LA shaken as immigration clampdown turns violent
Members of the Los Angeles Metro Police clash with demonstrators during a protest against federal immigration sweeps in downtown Los Angeles, June 8. PHOTO: REUTERS
US President Donald Trump on Monday accused protesters in Los Angeles of insurrection and threatened they would be "hit harder" than ever if they disrespect security forces during clashes triggered by anger over immigration raids.
Demonstrators in a small part of the second biggest US city's downtown area torched cars and looted stores in ugly scenes Sunday that saw law enforcement responding with tear gas and rubber bullets.
Trump posted he had deployed National Guard troops "to deal with the violent, instigated riots" and "if we had not done so, Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated".
"The people are causing the problems are professional agitators and insurrectionists," he told reporters in Washington.
On social media, he said protesters spat at troops and if they continued to do so, "I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!"
Meanwhile, the US military is set to temporarily deploy about 700 Marines to Los Angeles while additional National Guard troops arrive in the city, a US official told Reuters on Monday.
The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said a battalion would be sent, but for now, the Insurrection Act is not expected to be invoked. The official added that the situation was fluid and could change.
California Governor Gavin Newsom accused the president of deliberately stoking tensions by using the National Guard, a reserve military force usually controlled by state governors.
"This is exactly what Donald Trump wanted. He flamed the fires," Newsom said, adding California would be suing the federal government over the deployment.
Trump shot back, saying "I would do it" when asked if Newsom should be arrested.
The protests in Los Angeles, home to a large Latino population, were triggered by dozens of arrests of what authorities say are illegal migrants and gang members.
Trump's border czar Tom Homan said Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was targeting members of cartels in Mexico and Colombia.
Many locals painted a different picture.
They are "people who are here earnestly trying to improve their lives (and) deserve a chance and don't deserve to be treated as criminals," Deborah McCurdy, 64, told AFP at a rally where hundreds gathered on Monday.
On Monday morning, a heavy police presence stood watch in Downtown LA, where streets were quiet.
Overnight, vandals had set fires and smashed windows, adding to the scenes of damage left after five Waymo self-driving cars were torched. Obscene graffiti was daubed over many surfaces.
Despite isolated and eye-catching acts of violence, officials and local law enforcement stressed the majority of protesters over the weekend had been peaceful.
Schools across Los Angeles were operating normally on Monday, while the rhythms of life in the sprawling city appeared largely unchanged.
Mayor Karen Bass told CNN that in contrast to Trump's rhetoric, "this is isolated to a few streets. This is not citywide civil unrest."
Immigration arrests were designed to stir tensions, she said, while the troop deployment was "a recipe for pandemonium."
The United Nations warned against "further militarization" of the situation, in remarks likely to anger the White House.
After initial confrontations between demonstrators and federal forces on Sunday, local law enforcement took the lead, using what they called "less lethal weapons" to disperse crowds.
Viral footage showed one rubber bullet being fired at an Australian TV reporter, who was hit in the leg on live television.
At least 56 people were arrested over two days and five officers suffered minor injuries, Los Angeles Police Department officials said, while about 60 people were arrested in protests i San Francisco.
The National Guard is frequently used in natural disasters, and occasionally in civil unrest, but almost always with the consent of local authorities.
Trump's deployment of the forcethe first over the head of a state governor since 1965 at the height of the civil rights movementwas criticized by Democrats, including Kamala Harris.
The former vice president and Trump's opponent in the 2024 election called it "a dangerous escalation meant to provoke chaos."
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on Monday condemned the violence, while calling on the United States to respect migrant rights.
