'We are deeply concerned.' Protesters urge Indiana leaders to refocus on state issues
Two similar protests were happening concurrently outside the offices of U.S. Rep. Victoria Spartz in Noblesville and U.S. Rep. Rudy Yakym in Mishawaka, with protesters calling on the representatives to prioritize issues that they said would benefit Hoosiers directly.
The Indiana State AFL-CIO, Indivisible Central Indiana, and the Indiana Undocumented Youth Alliance organized these protests in response to the federal government's passage of the massive bill, known as the "One Big, Beautiful Bill," which includes tax cuts, increased spending on immigration enforcement and budgetary reductions to Medicaid.
"Across Indiana, we have hundreds of Hoosiers standing together to say we want our taxpayer dollars to be used for housing, health care and education, and not to be used for masked ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officers who terrorize our communities and frankly, kidnap our friends and families," said event organizer Stuart undefined.
IndyStar reached out to Young's, Spartz's and Yakym's offices for comment.
Although Young did not provide a direct response to the July 20 protest, he did provide his reasoning for voting for the "One Big, Beautiful Bill."
'The One Big Beautiful Bill Act provides important resources to support and modernize our military. It also will significantly invest in border security to build more of our border wall and hire more border patrol officers," Young said in a statement to IndyStar.
Spartz's press secretary provided a statement to IndyStar's question regarding the demonstrations.
"The Congresswoman has been committed to fixing our broken health care system since her time in the State Senate," said Spartz's press secretary in an email to IndyStar.
"We've made some progress, but much more needs to be done to improve transparency, affordability, access, and outcomes – and to stop material fraud and abuse."
At the time of publication, Yakym had not provided a comment.
Concerns of fear growing in migrant communities
Mora said this issue runs deep for him and others who work in immigration law. He has witnessed growing fear among Indiana's migrant communities concerning increasing militarization of immigration enforcement across the country.
This was on display earlier in the month, when protesters outside of a Ventura County farm in Camarillo, California, were hit with pepper balls and tear gas as federal agents were conducting an immigration sweep on Glass House Farms, one of the state's largest cannabis farms.
More: Families divided, rage, tear gas: How the Glass House raid went down
That immigration raid led to the arrest of more than 350 people, including George Retes, 25, a U.S. Army veteran, while he was on his way to work. Retes was released from jail three days later.
The raid also led to the death of Jaime Alanís Garcia, 56, a farm worker who fell 30 feet off a building and suffered "catastrophic" injuries to his head and neck.
Although Indiana has not experienced an immigration raid at this scale, community leaders shared that many in migrant communities are afraid that they may potentially be picked up off the street and deported, whether rightfully or not.
Many also shared concerns about Indiana and Indianapolis leaders increasing participation with national immigration enforcement.
"Part of our concern is with the use of our jails (being) used as a detention center for ICE," said Rev. Carolyn Higginbotham with the Central Christian Church Disciples of Christ.
"We are deeply concerned about the way in which our tax dollars are being spent and we do not want them used to warehouse folks for ICE. What we want is for them to invest in things that are actually going to make our city a better home for everyone and a place where people feel safe."
Earlier this year, the Marion County Adult Detention Center started being more heavily used as a place where the federal government temporarily jailed immigrants picked up in Indiana and neighboring states.
This came after the federal government ran into capacity issues at its existing immigration detention center, as 84 of the 181 detention facilities exceeded their contractual capacity on at least one day during October 2024 through mid-April 2025, according to a report by nonprofit TRAC.
Included on that report was the Clay County Justice Center in Brazil, Indiana. The jail is contracted to house up to 100 migrants, but appears to have an average daily population of about 242 people through mid-April, according to TRAC data.
More: Marion County Jail is housing ICE detainees. Here's why that concerns some
Camp Atterbury being turned into a detention center
Demonstrators also called on Indiana leaders to stand against the federal government's plan to turn the Camp Atterbury military post near Edinburgh into a temporary detention center.
