Anti-ICE protesters express anger, heartbreak at Trump immigration crackdown
The crowd made their way to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices. Those in the crowd said it was important to speak out and express their opposition to large-scale ICE arrests.
Alan Chavoya, a protester with the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, said earlier in the day he fielded phone calls June 10 from several people hearing about ICE arrests in the area.
"It's devastating," he said. "It's important to be out here and support, and it's also important to be bold about this."
In the crowd were two 22-year-old women who met at the protest, Natalia Murillo, who draped a Mexican flag around her shoulders, and Alejandra Martinez. Murillo held a sign that read, "You can't love the culture and not support the people."
"It's been stressful. You don't know when they're going to come into your cities and neighborhoods," Martinez said.
Murillo said she was concerned about people being arrested by ICE who have legal status. "It's scary to see what's going on. We come here for a better life, and this is how we're getting treated?" she said.
An arrest of an immigrant June 10 by federal agents on Milwaukee's south side added to a sense of anxiety in the city's Latino community over immigration enforcement operations. A spokesperson for ICE said the agency could not share information about whether agents were operating in Milwaukee.
That arrest came as massive protests against recent ICE raids erupted in Los Angeles over the weekend and have since spread to other cities. Trump ordered National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area.
The march in Milwaukee spanned roughly two city blocks and included dozens of young Latino adults as well as people from a range of ages and backgrounds. Some marchers held handmade signs that read, "We speak for those who can't" and, "Immigrants are welcome here." Other popular slogans urged authorities to keep families together, to keep ICE out of Milwaukee and to abolish the agency altogether.
"No justice, no peace, we want ICE off our streets," marchers chanted.
Signs and chants alike reflected the depth of anger at Trump's immigration crackdown and at ICE. Some posters referred to Trump as a parasite, or a pig. Others said "Dump Trump," and many chose similar phrases with expletives, in both English and Spanish.
Rose Walters, a retiree from South Milwaukee, said she was "just livid" at several Trump policies. She was concerned about her Social Security benefits as well as immigration arrests that, in her view, lacked due process. She began attending protests for the first time in February.
"I simply am fed up," she said. "It's ridiculous."
Daniel Rivera, 27, of Michigan, was visiting Milwaukee and was walking past Cathedral Square Park when he noticed people were gathering for a protest about immigration. He jumped in because he he said feels strongly about the issue.
"Immigrants are the backbones of this nation," he said, adding that more "dialogue across the aisle" was needed.
There was a sense from several marchers that the Latino community's contributions and culture were being cast aside, and that politicians and pundits were conflating the entire community with the criminal actions of a few.
A 40-year-old Milwaukee mother named Angelica, who asked for her last name not to be used, brought her two daughters and her niece to the protest. She wanted to stand up for Mexican Americans like her family, she said.
And speaking about recent ICE efforts to expand arrests, she said, "It's heartbreaking. It causes me to question, what am I proud of as an American?"
Nayleth Sedano, 30, of Milwaukee, arrived in the U.S. at age 4, and her family got legal status. She understands how "scary" moments like this can be for immigrant families. She has been especially concerned about the effect of that fear on children, who may be worried about ICE showing up at their graduation ceremonies.
"If you have a heart, that's traumatizing for anybody," she said.
The organizing groups included the Party for Socialism and Liberation's Milwaukee chapter; Comité Sin Fronteras, or "Committee Without Borders" — the young adult arm of local immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera — Codepink Milwaukee, and 50501 Milwaukee, part of a national anti-Trump protest movement called 50501.
The 50501 group, short for "50 protests, 50 states, 1 movement," is the organizer of the so-called "No Kings" rallies taking place across the country. One is scheduled for noon June 14 in Cathedral Square Park as part of a nationwide day of protest.
Several additional "No Kings" protests are scheduled for the same day across southern Wisconsin, including in Brookfield, Cedarburg, Racine, Kenosha, Watertown and Madison, according to the organizer's website. They were planned to coincide with Trump's military parade in Washington, D.C., which is being held to honor the Army's 250th birthday and coincides with Trump's 79th birthday.
Brian Dunleavy, a protester from Milwaukee, said he hopes both protests show that Milwaukeeans are standing in solidarity with others protesting around the country.
'I hope people see this and see (that) we've got your back," Dunleavy said. "We do not think what's going on in Washington and other parts of the country is OK, and we're going to be here for you."