Sheinbaum urged Mexicans living in the United States "to act peacefully and not give in to provocations."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
US mediation offer
Listen to article The Kashmir dispute is not a regional fault line. It is a global flashpoint — one that demands more than sterile diplomatic statements and historical posturing. The recent military flare-up between Pakistan and India, the most serious between the two in decades, brought the subcontinent dangerously close to open conflict. A ceasefire was achieved, but not through bilateral diplomacy — it was the intervention from none other than the President of the United States of America that helped defuse the escalation that threatened what is called mutually agreed destruction. This begs the question: can the Kashmir dispute be resolved without the active involvement of a major world power? For far too long, India has been averse to third-party mediation, insisting that Kashmir is a bilateral matter in line with the Shimla Agreement of 1972. This rigid stance has, in effect, blocked any meaningful dialogue while allowing the conflict to fester. But the latest developments suggest a subtle shift. New Delhi and Islamabad, while not openly inviting mediation, allowed space for President Donald Trump to intervene — a notable departure from past rejections of third-party involvement. Just yesterday, the US Department of State reiterated Trump's willingness to help resolve the Kashmir issue, stating that "each step that he takes is made to solve generational differences between countries". This statement, while significant, should be viewed with cautious optimism considering the chequered US history. The stakes are too high to leave the longstanding Kashmir issue to empty slogans or rigid bilateralism. And as long as it remains unresolved, it will continue to poison relations between the two nuclear-armed neighbours and destabilise an already fragile region. Whether it is Trump or any other global leader, only a credible and powerful mediator can help break the deadlock. Currently, the US — which enjoys leverage over both Islamabad and New Delhi — remains best placed to lead that effort.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Migration crisis: what really matters?
Listen to article When President Donald Trump signed an executive order back in January banning refugee resettlement, citing national security and the need to "protect the homeland", it wasn't just a policy shift but a declaration of how the modern world views displacement. Refugees are increasingly seen not as victims of circumstance, but as potential threats, burdens or political pawns. The tough reality that emerges with increasingly strong borders and inflammatory people-powered politics is: in the world at large, is it borders or bodies that weigh more? The United States, long a symbol of refuge, has been retreating from its commitments. Under Trump's previous administration, the refugee cap reached historic lows, and entire populations were blocked entry on the basis of religion and nationality. Now, the familiar language of fear is back, cloaked in sovereignty, but rooted in exclusion. And this is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Across Europe, the narrative echoes. The UK's attempts to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, Italy's criminalisation of migrant rescue ships and Greece's illegal pushbacks in the Aegean all signal a global trend: the securitisation of human movement. Refugees are treated less like people in need and more like liabilities to be managed, repelled or offloaded. But in today's world, the category of the "refugee" itself is expanding — or at least, should be. While the 1951 Geneva Convention defines a refugee as someone fleeing persecution due to race, religion, nationality or political opinion, this framework fails to accommodate the new and growing class of displaced persons: climate migrants. Many people are made homeless each year by floods, droughts, fires and flooding waters. Entire nations on islands are in peril and at the same time, changing weather in South Asia and Africa leads to conflicts and destroys people's livelihoods. These people do not receive the same status as refugees, according to international rules. No one is protecting them and there is no form of recognition set aside for them. This lack of rules further highlights a weakness in how the world is run. The rules in war do not update as the world shifts. Refugee institutions made after World War II do not keep up with the issues caused by today's displacement. Although the Geneva Convention is admired, it no longer works well. It cannot address the blurred lines between conflict and climate, between persecution and poverty, between war and weather. As a result, these grey zones are overlooked by the international community as rich nations stop accepting refugees but claim to follow humanitarian principles. This raises a fundamental moral dilemma: What are borders actually protecting? If the answer is sovereignty, then sovereignty itself becomes a justification for indifference. Hannah Arendt once warned of the danger faced by those who lose the "right to have rights". Today, millions roam the world with no state to speak for them, no law to defend them and no border willing to welcome them. Their existence is a daily negotiation with rejection. The debate is not just about who crosses borders; it's about how the global order prioritises state security over human security; it's about whether IR will keep being just about power or if it will become something fairer and more open. We can no longer afford to treat migration as a temporary crisis or a political inconvenience. Climate displacement, economic collapse and civil conflict are not going away; they are the future. And that future demands new definitions, new protections and, above all, new compassion. If we continue to worship borders and ignore the bodies knocking on them, then we must also accept what that reveals about our values. If the world is set up to protect the few at the expense of the disadvantaged, it will not be a true just society. And in the end, the lines we draw on maps will mean little if they come at the cost of our shared humanity.
