Why they protest: Voices from the downtown L.A. ICE demonstrations
Not everyone is pleased with the actions — there has been vandalism, destruction and injuries — isolated yet striking moments that have at times overshadowed peaceful demonstrations. But for many out in the demonstrations, there was a message that they wanted to be heard.
During these demonstrations, Los Angeles Times reporters on the ground have interviewed protesters and asked them why they're demonstrating. Here's what they had to say:
Alejandra Flores attended a protest in front of Westin LAX Friday with her daughter and her mother, who had recently become a U.S. citizen.
Maritza Perez Huerta attended her first protest this week. She couldn't make it out to protests a couple of years ago because she was younger and her mother was afraid.
Priscilla Ramos spent her first day of protesting in front of the Metropolitan Detention Center this week, where Marines were expected to arrive.
Cynthia Guardano was born in the United States in a mixed-status family. She was downtown demonstrating on Friday.
Jason Petty, a 46-year-old musician from Boyle Heights, told The Times he went to a rally because 'this is our community — immigration is us.'
Petty, a former ninth-grade history teacher, said he was born and raised in Los Angeles and was here during the 1992 riots. He is Black, and his grandmother lived in Watts during the 1965 Watts riots. His father was a Black Panther.
Petty said he has a daughter in fourth grade and that immigration agents recently came to the neighborhood near her school. He said he has had to have difficult conversations with her, assuring her she's safe, and why it was important to go to the rally.
Outside City Hall in Santa Ana this week, Alicia Rojas observed a protest from afar. The Colombian native had her amnesty application denied as a child. Now a U.S. citizen, Rojas grew up during the era of Proposition 187 and remembered all the racism against people like her at the time.
Michelle Hernandez, 19, marched at the federal building with a Mexican flag draped over her shoulders. A daughter of Mexican immigrants, she said she had been worried about family members and friends during the ICE raids.
Franchesca Olivas drove two hours alone from Hemet to attend the anti-ICE demonstration this week outside the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles. She was carrying an upside-down American flag attached to the Mexican flag because she's half-white and half-Mexican.
Aaron Fontan, 24, said he also has participated in Black Lives Matter protests and felt familiar police pushback and militance this time around. However, he felt that not as many people are willing to show up to anti-ICE protests.
Beyond the protests, some civic leaders have also voiced their opposition to the escalation in immigration enforcement.
Los Angeles Unified School District Supt. Alberto Carvalho, the son of immigrants, has been outspoken about his mission to protect students:
Service Employees International Union California President David Huerta was injured and detained while documenting an immigration enforcement raid in downtown L.A. last week.
Times staff writers Christopher Buchanan and Annie Goodykoontz contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask the all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the US Agency for International Development into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with details from the opinion.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results A $340 Million New York Office Makeover Is Converting Boardrooms to Bedrooms ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Miami Herald
23 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Trump's plan to hit Mexico's drug cartels will only make them more popular
President Trump's reported secret order to develop military options for a cross-border intervention against Mexico's drug cartels could backfire spectacularly. Instead of keeping drugs out of your neighborhood, it could actually make the cartels more popular at home and even more powerful. Even some of Trump's toughest former advisers admit it — a solo U.S. invasion or drone attack without Mexico's green light would be a dumb idea. It would spark a wave of nationalism south of the border and likely push Mexico's government to ditch anti-narcotics and migration deals with Washington. John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser and hardly a dove, didn't mince words when I interviewed him recently. A U.S. attack on Mexico's cartels 'doesn't make any sense at all,' he told me. Bolton told me there's no question Mexico's drug cartels are a problem and something needs to be done about them. But believing that the United States can fix things militarily, without Mexico onboard, is a fantasy. If anything, 'it will make things worse,' he told me. Trump has reportedly sent a secret directive to the Pentagon asking for options to attack Latin American drug cartels that the U.S. has branded as terrorist organizations, The New York Times and NBC News reported on Aug. 8. U.S. officials said later that Trump is considering all options, although no decision has been made. U.S. officials say the president is just weighing his options for now but nothing's set in stone. I wouldn't be shocked if all this talk about military action was a White House leak intended to nudge Mexico into okaying a military attack and spinning it publicly as a joint operation. But if Trump decided to go it alone, here's why that could blow up in his face. First, as Bolton told me, such a move could actually boost the cartels' popularity in Mexico. Drug