California farmworker dies after falling from a greenhouse during ICE raid
Jaime Alanis, 57, is the first person to die in one of the Trump administration's anti-immigration operations. Yesenia Duran, Alanis' niece, confirmed his death to The Associated Press.
Duran has posted on the fundraising site GoFundMe to say her uncle was his family's only provider, and he had been sending his earnings back to his wife and daughter in Mexico. The United Food Workers said Alanis worked at the farm for 10 years.
'These violent and cruel federal actions terrorize American communities, disrupt the American food supply chain, threaten lives and separate families,' the union said recently in a statement on the social platform X.
The UFW reported Alanis' death prematurely late Friday, but the Ventura County Medical Center later issued a statement authorized by the family saying he was still on life support.
The Department of Homeland Security said it executed criminal search warrants Thursday at Glass House Farms facilities in Camarillo and Carpinteria.
Garcia called family to say he was hiding and possibly was fleeing agents before he fell about 30 feet (9 meters) from the roof and broke his neck, according to information from family, hospital and government sources.
Agents arrested some 200 people suspected of being in the country illegally and identified at least 10 immigrant children on the sites, DHS said in a statement. Alanis was not among them, the agency said.
'This man was not in and has not been in CBP or ICE custody,' DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. 'Although he was not being pursued by law enforcement, this individual climbed up to the roof of a greenhouse and fell 30 feet. CBP immediately called a medivac to the scene to get him care as quickly as possible.'
Four US citizens were arrested during the incident for allegedly 'assaulting or resisting officers,' according to DHS, and authorities were offering a $50,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of a person suspected of firing a gun at federal agents.
During the raid crowds of people gathered outside the facility in Camarillo to seek information about their relatives and protest immigration enforcement. Authorities clad in military-style helmets and uniforms faced off with the demonstrators, and people ultimately retreated amid acrid green and white billowing smoke.
Glass House, a licensed California cannabis grower, said in a statement that immigration agents had valid warrants. The company said workers were detained, and it is helping provide them with legal representation. The farm also grows tomatoes and cucumbers.
'Glass House has never knowingly violated applicable hiring practices and does not and has never employed minors,' it said.
The business is owned by Graham Farrar, a generous donor to California Democrats including Governor Gavin Newsom, a vocal critic of Republican President Donald Trump.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
10 minutes ago
- NDTV
In US Trade Deal Race, India Seeks Lower Tariff Than Indonesia: Report
Indian officials are hoping to secure a trade deal with US President Donald Trump at a lower tariff rate than he'd agreed with Indonesia as New Delhi races to meet an August 1 deadline. Trump said Tuesday the US will impose a tariff rate of 19% on imports from Indonesia, down from a threatened 32%, and will be able to ship American goods to the country tariff-free. The US president later told reporters that the India deal would be "along that same line" and "we're going to have access into India." On Wednesday, he again said the US was "very close" to a deal with India. India is seeking more favourable rates than Indonesia and the 20% tariff Trump has said he'll impose on Vietnam, officials in New Delhi said, asking not to be identified because the discussions are private. The US and India are working toward a deal that would reduce proposed tariffs to below 20%, Bloomberg News previously reported, with a negotiating team currently in Washington to advance the talks. New Delhi is hoping for a tariff that would give it a competitive advantage against its peers in the region, officials said. India believes the US doesn't view it as a transhipment hub like Vietnam and other Southeast Asian nations, and negotiations so far suggest India's tariff rate would be better than those countries, one of the people said. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry didn't immediately respond to an email seeking further comment. GLOBAL INSIGHT: Delhi's Trade Math in Talks with Trump Soumya Kanti Ghosh, chief economist of State Bank of India, and a member of the prime minister's Economic Advisory Council, said the negotiating team would be hoping to bring the tariff down to below 10%. "And in the bargain, the US will expect significant concessions for its goods when they decide to enter India," he said. While India is unwilling to open up the agricultural and dairy sectors, it may give concessions in non-agricultural sectors, he said. India has already proposed to reduce tariffs on American industrial goods to zero if the US does the same. New Delhi has also offered greater market access to some American farm products, and has also raised the possibility of buying more Boeing Co. planes. Aside from Indonesia, Trump has also announced trade deals with the UK and Vietnam, and a truce with China. Trump said Jakarta had agreed to purchase $15 billion in US energy and $4.5 billion worth of agricultural products along with Boeing planes. The latest development shows that tariff rates are gravitating toward 15%-20%, a range that Trump himself has indicated as his preferred level, said Brian Tan, Barclays Plc's economist in Singapore. The tariff letters sent to trading partners so far are likely a negotiating tactic to bring governments back to the table with better offers for the US, he said, "allowing the Trump administration to secure superior 'deals'." Malaysia's trade minister said he's waiting to see the details of the Indonesia agreement and the country is still in negotiations with the US on its own tariffs, The Star reported. "Most importantly, we must ensure that this is a negotiation beneficial to both countries," Tengku Zafrul, minister of investment, trade and industry, was quoted by the newspaper as saying. "It must be win-win."
