Eight arrested after far-right groups and migrants clash in Spanish town
TORRE PACHECO, Spain (Reuters) -Spanish police have arrested eight people after three nights of clashes between far-right groups and North African migrants in a town in southeastern Spain, the government said on Monday.
In one of Spain's worst such flare-ups of recent times, several dozen youths from far-right groups, some hooded, hurled glass bottles and objects at riot police in Torre Pacheco on Sunday night. Police fired rubber bullets to quell the unrest.
The trouble stemmed from an attack last week by unidentified assailants on an elderly man that left him injured and recovering at home.
Authorities said two of those arrested were involved in that assault though they were still looking for the main perpetrator.
The other six - five Spaniards and one person of North African origin - were arrested for assault, public disorder, hate crimes or damage to property, the Interior Ministry said.
Migrants, many of them second-generation, make up about a third of Torre Pacheco's population of about 40,000.
The area around the town also hosts large numbers of migrants who work as day labourers in agriculture, one of the pillars of the economy in the Murcia region.
Speaking to radio station Cadena Ser, Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska attributed the violence to anti-immigration rhetoric from far-right groups and political parties such as Vox, citing organisation and calls on social media.
Police intercepted more than 20 vehicles attempting to enter the town, with some occupants carrying sticks and extendable batons, he said.
"There are gatherings to resolve the issue (assault) for us. We don't want those," mayor Pedro Angel Roca told national broadcaster TVE.
Abdelali, a North African migrant who lives in Torre Pacheco and declined to give his surname, said he was afraid of riding his scooter for fear of being hit by bottles hurled by the rioters.
"We want peace. That's what we want, we don't want anything else," he told Reuters on Sunday on a street in Torre Pacheco.
In 2000, violent anti-immigration protests broke out in the Almeria town of El Ejido in southern Spain after three Spanish citizens were killed by Moroccan migrants.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
8 hours ago
- Vox
Why didn't Biden release the Epstein files?
covers politics Vox. She first joined Vox in 2019, and her work has also appeared in Politico, Washington Monthly, and the New Republic. A billboard in Times Square calls for the release of the Epstein files on July 23, in New York of Donald Trump's name repeatedly appearing in the Jeffrey Epstein files, coupled with the unearthing of a suggestive birthday card that the president sent the convicted sex offender, have renewed scrutiny of their relationship. But if the government really had damning information about Trump's entanglements with Epstein in its possession for years, then why didn't his Democratic predecessor and political rival, President Joe Biden, ever release the files? It's impossible to know for certain. Conspiracy theories about a government cover-up in the Epstein case have swirled around right-wing media circles since his 2019 death in prison, which was ruled a suicide. But appearing in the Epstein files might not, in and of itself, suggest any wrongdoing on Trump's part. Even if the material in the sealed files does raise concerns, it would be highly unusual for the government to release that material outside of a courtroom. The challenges with releasing the files The Epstein files are a collection of more than 100,000 pages of evidence gathered as part of a Justice Department investigation. They include records of physical evidence, grand jury testimony, digital evidence recovered from technology seized at Epstein's properties, and more. After releasing an initial trove of documents in February, the Justice Department announced on July 7 that it would not be releasing any more, denying the existence of any 'incriminating client list' from Epstein or anything else related to the case that ought to be publicly disclosed. That prompted backlash from Trump's base, and the president has maligned his supporters for not letting the issue go. The House shut down early for a month-long recess on Thursday in order to prevent a vote on expediting the release of further documents, as the push has divided the Republican caucus. Trump himself is now on board, having recently called for the release of 'pertinent' grand jury testimony in two separate cases involving Epstein from 2005 and 2007. A federal court in Florida has denied such a request from the DOJ. The department made a similar request to a separate court in New York, but its ruling is still pending. Trump may hope that the release of the documents can put to rest speculation about his involvement with Epstein. That might be an unrealistic outcome given that the conspiracy theories have now taken on a life of their own and may be uncontainable. But the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's was just one among hundreds of names, many of similarly prominent figures, featured in the unreleased Epstein files. Those files include not just the grand jury testimony, but also 300 gigabytes of digital evidence. If the files suggest that Trump's involvement with Epstein really was just of the harmless social variety prior to their reported falling out in 2004, then the Biden administration would have had no obvious political reason to release them. (Former President Bill Clinton's name appears in the files that were already released, although there is no allegation of any wrongdoing on Clinton's part.) But it also couldn't have done so without court approval. Grand jury testimony is secret by design: It allows jurors to confer about whether to charge someone with a crime confidentially and without outside influence or fear of public backlash. Such testimony is typically only released under exceptional circumstances, when a judge determines that the public interest overrides the interest in protecting the identity of witnesses, informants, and other people accused of crimes brought before the grand jury. Alan Dershowitz, the lawyer who helped Epstein secure his 2008 plea deal on child prostitution charges in Florida, has said that the grand jury testimony from that particular case includes a redacted FBI affidavit that names individuals who were accused of crimes in connection with Epstein. As for the remaining digital evidence, it's highly unusual for the FBI to release information unrelated to charging individuals with a crime. There are several reasons for this, including the desire to protect individuals' privacy and reputations and to protect ongoing investigations. The agency has said, however, that there would be no new indictments related to Epstein based on a review of its existing investigation files.
