“Estos recortes se están sintiendo con fuerza en nuestra comunidad incluso antes de que les afecten”, dijo Carlyn Cowen, directora de políticas y asuntos públicos del Chinese-American Planning Council.

Un cartel que indica la opción de pago con EBT en una tienda de East Gun Hill Road, en el Bronx. (Adi Talwar/City Limits)

Este artículo se publicó originalmente en inglés el 2 de diciembre. Traducido por Daniel Parra. Read the English version here.

La fiscal general de Nueva York, Letitia James, y los fiscales generales de otros 21 estados demandaron al Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos por una nueva norma que, según ellos, impediría a los refugiados y asilados participar en el Programa de Asistencia Nutricional Suplementaria (SNAP por sus siglas en inglés).   

La exclusión se deriva de la ley “One Big Beautiful Bill” aprobada este verano, que incluía modificaciones sustanciales en los programas de protección social del país.

Entre ellas se incluyen la ampliación de requisitos laborales para obtener beneficios de SNAP —que por ahora están en pausa a nivel local hasta el próximo año— y nuevos parámetros de elegibilidad que excluyen a víctimas de la trata y a varios grupos de inmigrantes que se encuentran legalmente en el país.

El Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos (USDA por sus siglas en inglés), la agencia federal encargada del programa SNAP, emitió un memorándum a finales de octubre indicando que ya no consideraría a los refugiados y asilados como elegibles para recibir la ayuda alimentaria.

Si bien los inmigrantes indocumentados nunca han sido elegibles para el SNAP, los grupos mencionados y las víctimas de la trata podían solicitar prestaciones de asistencia alimentaria tan pronto como obtenían ese estatus protegido, siempre y cuando cumplieran los demás requisitos del programa. Con la ley One Big Beautiful Bill se eliminó esa elegibilidad. 

La demanda de los fiscales generales afirma que el memorándum de USDA va más allá de lo establecido en la ley federal, alegando que cerraría todas las posibilidades para que estos grupos accedan a SNAP, incluso si se convierten en residentes permanentes legales, uno de los pocos grupos que siguen siendo elegibles (aunque después de un período de espera de cinco años).

“La vergonzosa campaña del gobierno federal para quitarles la comida a los niños y las familias continúa”, afirmó la fiscal general Letitia James en un comunicado la semana pasada, al anunciar la demanda. “USDA no tiene autoridad para excluir arbitrariamente a grupos enteros de personas del programa SNAP, y nadie debería pasar hambre por las circunstancias de su llegada a este país”.

Con la ley “One Big Beautiful Bill”, el gobierno recortará la financiación del programa SNAP —antes conocido como cupones de alimentos— en $187.000 millones de dólares hasta 2034, lo que supone un recorte del 20 por ciento, según la Oficina Presupuestaria del Congreso.

Sin embargo, el momento no podría ser peor: los beneficiarios de SNAP ya vieron retrasados sus beneficios durante más de una semana en noviembre debido al cierre federal, mientras que muchos estados y localidades no están seguros de cómo aplicar las nuevas medidas de elegibilidad.

El gobierno federal afirma que los cambios aún no han entrado en vigor. 

“Debido a la complejidad de la política sobre los no ciudadanos, USDA está elaborando nuevas directrices basadas en las preguntas de las agencias estatales y los socios del SNAP”, afirmó un portavoz del USDA en un comunicado. 

La Oficina de Asistencia Temporal y por Discapacidad (OTDA por sus siglas en inglés), que administra el programa a nivel estatal, afirmó que aún no ha publicado directrices de aplicación para los distritos locales tras el memorándum de USDA de octubre.

En la ciudad de Nueva York, las autoridades aseguraron que las personas no deberían perder sus prestaciones todavía. “Siempre trabajamos para proteger a todos los neoyorquinos vulnerables, y nadie se ha visto afectado todavía por ningún cambio”, afirmó en un comunicado a City Limits un portavoz del Departamento de Servicios Sociales de la ciudad de Nueva York (DSS por sus siglas en inglés), que gestiona SNAP en la ciudad.

Pero si los nuevos requisitos se implementan, sólo en la ciudad de Nueva York podrían verse afectadas unas 15.000 personas, según las estimaciones internas del DSS. Las autoridades afirman que cualquier nueva directriz para la aplicación del sistema dependerá de lo que estipule el estado. Incluso si se aplican estos cambios, los beneficiarios del SNAP afectados no verán ningún cambio hasta que se les vuelva a certificar, afirmó el portavoz.