Mint
10 minutes ago
- Mint
Daunted by geopolitics, trade war, US companies in China report record-low new investment plans
Washington, American companies in China are reporting record-low new investment plans for this year and declining confidence in their profitability, with uncertainty in US-China relations and President Donald Trump's tariffs their top concerns, according to a new survey. The companies are also challenged by China's slowing economy, where weak domestic demand and overcapacity in local industries are eroding profitability for the Americans. 'Businesses in China are less profitable now than they were years ago, but risks, including reputational risk, regulatory risk, and political risk, are increasing,' said Sean Stein, the president of the US-China Business Council, a Washington-based group that represents American companies doing business in China, including major multinationals. The survey, conducted between March and May and drawing from 130 member companies, was released Wednesday. It came as the two countries clash over tariffs and non-tariff measures, including export controls on critical products such as rare-earth magnets and advanced computer chips. Following high-level talks in Geneva and London, US and Chinese officials agreed to pull back from sky-high tariffs and restrictions on exports, but uncertainty persists as the two sides are yet to hammer out a more permanent trade deal. Kyle Sullivan, vice president of business advisory services at the USCBC, said more than half of the companies in the survey indicated they do not have new investment plans in China 'at all' this year. "That's a record high,' Sullivan said, noting that it is 'a new development that we have not observed in previous surveys'. Around 40% of companies reported negative effects from US export control measures, with many experiencing lost sales, severed customer relationships, and reputational damage from being unreliable suppliers, according to the survey. Citing national security, the US government has banned exports to China of high-tech products, such as the most advanced chips, which could help boost China's military capabilities. Stein argued that export controls must be very carefully targeted, because businesses from Europe or Japan, or local businesses in China would immediately fill the void left by American companies. Silicon Valley chipmaker Nvidia won approval from the Trump administration to resume sales to China of its advanced H20 chips used to develop artificial intelligence, its CEO Jensen Huang announced on Monday, though the company's most powerful chips remain under US export control rules. While 82% of US companies reported profits in 2024, fewer than half are optimistic about the future in China, reflecting concerns over tariffs, deflation, and policy uncertainty, according to the survey. Also, a record high number of American businesses plan to relocate their business operations outside of China, Sullivan said, as 27% of the members indicated so, up from 19% the year before. In a departure from past surveys, concerns over China's regulatory environment, including risks of intellectual property misuse and lack of market access, didn't make it to the top five concerns this year. That's likely a first, and not for a good reason, Stein said. 'It is not because things got dramatically better on the Chinese side, but the new challenges, often coming from the US, are now posing as much of a challenge,' Stein said. Almost all the American companies said they cannot remain globally competitive without their Chinese operations. A survey from the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China in May found that European companies were cutting costs and scaling back investment plans in China as its economy slows and fierce competition drives down prices. SCY SCY This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
12 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump says Coca-Cola agreed to use ‘real' cane sugar for Coke in US; Does it have any real health benefits?