This news was announced on July 15 in a letter written by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth outlining a plan to use Camp Atterbury as temporary housing for migrants being held by the Department of Homeland Security.
"The terrible irony (is) that this is the place where we welcomed Afghan refugees a couple of years ago, and now those same people could be targeted for removal through the same facility," Higginbotham said.
Many at the protest said they believed that Indiana's state government leaders should shift their focus from federal issues to more localized problems, like the growing divide among low-income families wanting to improve their children's education, or the housing affordability crisis emerging in cities like West Lafayette and Carmel.
"Our message today is one of hope," said Sayra Campos, a representative from the Indiana Undocumented Youth Alliance. "We don't need more policing. We want investments in housing, health care, education, jobs with dignity and permanent protections for all Hoosiers."
Contact IndyStar reporter Noe Padilla at npadilla@indystar.com, follow him on X @1NoePadilla or on Bluesky @noepadilla.bsky.social.
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Anti-ICE protesters urge Indiana leaders to focus on state issues
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
12 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Maine clinics hope to get blocked Medicaid funds restored as they sue Trump administration over cuts
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A network of clinics that provides health care in Maine is expected to ask a judge Thursday to restore its Medicaid funding while it fights a Trump administration effort to keep federal money from going to abortion providers. President Donald Trump's policy and tax bill, known as the ' big beautiful bill,' blocked Medicaid money from flowing to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider. The parameters in the bill also stopped funding from reaching Maine Family Planning, a much smaller provider that provides health care services in one of the poorest and most rural states in the Northeast. Maine Family Planning filed a federal lawsuit last month seeking to restore reimbursements. Lawyers and representatives for Maine Family Planning say its 18 clinics provide vital services across the state including cervical cancer screenings, contraception and primary care to low-income residents. They also say the funding cut occurred even though Medicaid dollars are not used for its abortion services. 'Without Medicaid, MFP will be forced to stop providing all primary care for all patients — regardless of their insurance status — by the end of October,' the organization said in a statement, adding that about 8,000 patients receive family planning and primary care from the network. It also said many Maine Family Planning clinics 'provide care in very rural areas of the state where there are no other health care providers, and around 70% of their patients rely exclusively on MFP and will not see any other health care provider in a given year.' In court documents, Anne Marie Costello, deputy director for the Center for Medicaid & CHIP Services, called the request to restore funding 'legally groundless' and said it 'must be firmly rejected.' 'The core of its claim asks this Court to revive an invented constitutional right to abortion — jurisprudence that the Supreme Court decisively interred — and to do so in a dispute over federal funds,' Costello said. While advocates of cutting Medicaid for abortion providers focused on Planned Parenthood, the bill did not mention it by name. Instead it cut off reimbursements for organizations that are primarily engaged in family planning services — which generally include things such as contraception, abortion and pregnancy tests — and received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023. The U.S. Senate's parliamentarian rejected a 2017 effort to defund Planned Parenthood because it was written to exclude all other providers by barring payments only to groups that received more than $350 million a year in Medicaid funds. Maine Family Planning asserts in its legal challenge that the threshold was lowered to $800,000 this time around to make sure Planned Parenthood would not be the only entity affected. It is the only other organization that has come forward publicly to say its funding is at risk.
