Trump's crackdown leaves migrants in Los Angeles on brink of homelessness
BUENA PARK, US: When her husband was arrested in an immigration raid near Los Angeles last month, Martha was abruptly separated from the father of her two daughters. But she also lost the salary that allowed her to keep a roof over their heads. 'He's the pillar of the family... he was the only one working,' said the undocumented woman, using a pseudonym for fear of reprisals. 'He's no longer here to help us, to support me and my daughters.'
Los Angeles, where one-third of residents are immigrants—and several hundred thousand people are undocumented—has been destabilized by intensifying Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids under the Trump administration. Since returning to power, US President Donald Trump has delivered on promises to launch a wide-ranging deportation drive, targeting undocumented migrants but also ensnaring many others in its net. After her husband's arrest, 39-year-old Martha has joined the ranks of people barely managing to avoid ending up on the streets of Los Angeles County—a region with prohibitively high housing prices, and the largest number of homeless people in the United States outside New York.
Her 700-square-foot apartment in Buena Park, a suburb of the California metropolis, costs $2,050 per month. After her husband's arrest, she urgently found a minimum-wage night job in a factory to cover their most pressing needs. It pays just enough to keep them afloat, but has left Martha unable to cover a range of obligations. 'I have to pay car insurance, phone, rent, and their expenses,' she said, pointing to her six- and seven-year-old daughters, who need school supplies for the new academic year.
'That's a lot of expenses.'
How long can she keep up this punishing schedule, which allows her barely three hours of sleep on returning from the factory before having to wake and look after her daughters? 'I couldn't tell you,' she said, staring blankly into space. Los Angeles has seen some of the worst of the ICE raids. Squads of masked agents have targeted hardware stores, car washes and bus stops, arresting more than 2,200 people in June.
About 60 percent of these had no prior criminal records, according to internal ICE documents analyzed by AFP. Trump's anti-immigration offensive is taking an added toll on Latino workers, who were already among the worst-affected victims of the region's housing crisis, said Andrea Gonzalez, deputy director of the CLEAN Carwash Workers Center, a labor rights non-profit.
'A bigger storm is brewing. It's not just about the people that got picked up, it's about the people that are left behind as well,' she said. 'There is a concern that people are going to end up on the streets.' Her organization is helping more than 300 struggling households whose incomes have plummeted, either because a family member has been arrested or because they are too afraid to return to work.
It has distributed more than $30,000 to help around 20 families who are unable to afford their rent, but covering everyone's needs is simply 'not sustainable,' said Gonzalez.
Local Democratic Party leaders are trying to establish financial aid for affected families. Los Angeles County is planning a dedicated fund to tackle the problem, and city officials will also launch a fund using philanthropic donations rather than taxpayer money. Some families should receive 'a couple hundred' dollars, Mayor Karen Bass said last month. But for Gonzalez, these initiatives do not 'even scratch the surface' of what is needed, representing less than 10 percent of most affected families' rent requirements.
She called for a 'moratorium on evictions' similar to one introduced during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Otherwise, Los Angeles' homeless population—currently numbered at 72,000, which is down slightly in the past two years—risks rising again, she warned.
'What we're living through right now is an emergency,' said Gonzalez. Maria Martinez's undocumented immigrant husband was arrested in June at a carwash in Pomona, a suburb east of Los Angeles. Since then, the 59-year-old has had to rely on help from her children to pay her $1,800 monthly rent. Her $1,000 disability allowance falls far short.
'It is stressful,' she said. 'We're just getting by.' – AFP
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Kuwait Times
11 hours ago
- Kuwait Times
What happens next in US court battle over Trump's tariffs?
