‘In a state of shock': Palestinians respond to Trump's proposal to take over Gaza
It's not easy to catch Palestinians off guard, given the scenes from 15 months of Israeli bombardment, siege, starvation, and the world's inaction to what Amnesty International has called a "genocide".
But if anyone can throw things off kilter, it's US President Donald Trump, who on Tuesday said the US would expel Palestinians from Gaza, likely move in American troops, and then develop 'the Riviera of the Middle East' for tourists.
The stunning announcement was made alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was given the privilege of being the first foreign leader to visit the White House in Trump's second term.
But the backlash to Trump's 'long-term ownership' of Gaza was swift.
Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian in the chamber, said, 'Palestinians aren't going anywhere'.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
'This president can only spew this fanatical bullshit because of bipartisan support in Congress for funding genocide and ethnic cleansing,' Tlaib wrote on X. 'It's time for my two-state solution colleagues to speak up.'
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy called Trump's comments a mere distraction.
'The US isn't invading and occupying Gaza. Trump wants us to talk about this crazy idea all day to relieve the pressure on him that is building as the public figures out that a theft is occurring - the billionaires illegally taking over government to steal from us,' he wrote on X, referencing the domestic chaos unfolding as billionaire Elon Musk shuts down US agencies.
And Republican Senator Rand Paul, who has long identified as a Libertarian, said, 'The pursuit for peace should be that of the Israelis and the Palestinians.'
'I thought we voted for America First,' he wrote on X. 'We have no business contemplating yet another occupation to doom our treasure and spill our soldiers' blood.'
'A new Nakba'
Palestinians who have already left Gaza marvelled at what they saw as the callousness of Trump's remarks.
'I'm in a state of shock. I almost don't believe they can be rude as such,' Palestinian human rights lawyer Raji Sourani told Middle East Eye.
Sourani, 70, born and bred in Gaza, left through Egypt and then went to Europe one year ago after Israel destroyed his home. He remains the director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza and is a party to South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
'A first-class war criminal [like] Netanyahu standing in the White House, invited… and dealt with respectfully as though there is no [International Criminal Court] warrant against him, and praised as a hero and supported politically, financially, legally, and they decide publicly in a press conference in front of the whole world… to complete the genocide mission? To make a new Nakba?' Sourani asked.
'I mean, I just don't believe it.'
Instead of expelling Palestinians, Sourani suggested the Israelis be offered one-way tickets instead.
'Why the Israelis not be paid? I mean, in the US, there is a huge, vast land. They can settle them anywhere they like. We didn't do the Holocaust.'
Palestinians, he said, 'are the stones of the valley… no power on earth can kick us out'.
And while many living inside Gaza today have expressed similar sentiments, others say the notion that all Palestinians will simply tolerate what comes their way is 'dehumanising'.
'You know, there is a lot of mythologisation of the Palestinians, that we are superhumans who, despite any pain, wouldn't leave. That's not true, and that's dehumanising to an extent,' Khalil Sayegh, a Palestinian political analyst based in Washington, told MEE.
Sayegh is the founder of the Palestinian-Israeli shared vision platform, The Agora Initiative.
His father died of a heart attack in Gaza in 2023 while sheltering at the Church of the Holy Family, which came under attack by Israeli snipers.
Trump advisors push for Gulf states to cooperate on Gaza but find no takers Read More »
'When we are pushed and we have to choose between staying or our kids will die, I think many of us would choose rightfully to leave,' he said. 'Others who stay, despite them dying with their kids, we also have to respect them and see them as humans.'
If the Rafah border to Egypt reopens, Sayegh said, he estimates that up to half a million Palestinians would leave Gaza now if they were provided the means.
It would be, he confessed, 'a disaster' for the Strip.
'However, in terms of ethnic cleansing and the demographic war that we have with Israel, that wouldn't be a threat because, ultimately, the birth rate in Gaza is so high that in three or four years, we'll be able to have the demographic balance back again,' Sayegh told MEE.
So where does that leave Trump's extreme opening bid to negotiate Gaza's future?
