In Indianapolis, with largest U.S. Burmese population, tariffs and travel ban hit hard
In Indianapolis, Than Hre, the Burmese-born owner of Chin Brothers Restaurant & Grocery, stands behind his counter tallying receipts that tell the story of a business under pressure.
Over the past year, he says, the profit margin for his restaurant and grocery business has dropped from around 35% to about 10% as tariffs and shipping costs have driven up the price of rice and Burmese staples by as much as 40%.
The same is true for numerous other businesses in Indianapolis, the city with the largest Burmese community in the United States, at 30,000 people, according to the Burmese American Community Institute.
Tariffs on importing Myanmar goods have risen to 45%, driving up the cost of staples like rice and spices and creating significant challenges for Burmese businesses across the United States.
'It's hard because we cannot increase the prices, yet if we do, we're going to lose customers,' said Hre, 48.
On top of the tariff toll, it has been a struggle for Burmese in the United States as the travel ban blocks nearly all travel and immigration from Myanmar, halting family reunifications and student visas as the country faces civil war and forced conscription.
The emotional toll is compounded by the civil war in Myanmar, which has made communication with relatives nearly impossible because of frequent Wi-Fi blackouts and government crackdowns, according to Tha Zi, owner of Mommy Thai, an Asian restaurant serving Burmese, Chinese and Thai food in a a small, family-run spot on the Southside of Indianapolis.
'Sometimes the Wi-Fi is cut off for days,' Zi said, making it nearly impossible to check whether her relatives are safe. She said that her cousin was supposed to come to the United States for college but that the new travel ban means her visa was denied and she's now stuck in Myanmar. Stories like theirs echo across the community as families worry about loved ones facing forced military conscription, bombings and the uncertainty of war — all while trying to keep their businesses afloat in Indiana.
To help recover profits, Hre has cut back on inventory, and he orders product conservatively — by box now, instead of pallet. He doesn't need to cut back on staff as he relies on his three sons and wife to keep the family business afloat, joking that he can pay them in more Burmese food.
Most Burmese families arrived in the United States as refugees, fleeing harsh military rule, ethnic persecution and ongoing civil war in Myanmar. The first wave came after the 1962 military coup and continued through the 1980s and the 1990s, but the largest influx began in the mid-2000s as the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program prioritized those escaping religious and ethnic violence, especially among the Chin, Karen and Rohingya minorities.
Affordable housing, job opportunities like factory work and a strong network of Christian churches made Indianapolis especially attractive for Chin and other ethnic minorities. As more Burmese settled in the city, secondary migration followed — new arrivals and even refugees initially placed in other states moved to Indianapolis to join family and friends and benefit from the established community and support systems.
At Mommy Thai, Zi, the owner, describes how rising costs for meat and authentic noodles have made it difficult to keep the doors open, even though most of her ingredients are sourced domestically. 'The price of meat is really high, and the noodles that we use for authentic dishes, the price has gone up a lot because of tariffs and shipping,' she said.
Zi tries not to raise prices too much, knowing her customer base is mostly families and students, but it's getting hard to keep up, she said. She has had to cut back on specialty menu items and watch as regulars visit less frequently, a trend echoed across the industry as a projected 7% dip in consumer restaurant spending hits small businesses especially hard.
Siam Square, a mom-and-pop Thai restaurant in Indianapolis, is also feeling the strain of the tariffs and the travel ban.
While the travel ban doesn't directly target Thailand, owner Ed Rudisell said it still has a major impact on his business. About 70% of his staff are Burmese — primarily Chin refugees. The ban means people don't 'have any hope of seeing family from Burma,' Rudisell said, and it creates fear and tension among staff members about their families back home.
Rudisell has watched the cost of essential ingredients like garlic nearly double — from $56 to $93 a case — forcing him to raise menu prices twice since January.
'Food costs have gone through the roof,' Rudisell said. But he'd rather raise prices than reduce portion sizes or compromise on quality, as customers expect consistency, he said.
Often, importers raise their ingredient prices before the tariffs are officially active, Rudisell said.
