Newsom, Vance exchange jabs over immigration after VP's California vacation: 'Hope you enjoy your family time'
Vance was spending time at the California amusement park with his wife Usha and their two children before Newsom, a Democrat, posted on social media that some migrant families cannot spend the same quality time together because of the administration's efforts to detain and remove migrants in the U.S.
"Hope you enjoy your family time, @JDVance. The families you're tearing apart certainly won't," Newsom wrote on X.
The vice president responded by thanking Newsom for the well-wishes without addressing the governor's comment about families being separated.
"Had a great time, thanks," Vance wrote back.
Demonstrators gathered in Anaheim to protest Vance and the administration's immigration agenda.
Vance's visit came shortly after ICE raids on two farms in California, during which federal agents detained a few hundred suspected illegal immigrants, sparking protests against the immigration enforcement operation. One person was killed in the raids and others were critically injured.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Rodney Scott said 10 illegal migrant minors – including eight unaccompanied – were discovered at a farm in Camarillo and that it was under investigation for child labor violations.
The operation at the farms came after weeks of anti-ICE protests in Southern California over raids targeting migrant workers at local businesses. In response to those protests that began last month, the administration deployed National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles, despite opposition from Newsom.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
30 minutes ago
- Fox News
Portland City Council considers how to boot ICE out of city facility
Portland's progressive-leaning city council is exploring ways to expel Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from a detention facility that has become a flashpoint for violent clashes between agents and radical agitators. Last week, city councilors told a packed hearing that they would consider revoking ICE's permit to operate its South Waterfront facility along South Moody Avenue due to alleged violations of a 2011 conditional-use permit, according to local news outlet Willamette Week. The permit allows detention and administrative use under specific limitations, but lawmakers have raised concerns that ICE has been holding detainees there for longer than the required 12-hour limit. PATRIOTIC ICE OFFICER REPLACES AMERICAN FLAG AFTER PROTESTERS BURNED EXISTING BANNER AT PORTLAND FACILITY Residents and lawmakers raised moral concerns too, saying that the facility undermines the city's sanctuary city policy, while residents testified about targeted arrests, gas attacks and intimidation. "Our values of sanctuary and humanity are under siege," local resident Michelle Dar said. She also said that federal agents' armed actions threatened everyone's safety, not just that of immigrants. Other residents complained that loud bangs and flashbangs were disrupting life for residents of subsidized housing and students of a local school. A handful of people also blamed Antifa for the ugly scenes outside the facility. Chaotic scenes have been unfolding outside the facility since June, including in one incident where a large group of anti-ICE protesters tried to block law enforcement vehicles from entering and exiting the facility, forcing agents to deploy rubber bullets, tear gas and flash bangs to disperse the crowd. Violent agitators have also smashed windows, pelted agents and the facility with rocks and other objects. On Independence Day, violent rioters cut internet cables, damaged the sprinkler system, hurled rocks and fireworks at law enforcement and burned an American flag, according to DHS. But most residents and lawmakers' concerns pertained to ICE's alleged violation of its permit terms, particularly related to how long detainees were being held, rather than the violence caused by protesters or agitators. They urged the council to revoke the permit, citing a local report that ICE had violated the permit more than two dozen times by holding detainees for longer than 12 hours. "If we allow ICE to continue to operate when they have violated their permits, that means that anything becomes permissible moving forward," City Council Member Angelita Morillo told the community and public safety committee hearing. "And so, for me, that change in information has changed the calculation." Meanwhile, City Council Member Steve Novick said the council should take a broader moral stand against the federal deportation machine. "This is an assault on our democracy as a whole… The assault on immigrants is the tip of the spear," Novick said, per the outlet. "We should not be trying to figure out how to keep our heads low and avoid the attention of this administration." City Council Member Eric Zimmerman said the chamber was exploring legal pathways to revoke the permit and that the city attorney's office was working on a memo about the city's legal options regarding the ICE facility. Border Czar Tom Homan last week vowed to "double down and triple down" on sanctuary cities that are obstructing ICE operations, specifically mentioning Portland. "We're going to do the job," Homan said on Fox News' "Kudlow." "We're going to do it in Portland too. But for the mayors of New York City and Chicago, President [Donald] Trump made it clear two weeks ago, we are going to double down and triple down the sanctuary cities. … If we can't arrest that bad guy in the jail, then we'll go to the community and we'll find him. Or we'll do more worksite enforcement."
