Disaster relief groups worry immigrants won't go to hurricane shelters amid crackdown
With hurricane season underway amid a massive state and federal push for deportations, some disaster relief groups are worried that fear of immigration raids could keep foreign-born Floridians from hurricane shelters this year — even as a storm threatens their community.
The question popped up several times at a gathering last week hosted by the Miami Foundation to help nonprofits navigate sweeping changes to federal natural disaster management, including cuts to emergency funding and storm forecasting services.
During a panel discussion at the Little Haiti Cultural Complex, Allison Thompson, head of Miami-based Third Wave Volunteers, asked whether Miami-Dade County would allow U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents into any hurricane shelters that may be opened this year.
'We are very worried about ICE,' she said. 'Because immigrants are scared to go to shelters as is.'
Jesse Spearo, assistant director of the county's emergency management department, told the crowd that shelters always have police officers there, but that law enforcement is only checking for weapons or drugs, which are prohibited. It's not county policy to check anyone's immigration status, he said.
'It's a concern that we have had conversations about within our communities,' he said. 'The shelters are always open for anybody. Doesn't matter who you are or where you're from. Doesn't matter, you're welcome.'
American Red Cross, which co-operates most disaster shelters in Florida, also repeated that it doesn't consider immigration status when evacuees arrive.
'Red Cross shelters are open to everyone. They are safe and welcoming spaces for people of all backgrounds,' Tiffany Gonzalez, spokesperson for the South Florida region, said in a statement.
For years, ICE has followed a formal policy that discouraged raids in protected places like schools, hospitals, churches and hurricane shelters. Under President Joe Biden, the federal government emphasized that to 'the fullest extent possible,' immigration officials would not conduct enforcement along hurricane shelters, evacuation routes, disaster assistance registration sites, or supply distribution centers.
'DHS is committed to ensuring that every individual who seeks shelter, aid, or other assistance as a result of a natural disaster or emergency event is able to do so regardless of their immigration status,' the Department of Homeland Security said ahead of Hurricane Milton last year.
But this hurricane season, there is new uncertainty surrounding that policy. In January, the Trump administration rescinded that protected places guidance, sparking widespread condemnation and lawsuits — including one from 27 religious groups.
'Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America's schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense,' said a DHS spokesperson.
So far, there have been no confirmed cases of ICE raids on churches or schools, and without any early-season storms, no shelters have been opened in South Florida or elsewhere in the state. There are other hurdles to immigration agents targeting shelters as well. Experts told the Herald they believe that ICE agents would need a warrant from a judge before entering a church or school and that would likely apply to hurricane shelters as well.
READ MORE: Can ICE agents raid churches? Yes, but it's unlikely, say South Florida faith leaders, lawyers
The Miami Herald reached out to ICE with questions last week about how the agency would handle shelters during hurricane season. The agency did not respond.
Multiple law enforcement agencies in South Florida have also signed agreements with ICE to allow police officers to detain and arrest undocumented immigrants, including, most recently, the city of Miami. County jail operators, like Miami-Dade's Sheriff's Office, are required to join the partnerships with ICE by law. Miami-Dade, which provides security at many shelters, has also joined ICE's 'task force model,' meaning trained officers can question, arrest and detain people they believe are violating immigration law.
The Miami-Dade Sheriff's Department also did not respond to questions about shelters but Sheriff Rosie Cordero-Stutz has previously stated that deputies will be focused on people who are committing crimes.
While there have been no recorded incidents of ICE raids at a hurricane shelter in Florida, there have been past threats to target the facilities by law enforcement. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd drew heat ahead of 2017's Hurricane Irma for threatening to snag anyone seeking shelter who had an active warrant out for their arrest. A Virginia legal services group later sued the sheriff, saying that his statement caused them to re-route undocumented immigrants they were planning to send to the shelter to wait out the storm.
Funding concerns
Beyond the immigration questions, nonprofit groups in Miami-Dade said they were largely ready for any disasters that this season could throw at them — but there are lingering concerns about relief and recovery funding.
