Farm worker dies after US immigration raid in California
Raids on agricultural sites on Thursday resulted in the arrests of 200 undocumented migrants, as part of US President Donald Trump's wide-ranging anti-immigration crackdown, and clashes between law enforcement officials and protesters.
The farm worker's family had started a page on the fundraising platform GoFundMe to help support his relatives in Mexico. On Saturday, the page posted an update to say he had "passed away."
Trump campaigned for the presidency on a harsh anti-immigration platform, likening undocumented migrants to "animals" and "monsters," and since taking office he has delivered on promises to conduct a massive deportation drive.
On Friday, he called demonstrators involved in attacks on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents "slimeballs" and said they should be arrested.
The chaotic raid on the cannabis plantation in Ventura County, about 90km from Los Angeles, saw the worker who later died being chased by ICE agents, his family said.
"My uncle Jaime was just a hard-working, innocent farmer," said a post on the GoFundMe page. "He was chased by ICE agents, and we were told he fell 30ft (9 meters)."
The page described his injuries as "catastrophic."
Tricia McLaughlin, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokeswoman, said he was never in custody.
"Although he was not being pursued by law enforcement, this individual climbed up to the roof of a green house and fell 30 feet," McLaughlin said. "(Customs and Border Patrol) immediately called a medevac to the scene to get him care as quickly as possible."
DHS said 200 undocumented migrants were arrested during raids on farming sites in Carpinteria and Camarillo on Thursday and 10 children were rescued "from potential exploitation, forced labor, and human trafficking."
Glass House Brands, which owns the farms, said in a statement that it has "never knowingly violated applicable hiring practices and does not and has never employed minors."
DHS said more than 500 "rioters" had attempted to disrupt the operation and four US citizens are facing charges for assaulting or resisting officers.
Tear gas was used against the protesters, some of whom were seen in television footage throwing projectiles at law enforcement vehicles.
The department said immigration agency vehicles were damaged and a $50,000 reward was being offered for the arrest of an individual who allegedly fired a gun at law enforcement officers.
American dream 'no longer'
In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump said he had watched footage of "thugs" throwing rocks and bricks at ICE vehicles, causing "tremendous damage."
Trump said he was authorizing law enforcement officers who are "on the receiving end of thrown rocks, bricks, or any other form of assault, to stop their car, and arrest these SLIMEBALLS, using whatever means is necessary to do so."
"I am giving Total Authorization for ICE to protect itself, just like they protect the Public," he said.
Trump has been involved in a showdown over immigration enforcement with Democratic-ruled California for weeks.
The Republican president sent thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles last month to quell protests against round-ups of undocumented migrants by federal agents.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has said the troops were not necessary to address the mostly peaceful protests, but his legal efforts to have them removed have failed so far.
The farm in Camarillo was calm during a visit by an AFP reporter on Friday, as workers waited in line to collect their belongings and paychecks.
"We've been here since six this morning asking questions but they're not giving us any information," said Saul Munoz, a 43-year-old Colombian whose son was detained on Thursday.
"I just want to know how he's doing," Munoz said. "Bring him back to me and if it's time for us to leave, we'll leave.
"The truth is the American dream is no longer really the American dream."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
‘If I have a police case pending in Dubai, can I fly out from Abu Dhabi?'
Question: I found out that a bank in Dubai has registered a police case against me, although I have not heard anything from the bank yet. I have debts that I cannot pay and do not have the money to make monthly payments. I have missed four months of repayment after I lost my job. I want to leave the country so I do not go to jail and want to know if I can fly from the airport in Abu Dhabi instead of Dubai? RV, Dubai Answer: If a police case for debt is registered against someone, it will show up on immigration department computer systems across the entire country. Dubai and Abu Dhabi are separate emirates but still part of the same country, so any legal cases like this are applicable across all emirates. Non-payment of debt is a federal offence and while there are fewer criminal consequences than in the past, it is still against the law. This means anyone who has a case outstanding for non-payment of debt is likely to be prevented from leaving the country through any point of exit as the case will show up once a passport is scanned. If someone leaves the country, a debt is not written off and the person can sometimes be traced to their home country to repay it through a collection agency. Q: I am thinking about changing jobs but am hesitating as it could be risky. A particular new role looks great, but the company has been operating for only a few months and is in a field that has challenges. As I have a mortgage to pay and a family to support, it is making me hesitate although it could be a great opportunity. I would like to know if I could add something to the contract that I want to have a minimum of, say, two years of employment to get the new venture to a point of better security and only after can they terminate my employment, if need be. This would mean I would have a guaranteed income for two years, so even if my contract was terminated after six months, they would have to pay me for another 18 months. Would this hold up and