Vox
11 hours ago
- Vox
3 Supreme Court justices just said they're fine with race discrimination in elections
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Justice Neil Gorsuch during his confirmation hearing. On Thursday, he voted to leave in place a lower court decision that effectively nullified one of the most consequential civil rights laws in US history. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images Last month, two Republican federal appeals court judges effectively abolished the law banning race discrimination in elections in seven states. On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a brief order blocking this decision. The upshot is that, at least for now, it is still illegal for a state to disenfranchise someone because of the color of their skin. That said, the most striking thing about the Court's decision in Turtle Mountain Band v. Howe is that three justices dissented. Although none of them explained why they voted the way they did, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch all voted to leave in place a lower court decision that effectively nullified one of the most consequential civil rights laws in American history. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Although the 15th Amendment — which was enacted shortly after the Civil War — was supposed to prohibit race discrimination in US elections, anyone familiar with the history of the Jim Crow South knows that this amendment was ineffective for most of its existence. It wasn't until 1965, when Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act, that this ban gained teeth. One of the Voting Rights Act's two most important provisions required states with a history of racist election practices to 'preclear' any new election laws with federal officials before they took effect. The other provision permitted both private individuals and the United States to sue state and local governments that target voters based on their race. Together, these two provisions proved to be one of the most potent laws in American history. In the first two years after President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, for example, Black voter registration rates in the Jim Crow stronghold of Mississippi rose from 6.7 percent to around 60 percent. In recent years, however, the Court's Republican majority has been extraordinarily hostile to this law. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Republican justices voted to deactivate the preclearance provision. And other decisions imposed arbitrary and atextual limits on the Voting Rights Act. In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021), for example, the Republican justices claimed that voting restrictions that were commonplace in 1982 remain presumptively lawful. In Turtle Mountain, two Republicans on the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit handed down a decision that would have rendered what remains of the Voting Rights Act a virtual nonentity. They claimed that private citizens are not allowed to bring lawsuits enforcing the law, which would mean that Voting Rights Act suits could only be brought by the US Justice Department — which is currently controlled by President Donald Trump. Related A new Supreme Court case is an existential threat to the Voting Rights Act The Eighth Circuit oversees federal lawsuits out of Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. So, while the Eighth Circuit's decision was in effect, the Voting Rights Act effectively did not exist in those seven states. I summarized the Eighth Circuit's reasoning, and explained why it is erroneous, here. Had the Eighth Circuit's position prevailed, some private citizens might have been able to bring suits under the 15th Amendment itself. But that amendment uses very similar language to the Voting Rights Act. So the Eighth Circuit's attack on the 1965 law would have likely applied with equal force to the Constitution. In any event, it now appears that this threat to liberal democracy has been averted. Only half of the Supreme Court's six Republicans publicly dissented from the Court's order reinstating the law, and all three of the Court's Democrats appear to have voted to save the law.
Vox
13 hours ago
- Vox
Why tariffs haven't caused runaway inflation — yet
covers politics Vox. She first joined Vox in 2019, and her work has also appeared in Politico, Washington Monthly, and the New Republic. Initial predictions about runaway inflation and empty shelves after President Donald Trump announced his sweeping tariffs in April have yet to materialize. Some in the Trump administration have taken that as a sign that he should double down on tariffs. Earlier this month, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent posted on X that the 'inflation propagandists have been proven wrong.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement that 'President Trump is stabilizing inflation and the 'panicans' continue to be wrong about tariffs raising prices.' Trump himself crowed on his social network Truth Social: 'Consumer Prices LOW,' he wrote, urging the Federal Reserve to bring down interest rates in response. Their declarations of success, however, are likely premature. The first indication that inflation might be ticking up came in June, when the consumer price index increased by 2.7 percent, up from 2.4 percent the previous month. The prices of food, housing, and used cars increased at even higher rates. And they may not be done climbing. Economists told Vox that the upward trend is likely to continue, so long as the tariffs remain in effect. Companies have taken steps to ride out the uncertainty that tariffs cause, but before the end of the year, they will face untenable financial pressure to raise prices, absent major changes in US trade policy. 