traffickers bankroll many people in rural communities, essentially buying local support and protection. Musicians belt out ballads— 'narco-corridos'—in their honor. A U.S. attack might just gain them even more support. Second, a unilateral U.S. attack would trigger a nationalistic reaction across Mexico. President Claudia Sheinbaum would be under serious pressure to scrap key anti-drug and migration deals with the United States. Sheinbaum has already stepped up fentanyl seizures and border checks in response to U.S. pressure in recent months. But she has drawn a hard line: unilateral U.S. military action is 'absolutely ruled out,' she said. Third, and maybe the biggest issue, a U.S. military strike on a Mexican drug lab would do little to slow down the drug trade. As long as the U.S. remains a giant, illegal-drug-consuming country, the flow of illicit narcotics will continue. Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, a director of George Mason University's Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center, told me Trump is following a mistaken diagnosis. Fixating just on foreign cartels ignores the bigger picture. Without tackling both supply and demand — meaning more drug prevention at home — the problem will stick around, she said. Even if you kill some cartel bosses, drug trafficking rings will split into more cells and continue operating. They are networks that adapt and survive. 'The cartels aren't vertical structures anymore, like in the days of [Colombia's drug baron] Pablo Escobar,' she told me. Odds are, Trump's secret order to the Pentagon was just him asking for every possible option. But I wouldn't be surprised if, down the road, he decides to order a strike against Mexico. Trump is a master of distraction. One of his trademarks is being very good at shifting the spotlight. If the U.S. economy sours because of his tariffs, or if the political scandal over late financier Jeffrey Epstein's files grows, Trump could be tempted to launch a military attack. It would certainly make huge headlines. Many in his nationalist, anti-immigrant base would cheer him on, even if the end result is stronger cartels and less safety here at home. Don't miss the 'Oppenheimer Presenta' TV show on Sundays at 9 pm E.T. on CNN en Español. Blog:
CBS News
25 minutes ago
- CBS News
Maryland lawmakers tour Baltimore ICE facility after allegations about inhumane conditions
A group of Maryland lawmakers toured a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Baltimore on Wednesday after they were denied a visit in late July. A spokesperson for the agency said the lawmakers initially arrived without giving advanced notice and were denied a tour for the safety of those in custody and ICE employees. Wednesday's tour comes after a federal class-action lawsuit criticized the conditions at the George H. Fallon federal building. ICE has denied those allegations, saying the agency is "committed to enforcing immigration laws fairly, safely and humanely," and complies with federal laws and ICE policies. U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen and U.S. Representatives Kweisi Mfume and Sarah Elfreth participated in a guided tour of the facility on Wednesday morning. In June, the Amica Center and National Immigration Project filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of two women who were being held at the Baltimore ICE facility. According to the lawsuit, the women were held for long periods in "inhumane" holding rooms, which allegedly violate ICE policies. The lawsuit claimed ICE detainees can only be held for 12 hours in holding facilities. However, during a hearing in July, the Department of Justice argued that the lawsuit was incorrect. Other immigration advocates have also raised concerns about conditions at the Baltimore ICE facility. In March, the Amica Center and the nonprofit CASA held a rally where attendees criticized the size of the holding rooms, the lack of medical staff and the lack of a food service contract. The agency responded to those allegations in a statement saying, "ICE Baltimore operates a holding room, not a detention facility, and therefore is not subject to the standards outlined in the 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards." ICE also said its Health Service Corps is on site to provide necessary medical services. "In the event of a medical emergency, detainees are promptly transported to nearby hospitals to receive immediate and appropriate care," the agency said. In July, the lawmakers claimed their initial plans to visit the facility in July were "unlawfully denied." "This does not bode well here in Baltimore or anywhere if members of the United States Congress, who are duly authorized to come in and to inspect, visit, or walk through a federal facility, are not allowed in," said Mfume, who is a senior member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. In response, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted on social media, saying the lawmakers should have scheduled a tour at least one week in advance. "Congressman, if you need a photo op with the violent criminal illegal aliens you are protecting, schedule a TOUR," the DHS posted on X. In late July, 12 Democratic Congressmembers filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming there was an effort to limit access to detention centers that hold immigrants. U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md) was among the leaders who joined the lawsuit. In the lawsuit, leaders alleged that the Trump administration is blocking their attempts to enter ICE detention centers and delaying plans to inspect the facilities.
