Football fans DENIED entry into the United States for the Club World Cup - and lose £700 - amid Donald Trump crackdown
A pair of Benfica fans have been left furious and out of pocket after being denied entry to the United States ahead of the Club World Cup – as visa rejections spike amid president Donald Trump 's revived hardline stance on immigration.
Two Portuguese supporters, who had booked flights and secured tickets for Benfica's opening match against Boca Juniors in Miami, have seen their travel plans shattered after being refused electronic travel authorisation without explanation.
One of the fans, restaurant owner Fabio Vasques, said he had completed all the required documentation – including the ESTA application, the standard online form needed for visitors from visa-waiver countries – but was stunned when it was twice rejected.
'I filled it out three weeks ago and the answer came back negative,' Vasques told Portuguese newspaper JN. 'I tried again, and the result was the same. No justification was given.'
Vasques had arranged flights from Lisbon to Miami via Madrid and paid for match tickets at the Hard Rock Stadium, where Benfica face Argentine giants Boca Juniors on Monday, June 16. He has now lost €820 (£695) in flights and $150 (£118) for the match ticket – and is hoping to claim some of it back through travel insurance.
The group of four supporters had planned to stay with a friend living in Miami, but only two were cleared for entry. The other fan who was refused a visa declined to comment.
The ESTA programme – officially the Electronic System for Travel Authorization – requires passport details, trip information, and US-based contacts. It costs $21 and is valid for visits of up to 90 days.
But legal experts say applications are being rejected with growing frequency under Trump's return to power.
'It used to be rare for Portuguese citizens to be refused entry into the US,' said Nelson Tereso, a Portuguese-American immigration lawyer. 'But the rules have tightened significantly since Donald Trump's changes.'
Those changes, first introduced during his previous presidency and now being actively enforced again, form part of a broader, controversial immigration crackdown that has dominated the build-up to this summer's Club World Cup.
Riot police, ICE agents and National Guard troops have already been deployed to cities including Los Angeles and Philadelphia, where mass protests have erupted over immigration raids.
Just this week, US Customs and Border Protection posted – then deleted – a message declaring they would be 'suited and booted' at Club World Cup games, sparking fears that matches could be used to identify and detain illegal immigrants.
Though FIFA say they do not expect such actions at stadiums, the uncertainty has heightened anxiety for visiting fans.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump: I had nothing to do with attack on Iran
Donald Trump angrily denied that American forces participated in Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear weapons projects after Tehran alleged American involvement. The Islamic regime claimed it has 'solid proof' that US forces supported Israel in their long-range strikes, having previously promised reprisals against the likes of the UK and France. But in a social media post at about 1am in Washington DC, the US President said: 'The US had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight. 'If we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the US Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before.' Mr Trump also used his veiled threat of violence against Iran to further his diplomatic efforts to convince the Islamic Republic to end its efforts to build a nuclear weapon. 'We can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel, and end this bloody conflict,' he wrote. His intervention came as Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, used a televised address to claim that the US had supported Israel's attacks on his country. 'We have solid proof of the support of the American forces and American bases in the region for the attacks of the Zionist regime military forces,' he said. Mr Araghchi proceeded to claim that he didn't want the escalating conflict to spread outside the confines of Iran and Israel, but said Tehran would not hesitate to strike any of the Jewish state's allies if they become involved. There is no evidence to suggest American involvement in the initial set of strikes by Israel against Iran's underground nuclear facilities, except the use of US-made fighter jets, which the IDF is known to possess. However, US officials have confirmed their forces' involvement in the downing of ballistic missiles fired by Iran at Israel late on Friday. Washington is known to have a Patriot air-defence battery deployed in Israel, as well as a Navy destroyer in the Mediterranean. The UK has previously been involved in similar defensive operations assisting Israel down Iranian-launched missiles and drones. But officials in London have claimed the British military has not assisted this time round. The Royal Air Force has, however, dispatched extra assets, including combat aircraft, to its base in Cyprus. Iran has said it would strike British and French bases in and around the Middle East if their forces helped Israel defend itself against Tehran's long-range salvos. Away from its main operating base in Cyprus, RAF Akrotiri, the UK has a number of airbases across the Middle East, including in Oman and the UAE. The British bases are all within range of Iran's known arsenal of ballistic missiles, which are notoriously difficult to intercept. Rachel Reeves has indicated that the UK could 'potentially' support Israel amid the conflict in the Middle East. She told Sky News that she was 'not going to rule anything out at this stage' given the 'fast-moving situation'. Asked whether the UK would come to Israel's aid if asked, the Chancellor told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: 'We have, in the past, supported Israel when there have been missiles coming in. 'I'm not going to comment on what might happen in the future, but so far, we haven't been involved, and we're sending in assets to both protect ourselves and also potentially to support our allies.'
