Exclusive: Texas troopers told to push children into Rio Grande, deny water to migrants

Benjamin Wermund
Updated: July 18, 2023 12:16 p.m.

Comments
Migrants cool themselves in the waters of the Rio Grande after crossing to the U.S. from Mexico near a site where the state is installing large buoys to be used as a border barrier along the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass, Texas, Monday, July 10, 2023. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Migrants cool themselves in the waters of the Rio Grande after crossing to the U.S. from Mexico near a site where the state is installing large buoys to be used as a border barrier along the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass, Texas, Monday, July 10, 2023. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)
Eric Gay/Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Officers working for Gov. Greg Abbott’s border security initiative have been ordered to push small children and nursing babies back into the Rio Grande, and have been told not to give water to asylum seekers even in extreme heat, according to an email from a Department of Public Safety trooper who described the actions as “inhumane.”

The July 3 account, reviewed by Hearst Newspapers, discloses several previously unreported incidents the trooper witnessed in Eagle Pass, where the state of Texas has strung miles of razor wire and deployed a wall of buoys in the Rio Grande.

According to the email, a pregnant woman having a miscarriage was found late last month caught in the wire, doubled over in pain. A four-year-old girl passed out from heat exhaustion after she tried to go through it and was pushed back by Texas National Guard soldiers. A teenager broke his leg trying to navigate the water around the wire and had to be carried by his father.
The email, which the trooper sent to a superior, suggests that Texas has set “traps” of razor wire-wrapped barrels in parts of the river with high water and low visibility. And it says the wire has increased the risk of drownings by forcing migrants into deeper stretches of the river.
The trooper called for a series of rigorous policy changes to improve safety for migrants, including removing the barrels and revoking the directive on withholding water.
 
Did My Family Really Come “Legally”? American Immigration Council

Many people assume that their family immigrated to the United States legally, or did it “the right way.” In most cases, this statement does not reflect the fact that the U.S. immigration system was very different in the past and that their families might not have been allowed to enter had today’s laws been in effect. When many families arrived in the United States, there were no numerical limitations on immigration, no requirements to have an existing family or employment relationship with someone in the country, and no requirement to obtain a visa prior to arriving. The definition of who is “legal”—and who is not—changes with the evolution of immigration laws. In some cases, claiming that a family came “legally” is simply inaccurate—unauthorized immigration has been a reality for generations.

Many of our ancestors would not have qualified under today’s immigration laws.

Today’s laws require that potential immigrants be closely related to qualified U.S. citizens or permanent residents, have employment offers from U.S. employers, or qualify as refugees. Today’s laws would have effectively restricted many of our families from coming legally to the United States.
...
 
Curious as to the immigrations laws when the Pilgrims arrived.
It would be reasonable to presume it would be the laws of the Indian Nations that occupied Plymouth rock and the surrounding environs at the time.

My guess would be they didn't ask those folks for permission or what they thought about it.
 
It would be reasonable to presume it would be the laws of the Indian Nations that occupied Plymouth rock and the surrounding environs at the time.

My guess would be they didn't ask those folks for permission or what they thought about it.
From what I can tell after a little looking around. There was a loose organization of several diffent Indian groups with multiple tribes within some. No real sign of a solid form of immigration rules. Some aligned with the settlers and others expressed their displeasure with, as @PF5 mentioned, bows and arrows.
 
From what I can tell after a little looking around. There was a loose organization of several diffent Indian groups with multiple tribes within some. No real sign of a solid form of immigration rules. Some aligned with the settlers and others expressed their displeasure with, as @PF5 mentioned, bows and arrows.
My post was mostly a snarky reply to your snarky rhetorical question.

The real answer is the Pilgrims and all early colonists didn't concern themselves with or comply with any rules established by the indigenous tribes of the areas they colonized. They didn't accept any "rules" of the (to them) savages might have placed on them. So your rhetorical question was very Euro-centric in assuming there were no immigration rules to be followed.