The Trump administration has suggested dismantling the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the federal department tasked with responding to major disasters — but not until the end of hurricane season, which officially ends Nov. 30.
READ MORE: Florida says it's ready for hurricane season, with or without FEMA's help
FEMA provides the majority of disaster relief funding in the U.S., both for individual survivors of a disaster and for local governments seeking reimbursements for the work of cleaning up after a storm or flood or fire. Already, the agency has begun cutting back on the amount of disaster aid it offers communities, pushing some South Florida municipalities to consider starting a new fund to sock away extra money ahead of disasters.
Other nonprofit groups worried aloud that with diminished federal funding, they'd all be fighting over the same, smaller pot of private donations now.
But Katy Meagher, CEO of Miami-based Neighbors for Neighbors, told the crowd gathered at the Little Haiti Cultural Center on Wednesday that banding together was the key to ensuring that Miami disaster relief nonprofits could continue helping locals this year, despite shifts in federal funds.
'We never used a dime of federal funding from our day of inception to today. For many, I know that's a fearful thing to lose, but we don't need it,' she said. 'I believe in us because we work together so collaboratively already.'
In Miami-Dade, Spearo had good news to share about local disaster relief. The county's emergency management staff has nearly doubled in the last few years, thanks to recommendations from FEMA and the state that Mayor Daniella Levine-Cava took to heart, he said.
Leonie Hermantin, director of special projects at SantLa, said her group helped pull off the first-ever community disaster training in Creole, after decades of only English or Spanish-language options.
Hermantin said her organization also ran multiple focus groups to find out what the community knows about disaster relief and what resources they actually need, rather than simply assuming.
'It turns out a lot of people know what preparedness is, they just don't have the means,' she said. 'They can't go shopping for hurricane supplies. They're terrified of shelters. That's misinformation we need to correct.'
Elderly people, in particular, think of hurricane shelters as 'brothels, basically,' she said.
Other panelists, including Spearo, agreed that all research showed that the people most at risk when a disaster strikes are low-income people.
'I'm worried about our vulnerable population. The people that are hurting now, with $10 in the bank, with a medical condition, they are ten times worse off after a disaster. I worry about them,' he said.
Miami Herald Staff Writer Syra Ortiz Blanes contributed to this article.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Why Trump's trade war will last way longer than his Iran war
President Trump had a unique advantage when he ordered the June 21 US strikes against Iranian nuclear targets: giant "bunker buster" bombs able to penetrate deeper than any weapon short of a nuke. That allowed Trump to declare victory after a few bombing runs that barely lasted a day. In Trump's other conflict — the trade standoff with dozens of trading partners — there is no such decisive weapon. Trump pretends there is, claiming that other nations will suffer grievous harm if he raises tariffs on the goods they import to the US. But in these battles, Trump is often bluffing, and his adversaries know it. Trump's willingness to attack Iran provides lessons on how he handles risk and negotiates in challenging situations. It may also dispel a myth or two about how he's prosecuting the trade war. For one thing, Trump doesn't always "chicken out." The so-called TACO trade — "Trump Always Chickens Out" — became memey in May after a Financial Times columnist observed that Trump often postpones or backs down from tariff threats. But that isn't completely true. Trump has imposed new tariffs on imports from most countries, raising the average import tax from 2.5% before he took office to about 15%. American importers are paying those taxes, and they'll be the first to tell you that, alas, Trump hasn't chickened out. Trump certainly could have chickened out when it came to Iran, especially given that several of his White House predecessors declined to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, choosing diplomacy and negotiation instead. That was Trump's approach too, until Israel opened the door to a US strike with a week of bombing that accomplished much of the job of degrading Iran's nuclear program. Even then, Trump took a considerable risk in dropping bombs on Iran, given that it could seek revenge through