Según la Oficina Presupuestaria del Congreso, 90.000 personas de la categoría de no ciudadanos podrían perder sus prestaciones en todo el país. Según la Oficina de la Fiscal General, hasta 35.000 neoyorquinos en todo el estado podrían perder sus prestaciones.

El Chinese-American Planning Council, que presta servicios a los neoyorquinos asiático-americanos de bajos ingresos e inmigrantes, estima que el 20 por ciento —es decir, 2.000— de los aproximadamente 10.000 beneficiarios de SNAP con los que trabaja la organización podrían verse afectados, según Carlyn Cowen, directora de políticas y asuntos públicos.

“Para que se hagan una idea del nivel de temor y la magnitud del impacto que estos recortes están teniendo en las semanas previas a que nos enteráramos de ellos… hemos recibido múltiples llamadas de miembros de la comunidad preguntando qué pasaría con sus prestaciones del SNAP”, dijo Cowen. “Un miembro de la comunidad sufrió una crisis de salud mental porque estaba preocupado. Le preocupaba no poder alimentar a su familia”. 

“Estos recortes se están sintiendo con fuerza en nuestra comunidad incluso antes de que les afecten”, añadió Cowen.

Tina Lopez, directora ejecutiva del International Rescue Committee en Nueva York, dijo que el acceso a SNAP “era una parte integral de los programas humanitarios y de refugiados de los Estados Unidos en virtud de la legislación federal”.

“[El SNAP] realmente se vuelve de vital importancia, especialmente para los sobrevivientes de la trata de personas, que necesitan estos servicios alimentarios esenciales cuando atraviesan una situación tan inestable”, dijo Lopez. “Estos servicios alimentarios esenciales crean la estabilidad que necesitan para recuperar los recursos de salud mental que les permiten sobrevivir y prosperar”.

Chia Chia Wang, directora en Nueva York de Church World Service, una organización que trabaja con poblaciones vulnerables a nivel internacional, subrayó que los miembros de la comunidad se sienten inseguros sobre su futuro.

“Su capacidad para acceder a las prestaciones a las que tienen derecho puede verse mermada por numerosas medidas que les dificultan la vida”, afirmó Wang. 

Además de los cambios en los requisitos para acceder al SNAP, la administración Trump anunció el mes pasado nuevas normas en torno a la política de “carga pública“, una forma de que los funcionarios de inmigración comprueben si los inmigrantes utilizan prestaciones públicas. 

El aumento del escrutinio no se detuvo ahí: el 24 de noviembre, el Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos (USCIS por sus siglas en inglés) emitió un memorándum en el que se pedía una “revisión y nueva entrevista” a todos los refugiados admitidos en el país durante la administración Biden: unas 233.000 personas.

Según el memorándum, publicado por primera vez por Reuters, USCIS seguiría revisando a los refugiados admitidos en otros periodos.

“Las normas federales de elegibilidad y otros cambios en las políticas han creado una situación caótica tanto para los inmigrantes y los refugiados como para sus defensores”, afirmó Wang.

Para ponerse en contacto con el reportero de esta noticia, escriba a Daniel@citylimits.org. Para ponerse en contacto con la editora, escriba a Jeanmarie@citylimits.org.

The post Nueva York demanda a administración Trump por cambios que excluyen a miles de inmigrantes legales del programa SNAP appeared first on City Limits.

The owner of the historic Lutsen Lodge has been arrested and charged with the fire that destroyed the North Shore landmark in February 2024.

Bryce James Campbell, 41, was taken into custody near Detroit on Tuesday evening, according to Oakland County, Michigan, jail records.

A criminal complaint had been filed the same day in State District Court in Grand Marais, charging him with three counts of first-degree arson and one count of insurance fraud.

The massive blaze swept through the historic building in the early morning hours of Feb. 6, 2024. No guests were at the lodge that night. The structure had stood since 1952, and the iconic business itself dates back to 1885.

Campbell, a Canadian citizen, has been involved in numerous business-related controversies over the years. He has subsequently faced several lawsuits from contractors, cabin owners and employees seeking money they claim he has failed to pay.

