Families of ‘Kidnapped' L.A. Garment Workers Arrested in ICE Raids Plead for Justice
Distraught family members gathered outside Ambiance Apparel's E. 15th St. office in the Fashion District on Monday to denounce what all of them described as the 'kidnappings' of their 14 fathers, sons, brothers and uncles, who in many cases were the breadwinners of their households. A representative from Ambiance Apparel, reached by phone, declined to clarify conflicting accounts of whether ICE agents had warrants that allowed them to search the premises. The Department of Homeland Security similarly acknowledged a request for comment but did not respond further.
More from Sourcing Journal
National Guard Arrives in Los Angeles Following Protests Over Immigration Raids
Trump Doubles Duties on Metals, Judge Dismisses California's Tariff Lawsuit
EXCLUSIVE: Arvind, Fashion for Good's 'Near-Carbon-Neutral' Factory Initiative Seeks to Break Industry Paralysis
'I say 'kidnapped' because they were taken by force without any warnings or permits, as well as being held without any contact to the families or lawyers, and that by definition, is kidnapping,' said Carlos Gonzalez, who watched as his brother, José Paulino, was chained up like 'he was some kind of dangerous animal.'
'José is human, just like you and I,' Gonzalez said. 'He's fun, he's full of life and he's really sweet. And the only crime that he committed was trying to live a better life and trying to get ahead and work. The whole process wasn't just inhumane, it was illegal. This state is about being the best. This whole country boasts about being the best. But how can we claim that if we can't uphold basic human rights and due process? Where is the sanctuary California promised us?'
Montserrat Arrazola, a college student, said she watched as her father, Jorge, and others were dragged away by officials as their relatives cried and screamed, 'not knowing what to do, just like me.' She deplored ICE acting director Todd Lyons' characterization on Friday of the arrests of 'criminal illegal aliens' such as 'gang members, drug traffickers and those with a history of assault, cruelty to children, domestic violence, robbery and smuggling.'
'What happened that day was not right,' Arrazola said, her voice strangled with grief. 'It was not legal in this country. We all have the right to due process, and that right was denied to my father and many other workers. My father is part of this community. We demand the immediate release of all the workers detained that day. We demand that workplaces that collaborate with ICE be held accountable. We demand that the sanctuary status be respected throughout California, no matter where a person comes from or how they arrived in this country. We demand justice.'
Tensions remain inflamed in Los Angeles, which seemingly overnight has become a flashpoint in the Trump administration's ramp-up of its immigration agenda. Demonstrations have been largely peaceful, although some protestors launched water bottles, rocks, electric scooters and fireworks at passing police vehicles or set driverless Waymo cars and dumpsters on fire. Clad in tactical gear and wielding riot shields and military-style rifles, federal agents lobbed non-lethal munitions, including rubber bullets, tear gas and flash-bang grenades, to disperse crowds.
The events of the past few days have rattled the tens of thousands of people who make up the 'West Coast hub' of the American apparel industry, many of whom are undocumented immigrant women from Central and South America who toil long hours for extremely low wages.
'We need to go and talk to specific employees to find out how they are. It's going to take some time. It's only Monday,' one manufacturing staffer, who requested anonymity to be able to speak freely. 'How are we doing? Right now, we don't know where we are, who we are or how we are. If it's safe, we will go to work.'
The owner of a large downtown L.A. apparel factory told Sourcing Journal that the raids and subsequent upheaval were causing disruptions to productivity, but said it was too early to assess the situation or comprehend its ramifications. Several other businesses, including Reformation, Mother Denim and Saitex, either did not respond to requests for comment or declined to do so.
Others were more candid, including Alex Zar, CEO of Lalaland Production and Design, who told Sourcing Journal that the business is 'operating with caution and advising our staff to carry all necessary identification and documentation to prove their residency status in case they are approached by federal authorities.'
'Although our staff members are legally residing in Los Angeles, many still fear being profiled based on their appearance or country of origin,' Zar added. 'There's a concern that being mistakenly detained could seriously disrupt their daily lives.'
The business owner, whose factory supplies major leather goods and footwear brands across the globe, said the recent ICE detention of the head of an L.A. janitorial union, as well as other labor leaders, 'has understandably created a sense of fear and distraction, not only for our team members but also for their families—especially those whose legal statuses may differ.'
Sean Scott, CEO and co-founder of CommunityMade, a footwear producer that employs Fashion District natives and focuses on cultivating local talent, was disturbed and dismayed by the developments of the past 96 hours.
