Internet Security

Texas National Guard Faces Calls to Shoot Migrants After Being Overpowered

CLOSE X By Nick Mordowanec Staff Writer FOLLOW Share Copy Link The Texas National Guard is being encouraged by some social media users to be more violent in response to migrants attempting to enter the United States illegally. Illegal immigration has risen under President Joe Biden’s watch and continues to divide communities around the country

The Texas National Guard is being encouraged by some social media users to be more violent in response to migrants attempting to enter the United States illegally.

Illegal immigration has risen under President Joe Biden’s watch and continues to divide communities around the country, notably border states and cities with sanctuary status.

Videos taken Thursday on the U.S.-Mexico border in El Paso, Texas, showed a throng of migrants, described by on-scene reporters as hundreds of individuals of different nationalities, causing a “riot” and using force to try to overpower soldiers.

The incident occurred simultaneously as Texas waits and sees if it can enforce its own immigration laws, including arrests and deportation, through legislation known as Senate Bill 4 (S.B. 4). The legislation previously approved by state lawmakers continues to be litigated in appeals courts and as high as the U.S. Supreme Court.

Total border crossings exceeded 988,900 individuals between October and December, following a record-setting number of 2.4 million migrant encounters at the southern border in fiscal 2023—up from approximately 1.7 million in 2021.

Newsweek reached out to the Texas Department of Public Safety and other officials via email for comment.

“The TX National Guard & Dept. of Public Safety quickly regained control & are redoubling the razor wire barriers,” Texas Governor Greg Abbott wrote on X, formerly Twitter, following the border incident. “DPS is instructed to arrest every illegal immigrant involved for criminal trespass & destruction of property.”

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, described the scene as “chilling.”

“This is the result of the Biden Administration refusing to secure our border and protect America,” he wrote on X.

El Paso Migrants
Immigrants wait for transport and processing after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border on March 13 in El Paso, Texas. The Texas National Guard is being encouraged by some social media users to be more violent in…


John Moore/Getty Images

Mexican photojournalist J. Omar Ornelas, who lives on the northern border of Latin America, posted a different-angled video on X of the scene in El Paso—showing migrants purportedly from Africa, Central America, Colombia and Venezuela breaching concertina wire to get to the larger border wall.

Charlie Kirk, founder and president of the conservative organization Turning Point USA, wrote on X that having a national border means individuals have to protect it.

“Ultimately, having a border means being willing to have armed men at the border willing to use force to stop those attempting to cross it,” Kirk wrote. “If you aren’t willing to do that, then your border is fake — anyone who wants it badly enough can just force their way in. The world is calling Biden’s bluff.”

In February, Representative Morgan Luttrell, a Texas Republican, introduced the Defend Our Borders from Armed Invaders Act in the U.S. House, authorizing the National Guard to escalate force as necessary to repel an armed individual attempting to illegally enter the U.S. through Mexico.

A spokesperson for the congressman told Newsweek via email on Friday that the legislation applies only to those migrants carrying lethal weapons. The bill currently awaits committee mark-up.

“This border crisis is a full-on invasion, and the Biden Administration continues to recklessly turn a blind eye to the ongoing danger this presents,” Luttrell, a 14-year U.S. Navy veteran, told Newsweek. “I fully support Governor Abbott’s and the Texas Guard’s efforts to secure our border.”

Read more
  • Migrants overpower Texas National Guard, tear down border fence
  • Undocumented immigrants have right to own guns, judge rules
  • Migrants Being Arrested Are Surging

Abbott’s words, meanwhile, sparked some impassioned criticism on social media.

“Lethal force required,” one X user wrote in response to Abbott.

Another X user wrote: “If citizens did that to law-enforcement, they would be tased or shot, and they’d be lucky to be arrested. It’s time to deal harshly with invaders, Governor. We have sonic and millimeter wave crowd-control weapons. It’s time to use them.”

Podcaster and U.S. military veteran Wayne DuPree described the scene on X as an “invasion [that] should be dealt with accordingly,” adding that refugees don’t assault border agents.

“What good are guns at the border if we aren’t going to use them?” political commentator and Donald Trump supporter Gunther Eagleman asked on X.

“An unarmed American female veteran was shot to death at near point-blank range on Jan 6 because a federal officer considered her a threat for invading a public building,” wrote political commentator Julie Kelly. “Hey @LindseyGrahamSC where are your shoot to kill orders for these invaders?”