Sophie Carson is a general assignment reporter who reports on religion and faith, immigrants and refugees and more. Contact her at scarson@gannett.com or 920-323-5758.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Anti-ICE protesters in Milwaukee decry Trump immigration crackdown
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
12 minutes ago
- Newsweek
America Needs a Digital Dollar
As China accelerates deployment of its digital yuan, and the European Central Bank advances toward a digital euro, the Republican Party is seeking to prevent the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) in the United States. Their insistence on clinging to an increasingly obsolete financial infrastructure means that Americans will continue to be saddled with billions in unnecessary fees every year and that corporations will be empowered to erode our privacy in Orwellian fashion. What's more, handicapping ourselves in this way will only make it more likely that the dollar's dominance in global finance will come to a premature end. America needs a digital dollar, and we need it now. The Trump administration's recent digital assets report explicitly prohibits federal agencies from establishing or promoting CBDCs, arguing they "threaten the stability of the financial system, individual privacy, and the sovereignty of the United States." This position reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how digital currencies actually work—and ignores the privacy advantages they could provide over our current system. Consider this analogy: when you send a package through the United States Postal Service, the Fourth Amendment protects its contents from unreasonable government search. That same package sent via FedEx or UPS enjoys no such constitutional protection. Similarly, a government-issued digital currency would operate under constitutional constraints and democratic oversight that private payment systems simply don't face. As such, a government run service inherently offers more privacy protection than its privately run counterpart. A visual representation of digital cryptocurrency coins sit on display in front of a European flag in Paris, France. A visual representation of digital cryptocurrency coins sit on display in front of a European flag in Paris, France. Chesnot/Getty Images Today, every swipe of your credit card, every electronic transfer, and every digital payment flows through private corporations that collect, analyze, and monetize your financial data. Banks routinely share transaction information with third parties, build detailed consumer profiles, and sell insights about your spending habits. In contrast, a properly designed CBDC could implement strong privacy protections by design, limiting data collection to only what's necessary for monetary policy and financial crime prevention. The economic benefits of a digital dollar are even more compelling. Americans currently pay $5-10 billion annually in overdraft fees alone—money that could stay in families' pockets with a CBDC system that allows direct government-to-citizen transfers and eliminates many banking intermediaries. The millions of Americans who remain unbanked or underbanked would finally have access to basic financial services without requiring a traditional bank account. Even for those in the baking system, the benefits of a CBDC are potentially enormous. Wire transfers, which cost $13-$44 each on average and take days to settle, could become nearly instantaneous and free. That speed in payment settlement would also make a huge difference to Americans when they need emergency aid quickly, as a CBDC could allow the government to deliver relief payments in minutes rather than weeks. The urgency in America to adopt a CBDC extends beyond domestic concerns. In an era of growing geopolitical competition, monetary policy has become a tool of statecraft. The country that controls the dominant digital payment infrastructure will wield enormous influence over global commerce. China understands this, which is why it has invested heavily in digital yuan infrastructure and is actively promoting its use. China is creating first-mover advantages that will be difficult or even impossibly to overcome if we continue to stall. The Federal Reserve has spent years studying CBDC technology. We should be encouraging and guiding them on this task rather than holding them back. In doing so, critics should keep in mind that CBDC implementation need not be revolutionary. A digital dollar should complement rather than replace physical currency, giving Americans choice while maintaining familiar monetary arrangements. So too could retailers freely choose whether to accept digital payments, just as they currently decide whether to accept credit cards. Additional privacy protections for all users can also be built into the system's architecture, not added as an afterthought. The real threat to American privacy and financial sovereignty isn't a democratically governed CBDC—it's ceding monetary leadership to authoritarian competitors and unaccountable private corporations that enrich themselves off our data while impoverishing the worst off among us. The question isn't whether digital currencies will reshape global finance, it's whether America will lead this transformation or watch from the sidelines as others determine the future of money. For the sake of American competitiveness, financial inclusion, and yes, even privacy, it's time for a digital dollar. Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Politico
14 minutes ago
- Politico
Laura Loomer runs ‘tip line' for Trump staffers eager to purge ‘disloyal' colleagues