'The damage is done,' he said. 'By that point, we've already paid the increased bills.'
Zi said the travel ban and the tariffs, meant to address security and trade concerns, instead deepen the challenges facing Burmese-Chin families fleeing violence, instability and economic hardship.
The ban suspends both immigrant and nonimmigrant visas for Myanmar nationals, squandering hope for reunification or educational opportunities, Zi said.
'My cousin was supposed to come here for college, but now with the travel ban, her visa was denied and she's stuck in Burma,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Starmer steel deal shows Swinney how nationalisation should work
A compelling read it certainly wasn't but it helped pass the time before the sun started to go down and I could think about dinner. Economists have never agreed on the benefits of nationalisation and history is littered with failed examples, particularly in the UK. But the two leaders currently occupying Bute House and Downing Street certainly seem to be in agreement that it's a good thing. And in many cases it is good but it's what you do with the assets as a Government after it is been taken into public control that is the important thing. It is here that John Swinney and Sir Keir Starmer diverge dramatically if recent events are anything to go by. Last week, a £500 million five-year deal was struck between Network Rail and British Steel to help save the Scunthorpe steelworks. British Steel is to supply 337,000 tonnes of rail track, which will secure thousands of manufacturing jobs. Why this is important is that it comes just two months after the UK Government used emergency powers to prevent the blast furnaces from immediate closure. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander, said it 'truly transforms the outlook for British Steel and its dedicated workforce in Scunthorpe'. British Steel is to supply a minimum of 337,000 tonnes of long and short rail. A further 80-90,000 tonnes is to be provided by other European manufacturers and deals are expected to be announced shortly, the Department for Transport (DfT) said. In March, Chinese firm Jingye, which bought British Steel in 2020, proposed to shut Scunthorpe's two blast furnaces and other key steelmaking operations. Alan Simpson: The new £144m electric rail line without enough trains Alan Simpson: Build more houses for rural Scots, not tax second home owners Alan Simpson: NatureScot may be threatening a rare mussel it should be protecting Alan Simpson: Scotland's tourism sector needs to be heard before it's too late This came despite months of negotiations and a £500 million co-investment offer from the UK Government. As a result, Jingye launched a consultation which it said would affect between 2,000 and 2,700 jobs. In April, the UK Government used emergency powers to take control of British Steel and continue production at the site. The Scunthorpe plant has been producing steel for Britain's railways since 1865. The Network Rail contract, worth an estimated £500 million, starts on July 1 and is set to provide the company with 80% of its rail needs. To ensure security of supply, Network Rail is set to award smaller contracts to some European manufacturers, who will supply specialist rail products alongside British Steel. The agreement is the first major public procurement since the emergency legislation was passed. Both Network Rail and the Scunthorpe steel plant are both owned by the UK Government and the swift deal is clearly a direct benefit of being nationalised. No need for public procurement rules when both sites are state-owned. The Government sees it as being complimentary to the UK and US trade deal which aims to lower tariffs and protect jobs across key sectors, including steel. The deal also compares to the complete and utter horlicks that the Scottish Government has made following nationalisation of key industries. Ministers, of course, took over the stricken Ferguson Marine shipyard in Port Glasgow in 2019 after it collapsed into administration. It seemed to be the right decision as the shipyard's main customer was the state-owned ferry body CMAL, so a steady stream of orders should have been expected. Instead the yard is facing an uncertain future after losing out on several publicly funded ferry building