Update 03/22/24, 11:30 a.m. ET: This article was updated with comment from Luttrell.

Uncommon Knowledge

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

“);jQuery(this).remove()})
jQuery(‘.start-slider’).owlCarousel({loop:!1,margin:10,nav:!0,items:1}).on(‘changed.owl.carousel’,function(event){var currentItem=event.item.index;var totalItems=event.item.count;if(currentItem===0){jQuery(‘.owl-prev’).addClass(‘disabled’)}else{jQuery(‘.owl-prev’).removeClass(‘disabled’)}
if(currentItem===totalItems-1){jQuery(‘.owl-next’).addClass(‘disabled’)}else{jQuery(‘.owl-next’).removeClass(‘disabled’)}})}})})

fairness meter

fairness meter

Newsweek is committed to journalism that’s factual and fair.

Hold us accountable and submit your rating of this article on the meter.

Newsweek is committed to journalism that’s factual and fair.

Hold us accountable and submit your rating of this article on the meter.

Click On Meter
To Rate This Article

Confirm your selection

Comment about your rating

Share your rating

About the writer


Nick Mordowanec


To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here.

The Texas National Guard is being encouraged by some social media users to be more violent in response to migrants attempting to enter the United States illegally.

Illegal immigration has risen under President Joe Biden’s watch and continues to divide communities around the country, notably border states and cities with

Read More

Be the first to write a comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Internet Security

Fix delivered for tech outage that caused chaos worldwide

The cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has deployed a fix for a software problem that triggered one of the biggest tech outages the world has ever seen, affecting industries ranging from airlines to banking and healthcare worldwide, the company’s CEO said on Friday. All Windows computers affected by the failure will need to be manually rebooted, CrowdStrike

The cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has deployed a fix for a software problem that triggered one of the biggest tech outages the world has ever seen, affecting industries ranging from airlines to banking and healthcare worldwide, the company’s CEO said on Friday.

All Windows computers affected by the failure will need to be manually rebooted, CrowdStrike said.

Microsoft said separately that it had fixed the underlying cause for the outage of its 365 apps and services including Teams and OneDrive, but residual impact was affecting some services.

“This is not a security incident or cyberattack. The issue has been identified, isolated and a fix has been deployed,” CrowdStrike CEO George Kurtz said in a post on the social media platform X.

In one communication to a customer reviewed by Bloomberg News, CrowdStrike’s technical supp

Read More

Continue Reading
Internet Security

Top UN court says Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory are illegal

SUMMARY This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. Protesters hold a Palestinian flag as they gather outside the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as judges rule on emergency measures against Israel following accusations by South Africa that the Israeli military operation

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Top UN court says Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory are illegal

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. Protesters hold a Palestinian flag as they gather outside the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as judges rule on emergency measures against Israel following accusations by South Africa that the Israeli military operation in Gaza is a state-led genocide, in The Hague, Netherlands, January 26, 2024.

Piroschka van de Wouw/Reuters

(3rd UPDATE) The World Court’s opinion finds that the UN Security Council, the General Assembly, and all states have an obligation not to recognize the occupation as legal and not to give aid or support toward maintaining it

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – The United Nations’ highest court said on Friday, July 19, that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories and settlements there are illegal and should be withdrawn as soon as possible, in its strongest findings to date on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

The findings by judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), known as the World Court, are not binding but carry weight under international law and may weaken support for Israel.

“Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the regime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law,” President Nawaf Salam said, reading the findings of a 15-judge panel.

The court said Israel’s obligations include paying restitution for harm and “the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements.”

In a swift reaction, Israel’s foreign ministry rejected the opinion as “fundamentally wrong” and one-sided, and repeated its stance that a political settlement in the region can only be reached by negotiations.

“The Jewish nation cannot be an occupier in its own land,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement.

The opinion also angered West Bank settlers as well as politicians such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, whose nationalist religious party is close to the settler movement and who himself lives in a West Bank settlement.

“The answer to The Hague – Sovereignty now” he said in a post on the social media platform X, in an apparent appeal to formally annex the West Bank.

Israel Gantz, head of the Binyamin Regional Council, one of the largest settler councils, said the ICJ opinion was “contrary to the Bible, morality and international law.”