'Two things have to happen. In my opinion, Hamas has to clearly say that they're willing to not be in the picture. This hasn't happened at all… [And] the Arabs have to push Trump,' he said.
'We've seen the Arabs already doing that. We've seen the Egyptians already doing that [but] they have to come to the table, from my point of view, to Trump with a plan that is actionable.'
Saudi Arabia was the first among the Arab nations to denounce Trump's plans and insist on a Palestinian state before it considers what would be the ultimate prize: diplomatic relations with Israel.
Jordan and Egypt have also firmly rejected plans to take in Palestinians from Gaza.
'I think the Arabs so far are taking a good stance,' Sayegh told MEE. 'If they continue to do so, I think we can overcome this, inshallah.'
Ultimately, whatever Palestinians may be forced to do, they will not be 'good victims,' Sourani said.
'Whatever the conditions are or will be, people have no intention to leave. We have no other home, Palestine is our homeland.'
Aftermath
By Wednesday morning, Arab Americans For Trump, which led the charge to get him elected among those angered by Joe Biden's perpetuation of the war on Gaza, sent out a press release changing its name to Arab Americans For Peace.
'We are adamantly opposed to the notion of transferring Palestinians outside of historic Palestine for ANY reason,' the statement read. 'We appreciate the president's offer to clean and rebuild Gaza. However, the purpose should be to make Gaza habitable for Palestinians and no one else.'
Within hours, the administration began the cleanup effort, with officials significantly walking back Trump's proposal.
In an interview with CBS, Trump's national security advisor, Michael Waltz, all but admitted the president was effectively starting a negotiation process by adopting an extreme position.
'The fact that nobody has a realistic solution, and [Trump] puts some very bold fresh new ideas out on the table, I don't think should be criticised in any way,' Waltz said. 'I think it's going to bring the entire region to come with their own solutions.'
This was further communicated at the White House briefing, where press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters, 'Donald Trump, who is the best dealmaker on the planet, is going to strike a deal with our partners in the region.'
Asked about US 'boots on the ground' in Gaza, Leavitt said Trump has not 'committed' to that idea 'yet'.
And his real estate development of the enclave? 'This is an out-of-the-box idea,' Leavitt responded, and 'American taxpayers' will not be footing the bill, she said.
While on a trip to Guatemala, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reframed Trump's entire proposal, saying that Palestinians would only relocate temporarily and that Trump's offer is an act of generosity.
'Obviously people are going to have to live somewhere while you're rebuilding it. It is akin to a natural disaster,' Rubio said. 'So what he's very generously offered is the ability of the United States to go in and help with debris removal, help with munitions removal, help with reconstruction, the rebuilding of homes and businesses and things of this nature, so that then people can move back in.'
Still, there was no way to take back what Trump very publicly put on the table.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
3 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Trump says Iran's proposal 'unacceptable' as Tehran touts intel on Israeli nukes
Iran's response to a US nuclear deal proposal is 'unacceptable', President Donald Trump said on Monday, adding that Iran was 'asking for things you can't do'. 'They don't want to have to give up what they have to give up. They seek enrichment. We want just the opposite,' Trump said during a business round table. Earlier in the day, he spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump said the two leaders' conversation was mainly about Iran. 'So far, they (Iran) aren't there. I hate to say that…They have given us their thoughts on the deal, and I said, 'it's just not acceptable.'' Trump's pessimistic tone is in stark contrast to his assessment of the nuclear talks in May. He previously said he asked Netanyahu not to launch preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities because he believed the US was close to a 'solution'. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The US and Iran have held five rounds of talks since April to thrash out a new nuclear accord to replace the 2015 deal called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which Trump unilaterally withdrew from during his first term in 2018. Trump, who prides himself on being a 'dealmaker', laughed about going toe-to-toe with the Iranians. His envoy, Steve Witkoff, met directly with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi during the talks, although the discussions were mediated by Oman. 'They (Iranians) are good negotiators, but they are tough. Sometimes they can be too tough. That's the problem,' Trump said. Trump said the next round of talks will take place on Thursday. Trump's comments come as all sides, the US, Iran and Israel, appear to be positioning themselves for different scenarios depending on how the talks progress. Iran touts Israel nuclear intelligence leak On Saturday, Iranian state media reported that Tehran had obtained a trove of "strategic and sensitive" Israeli intelligence in a covert operation, including files related to Israel's undeclared nuclear programme and defence plans. Israel is widely understood to have nuclear weapons, although it doesn't admit it. Iran's top security body said on Monday that, using intelligence it had obtained about Israeli nuclear facilities, Iranian forces could launch counterattacks - should Israel strike the Islamic Republic. Saudi Arabian and Omani officials propose nuclear facilities for Iran on Gulf island: Report Read More » Iran insists its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes. After Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran ramped up uranium enrichment to 60 percent. US officials have said that Iran is weeks away from enriching uranium to the 90 percent level that would be needed for weaponisation. Iran would then have to construct a nuclear weapon, which could take months. Trump's comments on Monday suggest that he is pursuing a deal that would stop all Iranian enrichment - a red line for the Islamic Republic. Reports in Axios and The New York Times earlier this month said the White House may concede to a low level of enrichment by Iran, perhaps temporarily. The US provided Iran with a proposal for a nuclear deal on 31 May. On Monday, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei criticised the US proposal as "lacking elements" reflective of the previous rounds of negotiations. "We will soon submit our own proposed plan to the other side through (mediator) Oman once it is finalised," Baqaei told a weekly press briefing. "It is a proposal that is reasonable, logical and balanced, and we strongly recommend that the American side value this opportunity.' Iran's parliament speaker has said the US proposal failed to include the lifting of sanctions, a key demand for Tehran, which has been reeling under their weight for years. Trump imposed debilitating sanctions on Iran in 2018. Is Trump holding back Israel from attacking? A steady stream of media leaks suggests that Israel is prepared to unilaterally bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, potentially alone. What is stopping Israel from bombing Iran's nuclear sites? Read More » One senior US official previously told Middle East Eye on the condition of anonymity that the Trump administration has been impressed by plans Israel shared with it that lay out unilateral strikes against Iran's nuclear programme without direct American involvement. The plans were discussed in April and May with CIA director John Ratcliffe. But analysts and former US and Israeli officials say Israel is unlikely to defy Trump's request to stand down. They say Netanyahu would like to share political responsibility with the US for attacking Iran if something goes wrong. He is also afraid Trump may not provide an American military backstop, given his recent ceasefire with the Houthis in Yemen that excluded Israel. In 2024, the US intervened directly to shoot down Iranian missiles and drones fired at Israel during two unprecedented direct exchanges of fire between the Middle East foes. Trump himself is under conflicting pressures. He has purged his administration of pro-Israel hawks like former national security advisor Mike Waltz and, more recently, lower-level officials like Merav Ceren, the National Security Council director for Israel and Iran. Ceren came in the crosshairs of pro-Trump "America First" commentators, but analysts say officials like her likely have little influence in a White House where Trump has consolidated decision-making down to all but his closest advisors. Iran has been the most active in positioning itself for the next round of talks.
