Three migrants, a woman and two children, drowned Saturday in the Rio Grande in Eagle Pass, Texas – very recently the epicenter of the migrant crisis – just days after state authorities blocked the US Border Patrol from accessing miles of the US-Mexico border, according to a post on X by Rep. Henry Cuellar.

“This is a tragedy, and the State bears responsibility,” Cuellar, a Democrat from Texas, said on X, formally known as Twitter.

The congressman said Border Patrol learned a group of six migrants were in distress in the Rio Grande at about 9 p.m. on Friday.

Border Patrol called the Texas Military Department, the Texas National Guard and Texas Department of Public Safety but “were unsuccessful” at relaying the information by phone, Cuellar said in the social media post. Federal agents then went to the gate at Shelby Park, set up by Texas authorities, to provide the information, Cuellar said.

“However, Texas Military Department soldiers stated they would not grant access to the migrants – even in the event of an emergency – and that they would send a soldier to investigate the situation,” Cuellar said on X.

  • yeather@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    10 months ago

    So at what point and why should we start helping them to break the law. Border patrol should not help you in any case where you’re illegally entering the country willingly. Which there is an argument for the kids they weren’t willingly entering the country, but either way why should it be on US border patrol to help people in Mexico trying to illegally enter.

    • Worx@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      You could always save them from drowning then just put them back in Mexico. I’d say saving a person’s life is always more important than obeying the law

      • rivermonster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Everyone has the right to seek asylum—no matter who they are, where they come from, or when they choose to flee. The right to seek asylum, along with other rights of refugees, is outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol which has protected the rights of asylum seekers and refugees since the end of WWII. The legal documents are the core basis of international refugee protections and define the moral and legal obligations of countries to refugees and asylum seekers. 

        One of the most important protections established by the Convention is the core principle of non-refoulement, the right for refugees and asylum seekers to be protected from forced returns to a country where they will face serious threats to their life or freedom. This protection gives asylum seekers the right to seek asylum without fear of being returned to their country of origin, even if their legal refugee status hasn’t been determined yet. All countries are accountable for protecting asylum seekers and must accept them when they arrive at ports of entry. 

        If a refugee or asylum seeker is denied entry into a country and returned to their country of origin, they may be forced to return to an armed conflict or war and could be at risk of persecution, violence and death. To protect people from returning to dangerous situations where their lives and freedoms are at risk, the right to seek asylum must be upheld. 

        • yeather@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/seeking-protection-how-us-asylum-process-works

          To be an asylum seeker in the United States you must apply for asylum at one of 328 official ports of entry or from within the country already. Unless rainfall has been really bad there is no legal port of entry underwater. This person is therefore an illegal immigrant breaking the law, not an asylum seeker following the laws of the country they wish to integrate into.

          https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/can-safe-third-country-agreements-resolve-asylum-crisis

          In addition, many are denied for breaking another asylum seeking rule. You must seek asylum in the closest safe country. In most cases for immigrants like the woman and childrent that is Brazil, Guatemala, Panama, Mexico, and El Salvador. Any “asylum seeker” going through safe countries to reach the US is breaking the law and is not a real asylum seeker. The US border patrol has no obligation to save people illegally entering the country through unsafe routes, endangering Americans.

          • highenergyphysics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            See that’s the thing about you people.

            You think you’re really doing the same thing leftists do right now, where you just post some sources and type out some bullshit about how it ties to your stance that murdering immigrants is a valid human thought.

            Ignoring the scientifically proven fact that you are so fucking stupid your brain literally is unable to make the logical connections to do so, looking like a complete clown to anyone above room temp IQ.

            Ignoring the fact that even now you are just unhinged fearposting because some pedophile tells you what to think.

            Because at the end of the day, the only thing your dumb fucking skill can understand is acute lead poisoning.

            Remember this liberals, next time you try to “peacefully vote” the fascists out. Remember what you are too cowardly to do.

            • yeather@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              If your mind is too small to comprehend unchecked immigration will ruin this cohntry there is no saving you. I have no sympathy for you or what will happen to you and your loved ones if your terrible ideals come to light. Also, what scientifically proven fact would you like to source on how every single conservative is less smart than liberals? From the sounds of it you have one source from a very left leaning point of view that stroked your ego so much you just have to quote it.

      • derphurr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        And in a should you save the same people from drowning again?

        If rescue is not on US soil, can they even do it?

        Should soldiers risk their lives in flood waters if they are on US soil?

      • yeather@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/seeking-protection-how-us-asylum-process-works

        To be an asylum seeker in the United States you must apply for asylum at one of 328 official ports of entry or from within the country already. Unless rainfall has been really bad there is no legal port of entry underwater. This person is therefore an illegal immigrant breaking the law, not an asylum seeker following the laws of the country they wish to integrate into.

        https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/can-safe-third-country-agreements-resolve-asylum-crisis

        In addition, many are denied for breaking another asylum seeking rule. You must seek asylum in the closest safe country. In most cases for immigrants like the woman and childrent that is Brazil, Guatemala, Panama, Mexico, and El Salvador. Any “asylum seeker” going through safe countries to reach the US is breaking the law and is not a real asylum seeker. The US border patrol has no obligation to save people illegally entering the country through unsafe routes, endangering Americans.

        Womp womp, unless they’re cuban or similar island nation they have a closer safe country. They aren’t asylum seekers they illegal immigrants attempting to thwart the laws of the very country they want into. Illegal immigrants have neither my sympathy nor my support, border patrol should make no attempt to help them break into the country, especially if they are across the border in Mexico.

        • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          “Or from within the country already”

          This involves coming in the country illegally and then having that be retroactively legal when they declare Asylum status, that is how it works in our and every other country that observes international law.

          The “safe” country exemption is preposterous and arguably illegal under international law too, there’s a reason even people from so called “safe” countries like Mexico flee to the US.

          • yeather@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            You can enter the country legally and then apply for asylum status. That right is available at any legal border crossing into the United States. Also, reread the original news article and you’ll see the woman was not in the US yet but was actively attempting to break the law. US border patrol has no obligation to help someone in Mexico break into the US.

            On your second point, are these international laws the United States has signed and agreed to? Similar to how the ICJ works, the US has no legal obligation to follow “international law” that it didnt agree to.

    • nomous@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Border patrol should not help you in any case where you’re illegally entering the country willingly.

      I disagree with this premise.