I'm not at all an open borders guy advocating for immediate and free entry by any and everyone at any time. However, the flippant response of "Do it legally and we're cool" really ignores the fact that the rules and quotas inherent in those rules oft-times end up being a complete and utter bar to entry for many seeking to immigrate here. IMO, that is counter to what America should....and used to....stand for.

Like most things in life, it's complicated, nuanced, and not really subject to easy answers that lend themselves to "picking a side" between two hardened extreme stances. The devil is almost always in the details.
 
My post was mostly a snarky reply to your snarky rhetorical question.

The real answer is the Pilgrims and all early colonists didn't concern themselves with or comply with any rules established by the indigenous tribes of the areas they colonized. They didn't accept any "rules" of the (to them) savages might have placed on them. So your rhetorical question was very Euro-centric in assuming there were no immigration rules to be followed.

I'm not at all an open borders guy advocating for immediate and free entry by any and everyone at any time. However, the flippant response of "Do it legally and we're cool" really ignores the fact that the rules and quotas inherent in those rules oft-times end up being a complete and utter bar to entry for many seeking to immigrate here. IMO, that is counter to what America should....and used to....stand for.

Like most things in life, it's complicated, nuanced, and not really subject to easy answers that lend themselves to "picking a side" between two hardened extreme stances. The devil is almost always in the details.
I say this with good intent, but your post about what American used to stand regarding immigration doesn’t necessarily follow history.

If discussion about immigration includes quotas, job requirement, and turning people away. In many ways immigration is much easier now. (Edit: “Easier” is poor wording. Should have stated there were A LOT of hoops to go through historically.)
Re: Ellis Island history
 
Last edited:
I say this with good intent, but your post about what American used to stand regarding immigration doesn’t necessarily follow history.

If discussion about immigration includes quotas, job requirement, and turning people away. In many ways immigration is much easier now.
Re: Ellis Island history
Please elaborate how it is easier now than it was when people had to pass through Ellis Island. Angel Island was far more difficult to get through. I wonder why.
 
Last edited:
Please elaborate how it is easier now than it was when people had to pass through Ellis Island and Angel Island?
1) In the early 1900s, over 10% of immigrants were held for weeks and sometimes months (and this was way prior to when the Island became an official
detention site.

2) Job requirements: 1900s immigrants had to prove a skill, trade, or have a job.


An interesting but not very detailed read. Touring Ellis Island you can learn a little more.

 
My post was mostly a snarky reply to your snarky rhetorical question.

The real answer is the Pilgrims and all early colonists didn't concern themselves with or comply with any rules established by the indigenous tribes of the areas they colonized. They didn't accept any "rules" of the (to them) savages might have placed on them. So your rhetorical question was very Euro-centric in assuming there were no immigration rules to be followed.

I'm not at all an open borders guy advocating for immediate and free entry by any and everyone at any time. However, the flippant response of "Do it legally and we're cool" really ignores the fact that the rules and quotas inherent in those rules oft-times end up being a complete and utter bar to entry for many seeking to immigrate here. IMO, that is counter to what America should....and used to....stand for.

Like most things in life, it's complicated, nuanced, and not really subject to easy answers that lend themselves to "picking a side" between two hardened extreme stances. The devil is almost always in the details.
Well there you go, I didn’t realize either one of us were being snarky.
 
I say this with good intent, but your post about what American used to stand regarding immigration doesn’t necessarily follow history.

If discussion about immigration includes quotas, job requirement, and turning people away. In many ways immigration is much easier now. (Edit: “Easier” is poor wording. Should have stated there were A LOT of hoops to go through historically.)
Re: Ellis Island history
You are factually wrong. While there were entry requirements, they were nowhere as restrictive as now.
 
1) In the early 1900s, over 10% of immigrants were held for weeks and sometimes months (and this was way prior to when the Island became an official
detention site.

2) Job requirements: 1900s immigrants had to prove a skill, trade, or have a job.


An interesting but not very detailed read. Touring Ellis Island you can learn a little more.

I had a patient the other day trying to get his family here legally. I did the immigration exams, and he succeded!

He started the process in 1994. Maybe ask him how "easy" it is. I read your article and didn't see any people kept waiting for 3 decades.
 
Back
Top