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, State Fire Marshal and Cook County Attorney’s Office are expected to hold a news conference late Thursday afternoon.

— This is a developing story and will be updated.

Related Articles

Cougar seen in Duluth believed to have walked from Nebraska

UMD’s Bill Watson puts 1985 Hobey Baker Award up for auction

In reversal, Trump says House Republicans should vote to release Epstein files

Hermantown gives an initial OK to sprawling data center despite opposition

‘Vatican Unveiled’ coming to the Mall of America in January

Lea el artículo en español aquí.

Ren Harris didn’t set out to reshape Napa Valley. He just wanted better grape prices.

So one evening in 1975, he called a few neighbors to his house in Oakville — names that today read like a who’s who of modern Napa wine history: John Trefethen, Virgil Galleron, Justin Meyer and Andy Beckstoffer. Harris, a former San Francisco contractor who had recently ripped out 30 acres of prune trees and planted grapes, got straight to the point.

“Ren said, ‘Hey, we’re going to get together and create a club,’” Beckstoffer recalled.

What began as that casual meeting — just a handful of growers around a dining table in Oakville — would become the Napa Valley Grapegrowers, now marking its 50th anniversary. Over the decades, the group helped shape some of the most defining elements of Napa Valley’s wine identity: standardized grape pricing, modern labeling laws, farmworker protections and the push to safeguard agricultural land. The organization’s work didn’t always draw headlines, but it helped lay the framework for Napa’s transformation from a quiet farming region into one of the world’s most influential wine landscapes.

But to understand how the organization gained influence — and why growers felt they needed it — it helps to remember what Napa Valley looked like then.

At the time of that first meeting, the future of Napa Valley wine was far from certain — and Harris was still relatively new to grape growing, having moved from San Francisco a few years earlier after marrying Marilyn Pelissa, whose family had farmed in Napa Valley since the 1890s.

Beckstoffer himself had only recently arrived from Virginia, armed with an MBA from Dartmouth and working for Heublein — the American food and beverage company experimenting with wine. When the corporation pivoted away, he took a risk and purchased 1,200 acres of vineyard land. The gamble nearly didn’t work; Beckstoffer later recalled how hard those first years were.

Today, he farms roughly 4,000 acres across Napa, Mendocino and Lake counties, and both Wine Spectator and The Wall Street Journal have called him “the most powerful grape-grower.”

When pundits cite the events that helped power Napa Valley to preeminence in the global wine scene, they typically point to the 1968 creation of the Ag Preserve, which declared agriculture the dominant land use in the valley, or the 1976 Judgment of Paris, when Napa wines shocked the world by besting storied French labels in a blind tasting. The rising influence of Napa Valley Vintners strengthened the region’s reputation.

But the group Harris convened around that kitchen table played a quieter, critical role — shaping how Napa would grow, how grapes would be valued and who would have a say in the future of the industry.

“Part of the reason the whole valley has been prosperous, with high prices for grapes, high prices for wine, going all the way to world-class workers in the vineyards, is the Grapegrowers,” Beckstoffer said at a 50th anniversary celebration earlier this year.

Looking for respect

Back then, growers were seeking something simple: respect — and pricing that matched the growing prestige of Napa Valley wines.

“At the time, Napa County grape growers were second-class citizens in terms of farming,” Harris said, “Napa County grape growers got less than Sonoma County grapegrowers, but Napa wineries got more.”

That shift began with the Agricultural Preserve. Harris’s father-in-law, Andy Pelissa, was the only farmer on the county Planning Commission when a proposal came forward in 1968 to stop farmland from being subdivided into estates. The measure passed by a single vote, establishing what became the first agricultural preserve in the United States.

“The Ag Preserve saved Napa Valley. But for that, no Paris tasting, no Grapegrowers,” Harris added.

Preservation meant farming had to succeed and growers had to be taken seriously.

“It was a different age,” Beckstoffer said. He remembers attending a meeting with Napa Valley Vintners where winery owners sat at the table and growers lined chairs against the walls.

They wanted a seat at the table.

“We wanted to increase the political, social and economic status of growers because we were nowhere,” he said.

Contracts were inconsistent. There was no transparency in pricing. Payment might not arrive until after harvest.

“In capitalist America, if an investor isn’t making any money with a project, he is going to move out,” Beckstoffer said. “You couldn’t make any money growing grapes.”

