More than 1,600 immigrants detained in Southern California this month, DHS says
From June 6 to Sunday, immigration enforcement teams arrested 1,618 immigrants for deportation in Los Angeles and surrounding regions of Southern California, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
Homeland Security did not respond to requests for information on how many of those arrested had criminal histories and for a breakdown of those convictions.
As immigration arrests have occurred across Southern California, demonstrators have protested the federal government's actions and bystanders have sometimes confronted immigration officers or recorded their actions. From June 6 to Sunday, 787 people have been arrested for assault, obstruction and unlawful assembly, a Homeland Security spokesperson said.
Figures about the Los Angeles operation released by the White House on June 11 indicated that about one-third of those arrested up until that point had prior criminal convictions.
The 'area of responsibility' for the Los Angeles field office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement includes the L.A. metropolitan area and the Central Coast, as well as Orange County to the south, Riverside County to the east and up the coast to San Luis Obispo County.
Read more: Most nabbed in L.A. raids were men with no criminal conviction, picked up off the street
Data from the first days of the Los Angeles enforcement operation show that a majority of those arrested had never been charged with or convicted of a crime.
Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin said Monday that 75% of nationwide arrests under the Trump administration have been of immigrants with criminal convictions or pending charges. But data published by ICE show that figure has been lower in recent weeks.
Nationally, the number of people arrested without criminal convictions has soared and many of those are nonviolent offenders, according to nonpublic data obtained by the Cato Institute that covers the period from Oct. 1, the start of the federal fiscal year, to June 15. The most frequent crimes are immigration and traffic offenses.
Serious violent offenders account for just 7% of those in custody, according to the institute.
Immigration enforcement officers have recently intensified efforts to deliver on President Trump's promise of mass deportations. In California, that has meant arrests of people in courthouses, on farms and in Home Depot parking lots.
But, with a daily goal of 3,000 arrests nationwide, administration officials still complain that agents are failing to arrest enough immigrants.
Read more: 'We need to find these people': L.A. immigration raids a sign of what's to come, officials say
Democrats and immigrant community leaders argue that agents are targeting people indiscriminately. Despite the chaotic nature of the raids and protests in Los Angeles, 1,618 arrests by Homeland Security in Southern California over more than two weeks is about 101 arrests per day — a relatively small contribution to the daily nationwide goal.
Perhaps the bigger achievement than the arrests, advocates say, is the fear that those actions have stoked.
Times staff writer Rachel Uranga contributed to this report.
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
13 minutes ago
- New York Times
As a Mamdani Victory Looms, Anti-Muslim Attacks Roll In From the Right
Even before Zohran Mamdani claimed victory in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, he had become a target of racist attacks from the far right. Those attacks have only intensified in the wake of his commanding performance on Tuesday, with Republican elected officials and right-wing media figures accusing him of promoting Islamic law, supporting terrorism and posing a threat to the safety of New Yorkers, especially Jews. There has been nothing subtle about it: Stephen Miller, the architect of the Trump administration's immigration policy, called Mr. Mamdani's apparent win 'the clearest warning yet of what happens to a society when it fails to control migration.' Representative Andy Ogles, Republican of Tennessee, accused Mr. Mamdani of supporting terrorists and asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to strip him of his citizenship and deport him. Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina, shared a photo of Mr. Mamdani preparing for an Eid service while dressed in a kurta, writing, 'we sadly have forgotten' the Sept. 11 attacks, which occurred when Mr. Mamdani was 9 years old and living in Manhattan. And Charlie Kirk, the head of Turning Point USA, a leading group for conservative youth, sought to connect him to those attacks even more directly. '24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11,' he wrote. 'Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City.' The attacks on Mr. Mamdani, who would be the first Muslim mayor of New York City if elected, deal in well-worn Islamophobic and anti-immigrant tropes. To some, they carry echoes of the 'birther' conspiracy theory Donald J. Trump stoked for years before he was elected president, when he falsely claimed that President Barack Obama was Muslim and born in Kenya. Mr. Obama is Christian and was born in Hawaii; Mr. Mamdani is Muslim and was born to Indian parents in Uganda. But like the 'birther' attacks, the vitriolic barbs being aimed at Mr. Mamdani seek to paint him as a shadowy, dangerous figure who bears no resemblance to the candidate himself. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Los Angeles Times