be enforced by the law for the company to honour if we made such a contract? How do I go about doing it and is there any kind of UAE government body to attest the contract, or a lawyer? TM, Abu Dhabi A: Provided a contract of employment abides by all the minimum requirements of UAE Labour Law, it is possible to include a variety of additional terms on the basis required, so long as this is fully accepted by both parties. I would strongly recommend taking advice from a lawyer who is experienced in this area to ensure the contract is fully binding on both parties and will stand up if challenged. It is very unusual to see terms like this in the UAE, but it could be done if both parties are willing. It would be best if the contract was not only signed by both parties, but also witnessed by a respected third party, such as a lawyer in their professional capacity, or the notary public, to ensure there is no degree of coercion from either side. What needs to be borne in mind is that only the version of a contract that is registered with the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (or relevant body if in a free zone) is legally recognised. In addition, if a company closes for financial reasons, TM could still have issues in being paid any dues. Q: I have accepted a role in Saudi Arabia and have been issued an entry visa. However, the start date needs to be postponed by two months for multiple reasons, mainly due to my family issues. By the time of the new start date, the entry/employment visa will have expired. Is it easy to apply for an extension? PJ, USA A: The validity of an employment entry visa for Saudi Arabia can vary depending on the type, but it is often valid for a two-month period. Such visas cannot be extended, so PJ has two options. He can either ensure he has entered the country before the expiry date, even if just by a day, or the whole process has to start again. That means the prospective employer will have to reapply. It would be best to have a chat with the employer as they are unlikely to want the additional expense and hassle. PJ could start with some additional goodwill by avoiding that.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Chelsea share stage with Donald Trump after winning Club World Cup final
Chelsea were crowned Club World Cup champions on Sunday after a dominant 3-0 victory over Paris Saint-Germain in a final that blended footballing excellence with political theatre at MetLife Stadium in New York. Cole Palmer struck twice and set up another in a scintillating first half that left PSG reeling. Yet it was the post-match scenes that ensured the night would live long in the memory. As Chelsea captain Reece James stepped up to the podium to collect the trophy, US President Donald Trump joined the squad on stage alongside Fifa president Gianni Infantino. Trump, who had been met with a mixture of cheers and boos from the 81,000-strong crowd, handed over the trophy before awkwardly lingering next to James as the celebrations kicked off. 'They told me he was going to present the trophy and then exit the stage,' said James. 'I thought he was going to leave, but he wanted to stay.' Palmer, who was named the tournament's best player and awarded the Golden Ball, admitted he had not expected Trump to remain on the podium. 'I knew he was going to be here, but not that he'd be standing next to us when we lifted it,' said the midfielder. 'I was a bit confused, to be honest.' Chelsea's triumph marked the culmination of Fifa's newly expanded 32-team Club World Cup. In addition to the silverware, the Blues pocketed more than £90 million in prize money – a significant boost for the London club's coffers. 'This is a proud moment for the club,' said Chelsea manager Enzo Maresca. 'The lads were immense tonight, especially in the first half. Palmer was unbelievable.' Trump, interviewed at half time by DAZN, called the event 'tremendous' and praised the 'energy' of the crowd. He was also asked if he could see a day when the USA, which will co-host the men's World Cup along with Canada and Mexico next summer, could dominate in football, and he replied: 'I can tell you we're doing very well on the other stage, on the political stage, on the final stage. 'We were doing very badly as a country. We had an incompetent administration and now we have a hot country. It's really hot and I think the soccer is going to be very hot here too.' He even joked that he could sign an executive order to rename the sport from 'soccer' to 'football'. 'I think we could do that,' he said with a smile. But the night wasn't without its flashpoints. Tempers boiled over in the closing stages and spilled into post-match tensions between players and coaching staff. A scuffle erupted after full-time involving PSG coach Luis Enrique and goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma, who appeared to shove Chelsea forward Joao Pedro following a heated exchange. 'There is a lot of tension, a lot of pressure,' said Enrique. 'I tried to separate the players and avoid something worse.' Joao Pedro, who was pushed to the ground during the altercation, said he had stepped in to defend teammate Andrey Santos. 'They surrounded him, and like a good Brazilian, I went to protect a friend. They just don't know how to lose.' Maresca said he wasn't aware of how the fracas started. 'I saw that something was going on, but I don't know what happened,' he said. The match itself was largely one-sided. Palmer opened the scoring early before doubling Chelsea's lead with a smart finish. His assist for Joao Pedro capped off a first half that left PSG stunned and eventually saw Joao Neves sent off for pulling Marc Cucurella to the ground by his hair. Despite a flurry of yellow cards and late PSG frustration, the result never looked in doubt. For Chelsea, it was a statement performance – and one that ended with their name on the trophy and the president of the United States inadvertently part of the photo.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Writing oil's death certificate is premature, but what will its kingdom become?