Creating structure

At that first gathering in Oakville, Harris proposed forming a grape-focused committee within the Napa Valley Farm Bureau, which he led as board president.

First on the agenda: establishing a marketing order requiring grape prices to be set before sale.

Napa Valley grape growers Salvador Renteria, left, Oscar Renteria and Andy Beckstoffer at the Napa Valley Grapegrowers 50th Anniversary Celebration in May 2025. (Suzanne Becker Bronk / Courtesy Napa Valley Grapegrowers)

“That wasn’t too popular an idea, maybe,” Harris said, “but California Farm Bureau was behind it.”

The Farm Bureau sent him and Beckstoffer to Sacramento. Harris remembers the meeting clearly.

“We sat on either side of the table — it was like ping-pong.”

They successfully argued winery owners shouldn’t vote on pricing rules that affected their purchasing costs. Legislation ultimately passed in the state legislature, and within one year Napa County grapegrowers were getting more than Sonoma County.

“Within a few years we were getting double,” Harris said.

The policy also led to an annual crop report — a public accounting of tonnage, vineyard source, buyer and price.

“It became the annual much-anticipated Crush Report everyone waits for,” Beckstoffer said

Bringing order to labeling chaos

Another challenge was the lack of consistent wine labeling requirements.

In 1975, “wine labeling laws were all over the map,” Harris said. “A label that said ‘Cabernet’ might have some Cabernet in it, but who knew how much?”

Relying on alliances through the American Farm Bureau, Beckstoffer flew to Washington, D.C. in 1977 to advocate for change. He got a meeting with U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Rex Davis.

“We went in, sat down for a couple of hours,” he recalled.

He walked out with labeling standards that reshaped American wine: 95% Napa County fruit if labeled Napa; 75% minimum varietal content; 100% if labeled estate grown.

“The wineries weren’t happy,” he said, “but they didn’t have the clout.”

The farmworker issue

The Agricultural Preserve also highlighted the need for a stable, long-term vineyard workforce.

In the 1970s, “farm labor was all transient and mostly illegal,” Harris said. On his first planting day, he realized how essential skilled workers were — and learned Spanish.

Some saw vineyard workers as adversaries.

“A lot of people considered them the enemy,” Beckstoffer said. “But we said, ‘No, we’re a team.’”

Harris proposed a farmworker health insurance program, a precursor to the Ag Health Benefits Alliance, now serving more than 1,500 agricultural employees.

During that era, tensions with César Chávez and the United Farm Workers were high, and Harris debated Chávez on national television after his boycott of Napa vineyards.

“I don’t lose arguments,” Harris said, “but I don’t think the debate changed any minds. (César) and I wanted the same thing for farmworkers, namely that they grow and prosper.”

The Grapegrowers today

The committee Harris envisioned eventually became an independent nonprofit with more than 600 members, offering research, education and advocacy for growers. Today, the organization supports training and industry development — including the annual Rootstock conference — as the wine landscape continues to evolve.

In 2011, the Grapegrowers formed the Farmworker Foundation, offering programs ranging from literacy classes to leadership development and cultural events such as the pruning contest and the Cultivar Spanish-language conference.

“It gives everyone an opportunity to learn,” said Oscar Renteria, named the 2025 Grower of the Year.

Looking ahead

“When I landed here in 2011, I felt like I had a community,” said Caleb Mosley, who became executive director in 2024. He sees another pivotal moment ahead — one defined by oversupply, changing consumer habits and uncertainty.

“We’ve had ups and downs but never anything like this,” Mosley said. Going forward, he wants the organization “to be as useful as pruning shears.”

Part of that future is the Napa Valley Center for Grape Growing and Farmworker Education — a 2.2-acre learning site planned against the Mayacamas Mountains. The center will host a demonstration vineyard, training programs, community events and workforce support. It is expected to break ground in 2026 — with Harris and Beckstoffer among the first donors.

When Harris was named Grower of the Year in 2021, vintner John Trefethen called him “one of the most consequential leaders of what happened in the early years of the Napa Valley.”

But Harris, sitting at his desk at Paradigm Winery in Oakville, shrugged.

“It’s been a fun way to make a comfortable living.”

Later, Beckstoffer was asked whether he or Harris — sitting at that first kitchen table in 1975 — had any idea what Napa Valley would become.

He didn’t hesitate.