attacks on Americans or efforts to disrupt oil flows and cause an energy shock. What Trump demonstrated in attacking Iran is that when he has a strong hand, he plays it. Strategist Eliot Cohen of the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies said Trump has a "feral instinct for human weakness ... when his enemy is lying prostrate in front of him, he's perfectly happy to kick him in the head."That was the Trump who bombed Iran. Its air defense system was shredded, its leader hiding in a bunker. Trump took a risk other presidents haven't taken because he felt the odds of success were strongly in his favor — and he might have been right. In Trump's trade war, however, most adversaries aren't nearly as vulnerable. Trump has no magic weapon, and victory is elusive. This will likely become apparent once again as a July 9 deadline approaches for dozens of countries to make trade deals with Trump or risk his "reciprocal" tariffs. The trade war was never going to end in a day, or a month, or even a year. Trump announced draconian tariffs on April 2 but postponed them a week later after an ugly market sell-off. That was Trump showing weakness, rather than the other way around, because his tariffs amounted to friendly fire, causing unintended damage at home. Markets have yo-yoed as Trump's tariffs go on, then come off, triggering alternating bouts of despair and euphoria. But markets are generally adjusting to a tariff regime that might not be so bad because Trump doesn't have the leverage to strike a decisive and lasting blow, as he did with Iran. Read more: 5 ways to tariff-proof your finances Torsten Sløk, chief economist at private equity firm Apollo (Yahoo's parent company), recently mused that Trump may have "outsmarted everyone on tariffs." He suggested that as the July 9 deadline approaches, Trump may extend his trade deal deadline by as much as a year, giving markets time to adjust while the US pulls in something like $400 billion in tariff revenue, which would be nearly a fivefold increase over 2024 levels. The bigger surprise for markets, in fact, would be if Trump attempted some kind of shock-and-awe tariff blast around the July 9 deadline, rather than simply setting a new deadline. "The widely held assumption (which we share) appears to be that even if deals with trade partners do not materialize in the next two weeks (which is unlikely), the pause will simply be extended," Capital Economics explained in a June 24 analysis. "Market turmoil on the scale of those sparked by the original tariffs back in April looks improbable, if only because market participants would probably assume that any sell-off would lead to another u-turn." Trump's deliberations with China, as one example, suggest the whole ordeal could end up a quagmire rather than a decisive victory for one side or the other. In April, Trump hit Chinese imports with tariffs as high as 145%, which basically halted all inbound shipments. Trump lowered that to 30% in May. Some analysts described that development as a "truce" in the trade war and said it damaged Trump's credibility as a negotiator because he failed to act on a threat. Read more: How to protect your money during turmoil, stock market volatility Trump hasn't explained exactly what he wants from China, which could be part of a strategy that allows him to declare victory at any time and only then explain what his demands are, once he knows what he can get China to agree to. Yet China is making even that difficult. In response to Trump's tariffs, one Chinese move has been to impose new limits on exports of rare-earth magnets, a market China dominates, with about 90% of the world's supply. US companies that need those magnets for automobiles, fighter jets, medical equipment, electronics, and many other things are now running into shortages, in some cases threatening the shutdown of domestic assembly lines. As Trump sniffs out weakness in an adversary, he also recognizes strength. He must recognize that his promise of revitalizing US manufacturing will never pan out if American firms can't even get key components. China may not have all the leverage, but it certainly has some. This puts Trump in the position of bluffing, and the more he bluffs, the less serious he seems. That's why investors are fairly confident Trump's July 9 deadline will merely morph into another deadline, and maybe another one after that. The S&P 500 stock index has broadly recovered from the April sell-off, and it's close to topping the all-time high set in February. That's an indication investors don't think Trump's tariffs will harm corporate profits or stock values. There's no bunker buster in a trade war, and markets are grateful for that. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.