Donald Trump is on his way to shake up the bottle of Coke now! On July 16, the US President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that he had persuaded Coca‑Cola to return to using 'REAL Cane Sugar' in its US flagship drink– echoing the sweet, nostalgic taste favored in Mexico and abroad. 'I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so. I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them — You'll see. It's just better,' Trump wrote in his Truth Social post. However, Coca-Cola hasn't confirmed Trump's claim. This comes after James Quincey, the CEO of Coca-Cola, presented the US President with a custom Diet Coke bottle for his January inauguration, continuing a tradition since 2005 where commemorative bottles mark presidential transitions. Trump, who is a known Diet Coke enthusiast, revealed that he consumed up to 12 cans daily during his first term. He previously received a standard Coca-Cola bottle in 2017 before the company corrected it to his preferred diet version. Although Trump's announcement of Coke supposedly agreeing to shift toward using 'real' cane sugar has already sparked widespread discussion about taste, and trade – one aspect remains more vital than the rest – the nutrition. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo Beyond the buzz, this raises a more grounded question: does cane sugar actually offer any health advantages over the uber-popular high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) currently used in American sodas? Let's delve into that discussion. What is cane sugar? Cane sugar is made from sugarcane, a tropical grass that's cultivated worldwide, particularly in Southeast Asia and India. It's made by crushing sugarcane, extracting the juice, boiling it to concentrate into syrup, and then allowing crystals to form, sometimes spun to remove molasses. There are three main forms: Unrefined (e.g., jaggery, muscovado): high molasses content, dark color, richer flavor. Raw (e.g., turbinado, demerara): lightly processed, golden crystals with some molasses flavor. Refined (typical cane-sourced granulated sugar): nearly identical to regular white sugar, but labeled as from cane. Is cane sugar good for health? Cane sugar is essentially sucrose, a molecule composed of glucose and fructose. It provides calories and carbohydrates but very few, if any, other nutrients. While cane sugar, like other sugars, can be part of a balanced diet when consumed in moderation, it's generally not considered "good" for health due to its potential negative impacts on weight, blood sugar levels, and overall well-being. In fact, keeping the idea of moderation in mind, the American Heart Association recommends limiting added sugars, including cane sugar, to less than 6 teaspoons (24 grams) per day for women and 9 teaspoons (36 grams) for men. The health debate: Cane sugar vs. HFCS Historically, US Coke switched from sugar to cheaper high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in 1984 due to Reagan-era sugar import quotas that doubled domestic sugar prices. Now, switching to cane sugar, as Trump has claimed, might have some economic impact. However, healthwise, we can break down the impact as follows: Nutritional parity: Scientifically, both cane sugar (sucrose) and HFCS are roughly equal in carbohydrate density and contribute similarly to calorie intake. Both contain around 4 calories per gram. Cane sugar is 50 % glucose/50 % fructose, while HFCS (typically HFCS‑55 ) is roughly 45–55 % fructose/glucose. Both are roughly equal in carbohydrate density and contribute similarly to calorie intake. So, there's no scientific evidence to support the claim that cane sugar would be healthwise 'better' than HFCS. Metabolic and health effects: High consumption of added sugars, no matter the type, is linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, fatty liver, and metabolic syndrome. As per extensive research , only minimal metabolic or health differences have been found between sucrose and HFCS when consumed equally. Studies have linked high fructose consumption to insulin resistance , metabolic syndrome , obesity, and type 2 diabetes. Additionally, ultra‑processed fructose still contributes to fatty liver, metabolic syndrome, obesity, and diabetes. However, studies have also shown HFCS to be occasionally linked to slightly higher inflammation markers . The 'natural' perception: Many consumers might think of opting for cane sugar due to its image as less processed or artificial, despite HFCS being generally safe and FDA-approved. This 'natural' preference often overshadows hard science when it comes to health outcomes. Furthermore, Harvard nutritionist Frank Hu noted HFCS isn't inherently worse than table sugar: 'We should worry about sugar in general.' Historical and economic context Since the 1980s, US bottlers, including Coca‑Cola since 1984, have used HFCS instead of cane sugar, largely due to cheaper corn subsidies and sugar import tariffs. Switching to cane sugar would likely increase costs, reduce domestic corn demand, and require importing more sugar, raising concerns about trade deficits and job losses. In fact, reverting to cane sugar would significantly raise costs: Mexican Coke (made with cane sugar) sells at premium prices, with 12-packs costing $15-$20 versus $6 for HFCS-sweetened Coca-Cola. While Trump's announcement supports Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' campaign, aiming to reduce processed additives and sweeteners, merely switching sweeteners, as scientific research and data have shown, does not curb sugar consumption. True health improvement won't come from what we sweeten our cola with, or from switching to a supposed diet drink of the same kind – but from drinking fewer sugary beverages altogether. From a health standpoint, the real victory lies in moderation – consuming less sugar, regardless of its source, remains the most impactful step. Biden attacks Trump on virus as new milestone nears
