Well-known Arizona forager dubbed the ‘mushroom man' faces deportation
Castro's passion for mushroom cultivation and ethical harvesting has earned him the nickname 'mushroom man' in his hometown of Tucson. A self-trained mycology expert and regular fixture at farmers markets, he makes a living leading foraging trips to mushroom-rich places and selling fungi-related products through his online business, Desert Alchemist.
But this summer, Castro is not free to scour the landscape for fungi that thrive in moist environments and help sustain his livelihood. The lawful immigrant sits behind bars for omitting a decades-old brush with the law when he applied for citizenship – something that now threatens his life in the United States amid the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement across the nation.
Castro, who came to the US from Mexico, has been a permanent legal resident and green card holder for more than 20 years. But on 31 May, he was arrested for not disclosing a drug arrest that dates back to his teenage years, on his 2022 citizenship application. He has been in detention ever since, and is now facing a trial on immigration fraud charges and possible deportation.
Friends and supporters are rallying around him and donating to a GoFundMe for his legal expenses that has raised more than $32,000.
'He's been in the US this whole time and he's had legal status,' said Cora Peterson, Castro's friend. 'I think it's very unfair that he was detained.'
Legal experts, meanwhile, say Castro's case is yet another sign of the Trump administration's heavy-handed approach. Over the past several months, the president's push for mass deportations of violent immigrants who are in the country unlawfully has expanded a crackdown across states to include those with minor offenses or no criminal records. Stricter enforcement also has ensnared immigrants with legal status – including law-abiding people with deep roots in the community – and even some US citizens.
This article includes content provided by Instagram. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. To view this content, click 'Allow and continue'.
According to a 28 May indictment from the US attorney's office of Arizona, Castro, 37, falsely answered 'no' to the question: 'Have you ever sold or smuggled controlled substances, illegal drugs or narcotics?' on his application for US naturalization – known as an N-400 form.
Castro, who has pleaded not guilty to the felony charges, is scheduled to appear at a detention hearing on Wednesday in the US district court in Tucson, with his trial due to begin in September. His right to remain in the US will depend on the outcome, but he faces the prospect of losing his legal status and being deported.
His lawyer, Matthew Green, declined to discuss the case but said his client remains in the custody of US marshals.
A wrong answer on immigration forms like the N-400 can have serious consequences for applicants navigating a complex system, said Linda Dakin-Grimm, an immigration attorney in Los Angeles. 'Misrepresenting something, leaving something out can result in your status being taken away,' she said.
Fraud in the citizenship application process is unusual, Dakin-Grimm said. But she expects to see prosecution in cases that might happen from time to time because the Trump administration 'has plainly shifted enforcement priorities'.
Mo Goldman, a Tucson immigration attorney, agreed that while cases like Castro's are relatively uncommon, they are probably getting heightened scrutiny these days. While in the past alternatives to detention might have been considered, he said, that may no longer apply. 'Right now, we're seeing a much greater emphasis on taking people's green cards away. They're trying to deport more people.'
Peterson also believes that what's happening to Castro is related to Donald Trump's clampdown on 'all sorts of immigration issues', and hopes her friend will be able to beat the charges and return home. 'He's a well-respected member of the community.'
Castro said his foray into the world of medicinal mushrooms began in earnest about 10 years ago, according to an interview he gave on a 2023 episode of the Myco Guild podcast, when he began researching their healing properties to help his father recover from a series of strokes after an unfavorable prognosis. While he noted that the Food and Drug Administration has not approved medicinal mushrooms for medical conditions, Castro credits fungi extract as a critical factor in his father's recovery.
A couple of years ago, Peterson used to interact regularly with Castro at farmers markets where they both sold mushroom products. 'He's been doing mushroom walks,' she said. 'He's been just sharing his knowledge, his botanical and fungal knowledge.'
Scott Huette met Castro at a venue where the mushroom forager had set up a booth showcasing his products. While Huette said the fraud allegations are serious, he doesn't see why someone who poses no harm to the community needs to be incarcerated while the case moves through the court system. 'Here's somebody who I've met, who I feel contributes to the community, and I think is doing something relevant.'
Like Peterson, Huette also contributed toward Castro's legal expenses. 'I just felt like supporting a community member who's in trouble, who needs assistance,' Huette said. 'I'd like to see that he has an opportunity to defend himself.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump introduces new wave of tariffs
The Trump administration announced a new trade policy and tariff plan, setting different rates based on a country's trade balance with the US. Goods from countries with a trade surplus will face a 10 per cent tariff, while those with a trade deficit will be subject to at least a 15 per cent tariff. More than a dozen nations with the highest trade deficits, including Syria (41 per cent) and Switzerland (39 per cent), will face tariffs exceeding 15 per cent. The tariff on Canadian goods increased from 25 per cent to 35 per cent, with the White House citing Canada's "continued inaction and retaliation." The new policy, initially set for 1 August, has been delayed until 7 August to allow US Customs and Border Protection time to implement the changes.