USA Today
16 minutes ago
- USA Today
Dems aim to curb Trump's use of military in Iran but GOP expects to kill bills
The votes spotlight a dispute between Congress holding the power to declare war while the president is the commander in chief of the military who can order bombings without legislative support. WASHINGTON – The Senate could vote as early as June 26 to curb President Donald Trump's use of military force in Iran, despite the fragile cease-fire and the expectation of Republican congressional leaders that the proposals will be defeated. The measure from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, is one of at least three pending in Congress amid a dispute between the legislative and executive branches about who holds the keys to a U.S. attack on another country. Trump argues as commander in chief of the armed forces he had the discretion to bomb Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. But lawmakers note the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Votes on the measures in the Senate and House also carry political implications amid fears of Iranian retaliation, as numerous lawmakers weigh campaigns for president in 2028. Here is what we know about the war-powers debate: What will the Senate be voting on? Kaine introduced his resolution days before Trump ordered the bombing against Iran on June 21. Kaine had sponsored a similar measure during Trump's first term that was approved by Congress but vetoed by Trump. 'I happen to believe that the United States engaging in a war against Iran – a third war in the Middle East since 2001 – would be a catastrophic blunder for this country,' Kaine said on the Senate floor June 17. Under Senate rules, the measure has an expedited path to a floor vote by June 27. Because senators are expected to be debating Trump's tax and policy legislative package at the end of the week, the vote could come sooner. More: Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is shrinking in the Senate: What to know Kaine said June 24 that the vote could come June 26 or 27, after Trump administration officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio provide lawmakers a classified briefing on the bombing. The Senate debate comes amid a fragile cease-fire between Israel and Iran, which Trump criticized both countries for violating. 'I think they both violated it,' Trump told reporters at the White House on June 24 before leaving for a NATO meeting in the Netherlands. 'I'm not sure they did it intentionally. They couldn't rein people back.' What is the War Powers Act? The Constitution gives Congress the power 'to declare war.' In addition, lawmakers approved the War Powers Resolution of 1973 during the Vietnam War to require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action. The law also limited the deployment of armed forces to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, in the absence of a formal declaration of war. But Trump and his allies note he is the commander in chief of the military and that swift, decisive military action is sometimes needed. "There is only one Commander in Chief, and thank God it's President Trump," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina and a former military lawyer, said on social media June 22. "To all those claiming he acted outside his authority, you are dead wrong." House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, noted the last declaration of war was for World War II in 1941, but there have been 125 military operations since then, including in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Then-President Joe Biden ordered strikes on Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and then-President Barack Obama ordered an eight-month bombing campaign against Libya, Johnson said. Johnson, a constitutional attorney before launching his politics career, called the war-powers statute unconstitutional and a relic with reporting requirements to Congress no longer necessary because of 24-hour news cycles and social media. 'The strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were clearly within Trump's Article II powers as commander in chief," Johnson said. "It shouldn't even be in dispute." Critics have questioned what was so urgent that required the strike June 21. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said Johnson was wrong and the law is constitutional. 'There is a legal obligation for the administration to inform Congress about precisely what is happening," Schumer told reporters June 24. Some Republicans who have supported Trump opposed bombing Iran Several Republicans who have supported Trump on other issues parted ways with him over bombing Iran. Two of the critics are Kentucky Republicans: Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie. "There was no imminent threat to the United States," Massie said. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, said she spent millions campaigning with Trump in 2024 but considered the attack a betrayal of his pledges to avoid foreign wars or try to change foreign governments. More: 'Bait and switch': Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene criticizes Trump's Iran strike 'It feels like a complete bait and switch to please the neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon tv personalities that MAGA hates and who were NEVER TRUMPERS!' Greene said June 23 on social media. 