Marine veteran decries father's detention in immigration raid in U.S.
For Alejandro Barranco, a U.S. Marine veteran, it's difficult to process the way his father, a Mexican gardener, was detained in a raid in California as part of President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown in the nation.
"They handled this situation in a very unprofessional manner. These are not the standards of the United States government," Alejandro said in an interview.
Narciso Barranco, father of three marines, was intercepted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents Saturday while trimming a garden at a restaurant in Santa Ana, a city south of Los Angeles.
The incident was captured by witnesses in videos that spread like wildfire on social media. From different angles, Barranco, 48, is seen running with a weed whacker in hand before several agents beat, subdue and pepper-spray him.
"It's very hard to watch," said Alejandro, 25.
Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement that Barranco tried to flee and "brandished a weed whacker directly at an officer's face," so officers took appropriate action.
McLaughlin added that they used "the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve the situation in a way that prioritized the safety of the public and our officers."
But Alejandro disputes the claims.
"The video shows (Narciso) moving the weed whacker. I think it's natural instinct because he was sprayed with something seconds before ... but he never brandished it directly at an officer," he said.
"There's a guy holding his gun sideways, finger on the trigger pointing at a vehicle. I don't see how that makes sense. The minimum amount of force doesn't include restraining a man and repeatedly hitting him in the neck and face areas. I think that's the maximum amount of force, short of lethal force."
'Swallowing orders'
The case has sparked criticism in California, in part because Barranco's three sons are in or have been in the United States Marine Corps.
U.S. Marines stand guard outside the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building amid federal immigration sweeps in Los Angeles on June 18. |
REUTERS
Alejandro has left the military, while two brothers are stationed at Camp Pendleton, also in Southern California.
The arrest also occurred amid a tense climate in the Democratic state, with protests against the raids and where Trump sent thousands of national guard troops and 700 marines to support immigration operations, among other things.
Alejandro says he knows these troops and understands that they are "swallowing orders" and doing their job.
"I do feel that some of them are suffering. Some are confused because perhaps some of their relatives are undocumented and they see all this, and I think it's hard for them."
Trump returned to the White House riding an anti-immigration wave and promising to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, whom he called "criminals" and "the worst of the worst."
However, under pressure from immigration authorities to increase daily arrests, street operations have shaken workplaces such as car washes, hardware stores and street vendors.
Activists, nongovernmental organizations and families denounce the detention of people without criminal records, identified for staying or entering the United States illegally.
The case of Narciso Barranco, who emigrated from Mexico in the 1990s, follows that of the wife of another former marine in Louisiana, who was detained in May after leaving an immigration appointment to process her legal status.
'There has to be a change'
Alejandro saw his father for the first time on Tuesday at a detention center in downtown Los Angeles.
He said that his father is being held in a cell with at least 70 other people, with only one toilet, very little food, and "minimal water, like once a day."
Narciso, with wounds and bruises, received medical attention Tuesday night, Alejandro said, adding that his father hasn't been able to wash and still has blood on his shirt, the same one he was wearing when he was arrested.
"There needs to be a change," Alejandro said in a calm but sad tone, referring to Trump 's immigration policy. "They're taking away workers who came here to make this country even greater.
"They came to give their children a good education and teach them to serve, to give back, and to be grateful for this country, as my brothers and I are."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
10 hours ago
- Japan Times
ICC President Tomoko Akane criticizes U.S. sanctions
International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane has criticized U.S. President Donald Trump's sanctions against The Hague-based court, saying they risk destroying the system that supports it. "The sanctions have had impacts on third countries, and they violate international law," she told Japanese media outlets online Friday. "The ICC system based on the rule of war, which the international community has developed over the years, could collapse" if the sanctions continue, she added. The ICC had launched an official investigation into alleged war crimes by U.S. service members in Afghanistan. The court also issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The court's actions angered the United States, which is not an ICC member. On June 5, the State Department announced economic sanctions against four judges involved in the investigation and issuing the warrants, based on an executive order enabling U.S. sanctions against ICC personnel signed by Trump in February. "ICC, which punishes individuals who lead wars, is the last bastion of international law," Akane said from The Hague. She also stressed the importance of maintaining the court's presence. Akane called on ICC member states including Japan to take a stand against the U.S. actions, urging Washington to change its decision.