contracts. Now ministers have even halted a vital subsidy for the yard that is needed to bring in vital work to keep it alive, it can be development has raised alarm that the yard will not survive beyond any delivery of the much-delayed and over budget CalMac ferry Glen Rosa. The yard's business plan to 2029 assumed that the Scottish Government would sanction a direct award of the small vessel replacement programme. It was an integral part of a plan to deliver a 'sustainable, profitable, efficient and competitive yard'. After it was decided that the £175m contract would go to a competitive tender, CMAL, the state-controlled ferry procurer declared in March that the job to build seven new loch-class electric ferries would go to Poland .It previously awarded two other ferry contracts worth to £220m to Cemre Marin Endustri A.S (Turkey) - with Ferguson Marine again losing out. Transport secretary Fiona Hyslop confirmed a 'substantial subsidy' was needed to allow it to get a direct uncontested contract to build seven new small ferries and secure its future. But she admitted in correspondence with former community safety minister Ash Regan that that subsidy was not justified. Ms Regan has raised concerns that it was 'not the direct award that's the issue it's the unwillingness to put public money behind a public asset'. Ferguson Marine has been dogged with issues with the delivery of ferries Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa which were due online in the first half of 2018. The last estimates suggest the costs of delivery of the vessels for CalMac will have soared to more than five times the original £97m cost. The shipyard firm currently employs more than 400 staff including over 100 sub-contractors. Goodness knows how they must be feeling, knowing full well that the Scottish Government is in the process of sinking the yard once and for all. For all the arguments against nationalisation, no book on economics will ever list sheer incompetence by Government ministers as a reason it will fail. While there are very good reasons that the yard is struggling, one of the main reasons is the sheer complexity of the two ferries which have made them very difficult to build. As it was the current administration that insisted on the specifications of being dual fuel and 'green' then it seems extremely harsh for ministers to now throw the workforce under a bus. Sir Keir Starmer's Government has shown exactly how nationalisation should work for the benefit of the workforce and the economy as a whole. For it to be a success, there has to be a will, strategy and above all, economic competence amongst ministers. Ministers at Holyrood have shown none of that and the Ferguson's workforce and islanders have been left high and dry as a result.
Fashion United
6 hours ago
- Fashion United
Fashion brands brace for China's export shift
Facing escalating tariffs from the U.S. and political uncertainty, Chinese manufacturers are rapidly refocusing their export strategies, shifting their gaze to Europe, Southeast Asia, and domestic e-commerce in a bid to weather the latest rupture in global trade. According to the Financial Times, exports to Europe surged 12 percent in May, with Germany alone up 22 percent year-on-year, as factories across Zhejiang, the country's second-largest exporting province, work to secure new clients in markets less volatile than the U.S. For global fashion and retail brands that depend on China's robust manufacturing base, this pivot could reshape sourcing dynamics and pricing structures. 'We're very eager, we can make anything,' said Xia Shukun of Shaoxing Sulong Outdoor Technology, which is courting new European clients. Yet with this eastward tilt comes rising competition. European buyers, once dependent on a smaller pool of Chinese suppliers, now face a deluge of low-cost offerings, threatening established relationships and price stability. 'This is the toughest year yet,' said Vera Wu told the FT, whose company supplies accessories to Lidl and Ikea. As Beijing doubles down on cross-border e-commerce and subsidises overseas trade shows, the fashion industry may need to prepare for what EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called 'a new China shock', one where overcapacity, not just geopolitics, floods the global market.