19 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Mexico disputes U.S. money laundering charges against banks allegedly linked to fentanyl trafficking
MEXICO CITY — President Trump's vow to 'wage war' on drug cartels has resulted in bombshell accusations of money-laundering against three Mexican financial institutions — allegations that produced a defiant pushback from Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. 'There's no proof, just words,' a clearly agitated Sheinbaum told reporters on Thursday. 'There has to be proof to know if there was money laundering or not. Therefore, we don't deny it or accept it.' A day earlier, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued what it called 'historic' sanctions against CiBanco, Intercam Banco and Vector Casa de Bolsa. The department accused the three of laundering millions of dollars in narco-cash to facilitate the trafficking of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids into the United States. The orders 'affirm Treasury's commitment to using all tools at our disposal to counter the threat posed by criminal and terrorist organizations,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a news release. The Treasury Department move would largely prohibit U.S. financial institutions from dealing with the three sanctioned entities, effectively shutting them out from access to the world's largest market. The Treasury accused the three firms of laundering funds for various Mexican drug cartels and 'facilitating payments for the procurement of precursor chemicals needed to produce fentanyl.' U.S. authorities say Mexican cartels use chemicals imported from China to produce fentanyl in clandestine laboratories and then smuggle the potent opioid into the United States. Black-market fentanyl has led to tens of thousands of overdose deaths in the United States, officials say. Sheinbaum has been widely lauded for her non-confrontational, 'cool-headed' approach with the Trump administration, despite many disagreements — including on Trump's imposition of 25% tariffs on some Mexican imports, a levy meant to prompt Mexico to crack down further on fentanyl smuggling. But Sheinbaum signaled her clear displeasure with Treasury's punitive actions. 'Mexico is not subordinate to anyone,' Sheinbaum said. 'We coordinate, collaborate — we have said this many times — but we will not subordinate ourselves.' In Mexico, some analysts have called the Treasury moves a broadside against Mexico's economic well-being. U.S. authorities have frequently sanctioned Mexican companies and individuals for alleged links to drug smuggling, but experts say targeting of banks is much less frequent. 'The accusation is the gravest news for the Mexican financial system in decades and represents a point of no return for these three firms,' wrote columnist Carlos Mota of the El Heraldo de México newspaper. 'The entire Mexican financial system entered into shock.' But the Treasury said that 'any burden and disruption should be relatively minimal,' since none of the three firms is a dominant player in Mexico. All institutions — two banks and a brokerage house, all medium-sized firms — denied any wrongdoing. Vector Casa de Bolsa said it 'categorically rejected any imputation that compromises its institutional integrity.' Vector manages about $11 billion in total assets, according to U.S. officials. The case against Vector has drawn special scrutiny in Mexico because of the firm's ties to Alfonso Romo, a businessman who served for two years as chief of staff for former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Sheinbaum's predecessor, mentor and the founder of Mexico's dominant Morena political bloc. After leaving the chief of staff position, Romo remained a top economic advisor to López Obrador. Mexican media accounts have described Romo as the honorary president and co-founder of Vector. Romo has not commented publicly. According to Mexican media reports, Mexico's current finance minister, Edgar Amador, is a former analyst with Vector. Among other allegations against Vector, the Treasury said that from 2013 to 2016 'a suspected Sinaloa cartel money mule' transferred more than $1.5 million to the brokerage firm. Vector was also allegedly linked to millions of dollars in Sinaloa cartel payouts to Genaro García Luna, Mexico's former top federal security official. García Luna was convicted in 2023 U.S. district court of colluding with the Sinaloa mob and receiving millions of dollars in graft. He is serving a 38-year prison sentence. The U.S. order against the three Mexican financial institutions is to take effect in 21 days. It is a civil action and does not involve criminal charges. Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.
