After Florida crash kills 3, Trump administration says Indian-origin trucker was in US illegally
The announcement led to a verbal tussle with California Governor Gavin Newsom's office over immigration.
The truck driver involved, Harjinder Singh, made the illegal turn last Tuesday from northbound lanes of Florida's Turnpike, according to the Florida Highway Patrol.
A minivan could not avoid the truck's trailer as it was blocking the northbound lanes, causing the fatal crash, AP reported.
Two passengers in the minivan died at the scene, and the driver died at a hospital. Singh and another passenger in his truck were not injured.
Even though Florida authorities said that he entered the US illegally from Mexico in 2018, much of his immigration history is still not clear, including his country of citizenship and whether and when he obtained legal status.
Homeland Security said Singh received a commercial driver's license in California, that issues resident driving licenses regardless of their immigration status, the news report said.
Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for Homeland Security, said issuing a commercial license to someone in the country illegally is 'asinine."
Newsom's press office, which has been in a heated debate over congressional redistricting, responded on X that Singh received a work permit while Donald Trump was the president.
McLaughlin disputed that information, saying that the government had denied him a permit during Trump's first term in September 2020 and granted him one in June 2021, under President Joe Biden, AP reported.
Singh has been charged with three counts of vehicular homicide and immigration violations, according to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FLHSMV).
The federal government has ordered his immediate transfer to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody after his criminal case is complete.
The truck was attempting to make a U-turn in an area marked for 'official use only,' the highway patrol said. The video of the crash was obtained by Breaking911, the news report said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
29 minutes ago
- The Hindu
A.P. exporters seek Centre's intervention as U.S. tariffs hit seafood industry hard
The Seafood Exporters Association of India (SEAI) has appealed to the Central government to extend urgent relief measures to protect the Indian seafood export industry, saying that it is reeling under the impact of newly imposed tariffs by the United States. A delegation led by Union Minister of State for Steel and Heavy Industries Bhupathiraju Srinivasa Varma, along with SEAI president Pawan Kumar and others, met Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in her Parliament office on Tuesday and submitted a memorandum. The delegation highlighted that with the recent 25% tariff imposed by the U.S.A., along with countervailing duty (CVD) and anti-dumping duties, Indian exporters are now burdened with nearly 35% in levies, drastically reducing the competitiveness. They said that exports to the U.S.A.—which account for nearly 25% of India's $8 billion seafood exports in 2023–24 fiscal year—are expected to decline sharply, severely impacting the livelihoods of 2.8 crore fishermen, aquaculture farmers, processing workers, packaging staff, and transporters who depend on the sector. To help overcome the crisis, the SEAI proposed a set of relief measures, including soft loans up to 30% of working capital at concessional interest rates (below 5%); extension of export credit facilities for 240 days for all seafood exporters; financial assistance at 8% of the FOB value for exports to the U.S.A.; additional support at 2% of the FOB value for exports to other countries; special financial packages for small and medium aqua farmers to prevent distress. 'If these measures are implemented, exporters will be able to sustain themselves in global markets and the industry, along with the 28 million people dependent on it, can be safeguarded,' said Mr. Pawan Kumar. Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman assured the delegation that the issues would be examined and appropriate measures would be considered. CEO Dr. Raghavan, National Committee member Irrinki Ganga Ram, Poojitha, and MPs Sana Satish Babu and Beeda Mastan Rao were also present.
The Wire
29 minutes ago
- The Wire
What is China's ‘Early Harvest' Proposal for Border Talks That Modi Govt Has Now Conceded?