When asked whether the factory was experiencing interruptions to its operations, he said, 'Our situation is that business is carrying on—but it is not business as usual.' Immigrants are essential to CommunityMade's business, 'so we're concerned,' he added.
'We have fantastic teammates from Guatemala, China, Spain, Mexico, Ukraine and they're all scared because ICE's detentions have been sweeping, not focused on criminals or illegals,' Scott said. 'Some are staying home. Families are scared, too.'
On Monday, a 'big police presence' persisted in the area surrounding the company's shop and factory headquarters, though there were no signs of protests or violence on the 500 block of Mateo Ave. Local law enforcement appeared to position itself apart from the activities of ICE or the National Guard, which swept through the city on President Trump's orders on Sunday afternoon.
'This is our city; we're not going anywhere. But as far as working with ICE, we don't do that,' Officer Drake Madison of the L.A. Police Department's public information office told Sourcing Journal. 'Obviously, we're not going to ignore a help call or something that may come out, but we're not directly working with them [or] with the National Guard.'
Madison said that as of Monday afternoon, businesses were permitted to carry on 'as usual,' noting that curfews had not been instated, as they had been in 2020 following widespread unrest across the city following the killing of George Floyd in Minnesota. He recommended that business owners refrain from trying to intervene personally in the defacement of property and avoid putting themselves or their employees in harm's way. 'Run your business, but just also look at it from a human standpoint,' he added.
One retailer in the fashion district, who asked not to be named, said foot traffic had fallen because customers are 'scared to come over because of the protests.' A sales associate at another store was told that 'if there's anything happening, it's O.K. to just close the store and leave.'
While a spokesperson for the L.A. Sheriff's Department sought to emphasize that it 'does not participate in any civil immigration enforcement activities or mass deportation sweeps,' saying in a statement that that responsibility rests solely with federal law enforcement agencies, the city's garment workers are in a state of panic.
'There's definitely a lot of fear and anxiety about going to work,' said Daisy Gonzalez, campaign director at the Garment Worker Center, a nonprofit that has been holding immigration clinics to provide education and resources for workers. 'People are scared to take public transportation. There are a lot of unverified accounts of ICE throughout L.A. County. But, of course, people need to continue to put food on the table, pay their rent, keep a shelter over their heads.'
She fears, however, that this is only the beginning and that more families will be broken up before long.
'We should all be applying pressure on the administration to end these racist raids, to ensure that due process is something that every person in this country has access to, and to ask this administration to stop creating fear and chaos in the community,' Gonzalez added.
As the unrest continues to percolate on the street level, city and state officials have taken the fight to the Oval Office via the airwaves and social media, culminating in the second California lawsuit against the Trump administration in a matter of months.
Governor Gavin Newsom traded barbs with the president throughout the weekend, pushing back on the deployment of military force absent the request or permission of state and local leaders. The scuffle culminated in an apparent threat from Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, to arrest both Newsom and Bass if they 'crossed the line.' Trump cosigned the threat, saying Newsom's arrest would be a 'great thing.'
Newsom called the bluff, addressing Homan via a television interview. 'Arrest me, let's go,' he said.
On Monday, Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration—the second since April, when they sued the White House for what they characterized as the illegal implementation of sweeping tariffs against trade allies. The new complaint alleged that Trump 'unlawfully bypassed' the governor in federalizing the state's National Guard, overstepping his jurisdiction when local authorities had the protests under control.
'We don't take lightly to the president abusing his authority and unlawfully mobilizing California National Guard troops,' he said in an announcement that also name-checked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. 'Trump and Hegseth jumped from 0 to 60. Bypassing law enforcement expertise and evaluation, they threw caution to the wind and sidelined strategy in an unnecessary and inflammatory escalation that only further spurred unrest.'
The complaint alleged that Trump violated California's sovereignty through the 'unprecedented power grab.'
'One of the cornerstones of our Nation and our democracy is that our people are governed by civil, not military, rule. The Founders enshrined these principles in our Constitution—that a government should be accountable to its people, guided by the rule of law, and one of civil authority, not military rule,' Newsom posted on X on Monday. 'California will be standing up for those principles in court,' he added, addressing Trump directly.
It's unclear, however, how much this would help the 14 men, whose bonds are expected to be set between $1,500 and $5,000 per person, according to a GoFundMe that hopes to raise $150,000 to cover their families' immediate needs, including rent, groceries, healthcare and childcare. At least one of the detainees, according to family members, have already been deported back to Mexico. Others have received no updates.