Business Recorder
3 hours ago
- Business Recorder
US slams UN conference on Israel-Palestinian issue, warns of consequences
PARIS: U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is discouraging governments around the world from attending a U.N. conference next week on a possible two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, according to a U.S. cable seen by Reuters. The diplomatic demarche, sent on Tuesday, says countries that take 'anti-Israel actions' following the conference will be viewed as acting in opposition to U.S. foreign policy interests and could face diplomatic consequences from Washington. The demarche, which was not previously reported, runs squarely against the diplomacy of two close allies France and Saudi Arabia, who are co-hosting the gathering next week in New York that aims to lay out the parameters for a roadmap to a Palestinian state, while ensuring Israel's security. 'We are urging governments not to participate in the conference, which we view as counterproductive to ongoing, life-saving efforts to end the war in Gaza and free hostages,' read the cable. President Emmanuel Macron has suggested France could recognise a Palestinian state in Israeli-occupied territories at the conference. French officials say they have been working to avoid a clash with the U.S., Israel's staunchest major ally. UN conference on two-state solution to Mideast conflict set for June 'The United States opposes any steps that would unilaterally recognise a conjectural Palestinian state, which adds significant legal and political obstacles to the eventual resolution of the conflict and could coerce Israel during a war, thereby supporting its enemies,' the cable read. The United States for decades backed a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians that would create a state for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza alongside Israel. Trump, in his first term, was relatively tepid in his approach to a two-state solution, a longtime pillar of U.S. Middle East policy. The Republican president has given little sign of where he stands on the issue in his second term. But on Tuesday, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, a long-time vocal supporter of Israel, said he did not think an independent Palestinian state remained a U.S. foreign policy goal. Gaza war 'Unilaterally recognizing a Palestinian state would effectively render Oct. 7 Palestinian Independence Day,' the cable read, referring to when Palestinian Hamas carried out a cross-border attack from Gaza on Israel in 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking about 250 hostages. Hamas' attack triggered Israel's air and ground war in Gaza in which almost 55,000 Palestinians have been killed, most of the 2.3 million population displaced and the enclave widely reduced to rubble. If Macron went ahead, France, home to Europe's largest Jewish and Muslim communities, would become the first Western heavyweight to recognise a Palestinian state. This could lend greater momentum to a movement hitherto dominated by smaller nations generally more critical of Israel. Macron's stance has shifted amid Israel's intensified Gaza offensive and escalating violence against Palestinians by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank, and there is a growing sense of urgency in Paris to act now before the idea of a two-state solution vanishes forever. The U.S. cable said Washington had worked tirelessly with Egypt and Qatar to reach a ceasefire in Gaza, free the hostages and end the conflict. 'This conference undermines these delicate negotiations and emboldens Hamas at a time when the terrorist group has rejected proposals by the negotiators that Israel has accepted.' This week Britain and Canada, also G7 allies of the United States, were joined by other countries in placing sanctions on two Israeli far-right government ministers to pressure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bring the Gaza war to an end. 'The United States opposes the implied support of the conference for potential actions including boycotts and sanctions on Israel as well as other punitive measures,' the cable read. Israel has repeatedly criticised the conference, saying it rewards Hamas for the attack on Israel, and it has lobbied France against recognising a Palestinian state. 'Nothing surprises me anymore, but I don't see how many countries could step back on their participation,' said a European diplomat, who asked for anonymity due to the subject's sensitivity. 'This is bullying, and of a stupid type.' The U.S. State Department and the French Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