39 minutes ago
Federal judge refuses to block Alabama law banning DEI initiatives in public schools
A federal judge on Wednesday declined a request to block an Alabama law that bans diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in public schools and the teaching of what Republican lawmakers dubbed 'divisive concepts' related to race and gender. U.S. District Judge David Proctor wrote that University of Alabama students and professors who filed a lawsuit challenging the law as unconstitutional did not meet the legal burden required for a preliminary injunction, which he called 'an extraordinary and drastic remedy.' The civil lawsuit challenging the statute will go forward, but the law will remain in place while it does. The Alabama measure, which took effect Oct. 1, is part of a wave of proposals from Republican lawmakers across the country taking aim at DEI programs on college campuses. The Alabama law prohibits public schools from funding or sponsoring any DEI program. It also prohibits schools from requiring students to assent to eight 'divisive concepts' including that fault, blame or bias should be assigned to a race or sex or that any person should acknowledge a sense of guilt, complicity or a need to apologize because of their race, sex or national origin. Six professors and students at the University of Alabama filed a lawsuit arguing that the law violates the First Amendment by placing viewpoint-based restrictions on what educators teach. The lawsuit also said the law unconstitutionally targets Black students because it limits programs that benefit them. Professors said they had altered what they taught in their classes in the wake of the law and the university's guidance about it. A professor said he reduced coverage of the Black Power movement, the Black Lives Matter movement and the white nationalist movement in the wake of the law. Another said five students had made complaints suggesting that the interdisciplinary honors program she administered had potential conflicts with the new legislation. The university also shuttered designated spaces for the Black Student Union and a resource center for LGBTQ+ students in the wake of the law. Proctor wrote that a professor's academic freedom does not override a university's decisions about the content of classroom instruction. 'Importantly, SB 129 does not banish all teaching or discussion of these concepts from campus or, for that matter, even from the classroom," Proctor wrote. 'To the contrary, it expressly permits classroom instruction that includes 'discussion' of the listed concepts so long as the 'instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement' of the concepts.' He added that the law appears to give notice about what is a violation. For example, he said a professor could not 'indoctrinate' students to believe that racial health disparities were the fault of one race of people but could still discuss the role of racism in health disparities. 'If, alternatively, the theory she teaches about is that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129,' Proctor wrote. Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan First Amendment group, criticized the decision as dangerous and at odds with decades of Supreme Court precedent on academic freedom. 'Academic freedom protects the search for knowledge and truth from political pressure. That's the whole point," Creeley wrote in a statement. 'Faculty are hired to share and hone their expertise in a given field of study, not to read from a government script.'
San Francisco Chronicle
41 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's friendly-to-frustrated relationship with Putin takes the spotlight at the Alaska summit
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump's summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday could be a decisive moment for both the war in Ukraine and the U.S. leader's anomalous relationship with his Russian counterpart. Trump has long boasted that he's gotten along well with Putin and spoken admiringly of him, even praising him as 'pretty smart' for invading Ukraine. But in recent months, he's expressed frustrations with Putin and threatened more sanctions on his country. At the same time, Trump has offered conflicting messages about his expectations for the summit. He has called it 'really a feel-out meeting' to gauge Putin's openness to a ceasefire but also warned of 'very severe consequences' if Putin doesn't agree to end the war. For Putin, Friday's meeting is a chance to repair his relationship with Trump and unlace the West's isolation of his country following its invasion of Ukraine 3 1/2 years ago. He's been open about his desire to rebuild U.S.-Russia relations now that Trump is back in the White House. The White House has dismissed any suggestion that Trump's agreeing to sit down with Putin is a win for the Russian leader. But critics have suggested that the meeting gives Putin an opportunity to get in Trump's ear to the detriment of Ukraine, whose leader was excluded from the summit. 'I think this is a colossal mistake. You don't need to invite Putin onto U.S. soil to hear what we already know he wants," said Ian Kelly, a retired career foreign service officer who served as the U.S. ambassador to Georgia during the Obama and first Trump administrations. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a longtime Russia hawk and close ally of Trump's, expressed optimism for the summit. 