New Statesman
44 minutes ago
- New Statesman
What John Swinney gets right about Scottish independence
He came, he saw, he putted. Donald Trump's visit to Scotland was the expected whirlwind – a golfing trip during which he fitted in some diplomacy (if that's the right word with this president) with the leaders of the EU, the UK and Scotland. Trump clearly enjoyed himself, to the extent that he suggested he could become first minister once he's done with the US and the rest of the world. That joke raised quite the entertaining vision, as did his description of Scotland as a land of 'no crime, no muggings. You don't have people being hit over the head when they are not looking with a baseball bat, they're not pushed into a subway.' Not at the five-star Turnberry resort, anyway. John Swinney had two chances to beard Trump, at a dinner and then at a head-to-head, and spoke to him about whisky tariffs and the ongoing crisis in Gaza. For all Trump's unpopularity, meeting the leader of the free world is the kind of moment that elevates any first minister. The far left carps, as the far left does, but Swinney was right to take his opportunity. He behaved like a grown up. That, so far, has been the mark of Swinney's time in office. These things are relative, but he has been a moderating force, dragging his party back to the centre ground after the leftist administrations of Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf. Much of his attention is on fixing the NHS – he has a plan, and we will see whether it bears fruit (it had better). There is also a focus on growing the economy. To many, these are obvious priorities for government activity, but it has not always been like that in Scotland. There is a limit to how long any SNP leader can get away with talking about anything other than independence, of course, and the First Minister is as committed to his party's raison d'etre as the most passionate activist. It is his life's work, and even his moderation is merely a means of achieving that goal. Whatever an SNP government does, it is always based on what it thinks will best advance the cause of breaking up the UK. True to form, Swinney has now unveiled the latest strategy for getting to indy. There have been so many of these in recent years that voters are understandably confused about what the offer is. A de facto referendum, 60 per cent backing for separation in the polls over a sustained period, a majority of Scottish seats for the SNP at Westminster – each has been proposed as a route since the turn of the decade. None has lasted. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Swinney has, in effect, returned to 2011. That was when Alex Salmond won a surprise overall majority at Holyrood, providing the legitimacy and momentum that led David Cameron to accede to the 2014 referendum. The SNP is going back to the future. The First Minister said that, once again, securing a majority in Edinburgh is the way to a second referendum. There are 129 seats at Holyrood, meaning the party would have to win 65 of them. The alleged transformation of Scotland that would come with independence 'only happens if we have that referendum and we only get that referendum if a majority of SNP MSPs are elected next May,' Swinney said. He insists independence will be at the heart of his party's election campaign, but it's hard to see his strategy as anything other than kicking the can down the road. That's certainly how the hardliners are viewing it, lining up to criticize the FM's approach as weak and defeatist. Alex Neil, a former SNP health secretary and a critic of the administration, said it was 'more about trying to save the SNP's bacon'. This is probably true, but that does not mean it lacks sense. Swinney has an election to win, which would take the Nats into their third consecutive decade of governance, and he will not do so with alarming promises of constitutional upheaval whatever the outcome. Sturgeon tried that, and it helped do for her. Voters – or most of them – are not looking at next May as a chance to refight the independence battles. They are worried about the cost of living, the state of the health service, jobs, transport and other policy areas that impact their day to day lives. They are nervous about the international climate, and are seeking security. They are fed up with politicians of all stripes. They are exhausted by the indy permawar, and would appreciate a break from all politics having to be squeezed through that funnel. Swinney's mature approach is to understand this, and to attempt to meet the electorate on its preferred terrain. A wise leader knows which fights to pick, and when. This is not the moment for William Wallace and saltire face-paint and screams of 'freedom'. It is not the time for 'one last push'. The SNP will not win 65 seats next May. It will be an unprecedentedly divided parliament, with Reform joining its ranks. There will be a minority administration, which will be formed by either the Nats or Labour. Swinney's independence plan is really an attempt to draw as much of the separatist support to the SNP, away from the Greens and Alba, so maximizing his party's performance. For the independence movement, if its members would only accept it, this is a time to regroup, rethink, and play a longer game. The First Minister, at least, seems to see this clearly. [See more: Maga zealots want to redraft the Civil Rights Act] Related
Telegraph
44 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump's trade war returns America to the 1930s