'Contrary to brainwashed Democrat boomers think and protest about, Trump is not a king, MAGA is not a cult, and I can and DO have my own opinion." House votes expected later Two proposals are pending in the House. Massie introduced one with Rep. Ro Khanna, D-California. And the top Democrats of three committees – Reps. Jim Himes of Connecticut on Intelligence, Gregory Meeks of New York on Foreign Affairs and Adam Smith of Washington on Armed Services – introduced another. "President Trump must not be allowed to start a war with Iran, or any country, without Congressional approval, without meaningful consultation or Congressional authorization," the lawmakers said in a joint statement June 23. War-powers resolutions used to be designated for a House floor vote within 48 hours. But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-New York, said a GOP change in House rules at the start of the Congress to hold such votes after 15 legislative days meant the vote might not happen for weeks. 'The question is what was the imminent threat to the United States of America,' Jeffries told reporters June 24. 'The question is what justified this particular action and was it even successful.' Johnson told reporters June 24 he didn't have the power to stop a privileged resolution. But he said he spoke with Massie, who agreed the resolution may not be needed if the cease-fire holds. 'We may not have to act upon that," Johnson said. "I hope we don't because it would be a terrible look and it will not pass the House because it's inappropriate and it's not a proper use of the law anyway." Polls show concerns about Iran conflict broadening Uncertainty about how the conflict with Iran will play out carries potential political risks for lawmakers considering presidential campaigns in 2028. 'For most Democratic politicians, a vote in favor of the president's position involves significant risk and little benefit,' said John Pitney Jr., a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College. 'Whatever happens in Iran, any support for Trump will alienate core Democratic voters. That's especially true if things go badly.' 'There's a flip side to that coin,' Pitney added. 'Republican lawmakers know that any departure from the president's position will anger the White House.' Americans were anxious over a brewing conflict between the U.S. and Iran, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on June 23. Nearly four out of five Americans surveyed said they worried "that Iran may target U.S. civilians in response to the U.S. airstrikes." The three-day poll, which began after the U.S. airstrikes and ended early June 23 before Iran said it attacked a U.S. air base in Qatar, showed Americans were similarly concerned about their country's military personnel stationed in the Middle East. In 2002, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks Sept. 11, 2001, some Democratic senators such as Hillary Clinton supported the congressional authorization for use of military force against Iraq. But the lingering conflict became one of the political differences in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. Obama, who wasn't yet serving in Congress for the Iraq vote but spoke out against the war, won the party's nomination en route to two terms in the White House.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Ignores Ukraine War and Declares ‘Peace Abroad'
President Donald Trump declared he has achieved peace overseas despite the fragile situation in the Middle East, and he completely left out the war raging in Ukraine. 'Now that we have made PEACE abroad, we must finish the job here at home by passing 'THE GREAT, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL,' and getting the Bill to my desk, ASAP,' the president wrote on Truth Social. The president appeared to be referring to the conflict between Iran and Israel as he has been bullish that a ceasefire would hold, even as it has already come close to unraveling less than a day after he announced it on social media. Trump made his peace declaration as he headed to the Netherlands to attend the NATO summit, where the ongoing war in Ukraine remains one of the key issues to be addressed. His post was a reminder of how Trump views the conflict in the Middle East very differently from the war in Ukraine, as he has engaged with leaders abroad. Speaking on Air Force One, the president also raised questions about his commitment to the NATO alliance moving forward. Despite Trump's push for a ceasefire in Ukraine since taking office in January, the war continues to rage with Russia launching drones and missiles earlier this week, killing at least ten people in and around Kyiv, according to Ukrainian officials. Asked on Air Force One on Tuesday whether he would meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during the visit, Trump said he probably would. 'He's in a tough situation, should have never been there,' the president said. Trump was asked directly if he was still committed to Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. The president said there are 'numerous definitions' of Article 5, but said he is 'committed to being their friend.' Pressed to clarify what that meant and whether he is committed to mutual defense, Trump demurred that he is committed to 'saving lives' and said he would give an 'exact definition' when he arrived at the summit. The president said he would like to see a deal with Russia and brought up a conversation he had with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 'Vladimir called me up. He said, 'Can I help you with Iran?' I said, 'No, I don't need help with Iran, I need help with you.' And I hope we're going to be getting a deal done with Russia,' the president said. While Trump claimed 'peace abroad' on social media, the rest of his post was a call for Congress to pass his massive bill focused on his domestic agenda. Amid the turmoil abroad, the president declared the U.S. is 'finally entering our Golden Age,' echoing a promise he has made since returning to office. However, Congress continues to face hurdles with passing his 'big, beautiful bill' as it makes its way through the Senate this week, as Republicans grapple with details.