'I have every confidence in the world that the President is going to go to meet Putin from a position of strength, that he's going to look out for Europe and Ukrainian needs to end this war honorably,' Graham wrote on social media. A look back at the ups and downs of Trump and Putin's relationship: Russia questions during the 2016 campaign Months before he was first elected president, Trump cast doubt on findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian government hackers had stolen emails from Democrats, including his opponent Hillary Clinton, and released them in an effort to hurt her campaign and boost Trump's. In one 2016 appearance, he shockingly called on Russian hackers to find emails that Clinton had reportedly deleted. 'Russia, if you're listening,' Trump said, 'I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.' Questions about his connections to Russia dogged much of his first term, touching off investigations by the Justice Department and Congress and leading to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, who secured multiple convictions against Trump aides and allies but did not establish proof of a criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign. These days, Trump describes the Russia investigation as an affinity he and Putin shared. 'Putin went through a hell of a lot with me,' Trump said earlier this year. 'He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, ever hear of that deal?' Putin in 2019 mocked the investigation and its ultimate findings, saying, "A mountain gave birth to a mouse.' 'He just said it's not Russia' Trump met with Putin six times during his first term, including a 2018 summit in Helsinki, when Trump stunned the world by appearing to side with an American adversary on the question of whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election. 'I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today," Trump said. 'He just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be." Facing intense blowback, Trump tried to walk back the comment a full 24 hours later. But he raised doubt on that reversal by saying other countries could have also interfered. Putin referred to Helsinki summit as 'the beginning of the path' back from Western efforts to isolate Russia. He also made clear that he had wanted Trump to win in 2016. 'Yes, I wanted him to win because he spoke of normalization of Russian-U.S. ties,' Putin said. 'Isn't it natural to feel sympathy to a person who wanted to develop relations with our country?" Trump calls Putin 'pretty smart' after invasion of Ukraine The two leaders kept up their friendly relationship after Trump left the White House under protest in 2021. After Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, Trump described the Russian leader in positive terms. 'I mean, he's taking over a country for $2 worth of sanctions. I'd say that's pretty smart,' Trump said at his Mar-a-Lago resort. In a radio interview that week, he suggested that Putin was going into Ukraine to 'be a peacekeeper.' Trump repeatedly said the invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if he had been in the White House — a claim Putin endorsed while lending his support to Trump's false claims of election fraud. 'I couldn't disagree with him that if he had been president, if they hadn't stolen victory from him in 2020, the crisis that emerged in Ukraine in 2022 could have been avoided,' he said. Trump also repeatedly boasted that he could have the fighting 'settled' within 24 hours. Through much of his campaign, Trump criticized U.S. support for Ukraine and derided Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a 'salesman' for persuading Washington to provide weapons and funding to his country. Revisiting the relationship Once he became president, Trump stopped claiming he'd solve the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. In March, he said he was "being a little bit sarcastic' when he said that. Since the early days of Trump's second term, Putin has pushed for a summit while trying to pivot from the Ukrainian conflict by emphasizing the prospect of launching joint U.S.-Russian economic projects, among other issues. 'We'd better meet and have a calm conversation on all issues of interest to both the United States and Russia based on today's realities,' Putin said in January. In February, things looked favorable for Putin when Trump had a blowup with Zelenskyy at the White House, berating him as 'disrespectful." In late March, Trump still spoke of trusting Putin when it came to hopes for a ceasefire, saying, 'I don't think he's going to go back on his word." But a month later, as Russian strikes escalated, Trump posted a public and personal plea on his social media account: 'Vladimir, STOP!' He began voicing more frustration with the Russian leader, saying he was 'Just tapping me along.' In May, he wrote on social media that Putin 'has gone absolutely CRAZY!' Earlier this month, Trump ordered the repositioning of two U.S. nuclear submarines 'based on the highly provocative statements' of the country's former president, Dmitry Medvedev. Trump's vocal protests about Putin have tempered somewhat since he announced their meeting, but so have his predictions for what he might accomplish. Speaking to reporters Monday, Trump described their upcoming summit not as the occasion in which he'd finally get the conflict 'settled' but instead as 'really a feel-out meeting, a little bit.' 'I think it'll be good,' Trump said. 'But it might be bad.'