WASHINGTON: A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of US President Donald Trump's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs. Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the US Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called 'America's big case,' and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead. What is the case about? The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. It centers around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address 'unusual and extraordinary' threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA. A dozen Democratic-led states and five small US businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the US Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late Thursday. Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes. What's the status of the litigation? The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench. The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal. Will Trump's tariffs be blocked if he loses in court? A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an 'administrative stay' that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief. Is the Supreme Court likely to step in? The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case. If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October 6. The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly. How might the supreme court rule? There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do. Critics of Trump's tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of 'vast economic and political significance' except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. Can importers seek refunds for tariffs paid? If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims. Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by US Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade. There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted. Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff 'stacking' — where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports. And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to US harbors, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court. Would a courtroom defeat unravel Trump's trade deals? Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations. The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security. Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit. Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the US has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress. — Reuters
Kuwait Times
12 hours ago
- Kuwait Times
Philippine and Indian navies begin first joint South China Sea patrols
Marcos arrives in New Delhi on state visit MANILA: Indian navy warships have begun patrolling areas of the disputed South China Sea with their Philippine counterparts for the first time, Manila's military said Monday, as President Ferdinand Marcos departed for a state visit to New Delhi. The two-day sail includes three Indian vessels and started Sunday, a day before Marcos left on a trip that will include talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Philippines has heightened defense cooperation with a range of allies over the past year after a series of clashes in the South China Sea. Beijing claims nearly the entirety of the waterway despite an international ruling that its assertion has no legal basis. India's naval vessels, including the guided missile destroyer INS Delhi, arrived in Manila for a port visit late last week. The patrol 'started yesterday afternoon, then it's ongoing up to this moment... the activity at the moment is replenishment at sea,' Lieutenant Colonel John Paul Salgado told AFP. China in response accused Manila of 'drawing in external countries to stir up trouble' in the South China Sea. The joint patrol 'undermines regional peace and stability', said Senior Colonel Tian Junli, spokesperson of the Chinese military's Southern Theater Command. He said Beijing had conducted 'routine patrols' in the South China Sea on Sunday and Monday, and remained on 'high alert'. While in India, Marcos is expected to sign pacts in such fields as law, culture and technology, according to foreign affairs assistant secretary Evangeline Ong Jimenez-Ducrocq, but all eyes will be on any potential defense agreements. Before departing Monday, Marcos praised the two countries' 'steadfastness in upholding international maritime law, including the UNCLOS', the UN treaty granting an exclusive economic zone within 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers) of a country's shores. The Philippines has previously purchased BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles from India, a weapon which has a top speed of 3,450 kilometers (2,140 miles) per hour. India, which has engaged in border clashes with China in the Himalayas, is a member of the so-called Quad, a group that includes fellow democracies the United States, Japan and Australia. Beijing has repeatedly alleged that the four-way partnership, first conceived by late Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, was created as a way of containing China. — AFP
Kuwait Times
12 hours ago
- Kuwait Times
Suspects on trial over Moscow venue attack
MOSCOW: Nineteen people went on trial in Moscow on Monday over an attack on a city concert hall that killed 149 people in one of the deadliest strikes in Russia. Armed men stormed the Crocus City Hall on the outskirts of Moscow on March 22, 2024, opening fire and then setting the building alight, injuring hundreds of people. The Islamic State (IS) group claimed responsibility. The four suspected attackers, all from Tajikistan—an ex-Soviet republic in central Asia—and another 15 people accused of being accomplices have gone on trial. An AFP reporter at the courtroom before saw some of the defendants in glass cages, their hands cuffed behind their backs. Around 30 survivors were also present. One of them, Tatiana Ruzanova, told AFP she came to the court to see the defendants. 'They all sit quietly with their heads slumped in cages... I didn't see if they felt guilty, they all had their heads down,' Ruzanova said. On the night of the attack, she came to the concert of the Russian rock group Piknik with a friend but did not make it inside the hall. 'We saw everyone already in the foyer, maybe that saved us. We inhaled smoke. It was a miracle that we didn't make it,' Ruzanova said. Subsequent hearings were to take place on Tuesday and Thursday, according to the court's website. The judge ordered the trial to proceed behind closed doors. The attack shocked Russia, which has been battling Ukraine in a military offensive since February 24, 2022. Despite IS claiming responsibility, Russia implicated Ukraine in the attack, an allegation that Kyiv called baseless and absurd. The massacre ignited a debate about the reintroduction of the death penalty. Some hardline politicians publicly called for a moratorium, observed since 1996, to be lifted. It also sparked a wave of xenophobia against central Asian migrants in Russia. Nearly half of the victims were killed by smoke and carbon monoxide inhalation from the fire that broke out, rather than from gunshot wounds, the state TASS news agency reported on Sunday, citing case materials. Ekaterina Klimenko, who survived the attack, told AFP she hoped for a 'fair decision' from the judges. 'I still go to concerts, but intuitively I look around with my eyes to see if there is any danger,' she said. – AFP