Middle East Eye
3 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
What to know about the new Trump travel ban now in effect
US President Donald Trump's new travel ban went into effect on Monday, to far less mobilisation and criticism than the first time around, in 2017. With a bigger mandate this time, and relatively high approval ratings for his immigration policy, Trump's new travel ban has not just expanded, it's also on far more solid legal footing, immigration lawyers told Middle East Eye. The executive order targets 12 countries: Afghanistan; Burma; Chad; the Republic of the Congo; Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Haiti; Iran; Libya; Somalia; Sudan; and Yemen. Additionally, nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela will be partially restricted. Those already inside the US are exempt. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters For those abroad at the time the ban went into effect, they may enter the country if they are green card holders, preauthorised visa holders, preauthorised refugee claimants, dual citizens where one of the countries is not included in the travel ban, or if they are the immediate family members of a US citizen. Still, increased scrutiny at ports of entry and orders from Secretary of State Marco Rubio could lead to visa revocations by a border agent. The administration has made it clear that no person is entitled to entry into the US, apart from US citizens. The White House said the ban, as well as heightened vetting measures, is necessary because of excessive visa overstays, which the Trump administration says is a national security concern because it could lead to "terrorist" activity. 'We don't want them': countries facing travel ban to US Read More » The ban was initially expected back in March, but was only introduced following an attack by an Egyptian national on a pro-Israeli march in Colorado last week. "This is definitely a Muslim ban couched in language that the Trump administration knows how to get around as it pertains to the courts," Haris Tarin, the vice president of policy and programming at the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), told MEE. "There was a lot of online chatter - especially by the Laura Loomers and the Randy Fines - these intense Islamophobes in Congress and supporters of the administration who basically said Muslims are responsible for this, and that they needed to ban the Muslim Brotherhood and that they needed to have travel bans," he added. The administration "already spooked so many people from coming into this country... with the detention of students, with the detention of tourists," Tarin said. "This was the perfect time to go even further." 'Anxious, desperate, exhausted' Unlike the 2017 ban, this one is likely to remain in effect in its current form, Hassan M Ahmed, managing attorney at the HMA Law Firm, told MEE. "It's clear that a lot more thought went into this version of it. It seems that they learned their lessons from the previous iterations," Ahmed said, referring to the persistent challenges they faced in court. In a precedent-setting decision in late 2017, the US Supreme Court maintained that the president did not violate the First Amendment with his so-called Muslim Ban, and was well within his rights to determine what is in the national security interest. The Court also said there was no anti-Muslim animus in the ban, simply because many other Muslim countries were not targeted. "Anytime a policy changes, whether for good or for bad, we get an increase in phone calls," Ahmed said. "In this case, we're dealing not just with a change in policy, but there's sort of a psychological aspect to a lot of the administration's offensive policies, and that creates a great deal of uncertainty." On those phone calls are people who are "anxious, desperate, and exhausted", Ahmed told MEE. "Unfortunately, given the track record of open defiance of court orders and lawlessness that's become sort of emblematic of this administration, sometimes we as lawyers are at a loss [and unable] to tell clients that they don't have anything to worry about." Laila Ayub, an immigration attorney and co-founder of Project ANAR, which assists in the resettlement of Afghan refugees, said the climate of fear is deeply pervasive among the community she works with. "Everyone who's already here started contacting us, thinking they're now at risk of deportation just because of their nationality, which is not actually the reality," Ayub told MEE. "So there is a lot of opportunity still to empower people with information about their rights." "The number one question, though, that people have always despite their situation when they are in here in the US, is when they can reunite with their family. That is really something that will be impacted by the travel ban." Impact on visas While advocacy groups have been pleading with the Trump administration for months to make an exemption for Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans who aided American soldiers between 2001 and 2021, there is such a carveout. Still, the visa does not include everyone who worked for or who worked closely with the US during their presence in Afghanistan, Ayub said. Mirriam Sediq, who runs Seddiq Law Maryland, told MEE that previously "lawful categories for Afghans" now suddenly no longer exist. "There are people that came to the US in 2021, 2022 through humanitarian parole. There are also those who have [Temporary Protected Status]. And TPS has been ended for Afghans, so they're really left in a completely no man's land right now." Handful of US lawmakers demand Trump ban the Muslim Brotherhood