This decision represents a fundamental departure from India's long-standing position that the border dispute must be resolved as a comprehensive package deal, as established in the 2005 Political Parameters and Guiding Principles. New Delhi: The Modi government's decision to agree to establish an expert group for exploring China's 'early harvest' proposal in the recent India-China Special Representatives talks represents a reversal of India's longstanding position that betrays decades of careful diplomacy and strategic thinking. This concession – to explore fast-tracking a settlement of the India-China boundary in the Sikkim region – comes at a time when China has been systematically using the border dispute as leverage while offering cosmetic solutions that primarily benefit Beijing's strategic objectives. What are the origins and evolution of China's 'Early Harvest' proposal? Even though the 'early harvest' in Sikkim idea had been broached by Beijing with Indian officials earlier, it first surfaced publicly in 2017 when Chinese Ambassador Luo Zhaohui cryptically mentioned it during a think tank event at New Delhi. This was a couple of months before the 2017 Doklam standoff, when Indian soldiers had crossed from Sikkim into Bhutan to stop the Chinese from constructing a road to the sensitive Jhampheri ridge. 'Early harvest' involves exclusively settling the boundary in Sikkim –a proposal which the then foreign minister Sushma Swaraj had described as the Chinese equivalent of saying a 'low-hanging fruit'. This would separate the Sikkim boundary from the three other sectors on the disputed Sino-India border: western, middle and eastern. Chinese military analyst senior colonel Zhao Xiaozhou later clarified in 2017 that the proposal essentially sought to replace the 1890 Great Britain-China convention with a new agreement signed directly between China and India. 'For China, early harvest means, we want to have a new agreement with India, because the 1890 convention was signed between Great Britain and China,' he explained, adding that China wanted to 'start from the easiest, that is what we call early harvest' in the Sikkim sector. China formally submitted these proposals to external affairs minister S. Jaishankar during his meeting with Wang Yi in Beijing in August 2019. After the 22nd dialogue of the Special Representatives on the boundary issue between Ajit Doval and Wang Yi in New Delhi in December 2019, the Chinese statement on the talks said the two sides should 'promote early harvest consultations'. There was no mention of such proposals in the statement from the Indian side. New Delhi instead linked the proposal to the simultaneous demarcation of the middle sector in Uttarakhand, in line with the 2005 agreement. What has been India's historical resistance to the proposal? What are its strategic concerns? For years, India consistently rejected China's 'early harvest' approach, recognizing it as a strategic trap. In 2019, former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal articulated the core problem: 'China's early harvest proposal violates the 2005 agreement on the guidelines and parameters for resolving the boundary issue as it clearly says that it has to be a package deal. This is the usual Chinese way of walking out of agreements. This early harvest proposal relates to the Sikkim border which is the only one which is settled. So where is the early harvest for India in this? On the contrary, China will seek to settle the tri-junction in its favour through this proposal which is unacceptable. Is China ready to accept tri-junction as per the Indian position?' Indian officials recognised that the Sikkim proposal was 'not so simple, as any Indian agreement on demarcation will be used by Beijing to settle the boundary with Bhutan with an eye towards the Doklam plateau'. A former Indian Army chief warned that "if India settles Sikkim, where it dominates both Chumbi Valley and Finger Area up in the north, then China will expand its Chumbi Valley area and increase pressure on the Siliguri corridor in West Bengal". The strategic concern was that settling the Sikkim border would directly impact the India-China-Bhutan trijunction at Batang La, potentially allowing China to extend its reach to the Jhampheri ridge, from where "the entire Siliguri corridor becomes extremely vulnerable to the PLA. The lights of Gangtok are visible from Jhampheri ridge," as one China expert noted. Why has the Modi government conceded now? Despite years of principled resistance, the August 19, 2025 MEA statement reveals a dramatic policy reversal. The Modi government has now agreed to 'Setting up an Expert Group, under the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs (WMCC), to explore Early Harvest in boundary delimitation in the India-China border areas'. In the statement issued after Wang Yi's meeting with Modi, the Chinese side said that 'on the boundary issue, new consensus was reached on… initiating boundary demarcation negotiations in areas where conditions are met'. This U-turn by the Modi government appears driven by multiple pressure points. Trump's tariff war