“Oh, hell no.”

By MATTHEW LEE

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has instructed U.S. embassies and consulates around the world to prioritize visa applications from foreigners wishing the visit the United States to either invest in America or attend the 2026 World Cup, 2028 Olympics and other major sporting events.

Related Articles

White House is expected to submit plans for new ballroom to planning commission this month

Black men who were fired from key transportation boards accuse Trump of a pattern of discrimination

Florida starts redistricting talks in a growing battle for House control in 2026 elections

Kennedy’s vaccine advisory committee delays vote on hepatitis B shots for newborns

NY attorney general challenges authority of acting US attorney investigating her Trump lawsuits

At the same time, the administration has added new criteria for highly skilled foreign workers seeking a particular visa. The new rules would deny entry to those deemed to have directed or participated in the censorship of American citizens on social media through content moderation initiatives that have sprung up throughout Europe and elsewhere to combat extremist speech.

In a series of cables sent this week to all U.S. diplomatic missions that were obtained by The Associated Press, the State Department said visa applications for businesspeople considering “significant investments” in the United States should be at the top of the list for consideration along with applications from those wanting to travel “for major sporting events which showcase American excellence.”

It is the latest effort by President Donald Trump’s administration to crack down on migrants and visitors entering the U.S. But with major sports events planned in the United States, the administration is looking to ensure that fans are able to attend those competitions. The policies are getting heightened attention ahead of Friday’s World Cup draw.

Focusing on foreign sports fans

As part of a broader initiative to control the entry of foreigners into the U.S., the State Department has said all those who require visas to enter the country would need to submit to an in-person interview and screening to vet them for potential national security risks.

This has led to lengthy wait times at many embassies and consulates for interviews to apply for what are known as “B1” and “B2” visas despite a surge in consular staffing.

Last month, Trump announced a new initiative, dubbed “FIFA Pass,” for foreigners traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup that will allow them to get interviews for visas more quickly. Nonetheless, he still encouraged them to apply for their visas “right away.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the administration had dispatched more than 400 additional consular officers around the world to handle the demand for visas for the World Cup and that in about 80% of the globe, travelers to the U.S. can get a visa appointment within 60 days — something reflected in the cable.

The new steps in the cable this week go beyond the FIFA Pass initative to expedite applications for those looking to travel to the United States for the Olympics and other major sports events.

Posts “should ensure sufficient appointment capacity to accommodate spectators and other fans traveling for events surrounding the (World Cup) tournament,” said one of the two cables sent Tuesday. “These should take priority over all other B1/B2 applications, except those related to American re-industrialization.”

Others to be prioritized include foreign diplomats, government officials traveling on official business, temporary agricultural workers, religious workers, physicians and nurses, and students attending academic institutions with less than 15% foreign enrollment.

“Posts should ensure that applicants of higher ranked groups get priority over applicants and lower rank groups, regardless of demand by lower ranked applicants,” the cable said. “Posts may significantly reduce the number of appointment slots available to lower rank groups in order to accommodate demand from higher rank groups.”

New visa guidelines for highly skilled workers

A second cable sent Tuesday to all embassies and consulates set out new criteria for considering H-1B visa applications, instructing diplomats to “be on the lookout” for those who may have been or are “responsible for or complicit in the censorship of Americans” online and elsewhere.

Those visas allow American companies to bring in people with technical skills that are hard to find in the United States, and President Donald Trump has said he would slap a $100,000 annual fee on them.

The department said evidence of this could lead to visa denial. It defined such information as having “adopting global content moderation policies inconsistent with freedom of expression, complying with global content moderation or censorship demands from a foreign entity and providing access to private data on American citizens in connection with content moderation.”

Proof of this could be obtained from an applicant’s resume, employment history, social media profiles and posts, and public statements or writings, the cable said, adding that the State Department was developing tools to make it easier and quicker to conduct these screenings.

It noted that all visa applicants are subject to these criteria, but that H-1B applicants should be looked at most closely “as many work or have worked in the tech sector, including in social media or financial services companies involved in the suppression of protected expression.”

“You must thoroughly explore their employment histories to ensure no participation in such activities,” the cable said, adding that “if you uncover evidence and applicant was responsible for or complicit in censorship or attempted censorship of protected expression in the United States you should pursue a finding that the applicant is ineligible” for a visa.