What Has Trump Said About Undocumented Farmers and Hotel Workers?
On Tuesday, he toured an immigrant detention center in the Everglades nicknamed 'Alligator Alcatraz' and warned that anyone trying to escape would have to outrun deadly predators. On the same trip, he said he wanted to allow some farm workers to stay in the country legally.
The moment crystallized the conflicting priorities Mr. Trump is navigating as it becomes clear that the scope of his deportation campaign is hurting American businesses.
'I'm on both sides of the thing,' Mr. Trump told Fox News over the weekend. 'I'm the strongest immigration guy that there's ever been, but I'm also the strongest farmer guy that there's ever been. And that includes also hotels and, you know, places where people work.'
Mr. Trump's attempt to carve out exceptions to his crackdown has led to confusion among immigrants and business leaders, who have yet to see a concrete plan about what is in store. The president's remarks have also created divisions inside the White House and led to conflicting messages from his administration.
Here's a look at what Mr. Trump has said about his intentions:
What has the president said?
During his trip to the Everglades, Mr. Trump described in vague terms a system that would allow some undocumented workers on farms or in the hospitality business to stay in the United States.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Ketanji Brown Jackson turns independent streak loose on fellow justices
To hear Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tell it, it's a 'perilous moment for our Constitution.' The Supreme Court's most junior justice had pointed exchanges with her colleagues on the bench this term, increasingly accusing them of unevenly applying the law — even if it meant standing on her own from the court's other liberal justices. Jackson has had an independent streak since President Biden nominated her to the bench in 2022. But the dynamic has intensified this term, especially as litigation over President Trump's sweeping agenda reached the court. It climaxed with her final dissent of decision season, when Jackson accused her fellow justices of helping Trump threaten the rule of law at a moment they should be 'hunkering down.' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' Her stark warning came as Trump's birthright citizenship order split the court on its 6-3 ideological lines, with all three Democratic appointed justices dissenting from the decision to limit nationwide injunctions. Jackson bounded farther than her two liberal colleagues, writing in a blistering solo critique that said the court was embracing Trump's apparent request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior.' The decision amounts to an 'existential threat to the rule of law,' she said. It wasn't the first time Jackson's fellow liberal justices left her out in the cold. She has been writing solo dissents since her first full term on the bench. Jackson did so again in another case last month when the court revived the energy industry's effort to axe California's stricter car emission standard. Jackson accused her peers of ruling inequitably. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' Jackson wrote. 'Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent.' Rather than join Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent that forewent such fiery language, Jackson chose to pen her own. The duo frequently agrees. They were on the same side in 94 percent of cases this term, according to data from SCOTUSblog, more than any other pair except for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the court's two leading conservatives. Sometimes Sotomayor signs on to Jackson's piercing dissents, including when she last month condemned the court's emergency order allowing the Department of Government Efficiency to access Americans' Social Security data. 'The Court is thereby, unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration, I would proceed without fear or favor,' Jackson wrote. But it appears there are rhetorical lines the most senior liberal justice won't cross. In another case, regarding disability claims, Sotomayor signed onto portions of Jackson's dissent but rejected a footnote in which Jackson slammed the majority's textualism as 'somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.' 'Pure textualism's refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences,' the most junior justice wrote, refusing to remove the footnote from her dissent. Jackson's colleagues don't see it that way. 'It's your job to do the legal analysis to the best you can,' Chief Justice John Roberts told a crowd of lawyers at a judicial conference last weekend, rejecting the notion that his decisions are driven by the real-world consequences. 'If it leads to some extraordinarily improbable result, then you want to go back and take another look at it,' Roberts continued. 'But I don't start from what the result looks like and go backwards.' Though Roberts wasn't referencing Jackson's recent dissents, her willingness to call out her peers hasn't gone unaddressed. Jackson's dissent in the birthright citizenship case earned a rare, merciless smackdown from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, cosigned by the court's conservative majority. Replying to Jackson's remark that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' Barrett turned that script into her own punchline. 'That goes for judges too,' the most junior conservative justice clapped back. Deriding Jackson's argument as 'extreme,' Barrett said her dissenting opinion ran afoul of centuries of precedent and the Constitution itself. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. The piercing rebuke was a staunch departure from the usually restrained writing of the self-described 'one jalapeño gal.' That's compared to the five-jalapeño rhetoric of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett said, the late conservative icon for whom she clerked. On today's court, it is often Thomas who brings some of the most scathing critiques of Jackson, perhaps most notably when the two took diametrically opposite views of affirmative action two years ago. Page after page, Thomas ripped into Jackson's defense of race-conscious college admissions, accusing her of labeling 'all blacks as victims.' 'Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds,' Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. It isn't Thomas's practice to announce his separate opinions from the bench, but that day, he said he felt compelled to do so. As he read it aloud from the bench for 11 minutes, Jackson stared blankly ahead into the courtroom. Jackson's boldness comes across not only in the court's decision-making. At oral arguments this term, she spoke 50 percent more than any other justice. She embraces her openness. She told a crowd in May while accepting an award named after former President Truman that she liked to think it was because they both share the same trait: bravery. 'I am also told that some people think I am courageous for the ways in which I engage with litigants and my colleagues in the courtroom, or the manner in which I address thorny issues in my legal writings,' Jackson said. 'Some have even called me fearless.'
