Cloudflare
Do better @[email protected] https://archive.ph/fTCL1
Members of the Black Rose Anarchist Federation speak with organizers of the Koreatown Popular Assembly (KPA), who worked to stop deportations and ICE raids during the first Trump administration.
This interview is a reflection on the successes and missteps of the Koreatown Popular Assembly (KPA), an attempt at neighborhood based organizing that existed from 2016-2022 and aimed to confront the first Trump administration’s deportation policies. With Trump now back in power, many are once again looking for models to defend themselves and their communities from an even more rabidly anti-immigrant agenda.
This article is the companion to a forthcoming “how-to-organize a popular assembly” guide based on lessons from KPA and other neighborhood organizing efforts that members of Black Rose/Rosa Negra have been embedded in over the years. Check back for that soon.
Two months into Donald Trump’s second presidential term, and so far, his administration has kept its campaign promises to terrorize immigrants, undocumented or otherwise. Vicious lies about invasive criminality plague press conferences and executive orders. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seeks new collaborations with other state agencies to recruit personnel and execute mass deportations. Border Czar Tom Homan hints at caging kids once again.
As during Trump’s first term, communities across the country have refused to cower in fear. Residents ring tiplines around the clock to report impending ICE activity while community organizers sponsor trainings to defend against raids. Students, neighbors, and coworkers plaster their schools, towns, and workplaces with Red Cards and other Know-Your-Rights literature.
From 2016 to 2022, Koreatown Popular Assembly (KPA), a Los Angeles-based formation in an immigrant-rich multiethnic neighborhood, did all this and more. Most importantly, KPA’s members waited for no one to save them; they proactively organized collective resistance to ICE and Trump’s nativist agenda from the ground up alongside other everyday people.
Conducted and edited by Juan Verala Luz, this interview with Morgan, one of the project’s lead organizers, and Elizabeth Chi, who joined KPA when she moved to LA in late 2018, explores how KPA started, what it did, and the context for its success and later dissolution.
Amidst a popular upsurge, dedicated revolutionaries patiently encouraged one neighborhood to deliberately identify practical strategies to confront the state terror it faced, together. Despite skepticism towards making decisions and acting collectively, gentle onramps, multilingual support, and efforts to accommodate diverse work schedules translated an inclusive vision of direct democracy into a participatory experiment. Ultimately, familiar organizing difficulties—shifting political winds that temper interest, committed leaders stepping back, and struggles with recruitment—undid KPA.
However, the experience paints a picture rich with lessons for (re)building rooted organs of direct democracy and mass social movements for immigrant liberation, both of which can lay the groundwork for a popular power that can challenge the state and capital.
#Early Days Of KPA BRRN: Let’s set the stage for KPA. What was the social movement and broader political landscape like in the neighborhood, the city more generally, and even the country?
M: In contrast to today, there was just an explosion of people trying to figure out what we can do and there were a lot of people coming into the streets. If you called a meeting at that time, you’d get floods of people who just wanted to do something. There was also a huge amount of fear, particularly in immigrant communities. There were a lot of spontaneous marches. In Koreatown, a lot of the public schools that we were closely connected to, the teachers and students had a walkout on the day of the inauguration, I think.
There were a few scattered walkouts at other schools and places. There was sometime around that A Day Without Immigrants that was very poorly planned and communicated, but still going down Pico Boulevard I remember thinking, “Oh, there are actually a whole bunch of places that shut down because of this random call-out.” That was kind of the vibe in response to the election, and all that energy had no where to go. People wanted to do something, but it wasn’t clear what.
BRRN: What led to your decision to organize a popular assembly? Why not some other sort of organizational form or structure?
M: Basically, there was a citywide assembly called to talk about Los Angeles’s response to Trump. … After that, the meeting organizers said, “Okay, let’s go and form breakout groups and then go meet up and form a group for your neighborhood.” Koreatown was one of the breakout groups from that citywide meeting. Then I became involved, I think, in one of the first meetings of what had been a breakout group from that citywide meeting.
I believe the name “popular assembly” was there from the beginning, but almost nobody knew what a popular assembly was. I think it was NDLON, the National Day Labor Organizing Network, that gave the name popular assembly to, first, the citywide meeting and then the breakout groups that then became these neighborhood groups. My memory is that they were relying on an experience from Arizona where…there was a group they organized…that organized the immigrant community to form popular assemblies as a community defense tactic and hoped to implement something similar in Los Angeles. That wasn’t really communicated very well to most people. There was this term, “popular assembly,” and then this big meeting in the breakout groups, and there was not really any direction.
When [I] and a couple other people saw the name, “popular assembly,” we got a little excited because obviously we have some political ideas about that and about the importance of neighborhood-based democratic decision making. So that neighborhood group then started meeting, and basically me, Sarah, who was a member of a Trotskyist organization and a public-school teacher in Koreatown, and David, who was a staffer for NDLON who was living in the area, were the main people who then said, “Let’s actually make this a popular assembly.”
Most of the other people who came to those initial meetings were more of the opinion of “Let’s have a picnic. Let’s just get connected and get to know each other.” They thought of it as a kind of ambiguous ‘community building’ effort. There was no vision for structure, or strategy, or specific goals. So, we proposed instead of just this little breakout group, let’s have an open assembly for the neighborhood and let’s make it a decision-making space.
There was actually a lot of debate about that. A lot of people were against making a decision-making space … [In the notes] there’s a proposal from someone where the outcome was we talk about projects we can plug into and how we’re going to stay connected. So, there’s actually nothing concrete; no decisions are made. I had been to plenty of “assemblies” like that before; people come, they share information, and then they leave and there are probably going to be more meetings scheduled with no clear purpose until people get bored of meetings and stop showing up. We actually had to really debate, propose, and put forward…[an] emphasis on it being open and a decision-making space [to] try to actually get something concrete coming out of this so people can feel like we’re actually doing a thing together.
BRRN: Do you remember the sorts of opposition and arguments that were raised against making KPA a decision-making body?
M: I remember a lot of the opposition was not so much ideological. I think maybe it was just not what people are used to.
One position may have been that the assembly should then fractalize into smaller and smaller groups. [After] we had a Koreatown General Assembly or popular assembly, [some people argued that] then we split up into breakout groups [by geography]. [People] in Northwest Koreatown [and] Northeast Koreatown [would go] set up separate committee meetings. I don’t think that’s really a debate on principles, so much of a debate on practicality and the purpose of repeated meetings. I think we did make a gesture [to that with] breakout groups by what part of Koreatown where we were in, but then we kept everyone coming back to one whole Koreatown organizing committee. Then we actually broadened it because there was no other group like this in LA. We basically made it “greater” Koreatown.
I think partly there was maybe a resistance to when you make a decision it means also saying no to things. I think some people want to have a space where people can just bring in their ideas and just say yes to everything and not have to choose and prioritize or develop a real strategy.
There was also a sense of people wanting to have breakout groups by…a tactic or affinity. For example, “we’re gonna break out for people who want to focus on queer issues, we’re gonna have a breakout for people who want to focus on immigrant issues” … We argued against that because we all ended up doing immigrant-based stuff, whether we were immigrants or not. Doing those kinds of breakout issues 1) tends to multiply the number of things you’re trying to do rather than building enough capacity to get enough critical mass behind one effort to make it sustainable and successful and 2) it defeats the purpose of having a neighborhood-based group because you’re not making decisions in the neighborhood at that point.
#Organizing In And Through KPA BRRN: Now let’s learn a little bit more about what KPA did. What were its major objectives and how did it land on them?