'I witnessed how they put my father in handcuffs and chained him from the waist and from his ankles,' said Yurien Contreras, whose youngest sibling is four and has autism, of Mario Romero. 'It was very traumatizing. We suffered and still suffer from this traumatizing experience emotionally, mentally and physically. My father had the right to speak to a lawyer. My family and I haven't had communication with my dad. We don't know nothing about him.'
All 14 of the men who were detained were members of the Episcopalian Diocese of Los Angeles. They were taken on the Day of Pentecost, which is celebrated by Christians, 49 days after Easter, as a 'holy disruption [of] God breaking into the evil world with the spirit of justice, the spirit of liberation and love,' said Jaime Edwards-Acton, rector at St. Stephen's Episcopal Church. Today, the United States faces a moment that 'cries out for that same spirit,' he said.
'The ICE raids in Los Angeles are nothing less than a direct attack on a working class trying to make an honest living to make ends meet for their families to put food on,' Edwards-Acton said. 'The fact that ICE targeted this district, the garment district, is no coincidence. It has long been a place where imminent labor has not only the industry but the city itself—these workers, these mothers, these fathers, these brothers and sisters‚ they are all community, and yet they were treated like criminals for the simple act of working. This is not just about immigration. What we've been witnessing in our communities are signs of an escalating authoritarianism.'
The broader fashion industry is paying attention and the implications that continuing raids may have on the vulnerable workforce that undergirds what remains of domestic apparel manufacturing.
Kesi Foster, co-executive director of Partners for Dignity and Rights, a human rights advocacy group based in New York City, home to its own concentration of garment workers, called the raids ' acts of cruelty that serve no other purpose than to sow chaos and fear in an attempt to divide our communities.'
'Immigrant garment workers in the United States have long shouldered the weight of systemic exploitation, including low wages, wage theft and dangerous conditions,' he said. 'The administration's targeting of manufacturing workers through ICE raids is a cruel contradiction: while claiming to want to revive American manufacturing, it punishes the very workers who sustain it.'
While Steve Lamar, CEO and executive director of the American Apparel & Footwear Association, said that the trade group abhors any violence, it also supports peaceful demonstrations in the United States and around the world as an 'exercise of free speech and of the importance of civic engagement.'
'Our industry has a rich history that is interwoven with diverse immigrant communities. For generations, immigrants from Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America have powered our industry in manufacturing, design and retail,' he said. 'As we look to build a stronger, more resilient industry, we look to federal, state, county and city officials to work with local communities on a peaceful and sustainable path forward.'
Additional reporting by Rosemary Feitelberg.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Ketanji Brown Jackson turns independent streak loose on fellow justices
To hear Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tell it, it's a 'perilous moment for our Constitution.' The Supreme Court's most junior justice had pointed exchanges with her colleagues on the bench this term, increasingly accusing them of unevenly applying the law — even if it meant standing on her own from the court's other liberal justices. Jackson has had an independent streak since President Biden nominated her to the bench in 2022. But the dynamic has intensified this term, especially as litigation over President Trump's sweeping agenda reached the court. It climaxed with her final dissent of decision season, when Jackson accused her fellow justices of helping Trump threaten the rule of law at a moment they should be 'hunkering down.' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' Her stark warning came as Trump's birthright citizenship order split the court on its 6-3 ideological lines, with all three Democratic appointed justices dissenting from the decision to limit nationwide injunctions. Jackson bounded farther than her two liberal colleagues, writing in a blistering solo critique that said the court was embracing Trump's apparent request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior.' The decision amounts to an 'existential threat to the rule of law,' she said. It wasn't the first time Jackson's fellow liberal justices left her out in the cold. She has been writing solo dissents since her first full term on the bench. Jackson did so again in another case last month when the court revived the energy industry's effort to axe California's stricter car emission standard. Jackson accused her peers of ruling inequitably. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' Jackson wrote. 'Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent.' Rather than join Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent that forewent such fiery language, Jackson chose to pen her own. The duo frequently agrees. They were on the same side in 94 percent of cases this term, according to data from SCOTUSblog, more than any other pair except for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the court's two leading conservatives. Sometimes Sotomayor signs on to Jackson's piercing dissents, including when she last month condemned the court's emergency order allowing the Department of Government Efficiency to access Americans' Social Security data. 