Mothers carrying their children smile, give me a thumbs up, and then point to a riverbank 50 metres or so away.
We’re on a walkway bridge between the Mexican city of Matamoros and Brownsville in Texas. The riverbank is of course the United States – so close you feel you can almost touch it.
For these families wide-eyed with excitement, this is the moment they’ve dreamt of. Many have endured months, even years, on the road.
Sometimes travelling thousands of miles through hostile countries, outwitting cartel gangs, and managing dizzyingly contradictory bureaucracy, all to get to this point: an asylum interview with United States border officials, and almost certain entry.
On its face, this all sounds like a system working in perfect harmony with the needy being helped by a welcoming country.
But in reality, migration is a hotly disputed issue that is likely to dominate the Trump-Harris debate, and the run-up to the presidential election itself.
You can watch live coverage of the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump from midnight tonight on Sky News, on web and on mobile
The group I am with on the bridge is mostly from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Venezuela.
They’re claiming asylum, and with their paperwork and appointment email in hand, they approach the border with some trepidation but mostly with excitement and joy.
Many have waited months for their appointment to come through after applying for asylum on the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) app.
This group of a few hundred people on the bridge are now just a few steps from America.
As they shuffle forward, CBP guards check their papers, make sure there are no errors, and wave them through to the other side for their case interviews.
These families, these children, are about to start a new life.
Along the border here in Matamoros, there’s little sign of Donald Trump’s border wall, but he’d doubtless approve of the razor wire fortifications on the American side of the Rio Grande.
Experts here say there’s no doubt who those seeking asylum are backing in this election and this debate – and that’s Kamala Harris, who is seen to have a far less hostile approach to immigration.
“I think the best would be a flexible US immigration policy again, like President Biden’s when he began his administration,” Oscar Misael Hernandez-Hernandez said as we chatted alongside the dozens of cars and trucks crossing the border.
Image: Professor Oscar Misael Hernandez-Hernandez
A professor of social anthropology at the El Colegio de la Frontera Norte research centre and an expert on Mexico-US border issues, he added: “Biden broke with ultra-conservative vision and immigration policy.
“So, I think if Harris implements a migration policy like this if she wins the presidency of the United States, it would be not only quite good for migrants in terms of human rights, but also quite good for international diplomacy, because the relations of the United States, at least with President Trump, if he wins, would be quite disastrous as they were in the past.”
In shelters and hostels across Mexico, many other migrant families simply have to wait for their border appointments.
It’s like a lottery, and it can take a long time for their number to come up.
Few leave the shelter; they would be easy prey for cartel gangs who would kidnap and hold them for ransom.
Marlen Cabrera, 39, from Honduras, and her family are waiting it out along with 200 others at the Casa del Migrante San Francisco de Asis shelter.
Image: Marlen Cabrera says making it the US is the only option she and her family have
Any tightening of the immigration rules – as threatened by Donald Trump – would be a disaster for her.
I asked her what she would do if the laws changed with a Trump victory. She says she doesn’t like to think about what-ifs.
“I’ve been here so long, and not being able to get in would be hard because it’s the only option I have,” she said.
“I have to get in. It would be really terrible if we couldn’t. And I don’t just speak for myself, I speak for everyone here.”
Jose Valdivia, the Nicaraguan manager of the shelter, is even clearer.
“Everybody, since the last election, we all wanted the Democrats to win, right? Because the Democrats look out for the little guy,” he told me.
“That’s what everybody here as a migrant wants, we want the Democrats to win. No one wants Trump.”
Image: A US border agent checks migrant paperwork
Day in, day out, in any weather, the migrants line up for their appointment here at the border in Matamoros.
Along the almost 2,000-mile-long border separating Mexico and the United States, thousands of applicants are screened every day and allowed to enter America legally to start new lives in their new home country.
But these migrants are at the centre of one of the most divisive issues in America right now.
Since the summer, border restrictions introduced by the Biden administration, combined with assistance from Mexican authorities who hamper the movement of migrants to the border, has brought about a large reduction in the number of people illegally entering America.
Despite this, President Biden is widely considered to have failed on immigration, and while Kamala Harris’s team have been working hard to cast her as a sort of new candidate and a breath of fresh air, she is – whether they like it or not – part of this administration and is tainted by its perceived failures.
The latest polls suggest Donald Trump scores well on the immigration issue, and his team have been releasing pointed “attack ads” on Kamala Harris and her team on this subject. They in turn have released adverts attacking Trump.
In the debate itself, Trump is widely expected to try to nail Harris on immigration, and she will have to find a way to counter that.
Undoubtedly, she will point out that Trump’s supporters kiboshed a cross-party action plan for migration, but she is still tainted for certain.
While this will all play out in the political rough and tumble of the electoral process, it is important not to forget that thousands upon thousands of people will be affected by America’s future stance on immigration.
And for some asylum seekers, it is quite literally a matter of life and death.
Israel had “no other choice” but to attack Iran because it was proceeding “dramatically” towards a nuclear bomb, Israeli President Isaac Herzog has claimed.
He also suggested the Israeli war cabinet was discussing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, amid reports that President Donald Trump vetoed a plan to kill him.
It comes as Israel and Iran continue to fire missiles at each other after Israel launched an unprecedented strike on Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities.
Tehran has long denied that its nuclear program has been attempting to obtain a nuclear weapon.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:58
Sky’s Yalda Hakim interrupted by air raid sirens
Mr Herzog was asked why Israel attacked Iran when it did.