against India, imposing 50% tariffs on Indian goods and threatening further penalties over Russian oil purchases, has made India more vulnerable to China. The Modi government appears keen to seek friendly ties with China, at Beijing's own terms, despite the obvious strategic risks. Indian officials claim that China has reportedly promised to address India's concerns regarding rare earths, fertilisers and tunnel boring machines. None of these have figured in any of the official statements but these economic carrots, essentially reversing the coercive actions taken by Beijing, have led to a major strategic concession by the Modi government. What are the strategic risks of this concession? This decision represents a fundamental departure from India's long-standing position that the border dispute must be resolved as a comprehensive package deal, as established in the 2005 Political Parameters and Guiding Principles. By agreeing to explore 'early harvest' options, the Modi government has legitimised China's piecemeal approach that violates this foundational principle. The move is particularly dangerous given China's expanding claims against Bhutan, including new territorial demands in the eastern part of the Himalayan kingdom that emerged around 2020. Any resolution of the Sikkim sector boundary without addressing these broader strategic concerns will only embolden China's aggressive posture toward India's Himalayan neighbours, security experts feel. Moreover, the agreement comes at a time when China has been systematically strengthening its border infrastructure and military capabilities. The PLA has established itself firmly in the Doklam plateau and explored alternative routes to reach the Jhampheri ridge. The PLA's enhanced capabilities, and increasing superiority over India, make any territorial concessions even more strategically problematic. To conclude, the Modi government's decision to explore China's 'early harvest' proposal represents a dangerous precedent that abandons decades of careful strategic thinking for short-term economic and political relief. By legitimising China's divide-and-conquer approach to the border dispute, the Modi government has weakened India's negotiating position and potentially compromised the strategic interests. There is no 'early harvest' for India in this arrangement, only a reversal of its longstanding policy disguised as diplomatic progress. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Advertisement
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
29 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Gaming bodies seek Amit Shah's intervention to stop RMG ban in India
In a joint letter, online skill gaming associations have sought Home Minister Amit Shah's intervention against a proposed Bill seeking to ban all forms of real-money games (RMGs) in India, warning that the move could force over 400 companies to shut down and put more than 200,000 jobs at risk. Industry bodies — the All India Gaming Federation (AIGF), the E-Gaming Federation (EGF), and the Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports (FIFS) — said a blanket prohibition on the platforms would 'strike a death knell' for the industry. The bodies have requested a meeting with the Home Minister's office. They cautioned that a blanket ban could drive millions of Indian users to offshore entities, fly-by-night operators, and matka networks — platforms that operate outside any legal framework, lack safeguards, and are prone to unsafe practices. The proposal to impose an absolute prohibition on such platforms comes at a time when there are close to 500 million gamers in India, with the sector having attracted foreign direct investment (FDI) of more than Rs 25,000 crore, as per industry estimates. Major companies in the sector include Dream11, Games24x7, Junglee Games, Mobile Premier League (MPL), Head Digital Works, Zupee, Gameskraft, and Nazara Technologies, among others. 'The only beneficiary of this Bill will be the illegal offshore gambling operators. If legitimate Indian businesses are shut down, unregulated actors will fill the vacuum. This will erode state and national tax revenues while leaving Indian users exposed to unregulated platforms,' the joint letter said. They added that online skill gaming could contribute to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's vision of a $1-trillion digital economy. The government has finalised a draft legislation to ban all forms of online RMG in India and will introduce it in Parliament on Wednesday. The draft Bill, cleared by the Union Cabinet on Tuesday, is likely to bar 'offering, aiding, abetting, inducing, or otherwise in the offering of any online money gaming service' and declares it an offence. Aimed at curbing the sharp spike in online gaming addiction among children and youth, which has triggered mental health issues and financial losses, the Bill also bans any person and advertisement from promoting online money games. Furthermore, the draft Bill proposes that banks, financial institutions, or any other person should not facilitate transactions related to online real-money games.