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: President to Host Qatar's Prime Minister Amid Gaza Talks
Many Republicans initially balked at slashing $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds more than 1,500 public television and radio stations across the country, including NPR and PBS stations. The Senate on Tuesday voted to take up legislation to claw back $9 billion for foreign aid and public broadcasting, signaling that the Republican-led Congress is poised to acquiesce to President Trump in a simmering battle with the White House over spending powers. The 51-to-50 vote came after Republican leaders agreed to a handful of concessions to win the votes of holdouts who were uneasy with the proposed rescissions. G.O.P. leaders said on Tuesday they would strip out a $400 million cut that Mr. Trump requested to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, known as PEPFAR, a move that the White House signaled it would not contest. Even then, some Republican senators refused to support a move that they said would relinquish their constitutional power over federal spending, forcing their leaders to summon Vice President JD Vance to the Capitol to break a tie and ram the legislation through a pair of procedural votes. 'We're lawmakers; we should be legislating,' Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said in a speech on the Senate floor on Tuesday night announcing her opposition to the package. 'What we're getting now is a direction from the White House and being told, 'This is the priority. We want you to execute on it. We'll be back with you with another round.' I don't accept that.' She was joined by two other Republicans in siding with Democrats in opposition to advancing the measure: Senators Susan Collins of Maine, the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Senate Republicans are hoping to approve the package as early as Wednesday. That would send it back to the House, which passed the bill last month but would still need to give it final approval by Friday for the cuts to be enacted. The push to rescind $9 billion in federal funding is part of a broader fight playing out between the White House and Congress as top Trump administration officials, led by Russell T. Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, are moving aggressively and unilaterally to expand the executive branch's control over federal spending, a power the Constitution gives to the legislative branch. In this case, the administration went through a formal process by submitting what is known as a rescissions bill, requesting that Congress go along with its efforts to cancel funds. Such measures are rare and rarely succeed, given how tightly Congress has historically guarded its power over federal spending; the last time one did was more than 25 years ago under President Bill Clinton. But Republicans have shown extraordinary deference to Mr. Trump since he took office in January, and the bill's momentum reflects their willingness to bow to his wishes even when it comes to programs that have historically drawn broad support. The measure would codify moves the administration has in some cases already taken unilaterally to slash federal spending and rein in the size of the government. The bulk of the funds targeted — about $8 billion — is for foreign assistance programs. The remaining $1.1 billion is for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS. The request has infuriated Democrats, who have accused Republicans of reneging on the bipartisan spending deal they wrote and approved. 'If there's a discrete pot of funding that is not being spent well, if there are cuts that makes sense to include, if there are things that need to be updated, things that need to be reformed, let's have a conversation about what makes sense to rescind and improve as we write those bills in committee,' said Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee. A number of Republicans were also plainly unhappy with the request. It moved forward over the objections of Ms. Collins, who voted on Tuesday against moving it out of her own committee. She had pressed Mr. Vought for details on the measure at a hearing this month, arguing that the request his office submitted to Congress was overly broad. 'The rescissions package has a big problem — nobody really knows what program reductions are in it,' Ms. Collins said in a statement on Tuesday. 'That isn't because we haven't had time to review the bill. Instead, the problem is that O.M.B. has never provided the details that would normally be part of this process.' She said she recognized 'the need to reduce excessive spending' and had backed rescissions initiated by Congress. 'But to carry out our constitutional responsibility, we should know exactly what programs are affected and the consequences of rescissions,' Ms. Collins said. And even some Republicans who voted to advance the package said they were not thrilled with the precedent they were setting. 'It concerns me as perhaps approaching a disregard for the constitutional responsibilities of the legislative branch under Article 1,' Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said. 