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
Iran is isolated against the US and Israel
America's entry into the war against Iran is the latest step up an escalation spiral that began in October 2023. What started with an attack by a Palestinian Islamist organisation on a poorly defended Israeli border, and then became a fight between Israel and a series of Iran-supported Islamist paramilitary groups by the end of 2023, and then extended to limited exchanges between Israel and Iran itself in April 2024, and then turned into war between Iran and Israel, has now become a confrontation pitting the US and Israel against their longest standing and most powerful adversary in the Islamic world. Now at war with both Israel and the US, it has no major power interested in fighting alongside it. So what are the implications of this latest turn, and what may happen next? While prediction remains unwise regarding the current US president, the notion that the Trump administration will be dominated by isolationism can be laid to rest. In Washington a few weeks ago, I found that much of the talk behind the scenes was worried assessments concerning the rise of isolationism and of individuals professing such views at the top reaches of the administration. People with past associations with hawkish or pro-Israel circles were having trouble getting confirmed for posts. Vice President J.D. Vance and Donald Trump Jr, I heard, were the most senior and influential members of the rising camp. An old friend of mine who has interviewed the President on a number of occasions cautioned against despair. His advice: don't take too much notice of the people around Trump. Pay attention to Trump himself, and to what his track record suggests regarding his views on Israel. Possessing no special insights of my own, I hoped he was right. It appears he was. Over the last two years, much ink has been spilled regarding a supposedly emergent axis of anti-western states. This axis, as usually depicted, is headed by China, with Russia, Iran and North Korea as members. Cooperation between these countries has indeed measurably increased over the last half decade. Chinese purchase of Iranian oil to foil Trump's strategy of 'maximum pressure' on Tehran during his first term is one example of this growing operational closeness. Yearly joint naval exercises between the Chinese, Russian and Iranian navies, the role of Iranian Shahed 136 drones and North Korean ground troops in the Ukraine war, the provision of advanced air defence systems by Moscow to Tehran all support this view. But while the eventual emergence of such an axis may be likely, it is also the case that no such crystallised alliance currently exists. Russia is bogged down in its own forever war in Ukraine. There are no indications that Moscow supports Tehran's ambition for a nuclear weapon, and still less that Russia would jeopardise its own interests, security or relations with other states in support of this goal. Moscow is a rival but not an enemy to US-aligned Israel, and clearly prefers to maintain this ambiguous status, which brings some benefits. As for China, while rumours have abounded regarding mysterious Chinese cargo planes reaching Iran in recent days, Beijing's interest in the region and its growing influence depends on stability and relations with all sides. The mood music from China has shifted over the last two years, with increasingly harsh criticism of Israel. Beijing has strongly condemned Jerusalem's pre-emptive action against Iran. But China has also sought to build diplomatic leverage on the basis of strong commercial ties with all major regional powers. It has no interest in involving itself in conflicts. What all this means is that Iran currently finds itself isolated. Now at war with both Israel and the US, it has no major power interested in fighting alongside it. This is no doubt a matter for concern and consternation on the part of the mullahs. It's a blessing for the rest of us. So, isolated and faced with attacks by powers enjoying massive technical advantage, what are the options now available to Tehran? Tehran could, of course, agree to a new nuclear deal which sees the final abandonment of uranium enrichment on Iranian soil. This would represent a historic victory for the US and for Israel. As of now, Tehran may not yet feel that the regime faces existential danger. Short of this, surrender appears unlikely. If it wants to opt for defiance, Iran has a number of means of possible pressure. It will need to consider carefully, of course, if it wishes to use them, and thus invite further US retribution. Tehran still has its proxies, even in depleted form. The Houthis are likely to recommence attacks on US flagged vessels on the Gulf of Aden-Red Sea route now. The Iraqi Shia militias are relatively unscathed from the last 20 months of regional war. The US has bases in Iraq, at Erbil and ain al-Asad. Iran itself or its client militias might attempt missile or drone attacks on these facilities, or on the remaining US presence in northeast Syria. Theoretically, Tehran could order its once powerful Lebanese Hizballah proxy back into the fray. But to do so would be to risk the final decimation of an organisation that has already been battered by Israel. US bases throughout the region could potentially be targeted by Iranian missiles. Iran might also seek to hit at US allies in the Gulf, and their oil producing capacity as it did in 2019. But Israeli attacks on launch sites and supply chains throughout Iran in recent days have significantly reduced Iranian capacities in this regard. Iran could block the Strait of Hormuz, through which one fifth of global petroleum exports are shipped. This is a potent threat, which would cause oil prices to rise. But this would also almost certainly precipitate a full US entry into the war. Finally, of course, Tehran could accelerate efforts toward the testing of a nuclear weapon. All these potential courses of action bring with them the likelihood of increased global isolation, and increased US counter measures. These, in turn, would lead to deteriorating internal conditions in the country, which could hit at the regime's legitimacy and stability. Then again, acceptance of defeat, and surrender might have a similar effect. Supreme Leader Khamenei and his isolated regime have few good options at present. Whichever one they take, they are likely to be privately cursing the memory of their brother and comrade Yahya Sinwar, deceased former Hamas leader, whose decision to launch the massacres in October 2023 has led directly to Tehran's current predicament.