Read More » Seddiq said she feels "super betrayed by this idea that we've told our clients to do [the right] things" in terms of entering legally and maintaining a law-abiding presence, yet "they're walking directly into the lion's den when they do it". Among other actions, the Trump administration has sent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to courthouses around the country to arrest largely undocumented immigrants who are appearing for their immigration court date, just as the government asked them to. This, Seddiq said, was always standard practice: as long as an immigrant did regular check-ins with ICE agents and showed up in front of a judge and violated no laws, they could carry on with their lives in the US. Now, they're being taken away from their US-born children to be detained and then deported. "We've allowed people to enter even when they don't have a pathway forward. And this is where we are," Seddiq told MEE. "But we've been here for decades and decades and decades, and we've asked for major immigration reform, major overhauls, maybe even some sort of amnesty for people who are doing all the right things. And there's never the political will to do it." Legislative change Despite a much more muted societal reaction compared to 2017, civil liberties groups and immigrant advocacy organisations are working on ways to respond to the new Trump travel ban. The public that took to the streets eight years ago is simply too exhausted this time, Tarin told MEE. "People have been responding to students being kidnapped off the streets by ICE. People have been mobilising to try to support students on student visas. Lawyers have tried to mobilise around protecting students on college campuses," he said. But that's also a strategy the administration has employed. "The way advocates organise is they take one issue at a time and they organise around it, and that's how they're successful. And so if you throw 15 issues at them, they won't be able to respond," Tarin said. In the immediate term, MPAC is putting together a network of lawyers that can be accessed in case of emergencies where otherwise legal entrants to the US are stuck at airports or put into detention. However, the group is also eyeing the 2026 midterm elections, when members of the House and Senate will be up for reelection, and Democrats may stand a chance of gaining a majority of seats in both chambers. MPAC is pushing for traction on the NO BAN Act so that if Democrats take control of Congress, there is an opportunity to make the bill a law. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in February by Democratic Congresswoman Judy Chu of California. It aims to limit Trump's authority to ban an entire class of foreigners - or "aliens" as they are called in the US - from arriving in the country, and demands that Rubio provide lawmakers with reports on the number of denied visitors. For the time being, people will "always try" to come to the US anyway, Seddiq said. "I am loath to tell anybody that the United States is closed the way the administration wants to seemingly advertise to the world. I think that where there's a will, there's a way, and frequently, when you're dealing with immigration, the key to success is merely standing up one more time when you're knocked down," Ahmed said.
Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Everything you need to know about the immigration protests in Los Angeles
It was a weekend of mayhem in Los Angeles. In the midst of several large-scale raids on immigration communities, thousands of people took to the streets over the weekend to challenge the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency for detaining people said to be undocumented. The protests, which began on Friday, have been met with violent force, as the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) deployed tear gas, pepper balls, and rubber bullets to deter protests and even intimidate journalists. By Sunday, with protests expanding and tensions escalating, US President Donald Trump mobilised the National Guard without seeking California Governor Gavin Newsom's authorisation, to try and put an end to the protests. Trump made the deportation of undocumented persons in the US a central plank of his re-election campaign last year and has implemented policies of mass deportation with little regard for due process. Just days before protests erupted in Los Angeles, Trump implemented a new travel ban. California's state attorney general announced on Monday that it is suing the Trump administration. "Commandeering a state's National Guard without consulting the Governor of that state is illegal and immoral," Newsom said on Sunday, when he declared on X that he intended to take the president to court. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Middle East Eye looks at Trump's targeting of undocumented people in the US, the protests unfolding in southern California, and the likelihood of the protests spreading to other parts of the country. How did the protests start? Protests began on Friday as ICE and FBI agents attempted to arrest migrant workers in Los Angeles' Fashion District. Protesters congregated near the Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center, where people arrested by ICE were being held. Protesters spray-painted anti-ICE slogans, and federal agents fired tear gas and rubber bullets at the crowd. As evening fell, the LAPD began advancing on the crowd, firing "less-lethal" ammunition and threatening arrests. On Saturday, an ICE raid on a Home Depot store in Paramount sparked further demonstrations. Protestors used shopping carts and cinderblocks to