'The Court is thereby, unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration, I would proceed without fear or favor,' Jackson wrote. But it appears there are rhetorical lines the most senior liberal justice won't cross. In another case, regarding disability claims, Sotomayor signed onto portions of Jackson's dissent but rejected a footnote in which Jackson slammed the majority's textualism as 'somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.' 'Pure textualism's refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences,' the most junior justice wrote, refusing to remove the footnote from her dissent. Jackson's colleagues don't see it that way. 'It's your job to do the legal analysis to the best you can,' Chief Justice John Roberts told a crowd of lawyers at a judicial conference last weekend, rejecting the notion that his decisions are driven by the real-world consequences. 'If it leads to some extraordinarily improbable result, then you want to go back and take another look at it,' Roberts continued. 'But I don't start from what the result looks like and go backwards.' Though Roberts wasn't referencing Jackson's recent dissents, her willingness to call out her peers hasn't gone unaddressed. Jackson's dissent in the birthright citizenship case earned a rare, merciless smackdown from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, cosigned by the court's conservative majority. Replying to Jackson's remark that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' Barrett turned that script into her own punchline. 'That goes for judges too,' the most junior conservative justice clapped back. Deriding Jackson's argument as 'extreme,' Barrett said her dissenting opinion ran afoul of centuries of precedent and the Constitution itself. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. The piercing rebuke was a staunch departure from the usually restrained writing of the self-described 'one jalapeño gal.' That's compared to the five-jalapeño rhetoric of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett said, the late conservative icon for whom she clerked. On today's court, it is often Thomas who brings some of the most scathing critiques of Jackson, perhaps most notably when the two took diametrically opposite views of affirmative action two years ago. Page after page, Thomas ripped into Jackson's defense of race-conscious college admissions, accusing her of labeling 'all blacks as victims.' 'Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds,' Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. It isn't Thomas's practice to announce his separate opinions from the bench, but that day, he said he felt compelled to do so. As he read it aloud from the bench for 11 minutes, Jackson stared blankly ahead into the courtroom. Jackson's boldness comes across not only in the court's decision-making. At oral arguments this term, she spoke 50 percent more than any other justice. She embraces her openness. She told a crowd in May while accepting an award named after former President Truman that she liked to think it was because they both share the same trait: bravery. 'I am also told that some people think I am courageous for the ways in which I engage with litigants and my colleagues in the courtroom, or the manner in which I address thorny issues in my legal writings,' Jackson said. 'Some have even called me fearless.'
New York Post
31 minutes ago
- New York Post
To tame Washington, we need a DOGE 2.0 — but done right this time
Elon Musk has repeatedly achieved the impossible, but not even he and his Department of Government Efficiency could tame Washington, DC, and its massive federal bureaucracy. Yet there's still hope — and the need has never been more urgent. The Senate parliamentarian gutted major cost savings at the heart of the Republican reconciliation bill that President Donald Trump signed Friday, so he must resume DOGE efforts immediately. Advertisement In Silicon Valley terms, DOGE had product-market fit; it just didn't have the right tech stack. This time, the White House must get the architecture right. Step 1 is understanding what went wrong. DOGE's failures stemmed from three fundamental flaws that doomed the effort from the start. The first was structural. Don Devine, who ran the Office of Personnel Management for President Ronald Reagan, warned that creating a new agency to shrink government never works — it only causes confusion, diffusion of responsibility and more bureaucracy. Advertisement It also ignores that in Washington, the coin of the realm is power. DOGE was a new agency made up out of thin air with zero inherent legal authority — and Cabinet secretaries naturally bristled at an outside third party meddling in their agencies. They wanted to control the change, and they possessed the legal authority to do so. Indeed, as secretaries were confirmed, they moved quickly to throw off DOGE's yoke. Advertisement By late February, Musk faced a revolt as top officials countermanded DOGE's 'five weekly accomplishments' order. An 'explosive' Cabinet meeting in early March ended with Trump telling Musk to make changes with a scalpel, not a hatchet. Musk's second problem was a legal one. Private-sector experience can't prepare anyone for the labyrinth of administrative law that liberal activists use to stymie progress. DOGE lacked a dedicated legal team within the Justice Department focused solely on its policy reforms and preventing unforced errors. For example, DOGE lowered NIH's cap on allowable research overhead from 69% to 15%, explaining that private foundations allow for zero such funding — but it made the cap retroactive, jeopardizing the reform in court. Advertisement The third sin was flash. Even as DOGE's publicity invited legal challenges, it increased the pressure to meet publicly proclaimed, wildly optimistic targets. DOGE's $1 trillion in promised cuts will strain to hit $150 billion. We had a saying in the White House during Trump's first term, and it proved true here: Whales that surface get harpooned. Musk acknowledged as much