'This Congress will not be allowed to choose those specific cuts. That will be done by somebody in the Office of Management and Budget in the White House and in this situation, it will amount to the House and Senate basically saying, 'We cede that decision voluntarily to the executive branch.'' Still, Senate Republicans on Tuesday appeared ready to fulfill the rest of the White House's rollback request, which has largely already been enacted by executive order and the Department of Government Efficiency. The bill requires only a simple majority vote to pass. Many Republicans initially balked at slashing $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds more than 1,500 public television and radio stations across the country, including NPR and PBS stations. If the package is enacted, the federal funding for public media will dry up beginning in October. NPR and PBS would survive — they get a small percentage of their funding from the federal government — but the cuts would force many local stations to sharply reduce their programming and operations. Many public broadcasters receive more than 50 percent of their budgets from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 'I'm a supporter of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,' Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said last month, adding that she was going to try to make sure the funding continued to flow. 'It's a lifeline for many of my small, rural communities.' But last week, Mr. Trump urged lawmakers to support the cuts, and threatened to withhold his support for any Republican who opposed the proposal. White House officials, including Mr. Vought, have made clear that they intend to send Congress additional requests to rescind funds. Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota, who had previously expressed deep qualms with the request, said he would support the package after being assured by top Trump administration officials that they would steer unspent funds 'to continue grants to tribal radio stations without interruption' for next year. 'Some of them are 80 to 85 percent funded by this program,' Mr. Rounds said. 'They wouldn't have survived without this. But they provide emergency services information for some of the most rural parts of our country in some of the poorest counties in the United States.' Benjamin Mullin and Megan Mineiro contributed reporting.
Vox
2 hours ago
- Vox
The Trump administration's fundamental misunderstanding about deportations
covers politics Vox. She first joined Vox in 2019, and her work has also appeared in Politico, Washington Monthly, and the New Republic. People attend a rally and march on July 11, 2025, in Oxnard, California. The rally and march came a day after around 200 people were detained by federal officers during a raid at a cannabis farm in nearby Trump administration has offered little consolation to American businesses worried about losing undocumented workers to deportations. US Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins did offer them one solution last week: to replace immigrant farmworkers with Americans who are now required to work in order to access Medicaid benefits, under the recently signed Republican spending bill. 'When you think about it, there are 34 million able-bodied adults in our Medicaid program,' she said Tuesday in a news conference. 'So, no amnesty under any circumstances, mass deportations continue, but in a strategic and intentional way, as we move our workforce towards more automation and towards a 100 percent American workforce.' Unfortunately for the industries targeted in escalating immigration raids — at farms, construction sites, restaurants, hotels, and other businesses — that is not a serious proposal. Agricultural and hospitality industry leaders are pushing back and raising concerns about how deportations could lead to labor shortages. Though President Donald Trump has appeared publicly sympathetic to those concerns, it's become clear that business interests aren't driving his policy. Rather, it's immigration hardliners, led by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who are. Republicans have handed US Immigration and Customs Enforcement an additional $75 billion, and the agency is more well-resourced than ever as the administration aims for 3,000 immigration arrests per day and 1 million deportations in a single year. 'I have complete faith that Secretary Noem and Stephen Miller and everyone else in the administration is 100 percent committed to this agenda,' said David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. The conflict between those hardliners and the affected industries reveals a key fiction at the center of Trump's immigration policy: that masses of immigrant workers are taking away jobs from Americans who are willing and able to fill them. They aren't. But that hasn't stopped the administration from ramping up ICE raids that don't just endanger immigrants and the businesses that rely on them. They're also imperiling job opportunities and the affordability of goods and services available to all Americans. Trump's mixed messages about deportations Following the ICE raids in Los Angeles that spurred mass protests in early June, some business leaders started becoming more vocal about their fears that worksite immigration raids could upend their companies. 'Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform in June. On July 4, he said he would put farmers 'in charge' of immigration enforcement when it came to their own businesses, but warned that if they did not do a 'good job, we'll throw [undocumented workers] out of the country.' The Logoff The email you need to stay informed about Trump — without letting the news take over your life. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. In practice, however, it's not clear that the Trump administration has retreated on immigration raids since then. Bier said that he has not put any stock into Trump's overtures to industry leaders on deportations. 'I said when he first made a statement to this effect that he was not going to change anything about ICE's operations,' he said. The fundamental misunderstanding behind Trump's immigration raids Immigration hardliners in the Trump administration are operating under the assumption that businesses affected by raids can just hire Americans instead of undocumented immigrants. In reality, many of those immigrants work jobs that no Americans want — even during times of high unemployment and especially when it comes to low-paid, back-breaking positions in agriculture. 'The idea that there are millions of people waiting around who are willing and able to do this type of farm labor is misguided,' said Tara Watson, director of the Center of Economic Security and Opportunity and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Bier said some of the best evidence of that is a study of the North Carolina agricultural industry in 2011. Researchers found that, of the nearly half a million unemployed North Carolinians at the time, only 268 native-born Americans applied for 6,500 farm job openings despite the fact that employers were required to publicly advertise the positions. Over 90 percent of those applicants were hired, but most did not show up for their first day of work or quit within a month. Only seven completed the entire growing season. Medicaid recipients in particular are even less likely to fill agricultural job openings than Americans overall, despite Rollins's suggestion to the contrary. For one, there aren't actually many Medicaid recipients who don't already have a job and are able to work at all, let alone able to work a physically demanding job in agriculture. A Brookings study found that out of the roughly 71.3 million recipients of Medicaid, only 300,000 people did not qualify for exemptions to the new work requirements and were not working because they didn't want to. 'There's a reason why they're on Medicaid, and that's because they're kids, they're elderly, or they're disabled, or they already have a job that just doesn't provide them with the kind of health insurance that they need,' said Ben Zipperer, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute. Medicaid recipients are also predominantly located in urban areas and aren't likely to relocate for a low-paid job in agriculture. They are very unlikely to swoop in and save farms hard-hit by immigration raids. The fact that the administration is pushing that fantasy shows that its theory of how its immigration policies will affect businesses and the broader economy is misguided. The economic cost of immigration raids Mass deportations of farm workers alone could deal the US a significant blow. It would likely slash domestic agricultural production, driving up food prices for most Americans. Watson said that farms would find it almost impossible to hire people to do labor that cannot be automated, forcing some to move their production abroad. The US might have to start importing certain crops at a higher price depending on the outcome of Trump's tariff negotiations. He has already slapped a 17 percent tariff on Mexican tomatoes. 'If the labor supply for farms is greatly restricted, then farms will produce less, and that will be passed on to consumers as higher prices,' Bier, of the Cato Institute, said. Beyond agriculture, Trump's immigration raids could actually cause the overall job supply to shrink, rather than creating openings that Americans would readily fill. A study by the Economic Policy Institute found that, if Trump meets his goal of deporting 1 million immigrants every year of his second term, it would eliminate the jobs of 3.3 million immigrants and 2.6 million US-born workers by the time he leaves office. The job supply in construction would be particularly hard-hit, falling almost 19 percent overall. That's because immigrants typically have jobs that complement those worked by Americans, filling job openings that the latter will not, and because immigrants also create jobs as business owners and consumers of American goods and services. For that reason, deporting immigrant workers who have no criminal record as part of Trump's 'America First' agenda is 'just building on a myth that immigrants in the US are 'taking American jobs,'' Watson said. 'There's been a huge amount of economics literature suggesting that that's not the case, and that, in fact, immigrants end up generating more jobs for US-born people,' she said.