‘No complicity’

The ICJ opinion also found that the UN Security Council, the General Assembly and all states have an obligation not to recognize the occupation as legal nor “render aid or assistance” toward maintaining Israel’s presence in the occupied territories.

The United States is Israel’s biggest military ally and supporter.

The Palestinian Foreign Ministry called the opinion “historic” and urged states to adhere to it.

“No aid. No assistance. No complicity. No money, no arms, no trade… no actions of any kind to support Israel’s illegal occupation,” Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki said outside the court in The Hague.

The case stems from a 2022 request from the UN General Assembly, predating the war in Gaza that began in October.

Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem – areas of historic Palestine which the Palestinians want for a state – in a 1967 war and has since built settlements in the West Bank and steadily expanded them.

Israeli leaders have argued the territories are not occupied in legal terms because they are on disputed lands, but the United Nations and most of the international community regard them as Israeli-occupied territory.

In February, more than 50 states presented their views before the court, with Palestinian representatives asking the court to find that Israel must withdraw from all the occupied areas and dismantle illegal settlements.

Israel did not participate in the hearings but filed a written statement telling the court that issuing an advisory opinion would be “harmful” to attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The majority of states participating asked the court to find the occupation illegal, while a handful, including Canada and Britain, argued it should refuse to give an advisory opinion.

The United States had asked the court not to order the unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Palestinian territories.

The US position was that the court should issue no decision that could hurt negotiations toward a two-state solution on a “land for peace” principle.

In 2004 the ICJ ga

Read More

Continue Reading
Internet Security

The Supreme Court rules for Biden administration in a social media dispute with conservative states

The Supreme Court has sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security. The justices in a 6-3 v…

The Supreme Court has sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security. The justices in a 6-3 v…
Read More

Continue Reading
Internet Security

Modernism: A legal analysis of Nigeria’s ranching debacle

The impeccable aspirations of section 14 (1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) (the “Constitution”), establish that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.” Although the purposive intent therein is excellent, however, the practical applicability and enforcement of that provision is at

The impeccable aspirations of section 14 (1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) (the “Constitution”), establish that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.” Although the purposive intent therein is excellent, however, the practical applicability and enforcement of that provision is at best variable, and at worst, non-existent, regarding the political dynamite of open cattle grazing in Nigeria by pastoralists.

How can cattle grazing constitute political dynamite in Nigeria in the 21st Century, when the progressive world is at the cutting edge of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and computational thinking, which traverses transformative healthcare, precision defence systems, innovative fin-techs, robotics, social media, space exploration etc?

The legendary soul music legend, Marvin Gaye, in 1971, 53 years ago, recorded the hit song “What’s going on?” Although the context at the time was social upheaval in the United States, the same question could be posed within the extant subject matter. How is it that Nigeria is unable to effectively grapple with the banal issue of open grazing which commenced in Georgia and Florida, USA, in 1605?

The poser neatly segues into the recurrent lethal clashes between farmers and cattle herders, which has directly triggered loss of lives, displacements of farmers from their ancestral lands and extensive property destruction. Where is the government in all this and what imaginative policies have been executed? Afterall, cattle business is a private enterprise just like fish farming, pig farming, poultry farming, and snail farming in the country and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of farmers nationwide depend on all, not one, of these farming models.

What, then, underpins the ferociously devastating footprints of open cattle grazing in Nigeria? How is livestock farming developed and executed, applying modern practices, in an environmentally sustainable, peaceful and economically beneficial manner in progressive countries?

For starters, the global revenue meat market is approximately $1,460.00 billion in 2024 and market projections forecasting annual growth by 6.12% (compound annual growth rate 2024-2029). According to Statista’s 2024 analysis, China has generated the highest revenue in meat production US$273 billion; United States (US$131.60 billion); Brazil (US$37.07 billion); Canada (US$31.06 billion); United Kingdom (US$30.88 billion); Spain (US$22.70 billion), and Russia (US$22.60 billion).

Plus, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Agency asserts that livestock contributes 40% of the global value of agricultural output, supporting the livelihoods, food and nutrition security of over 1.3 billion people. These are huge numbers and the significance exposes the reality that the global livestock industry is a huge revenue catalyst and employment creator, which alleviates poverty reduction, food security and agricultural development.

In all those countries, modern agricultural practices, tech

Read More

Continue Reading