on X last week, admitting that his attention-getting antics 'lacked empathy.' Fortunately, the source code exists to reengineer the DOGE mission with bold, swift, high-impact moves. The White House must implement three critical components to make DOGE 2.0 work. First, empower Cabinet control: The White House should give Cabinet secretaries direction, then let them make reforms themselves. Trump must give each Cabinet member mandatory workforce reduction goals, the same way tech sales teams have strict quotas. Faced with a requirement, for example, to trim 25% within six months, agency heads will snap into action — and will feel personal responsibility for performance. The federal government works best when it functions as designed, with the president — not a third party — telling his Cabinet what to do. Advertisement Second, the White House must assemble a dedicated legal defense team within the Justice Department focused solely on reform policies, and get each agency's general counsel on board with the effort. These lawyers will catch pitfalls early — and will go the extra mile to defend policies they helped write. For example, these lawyers must aggressively demand injunction bonds to rein in activists' district-court lawfare. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Advertisement When the Supreme Court ended universal injunctions last week, it left activist judges a 'significant loophole' in the class-action realm. DOJ lawyers should head this off by demanding that plaintiffs pay injunction bonds — upfront money to cover costs should they lose. Finally, DOGE 2.0 must execute in Stealth Mode. Follow the example of the Obama administration, which initially pursued amnesty for undocumented aliens by relaxing enforcement via phone calls, without making a public announcement. This made it much harder for Congress to learn what was happening — or to attack it in court. Advertisement The same quiet execution model applies here: Trump must pursue smart, quiet rollouts, not splashy launches. This was the model my former boss John McEntee used to reform personnel in Trump's first term. He used the authorities inherent in the White House to hold the Cabinet accountable, placed dedicated lawyers in key positions of authority and operated off-the-record. It was a successful model and should be deployed again. Advertisement Watching Musk leave Washington in frustration brings to mind the Roman historian Livy. As the Republic collapsed, he lamented: 'We can endure neither our vices nor the remedies needed to cure them.' America need not repeat Rome's fate — but only if we abandon failed approaches and embrace methods that actually work. The clock is ticking. Daniel Huff is a former White House lawyer in the Office of Presidential Personnel, and was a senior advisor to Project 2025.
CBS News
33 minutes ago
- CBS News
Ken Burns calls it "shortsighted" to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Filmmaker Ken Burns said it's "shortsighted" to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as public media has become a target of the White House in recent months. "This seems foolhardy and seems misguided, mainly because there is a perception among a handful of people that this is somehow a blue or a left-wing thing," Burns said of cutting funds to PBS in an interview that aired Sunday on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan." President Trump signed an executive order in May instructing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the private nonprofit that serves as the steward of the funding to public media, to cease federal funding for PBS and NPR. Then in June, the House approved a request from the White House to claw back $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The package is expected to be taken up by the Senate in the coming weeks as the White House has targeted the public media entities, claiming they have "spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news.'" Burns, whose upcoming film "The American Revolution" is expected to air on PBS in November and has had more than 40 documentaries on the public broadcaster, told "CBS Evening News" co-anchor John Dickerson that he's worried about PBS' future, noting that he's "always been worried about it." "CBS Evening News" co-anchor John Dickerson speaks with documentary filmmaker Ken Burns for an interview that will air on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on July 6, 2025. CBS News The filmmaker recalled testifying before congressional committees in the 1990s about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He likened PBS to the "Declaration of Independence applied to the communications world," saying it's "bottom up." The funding cuts are "shortsighted," Burns said, because "it mainly serves rural areas in which the PBS signal may be the only signal they get." Burns stressed that PBS has children's programming, continuing education, information on homeland security, crop reports and weather emergencies, saying, "that, we're going to take away?" "I just think that maybe we're throwing the baby out with the bath water," Burns said. The filmmaker also noted that his films wouldn't be possible without PBS, saying he wouldn't be afforded the time it takes to produce his films elsewhere. "I couldn't do any of the films I've done without them being on PBS," Burns said, noting that streaming services or cable "wouldn't give me 10 years." Of his work, Burns said many of the projects have "taken time to incubate, and that has been under the system that has one foot tentatively in the marketplace and the other proudly out, kind of like the National Parks or the Declaration of Independence applied to the landscape." "These are really good American institutions that represent everybody from the bottom up, which is what it's always about," Burns said. "That's the essence of what Thomas Jefferson was talking about."