Forbes
27 minutes ago
- Forbes
How Trump's Travel Ban And Visa Restrictions Could Affect Hospitals And Public Health
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 26: A man bearing an upside down American flag watches as protesters gather ... More outside the U.S. Supreme Court as the court issued an immigration ruling June 26, 2018 in Washington, DC. The court issued a 5-4 ruling upholding the Trump administration's policy imposing limits on travel from several primarily Muslim nations. (Photo by) Several hospitals throughout the country are currently without some international medical graduates (IMG) because of President Trump's travel band and visa restrictions. According to the travel ban, citizens from 12 foreign countries are barred from entering the United States, and citizens from seven other countries will also face restrictions, making it difficult for many doctors who have completed medical education in foreign countries to train in America. In addition, on May 27th, the Trump administration restricted certain visas like J-1 visas from being issued which allow foreign medical students to work and train in the United States. The pause on interviews for J-1 visas has since been lifted, but some IMGs have reported to the Associated Press that U.S. embassies have been slow to open interview slots, and some have not opened any. This comes at a critical time, since July 1st marked the first calendar day of medical residencies or training programs throughout the U.S. On July 1st, newly graduated medical students start medical training in their prospective fields such as internal medicine, emergency medicine and surgery; to name a few. Although it remains unclear exactly how many IMGs have had their residency start date delayed due to the travel ban or visa restrictions, nearly 7,000 foreign born IMGs matched or filled into U.S. programs in 2025. This represents nearly 17% of the entire incoming workforce of medical residents in 2025, according to the National Resident Matching Program. Without IMGs joining the medical workforce in America, the physician shortage will be exacerbated for the next decade. In fact, the U.S. will face a physician shortage of 86,000 doctors by 2036, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. Less physicians means longer wait times in emergency rooms, delayed diagnoses and significant strain on safety-net hospitals. IMGs make up a critical component of the healthcare workforce, and without them, patient care is directly compromised. IMGs also choose residencies and take jobs in places where U.S. medical trainees tend not to go, according to National Resident Matching Program President Donna Lamb, as reported by the Associated Press. As an example, IMGs make up 40% of residents in internal medicine, a primary care field with a focus on preventing chronic conditions like diabetes, cancer and heart disease. In addition, IMGs play a critical role in serving underserved areas throughout America, providing primary care, cancer screening and emergency care to some of the U.S.'s most vulnerable population. According to a 2021 study published in Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives, more than 64% of IMGs surveyed practiced in medically underserved areas and more than 45% practiced in rural areas. These foreign-grad doctors form the backbone of healthcare in rural America, and without them, the health of the 66 million Americans that are served by rural hospitals could be in jeopardy. Finally, Trump's travel ban could have a chilling effect on future foreign medical applicants to the U.S. Prospective physicians may be deterred from considering medical training programs in America given the challenges and hurdles present in securing visas. Not only will this amplify the physician shortage in the U.S., it will decrease the amount of culturally competent physicians that serve an increasingly diverse population in America. President Trump's travel ban, which has been enacted in the name of national security and public safety, could have serious consequences for public health and medical education. One thing remains certain- IMGs form a vital part of the healthcare workforce in the United States.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gamblers will have to pay taxes on their losses thanks to provision in Trump's spending bill
The Trump administration's signature spending package contains a little-known provision which could radically upend the gambling industry. Previously, gamblers could deduct all their losses from their declared income, while still having to pay taxes on their winnings. As a result, bettors were only taxed if they walked away from the table with a net profit. But starting next year, under the new bill, which the president signed into law Friday, bettors can only deduct 90 percent of their losses from their declared income. This sets up the potential for people to pay income taxes even if they ultimately came out of their bets at a loss. Insiders warned the change could drive away professional and recreational gamers alike impacting tax revenue. 'Did anyone think this through?' Russell Fox, a Nevada-based accountant specializing in gambling, told The Washington Post. 'They thought: 'We'll bury this somewhere in the bill. No one will see it, and now we've got $1 billion of income to offset $1 billion of tax cuts.'' 'This is bad long-term for the casino industry,' he added. 'It's bad for gamblers. It's actually bad for the IRS, too. We need a less-complex tax system.' Rep. Dina Titus, a Democratic congresswoman who represents Nevada, said earlier this week she would seek a 'legislative fix' to the provision. 'This is just another attack on gaming and tourism and on districts like mine that rely on these industries,' she said in a statement to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. 'This also punishes people who are trying to do the right thing by reporting gambling on their taxes, pushing them towards offshore outlets and the predictions market, which unlike legitimate gambling sources, do not invest in bricks and mortar, pay state taxes, hire union labor, or contribute to problem gaming efforts.' Professional gamblers have also warned about the impact of the provision. 'This new amendment to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would end professional gambling in the U.S. and hurt casual gamblers, too,' poker player Phil Galfond wrote on X on Tuesday. 'You could pay more in tax than you won. Contact your representative quickly.' Others suggested the provision could push gamblers away from casinos and traditional sports books to online prediction markets such as Kalshi, which in practice often function like gambling but are regulated and taxed differently. Sports betting is legal in 38 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. The gaming industry brought in a record high of nearly $72 billion last year, according to the American Gaming Association.