'By the time we get to the end of August, you'll kind of look back and it will appear that directionally, the people who said tariffs would increase prices over the summer were right,' said Daniel Hornung, a senior fellow at MIT and former deputy director of the National Economic Council under the Biden administration. Why tariffs increase prices Trump's tariffs are predicated on a faulty assumption that countries with a trade imbalance with the US — in which they export more to the US than they import from it — are taking advantage of America. Trump's rationale ignores why those imbalances might exist in the first place. One factor is the population profile of countries that trade with the US: Vietnam, for example, exports more than it imports from the US because it is relatively poor and cannot afford to buy many American-made goods. Americans' consumption tendencies also lead to trade imbalances. Compared to other Western countries, Americans are a younger and faster-growing population, one that saves less and spends more on imported goods relative to its counterparts overseas. There is also high foreign investment in the US, in part driven by the fact that the dollar is the world reserve currency and by the perception that American real estate and government debt are attractive investments. Trump misunderstands these dynamics, and economists argue that tariffs won't change them. The president, nevertheless, believes that tariffs can rectify these imbalances by spurring a renaissance of domestic manufacturing, causing the US to import less, export more, and create more jobs. But that's also unlikely. The economy runs on confidence in the future. Businesses make plans months or years in advance hoping that their investments will eventually pay dividends. Consumers, too, are more likely to spend on goods and services that these businesses sell when they feel good about their prospects. Their spending helps support economic growth and a solid job market. The uncertainty about whether and when Trump's tariffs will roll out, and at what cost, has given businesses little reason to make massive new investments in US factories spanning years into the future. Such investment could be a risky bet when it's not clear if Trump will back down on the tariffs — or be forced to do so as part of a pending court case — in a matter of months. In the meantime, tariffs will increase costs for producers and retailers, which they eventually have to pass on to US consumers if they wish to maintain their profit margins. Why hasn't inflation increased dramatically yet? So far, companies have managed to avoid drastic price increases for a few reasons. For one, the rollout of tariffs against many major US trading partners has been delayed until August 1. That includes a 35 percent tariff on Canada, a 50 percent tariff on Brazil, a 25 percent tariff on South Korea, and a 30 percent tariff on the European Union and Mexico. The Trump administration has been trying to negotiate deals with all of them before the August 1 deadline. On Wednesday, Japan announced a deal with the Trump administration that allowed it to avert higher tariff rates, but it will still face a 15 percent tariff on all exports to the US. Notably, the US has also reached a temporary trade deal with China that lowered tariffs from 145 percent to 30 percent. That deal expires August 12, but Bessent has suggested that it is likely to be extended. Collecting tariffs has yet to begin or has only recently begun for many countries, so the tariffs' impact on prices has lagged — but it's still on the horizon. Preston Caldwell, chief US economist for Morningstar, said that he predicts that inflation will peak not in 2025, but rather in 2026, as that impact spreads through the economy. And the effect will be acute, given that even countries that have secured deals with the US face tariffs that would have once been unthinkably high. A flat 10 percent tariff on all imports was considered a nightmare scenario before Trump took office. 'I don't think predictions of inflation were wrong,' said Matt Colyar, an economist for Moody's Analytics. 'I just think it's a matter of timing.' Companies have been reluctant to raise prices sharply and potentially drive away customers who were already struggling to keep up with inflation in the post-pandemic era. The Yale Budget Lab has projected that the tariffs could cost Americans an average $2,300 per household. But some retailers also made preparations to mitigate the initial impact of tariffs on their businesses. Businesses that can afford it have been stockpiling inventory for months in an attempt to keep prices low and ride out the tariffs, hoping that Trump will change course. But their inventory will only last so long. 'Companies have started paying tariffs on their imported goods, but as far as the goods that are being sold in stores right now, those are primarily being drawn from the inventory of goods that were brought in before the tariffs,' Caldwell said. 'So most companies are still not really having to recognize the loss of tariffs yet to a great degree.' What happens next There are some categories of goods that are likely to see higher price increases than others. That includes electronics, appliances, apparel, and furniture — durable goods that have a large import share, MIT's Hornung said. Between February and June, the price of major appliances already increased by 5.7 percent, and furniture and bedding prices rose by 1.7 percent. 'That's different from what we're seeing in categories that are not particularly import-sensitive, like the service sector. You have to look closely, but you are really seeing a divergence now between tariff-sensitive and non–tariff-sensitive categories,' Hornung said. Fruit and coffee are some staple items that have a large share of imports that could also see price increases. By the time back-to-school shopping starts, Americans might start to notice the impact on their pocketbooks. Unlike big-ticket items, like cars, shoppers might not be able to put off purchases of smaller essentials. 'People don't put off shoe purchases for years and years and years,' Hornung said. 'That's an example of one where you'll both probably get the pricing effect, and you won't see slowing demand sufficient to offset any of it.' Colyar said he's also watching tariffs on copper imports. 'Copper is in everything. It's in electronic components. It's fundamental to housing,' he said. 'It's an interesting bellwether for a pain point that people have very clearly communicated.' Companies are biding their time, hoping that they can get a reprieve from tariffs in the next few months. But they're staring into a future where these kinds of changes become inevitable.