The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Stay below the radar': corporate America goes quiet after Trump's return
From vast protests and all-caps social media posts to acrimonious legislative hearings and pugnacious White House statements, Washington has perhaps never been noisier. But since Donald Trump's return to office, one corner of civil society has been almost eerily quiet. Those leading corporate America rapidly turned down the volume after the president's re-election. Gone are the days of political and social interventions, highly publicized diversity initiatives and donations to important causes. For months, some of the most powerful firms in the world have nervously navigated a dangerous US political landscape, desperate to avoid the wrath of an administration as volatile as it is vocal. 'CEOs like two things. They like consistency and predictability,' said Bill George, former chairman and CEO of Medtronic and serial board director. 'They like to know where things are going. No one can figure out where this administration's really going, because everything is transactional.' 'Stay below the radar screen,' George has been advising senior executives across the US. 'Do not get in a fight with this president.' Industry leaders from David Solomon of Goldman Sachs to Dara Khosrowshahi of Uber extoled the benefits of 'Trump accounts' for babies this week. It was the latest example of knee-flexing that began on the patio of Mar-a-Lago in the aftermath of Trump's victory last November. The genuflections have been backed by big money, with millions of dollars thrown into the president's inaugural fund by companies and executives. That started to look like chump change before long. Amazon reportedly paid $40m for a documentary about Melania Trump. Apple announced plans to invest $500bn in the US. But those moves do not appear to have bought much favor. The White House accused Amazon of being 'hostile and political' following a report (upon which the company later poured cold water) that it would start disclosing the impact of Trump's tariffs on prices. And the president threatened Apple with vast tariffs. No CEO seemed closer to Trump than Elon Musk, the billionaire industrialist behind Tesla and SpaceX, who gave almost $300m to Republican campaigns last year, and worked in the administration for months. Their explosive fallout, days after Musk's exit, prompted the president to threaten the cancellation of federal contracts and tax subsidies for Musk's companies. The pair's rupture underlined why many executives are struggling to trust the president, according to Paul Argenti, professor of corporate communication at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. 'The mercurial nature of this guy kind of just seeps in, and people start to realize they're dealing with something that's a bit more difficult.' His advice? 'Proceed with extreme caution.' 'Loyalty only goes one way with Trump,' said Dan Schwerin, co-founder of Evergreen Strategy Group, and former speechwriter for Hillary Clinton, who has previously worked with firms including Levi Strauss and Patagonia. 'This is like doing business with the mafia: you're not going to win, and you're not going to be safe.' The standard playbook is clear: 'You make a big splashy announcement: the details don't matter, you don't have to follow through, but you placate the White House,' said Schwerin. 'That maybe buys you a little time and a little goodwill. 'But history suggests that Trump will do whatever is best for Trump, and he will turn on you in an instant, if it's better for him. And that is true for his friends, so it will certainly be true for a company that he has no loyalty to.' Extreme caution has become the name of the game – anything to avoid your company getting drawn into the crosshairs of this administration. But companies can't just focus on the president: they have shareholders, customers and employees to answer to. 'You can't base everything on getting through the next four years,' said George. 'Yeah, it's going to be chaotic. Yes, it's going to be challenging. But you better hold firm to your purpose and your values.' He pointed to retailer Target, where he served on the board for 12 years. 'They were very, very big on differentiating themselves from Walmart, using diversity as the criteria – and particularly being, they called themselves, the most gay-friendly company in town. 'And then [Target CEO] Brian Cornell, six days after the inauguration, abandoned all that,' said George. The chain faced a backlash – and boycotts – for abruptly announcing the rollback of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Breaking his silence in an email to employees three months later, Cornell claimed: 'We are still the Target you know and believe in.' Contrast this with Costco, another retailer, which in January faced a shareholder proposal against DEI efforts from a conservative thinktank. The firm's board robustly defended its 'commitment to an enterprise rooted in respect and inclusion' before the proposal was put to its investors for a vote. 'They got a 98% vote to stay the course, to stay true to what they were,' said George. 