' tariff rate of 46% on Vietnam to a base rate of 20% but it insisted on a 40% tariff rate on transshipped products, aimed mainly at Chinese companies trying to dodge the high American tariffs on China's exports to the U.S. However, it needs to be recognized that in this age of global supply chains a manufacturing hub like Vietnam is likely to be processing inputs imported from other countries. Since 2001, the U.S. and Vietnam had a bilateral trade agreement of very low tariffs, and the new framework deal requires Vietnam to continue with imposing zero tariffs on American exports. The Trump deal imposes substantial costs on Vietnam, one third of whose GDP comes from exports to the United States. Read More: American Health Care Will Suffer Under Trump's Tariffs America, the unreliable Nobody knows what Trump will do tomorrow. The Trump tariffs are creating uncertainty for the American and the global economy. Companies need stability in economic policy to decide on the location and quantum of their investments, on the scale of hiring workers, on building new production capacities, and supply chains. The uncertainty adversely affects output and employment in America and the rest of the world. Most countries negotiating trade deals with the U.S. are aware of Trump's proclivity for reneging on agreements. In his first term, President Trump signed the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement and had the highest praise for it. Trump began his second term by reneging on that deal and announcing high tariffs on Canada and Mexico—offering the rationale of growing fentanyl supply and illegal immigration to the U.S. from both countries, a justification especially flimsy in the Canadian case. Recently, Trump threatened to impose an additional 10% tariff on BRICS countries for their alleged efforts to create an alternative to the U.S. dollar in international transactions. And the U.S. president later also threatened a 50% tariff on imports from Brazil to try to stop the prosecution of his friend and former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. Such threats are illegal under American and WTO laws. Given this uncertain state of affairs, the Liberation Day tariffs might ultimately steer emerging economies toward working on negotiating additional trade agreements with other major economies, in order to ensure a large enough market for their products. By erecting these extremely high tariff barriers and undermining and weakening the WTO, the Trump Administration has seriously damaged the world trading system. Consequently, it might end up pushing the rest of the world away and sowing the seeds of American own isolation and irrelevance.