create makeshift barricades, and some threw rocks at ICE vehicles. On Saturday evening local time, protests continued in Compton, south of Los Angeles. These were met with a similar police response. That night, Trump also ordered 2,000 National Guardsmen to be sent to Los Angeles to quell the protests. Despite the deployment, protests continued on Sunday. Demonstrators shut down part of the 101 Freeway while police bombarded protestors with less-lethal ammunition, sometimes at near point-blank range, outside of the detention centre. Also, on Sunday evening, the city of Glendale announced that it had terminated an agreement with ICE to hold detainees. US: Palantir expanding immigrant surveillance tools for ICE to the tune of $30m Read More » During the protests, ICE detainees in a detention centre were seen flashing lights and hitting the walls, in what some protesters took as a signal to demonstrate against ICE on the outside. ICE has a long history of human rights abuses stretching back to its founding in 2003. Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, ICE facilities have been overcrowded and rife with staff misconduct. In some places, detainees are said to be given only one cup of water per day. The protests come after months of rising tensions in immigrant communities, as ICE operations began to escalate. In early February, thousands of high school students in Los Angeles walked out of their classes to protest ICE raids. Last week, the Trump administration set a quota for ICE to arrest 3,000 people per day. On Tuesday, ICE arrested 2,200 people, the most arrests in a single day by the agency. The agency is also said to have used duplicitous tactics to arrest undocumented migrants. On 3 June, for example, ICE sent out mass texts urging people to arrive early to their scheduled immigration appointments, only to arrest them on site. Two days later, ICE arrested a woman while her lawyer was in the bathroom. Protesters clash with law enforcement in the streets surrounding the federal building during a protest in Los Angeles, California, on 8 June 2025 (Ringo Chiu/AFP) How has the city responded? Los Angeles is a sanctuary city, which generally means refusing to cooperate with the federal government's immigration laws, including working with ICE agents. Still, the LAPD responded to the protests with force. Throughout the weekend, the LAPD attempted to disperse protestors by continuously firing less lethal ammunition into crowds of protestors. LAPD also beat protestors with batons and arrested at least 56 people. The city's police chief, Jim McDonnell, accused outside agitators of inciting violence. However, several events caught on live television showcase incidents of police brutality that undermine police testimony. In the first incident, LAPD officers beat a protester as he lay on the floor, and appeared to stomp over him with a horse. In another, a demonstrator was knocked over by a van as he tried to hold it back from moving forward. Police were also caught on camera refusing to call an ambulance for a woman they had shot in the head with a rubber bullet. JD Vance's mentor co-founded company that helps Israel generate 'kill lists' of Palestinians in Gaza Read More » Several journalists have also been targeted by the LAPD in the past several days, with some reporting injuries from rubber bullets and tear gas. On Sunday, a clip went viral of an LAPD officer shooting an Australian journalist in the leg with a rubber bullet. Protesters have responded by slashing the tires, spray painting and breaking the windows of police vehicles. In one instance, protesters on an overpass threw Lime scooters at police vehicles parked below. Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass condemned the deployment of the National Guard. However, Bass thanked the LAPD and threatened consequences for those involved in 'violence, destruction and vandalism'. Bass did not mention the LAPD's violence. What is the significance of the National Guard being deployed? Typically, a state's National Guard is only deployed after a request from the state's governor. On Sunday, Trump deployed the National Guard without the governor's authorisation for the first time since 1965. Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth on Saturday also threatened to deploy 500 Marines to Los Angeles. California Governor Gavin Newsom requested that Trump rescind the deployment of the National Guard and accused Trump of trying to 'manufacture a crisis'. Trump's willingness to send in the National Guard without authorisation is reminiscent of his actions during the George Floyd protests of 2020, when masked federal agents indiscriminately detained protestors off the streets. However, the LAPD, not the National Guard, was responsible for most of the violence this weekend. What might happen next? In Los Angeles, protests are continuing. ICE raids on a Home Depot on Monday are already being met with resistance. The intensity of the opposition to ICE's presence could make federal authorities reconsider more incursions in Los Angeles. Protests have also spread to New York and San Francisco. In San Francisco, at least 150 protestors were arrested on Sunday evening after police declared an anti-ICE protest unlawful. Protestors spray-painted anti-ICE messages on police vehicles and damaged the windows of a Chase Bank. Earlier, on Saturday, protesters demonstrated against the transfer of undocumented immigrants detained by ICE in New York City. Over 20 people were arrested, with one protester being taken away in an ambulance. There have been several indications that more protests could expand in New York this week.