Miami Herald
25 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Iran-Israel war could pull in the United States, offering no good choices
Editor's note: Welcome to Double Take, a regular conversation from opinion writers Melinda Henneberger and David Mastio tackling news with differing perspectives and respectful debate. DAVID: If Donald Trump has a superpower it is in being a disrupter. With two keystrokes, — 'W E' — on Tuesday, he sent the whole foreign policy establishment into a tizzy. 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn't compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured 'stuff.' Nobody does it better than the good ol' USA,' Trump said on his social platform, Truth Social. I thought it was Israel that was controlling the skies over Iran and bombing the country back into the pre-nuclear age, but apparently it is 'U S,' that stands for us and United States, I guess. I had been enjoying the irony of our proxy, Israel, taking the war to Iran's terror-supporting government after their years of supporting terrorist proxies in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Gaza (Hamas) and Yemen (Houthis) who threaten U.S. interests while Iran can proclaim it doesn't know anything about it. Remember when the embryonic Hezbollah carried out the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut that killed more than a dozen American Marines? MELINDA: Sure I do. You are right about Iran's horrible history and bad intentions. DAVID: If Trump has been consistent in one thing so far in his presidency it is that he is going to keep us out of foreign 'forever' wars, especially ones that smell like the one in Iraq, right next door to Iran. Is that all in the rearview mirror? I hope not. MELINDA: I have a big job on my hands here, because I'm going to have to argue with not only you, but also with myself, since I don't know the right answer. I do know a few things: Iranians have been putting up with repressive and rapacious leaders longer than I've been alive. Trump should never have backed us out of the Iran nuclear deal that was working; we used to have inspectors with eyes on at least some sites. Trump also said no new wars would start on his watch. And wasn't one of his biggest selling points that he and Bibi Netanyahu were so tight that Israel would do whatever he said? Yet here we are and off we go. What's that saying again? Fool me 1000 times, and I guess it's because we wanted to be fooled? I think the only time I have supported a military intervention was to end ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, and of course what we did not do in Rwanda was shameful. Like you, I very definitely do not want us in another war. Yet even I, who barely even believe in bombs and certainly do not believe in this president or his team, have to admit that I am a little bit torn over whether a man with the impulse control of a squirrel should do the world a favor and drop some bunker-busters on the Fordow plant. Why? Because no one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. DAVID: I, too, am tempted by the idea that Trump could drop a few of those 30,000-pound bombs from a flight of B-2 Spirits on that cave full of uranium centrifuges. Maybe in a few hours we could wash our hands of the whole thing. MELINDA: The counterargument is that we have no idea where that one act would end. Remember how quick Iraq was going to be? We have 40,000 troops in the region, and I do wish Trump hadn't run off so many capable diplomats. Last Sunday, I attended Mass at Our Lady and St. Rose in KCK, and in his terrific homily, Monsignor Stuart Swetland, the pastor and president of Donnelly College, who is a Navy vet, noted that the doomsday clock now stands at 89 seconds to midnight. Tick, tick, tick. First the parade, then the war? Again, like you, I really hope not. DAVID: I sure understand where the Israelis are coming from. For far longer than a quarter-century, Iranian leaders have been saying they want to 'wipe Israel off the map.' And that's not even really what they say because they hate Israel so much they can't even say Israel. State media in Iran calls it the 'Zionist regime.' And with the murderous baby-killing, teen-raping ways of Iran's proxies like Hamas, the Israelis have no reason not to take Iran literally. A nuclear bomb is the last step to the Final Solution. But do we always have to join Israel in the fight? Isn't it enough that while the rest of the world has turned their backs, we have given Israel everything it needs to defeat those who threaten it? The more I think about it, the more I think we do, whatever Trump's campaign promises. I don't want to be viewed in history like the generation of Americans who turned away Jews fleeing the Holocaust. Do I want Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard to lead this affair? Do I trust them to make the right choices to minimize our involvement and to not start another generational occupation of a broken nation? No, I do not, but I don't think we have a choice. MELINDA: We always have a choice, and I trust neither Trump and Co. nor Bibi. But oh, God, you know I will never get over some of our World War II-era decisions. In 1941, the U.S. made it even harder for those trying to flee the Nazis to make it to America. FDR did so much good, yet I will never understand how he could have turned away the German ocean liner St. Louis in 1939, and refused to save those 937 Jewish refugees on that boat who were close enough to safety to see the lights of Miami. On this, the 100th anniversary of 'The Great Gatsby,' I admit that the last couple of times I have reread what to me is the Great American Novel, I couldn't help thinking at some moments of those aboard the St. Louis looking with true yearning at those Miami lights and feeling, oh boohoo you, Jay Gatsby, staring at that green light at the end of Daisy's dock and searching for the impossible American dream of reconnecting two people who, even within the world created by Fitzgerald, really only ever existed in your own mind. Our government said little to nothing about the Nazi concentration camps well after we knew about them, and why did we not go in sooner to save more Jews imprisoned there? So are you banging on a bruise here in saying we need to stand with Israel? Yes. The more I think about it, though, the more I think the risks of a wider war are too great. I'm still not sure that I know the right answer, but Iran is so weak right now, and I hope that diplomatic efforts work. 'We're strong, we're prepared, we're defensive and present,' said our historically underprepared but always defensive defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. I don't know if that scared Iran, but it did worry me.