Trump is famous for asking friends and outside allies for their opinions about his own staff. So much so that, during his first term, former chief of staff John Kelly tried to limit access to the Oval Office in an effort to exert some control over who was influencing the president. It backfired. Trump often refers to his current chief of staff, Susie Wiles, during Cabinet meetings as 'the most powerful woman in the world.' The now familiar riff almost always elicits chuckles in the room. But Wiles' power comes from not attempting to rein in the president's impulses or restrict his circle in any way. 'I know this from working for John Kelly, it's just impossible to control Trump this way. He has lots of different telephones,' said Kevin Carroll, a former CIA officer and lawyer representing intelligence officials fired by the Trump administration. 'He's just on some random cell phone…and it could be with Laura Loomer.' One of his clients, Terry Adirim, the former top doctor at the CIA, has alleged that Loomer played a key role in her dismissal. Adirim was terminated by the Trump administration earlier this year after some of the president's supporters criticized her for her role in the mandatory Covid vaccination of members of the military. This week, the White House requested that Congress delay a hearing for Brian Quintenz to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission after cryptocurrency billionaires Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss urged Trump to dump Quintenz in a conversation last weekend. Also this week, Trump ordered the removal of the FDA's top vaccine regulator, Vinay Prasad, after just three months on the job. He did that despite opposition from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary — and after hearing from Loomer. Loomer engineered a public backlash to Prasad that began with her labeling him on her website a 'progressive leftist saboteur undermining President Trump's FDA.' Other conservative voices, like former GOP Sen. Rick Santorum and The Wall Street Journal editorial board, piled onto the criticism of Prasad and his approach to rare disease therapies — a concern that Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) raised with the White House on Monday, a day before Prasad was fired. Also on Tuesday, Trump removed the National Security Administration's top lawyer, April Doss, after Loomer shared the conservative magazine Daily Caller's investigation into Doss, which called her a 'transparently partisan activist.' Carroll said Loomer's influence created a 'dangerous situation' with 'somebody outside the government, no national security experience, who's got hire and fire authority over some of these really, really important jobs.' In the White House, administration officials appear unwilling to overlook the disruption associated with frequent staff changes. And Loomer says she has strong relationships in the West Wing. 'It is not only appropriate, but critical for the Administration to recruit the most qualified and experienced staffers who are totally aligned with President Trump's agenda to Make America Great Again,' White House spokesperson Kush Desai said. Desai added that the administration's record of 'peace deals to trade deals' show that Trump 'has assembled the best and brightest talent to put Americans and America First.'
Time Magazine
15 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Tracking Trump's Tariffs
President Donald Trump's on-again, off-again approach to his signature tariff policy has taken global economies on a rollercoaster in just the first six months of his second presidential term. Trump slammed nearly every country in the world with tariffs as high as 50% on April 2, so-called 'Liberation Day.' A week later, he announced a temporary reduction that was meant to end July 9, during which time he said he'd negotiate '90 deals in 90 days' to re-balance U.S. trade relationships. But as that deadline neared, Trump announced a new deadline of Aug. 1 and began unveiling a slate of new tariffs on more than a dozen countries. Throughout this all, Trump has also announced sectoral tariffs on cars, steel, aluminum, and copper, as well as threatened countries appearing to align against American interests, like members of the intergovernmental organization BRICS, with additional tariffs. Read More: Trump's Trade Deals, Negotiations, and New Tariffs for Each Country On the eve of Trump's Aug. 1 trade deal deadline, the White House once again unveiled new tariff rates on much of the world, most of which will take effect Aug. 7. For countries with which the U.S. has a trade surplus—meaning that it exports more to those countries than it imports from them—the 'universal' tariff is 10%, which remains unchanged from April 2. For countries with which the U.S. has a trade deficit, the new baseline rate is 15%, which will apply to around 40 countries. More than a dozen other countries will face higher tariff rates, either imposed by Trump in a more recent announcement or obtained through trade agreements with the U.S. The U.S. has reached trade deals or framework agreements with a number of countries: the European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea, the U.K., and Vietnam. The U.S. also reached an agreement with China, although the two sides are continuing to negotiate the details ahead of a later deadline of Aug. 12, which the White House has indicated could be extended. And Trump has granted Mexico a 90-day extension to facilitate further trade talks. The White House has bragged about raising more than $150 billion from tariffs over the past six months, while Trump has said 'tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again.' (A Monthly Treasury Statement from June shows that the government has collected around $108 billion in customs duties since October 1, 2024, while the Treasury Department reported the collection of upwards of $28 billion in duties in July.) Revenue from tariffs is likely to increase as higher tariffs for dozens of countries go into effect. Many economists, however, say tariffs are effectively a tax on American consumers and have warned that trade tensions could trigger a U.S.