NHK
11 hours ago
- NHK
US treasury secretary says Trump may appoint new Fed chair around October
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says President Donald Trump may appoint Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell's successor in October or November. Trump indicated he will soon announce his choice to succeed Powell, whose term ends in May of next year. Bessent's remark came in an interview with US business channel CNBC on Friday. The president nominates the chair of the Federal Reserve from among the seven members of its Board of Governors. The term of one of them ends in January of next year. Bessent indicated Trump's nomination of the new chair may come in October or November, taking into consideration the time needed to obtain congressional approval if Trump is to appoint the nominee to the outgoing board member's seat. When asked about himself being a candidate, Bessent said, "I'll do what the president wants, but I think I have the best job in Washington." Bessent criticized the Fed's monetary policy, saying, "The Federal Reserve fell down on the American people in 2022, let the great inflation get away from them. They should have been hiking sooner." He indicated the Fed may once again make a mistake by delaying rate cuts, saying, "Studies have shown that people who fall down then tend to look at their feet, which makes them fall down more."
Japan Times
12 hours ago
- Japan Times
Trump's court win opens a path to clear hurdles to his agenda
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling curbing the power of judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis has raised questions about whether dozens of orders that have halted President Donald Trump's policies will stand. The conservative majority's ruling Friday came in a fight over Trump's plan to limit automatic birthright citizenship. But it may have far-reaching consequences for the ability of U.S. courts to issue orders that apply to anyone affected by a policy, not just the parties who filed lawsuits. Judges entered nationwide preliminary orders halting Trump administration actions in at least four dozen of the 400 lawsuits filed since he took office in January, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Some were later put on hold on appeal. Nationwide orders currently in place include blocks on the administration's revocation of foreign students' legal status, freezes of domestic spending and foreign aid, funding cuts related to gender-affirming care and legal services for migrant children, and proof-of-citizenship rules for voting. The Supreme Court's new precedent doesn't instantly invalidate injunctions in those cases. But the Justice Department could quickly ask federal judges to revisit the scope of these and other earlier orders in light of the opinion. 'Fair game' "Everything is fair game,' said Dan Huff, a lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office during Trump's first term. A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. Trump said at a news conference in the White House Friday that the administration will "promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' Trump listed cases that they would target, including suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding and "stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries.' The Trump administration has made it a priority to contest court orders that block policies on a nationwide, or universal, basis, although the controversy over whether those types of rulings are an appropriate use of judicial power has been brewing for years. Conservative advocates won such orders when Democratic presidents were in office as well. Noting the mounting pushback and debate, judges in dozens of other cases involving Trump's policies have limited their orders against the administration to the parties that sued or within certain geographical boundaries. Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation whose practice includes suing the federal government, said she didn't see the ruling as a total "retreat' from judges' authority to enter universal orders going forward. Multiple paths "It's addressing the case where a plaintiff is getting relief that applies to everyone across the country merely because judges think that it's an important issue,' she said. "But it doesn't change the case where the plaintiff needs that relief.' Boden offered the example of a challenge to government spending, in which the only way to halt an unlawful action would be to stop payment of federal dollars across the country, not just to individual plaintiffs or in certain areas. Trump's opponents say the justices' decision still leaves them with multiple paths to sue the administration over actions they contend are unlawful and even to argue for nationwide relief. Those options include class action lawsuits, cases seeking to set aside agency actions under a U.S. law known as the Administrative Procedure Act and even continuing to argue that nationwide relief is the only way to stop harm to individual plaintiffs, like parties did in the birthright citizenship cases. But they also acknowledged the court significantly raised the burden of what they have to prove to win those types of orders. "This is going to make it more challenging, more complicated, potentially more expensive to seek orders that more broadly stop illegal government action,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said. "It is watering down the power of federal courts to check government misconduct.' The Supreme Court sent the birthright citizenship cases back to lower court judges to reconsider the scope of orders pausing Trump's restrictions while the legal fight on its constitutionality continues. The justices did not rule on the core question of whether the policy itself is lawful. The administration can't fully enforce the birthright policy for at least another 30 days. Democratic state attorneys general involved in the birthright litigation highlighted language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion that the court didn't shut off the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. Speaking with reporters after the ruling, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said that he and his Democratic colleagues would "assess' the impact on other cases. He said they already had been judicious in asking judges for nationwide relief as opposed to orders that restricted administration policies in specific states. "The court confirmed what we've thought all along — nationwide relief should be limited, but it is available to states when appropriate,' Platkin said.