Like many small American business owners, Beth Benike started the year with high hopes about America's improving economy. But in June, she stopped paying herself a salary, a sign of the dark turn the US economy has taken since Donald Trump launched his trade war. 'I'm going to have to cash out my retirement just to stay operational,' says the 48-year-old owner of Busy Baby, an infant products company. 'I am paying my mortgage with my savings.' A string of trade deals struck by Mr Trump in recent days have been hailed by his supporters as major wins for the US economy –and serious humiliations for America's trading partners, such as the European Union. But try telling that to ordinary Americans. The trade agreements, which include 15pc tariffs on the likes of the EU, Japan and South Korea, masks a brutal reality for many businesses. As these new deals come into effect on Friday, US charges on imported goods are about to hit their highest level since the 1930s. And the toll on any company that imports goods will be huge, with many already fighting for their lives. Like many US companies, Busy Baby had been booming before Trump's April 2 tariffs announcement. It was selling around 200,000 products a year and securing shelf space at retail giant like Target and Walmart. But the president's tariffs hammered companies like Busy Baby, which imports goods from China. Benike had two containers of stock that were just about to leave China, just before Trump hit the country with a 145pc tariff. Benike held her goods in China until the tariff rate fell to 30pc, when she finally took the hit. The tariffs on that shipment cost her $35,000 (£26,000). And she is not alone. Before Trump took office, America's effective tariff (the average rate charged across all goods imports) was 2.3pc, according to Capital Economics. As of Thursday, this figure had multiplied six times over to 14.6pc. On Friday, it will hit 16.3pc. This is roughly half the 31.6pc effective rate that was briefly in place under the 'liberation day' tariffs of April 2 that Trump quickly suspended, but it will still be the highest level on record since 1936. Tariffs on goods imports from China are still charged at 30pc under a temporary reprieve that is due to expire on Aug 12, with no sign yet of a new deal. Benike raised money through GoFundMe to cover the cost of her China shipment, but this did not make up for the fact that she had been out of stock for six weeks, which meant no cash flow. As things stand, her shipment for the Christmas season will incur a $52,000 tariff fee. 'It is a huge chunk of money. That is not at all sustainable for us,' she says. Small businesses will bear the worst of the tariffs blow because they do not have the cash reserves or economies of scale to absorb the new charges, says Richard Trent, executive director of the Main Street Alliance, a small business industry group. 'They have to eat the losses, pass them onto consumers, or shutter altogether. The outlook is bleak on Main Street,' he says. Big business is hurting too. And for some of America's biggest companies, the tariff bills are not tens of thousands of dollars but multiple billions. Carmaker Ford made a $36m loss between April and June, compared with a $1.8bn profit during the same period a year earlier, because it had to pay $800m in tariff costs. It warned that it expected to pay at least $2bn on tariffs over the full year. Although Ford manufactures its cars within the US, it imports many of the parts and materials – many of which are subject to Trump's 50pc tariffs on steel and aluminium. General Motors, another major US carmaker, said last week that tariffs had knocked $1.1bn off its operating income in Q2. Household goods giant Procter & Gamble similarly warned this week of a $1bn hit to its profits from tariffs and said it will begin making price rises on a quarter of its products from next month. 'There isn't any getting away from the fact this is a huge, huge increase in the US tariff rate,' says Brian Coulton, the chief economist at Fitch Ratings. The real economic toll is still yet to come, says Coulton. Over the next six months, businesses will pass on much more of the cost of tariffs onto consumers, he says. This will drive up inflation, and dampen real wage growth. In turn, it will drag on consumer spending, the engine of the American economy. 'It's certainly a pretty sharp slowdown,' Coulton adds. The impact of the trade war is harder to detect. Big swings in trade because of Trump's tariffs have created wild swings in data on US economic growth. As businesses raced to stockpile before Trump's tariff announcements, imports soared. This was the main reason why US GDP fell by 0.5pc in the first three months of the year. When imports slumped after tariffs were introduced, the opposite happened and GDP rose by 3pc. Underneath these two figures sits a clearer picture of the state of the US economy. Growth across the first six months of the year averaged 1.2pc, less than half the 2.5pc recorded last year. As American consumers and companies count the cost of Trump's tariffs, countries around the world are also weighing up who won and who lost in the dash to make deals. According to David Henig, from the European Centre for International Political Economy, one of the surprise victors has been carmakers such as BMW, Volkswagen, Kia and Toyota. 'Everyone assumed that if Trump was going to go for anything, it would be cars. But the carmakers of the EU, Japan and Korea did far better than they were probably expecting,' he said. Trump initially levied a punishing 27.5pc tariff on the sector, and demanded to see more manufacturing brought to American shores. But in his deals with Japan, South Korea and the EU, the auto sector was included in the broad 15pc tariff. That could be a smaller hit than US carmakers such as Ford and General Motors are facing from Mr Trump's 50pc levy on imported steel and aluminium. Ben May, from Oxford Economics, says some countries with relatively punishing tariff rates could end up doing better than expected, if their exporters diversified away from the US into new and more profitable markets. And some countries with higher tariff rates, including India, relied less on exports to the US than others such as the EU and Vietnam – so they might take a smaller hit to their economies even with that higher rate. But nobody knows for sure, especially as the deals are largely just in-principle agreements, 'Because there are no legal obligations being drawn up, what's to stop Trump, for instance, from turning around and demanding something different in a few days or weeks or months?' May says. As for Benike, she spent months looking at whether she could manufacture her goods in the US but found it would be impossibly expensive. Instead, she is shifting to overseas sales in different markets. Next week, she will launch her products in South Korea and she is exploring selling in the EU, Canada, Mexico and Australia. 'There's babies all over the world,' she says. 'Hopefully we can sell enough products globally to stay in business.'