—or even global—recession. Here's a breakdown of all Trump's tariffs. Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs Trump has said his tariffs are aimed at balancing the U.S.'s trade relationships with the rest of the world in two main ways: firstly, by pressuring countries to negotiate trade deals more favorable to the U.S., and secondly by incentivizing firms to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. The President has railed against the country's trade deficits with much of the rest of the world, though he's also imposed tariffs on countries that the U.S. has a trade surplus with, like Brazil. It's true that the U.S. imports much more goods from most countries than it exports, but economists have pointed out that that's a position many other countries are striving to be in. The U.S. exports mainly services—like banking services, software, and entertainment—while many poorer countries have much larger and lower-paying manufacturing sectors. Economists have also said tariffs aren't necessarily an effective way to address trade deficits and are instead likely to cause higher prices for American consumers, unsettle American businesses, and erode trust between the U.S. and its trading partners, leading trade and diplomatic partnerships away from the U.S. in the long term. Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs, imposed April 2, were 'reciprocal' based on what he said were tariffs and other manipulations against the U.S. by other countries, although economists have criticized his method of calculating those rates: each country's trade surplus with the U.S. was divided by its exports to the U.S. and then divided by two. It's not yet clear how the new rates, some of which Trump began announcing July 7 in 'letters' sent to each country and shared on his Truth Social platform, were determined. Trump has said they are based on countries' 'Tariff, and Non-Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers.' For certain countries though he cited reasons unrelated to trade. The 50% tariff on Brazil, for example, is based partly on what Trump called a 'Witch Hunt' against the country's former President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally who has been charged with attempting to launch a coup to stay in office in 2022. Other Trump tariffs Trump has also imposed tariffs on specific sectors, including a 25% tariff on cars and car parts and a 50% tariff on most foreign imports of steel, aluminum, and copper. Several more sectoral tariffs may be introduced pending Section 232 Commerce Department investigations, such as on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, and commercial aircraft and engines. Imports subjected to section 232 tariffs do not always 'stack' on top of other tariffs. For example, a car imported from overseas will be tariffed at 25%, but will not be subject to tariffs on aluminum, steel, or other 'stacking' tariffs. Metals tariffs supersede country 'reciprocal' tariffs but both steel and aluminum tariffs can apply to the same product. Some trade agreements, like the U.S.-E.U. deal, also cap sectoral tariffs at a lower rate. For example, the 15% 'reciprocal' tariff on the E.U. also applies to cars and car parts. Some sectoral tariffs predate Trump's second term. Trump introduced tariffs on various sectors and countries in his first presidential term. In January 2018, he imposed tariffs on all solar panels, for which China is the world's largest producer, and washing machines. In June that year he also introduced 25% tariffs on over 800 products from China. Trump also imposed a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum from Canada, Mexico and the E.U. These tariffs set off retaliatory moves from the impacted countries, though most U.S. and retaliatory tariffs from Trump's first term eventually expired or were rolled back. The U.S. and China reached a truce in January 2020 after escalating tit-for-tat tariffs, but former President Joe Biden extended the solar panel tariffs in 2022. Some countries might also be subject to additional tariffs based on political reasons. Trump announced on July 6 that he would tariff countries aligning themselves with BRICS at an additional 10% rate. Among the countries whose new rates have been announced so far, that includes Brazil, South Africa, India and Iran. It's not yet clear whether it affects countries that the U.S. has cut a deal with, like China or Indonesia. Trump has also cracked down on what was known as the de minimis exemption, which exempted small shipments valued at $800 or less from customs duties and declarations. The tax provision, which was introduced in 1938, has largely benefitted fast fashion giants like Shein and Temu, which have sent millions of packages a day to the U.S. Trump closed the exemption for shipments from China and Hong Kong in an April 2 executive order, tariffing the low-value shipments from those exporters effectively at a 120% rate from May 2 (after tit-for-tat tariff hikes). He then reversed course with a May 12 executive order that eased levies on low-value imports. Then, he reversed course again with a July 30 executive order, ending the tariff exemption for all countries around the world.