“When you take such decisions of historic magnitude and proportions, you have to analyse all facets and all facts,” he replied.
“The truth of the matter is there was no other choice.”
Image: Isaac Herzog speaks to Yalda Hakim
He claimed Iran was proceeding “dramatically” towards the bomb, both in terms of the enrichment of uranium and, “clandestinely”, the armament part of the process.
“I’ve always been very crystal clear with regards to a nuclear capability of our enemies – it has to be removed at once.”
Mr Herzog added: “We have to remove the Iranian nuclear program because we see the negotiating process as being futile because they are lying whilst talking to us.
“They are lying whilst talking to the United States and other allies.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
He also suggested the Israeli war cabinet was discussing Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, after reports Mr Trump vetoed an Israeli plan to kill him.
“Let’s just remember that the Supreme Leader of Iran has for years called for the annihilation of Israel.”
Iran’s response to Israeli attacks on its nuclear facilities is “self-defence” and a “matter of principle”, the Iranian ambassador to the UK has told Sky News.
Speaking exclusively to The World With Yalda Hakim, Seyed Ali Mousavi said the “barbaric Israeli regime” is “violating international law” – describing Israel’s actions in recent days as “an act of aggression against the Iranian people”.
The conflict between Israel and Iran – once played out in a series of proxy wars – has escalated in the past three days.
Image: Sky’s Yalda Hakim spoke to Iran’s ambassador to the UK, Seyed Ali Mousavi
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:42
Israel-Iran: How the conflict escalated
On Friday morning, explosions hit Tehran as Israel carried out a major attack on its top army leaders, nuclear sites, and nuclear scientists.
Iran threatened “severe punishment” and quickly retaliated with a wave of missiles.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:18
Missile aftermath in Israel
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:31
Israeli missile hits warehouse in Iranian city
When questioned about whether Iran could continue fighting Israel, the Iranian ambassador told Yalda Hakim that “it is a matter of principle”.
He said: “This is about self-defence, there is no doubt about it.
“We are a responsible member state of the UN and we do all activities according to our international obligations.
“Any activities are only in the framework of self-defence.”
Image: Damage from an Iranian missile attack to a building in Bat Yam, Israel. Pic: Reuters
Image: Explosions over Jerusalem on Sunday
He added that his country would “do our best to preserve our territorial integrity”, and that “with the help of God”, Iran will “materialise endeavours concretely against our enemy – the Israeli regime”.
Mr Mousavi also told Hakim that Iran’s nuclear activities are “monitored”, and that recent comments by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were “politically motivated”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:58
Missiles have also been seen over Tel Aviv
The UN nuclear watchdog’s board of governors found Iran was not complying with its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years.
Iran said it has “always adhered” to the safeguarding obligations laid down by the watchdog.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
15:10
Iranian ambassador reacts to strikes – full interview
Announcing Operation Rising Lion on Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed Iran had recently taken steps to weaponise enriched uranium, which could be used to make nuclear weapons.
But Mr Mousavi stressed that Iran’s “peaceful activities” at its “nuclear fields” were only for the “generation of electricity, and other peaceful” things.
Iran was due to continue its round of negotiations with the US in Muscat – however, this was cancelled, given recent tensions.
The government is warning people not to travel to Israel under any circumstances, as the country’s missile exchange with Iran shows no sign of abating.
On Friday, the Foreign Office warned against “all but essential travel” to most of Israel.
The areas around Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights were already classed as red zones, with warnings to avoid travel to these areas.
But the government has now updated the warning for the remainder of the country to red.
This puts Israel on the same level as Iran, and the change of advice is also likely to impact travel insurance.
However, with Israel’s airspace closed, it is unlikely many people will be attempting the journey, and Israel’s national airline El Al has announced it is cancelling flights to and from many European cities, as well as Tokyo and Moscow, until 23 June.
The change in travel advice comes after a second night of ballistic missile barrages from Iran following Israel’s attack in the early hours of Friday morning.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:43
An eight-storey residential building in Tel Aviv was hit by a missile last night.
On Sunday morning, Israel’s health ministry said 12 people had been killed over the past day, taking the total since Friday to 15. It also said 385 people had arrived at hospital with injuries overnight.
Iran has not provided a total number of deaths or overall casualties, but has claimed dozens have been killed.
Iran’s health minister has said most of those injured and killed in Israeli strikes were civilians. According to comments carried by news agency IRNA, he said the majority were women and children.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
18:00
The chancellor said UK forces could “potentially” be used to help defend Israel.
The UK government is sending military assets, including fighter jets, to the Middle East.
While the prime minister would not confirm to reporters that UK forces could be used to defend Israel from future Iranian attacks, the chancellor told Sky News earlier that the government is “not ruling anything out”.
Speaking to Sky’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips, Rachel Reeves said sending military assets to the Middle East “does not mean that we are at war”, and emphasised that “we have not been involved in these strikes or this conflict”.
“But we do have important assets in the region,” she continued. “And it is right that we send jets to protect them. And that’s what we’ve done. It’s a precautionary move, and at the same time, we are urging de-escalation.”
Pushed on the question of what the UK would do if Israel asked for support with its operations, the chancellor replied: “I’m not going to rule anything out at this stage. It’s a fast-moving situation, a very volatile situation. But we don’t want to see escalation.”