'And their customer base is very conservative. This is not like they have some liberal customer base.' Argenti believes the period of strategic silence by many companies, and knee-flexing to the White House, might be coming to a close following Musk's messy exit. 'We're at an inflection point,' he said. 'There's going to period where people realize you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.' CEOs of companies counting the cost of Trump's policies are 'not going to suffer in silence', he said. 'You can't win. It's not like you can be secure in knowing if you follow this strategy, he'll leave you alone.' 'We are starting to see the pendulum swing back,' according to Schwerin, who claimed the administration's erratic execution of tariffs had 'opened some people's eyes' that its policies were bad for business. 'I think it's crucial that we start to see a little more pushback. Better to have a backbone than to just bend the knee.' On controversial issues at the heart of political discourse, however, George does not expect much of a shift from CEOs. 'It is radio silence, and I think you'll see that continuing. There's not much to be gained from speaking out today.' 'Stick to your lane,' he has been counseling executives. 'If you're a banker, you can talk about the economy. If you're an oil expert ... talk to the energy industry. But you can't speak ex-cathedra to everyone else.' 'Only a handful' of business figures are deemed able to stand up and make bold public statements on any issue, according to George, who points to Jamie Dimon, the veteran JPMorgan Chase boss, and Warren Buffett, the longtime head of Berkshire Hathaway. 'There are certain people who are really hard to take on. Jamie's one,' he said. 'If you were president of the United States, would you take on Warren Buffett?'
The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
Keir Starmer's challenge in dealing with the G6 plus 1
Sir Keir Starmer has proved himself to be a rather more adept negotiator on the world stage than his detractors would suggest. The timing was partly fortuitous, but it remains the case that he concluded three advantageous trade deals last month, with India, the United States and the European Union. He will need those diplomatic skills this weekend at the G7 summit in Canada. The geopolitical order has been shaken by Israel's attack on Iran, and there is an urgent need for the leaders of the world's rich democracies to show unity and resolve in response. Solidarity and resolution are hardly the qualities associated with Donald Trump, however, and even before the bombs fell on Tehran there were serious differences between the US president and his fellow leaders. Never before in the history of the G7, which goes back to the oil crisis of 1973, has one of its members sought to annex another, for example, as Mr Trump has offered to do with Canada. While most leaders of G7 nations seem to share a broadly similar outlook, there is one who does not. It is almost as if it is a summit of the Group of 6 plus 1. So far, it has to be said that Sir Keir has managed to deal with the unpredictable ego of the US president more adroitly than most. For all that some Britons might find it emotionally satisfying for their prime minister to tell Mr Trump to his face what they think of him, there can be no doubt that it is in our national interest for Sir Keir to lay on the compliments with a trowel. That is the approach that secured agreement in principle to exempt the United Kingdom from at least some of Mr Trump's tariffs. If Sir Keir has to continue that approach in order to get those exemptions locked down, then so be it. The prime minister will also need to work hard to try to keep the US president from straying too far from the G7 consensus on support for Ukraine – Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, has invited Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, to join the summit in Kananaskis, Alberta. Mr Trump will find it harder to try to bully Mr Zelensky in a setting in which the US president is so obviously outnumbered. There is the linked subject of Nato's future, and the forthcoming discussions about Nato's European members raising their defence spending to take up more of the burden of supporting Ukraine from the US. Then Sir Keir will also want to lobby Mr Trump to keep the Aukus submarine agreement between the US, the UK and Australia, about which some members of the US administration have been sceptical. Finally, there is the Middle East, where a gap has opened up between the US and UK responses to Israel's attempts to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. The Israeli strikes were a rebuff to Mr Trump, who seems to have imagined that his diplomacy aimed at restraining the Iranian nuclear programme was making progress. Yet the US president – despite Marco Rubio, his secretary of state, initially standing back from the onslaught – quickly declared his support for the 'excellent' attacks. The British government's response has been – rightly – more circumspect, and the leaders of the other G7 countries have likewise also called for restraint and de-escalation. On his arrival at the resort in the Canadian Rockies, Sir Keir will be walking a tightrope. Let us hope that he is as successful as he has been up to now.