Opec held its biennial seminar last week at Vienna's Hofburg Palace. It is an icon of the late Austro-Hungarian empire, a scientific and cultural ferment that was often unfairly caricatured as a dinosaur, living in the past and doomed to collapse. Giants such as Freud, Einstein, Klimt and Mahler rubbed shoulders. In a grim portent, the pre-fame Hitler, Stalin, Trotsky and Tito were all present in the city simultaneously in 1913. The oil exporters' latest long-term energy outlook was released on Thursday. Is it, too, the last gasp of a dying imperium? Or an optimistic step towards a new future? Speaking to The National at the Hofburg, Opec secretary general Haitham Al Ghais said the organisation's critics were 'writing Opec's death certificate – again". Indeed, its demise has been repeatedly, and wrongly, predicted. Opec's World Oil Outlook 2050 is a useful counterpoint to the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook, which came out in October. The industrialised countries' organisation has for some time been much more aggressive in its forecasts for climate action and energy transition, and more sceptical on oil demand, than the oil exporters' group. Like Kaiser Franz glowering from the Hofburg at his rival Napoleon, Opec has grown increasingly irritated at what it sees as the politicisation of its Paris-based counterpart. The IEA's publication came out, of course, before the second election of Donald Trump as US President, and the zeitgeist has changed since then. Low-carbon energy is under attack, and promoting oil, gas and coal is at the top of the White House's agenda. European politicians worry about high energy bills, industrial uncompetitiveness and the rise of the far right, opposed to 'net zero' carbon policies. Tariff turmoil and hostility to international co-operation threaten collective action on climate change. A previously unthinkable war involving Israel, the US and Iran has passed off without serious energy consequences, so far. Opec's schadenfreude at its critics' discomfiture is understandable. Its latest outlook revises up long-term oil demand by 2.8 million barrels per day by 2050, to 122.9 million bpd. It sees a gradual slowing of demand growth after 2030, but no peak, in sharp contrast to both the IEA, and its own long-term projections from 2020, 2021 and 2022. Those earlier views were perhaps clouded by the pandemic and then the impact of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Perhaps counter-intuitively, Opec has cut its forecasts for the next few years, chipping off up to 1.7 million bpd, mostly on worries over the Chinese economy. It projects 111.6 million bpd of demand in 2029, up from 2024's 103.7 million bpd. Still, an average annual gain of nearly 1.6 million bpd over five years would be very robust by historic standards. Since 1980, it has happened only twice: in 2012-2017 and 2002-2007. But the IEA's medium-term outlook foresees a peak in oil demand by 2029, at 105.6 million bpd, with annual growth averaging just 0.5 million bpd over this five-year period. That is consistent with the last five years, but otherwise also a historical rarity, occurring around the global financial crisis, and in the early 1980s recession and oil shock hangover. Opec quite reasonably observes that, 'many initial net-zero policies promoted unrealistic timelines or had little regard for energy security, affordability or feasibility'. In its view, out to 2050, oil retains its market share; renewables grow, but essentially replace coal. Whether oil demand expands robustly to 2050 or peaks soon is a contest waged across geographies and sectors. In Opec's view, oil wins in developing Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East, gaining 25.3 million bpd by mid-century; China is basically a draw, with 1.7 million bpd of expansion to 2030 but stasis thereafter. This basically assumes that emerging economies follow a similar development path to their East Asian counterparts of the 1960s to the 2000s, and that rapid population and economic growth outstrip adoption of non-oil energy sources. But petroleum does not do too badly in the developed countries either in Opec's view – consumption drops only 8.5 million bpd, less than 20 per cent, despite maturing and ageing economies, tightening climate policies, and rising electric vehicle use. In sectors, too, oil wins almost across the board, losing only a little ground in power generation, while it continues rising in road, sea and air travel, petrochemicals, industry and home and commercial use. This is, frankly, a little hard to believe. Yes, there are few good alternatives today to oil in ships, planes and petrochemicals: it's a fair argument that, in the absence of strong climate policy, demand here will keep climbing. But to satisfy these forecasts, petroleum would have to keep growing in nearly all of its traditional uses, without much prospect of discovering any new ones. Meanwhile, renewable and nuclear electricity have not just oil's existing domains, but new kingdoms to conquer, such as data centres and air taxis. Given that Saudi Arabia itself plans to phase out its 1 million bpd of daily oil burn in power plants by 2030, it seems implausible that global use in power generation would fall only 0.5 million bpd by 2050. In industry and homes, natural gas and electrification are cleaner, more flexible and increasingly cheaper options. Road transport is the key question. Opec thinks that electric vehicles will constitute only 28 per cent of the global fleet even by 2050. Almost none of today's cars will still be on the road by then. Battery and plug-in hybrids make up about 19 per cent of world sales currently, 26 per cent of European sales, and almost 53 per cent of those in China. New petrol and diesel car sales will be phased out in the UK and EU between 2030 and 2035, and China too will probably effectively ban them by then. The death certificate for oil written by the IEA seems indeed premature. But the oil exporters' organisation may find itself ruling over a patchwork of fading territories, where oil is a tired legacy or a last resort. Or, it may extend its reach over areas of growth, in India, in Africa, on the seas and in the skies. A lot has to go in Opec's favour if the zenith of its empire of oil is to outlast mid-century.
