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.
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.
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.”
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.
A woman who accused Conor McGregor of raping her has said “justice has been served” after she won her civil case against the Irish mixed martial arts fighter.
Nikita Hand has been awarded €248,603 (£206,000) in damages after a jury at Dublin’s High Court found McGregor assaulted her in a Dublin hotel in 2018.
McGregor, 36, made no comment as he swiftly left court following the decision on Friday evening.
He had previously told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand in a penthouse at the Beacon Hotel in December 2018.
Speaking outside court after the decision, an emotional Ms Hand said the weeks of her civil case against the fighter have been a “nightmare” and has impacted not only her life but her daughter’s, friends and loved ones.
“I would like to start off by saying I’m overwhelmed and touched by the support I have received from everybody,” the mother-of-one said.
“It’s something that I’ll never forget for the rest of my life.
“Now that justice has been served, I can now try and move on and look forward to the future with my family and friends and daughter.”
Addressing other victims of sexual assault, Ms Hand continued: “I hope my story is a reminder that no matter how afraid you might be: Speak up, you have a voice and keep on fighting for justice.
“You can stand up for yourself if something happens to you – no matter who the person is – and justice will be served.”
Ms Hand told the court McGregor pinned her to a bed, choked her three times and “brutally raped and battered” her.
The civil court jury was told she was left with extensive injuries, including purple and blue bruising along her hands and wrists, a bloodied scratch to her breast and tenderness to her neck.
But lawyers for the fighter contested the lawsuit and accused her of attempted “extortion”.
They pointed to CCTV footage of Ms Hand arriving at and leaving the hotel with McGregor and a second man, James Lawrence, whom she also accused of sexual assault.
Both McGregor and Lawrence denied any wrongdoing. While Ms Hand won her case against McGregor, she lost her claim against Lawrence.
On Monday, McGregor’s legal team told jurors it did not matter if they did not like or even loathed the famous fighter, urging them to look at the evidence and not his character.
McGregor and Ms Hand knew each other and had occasionally been in contact on social media, the civil trial heard.
Before the assault, Ms Hand had contacted the fighter, who picked up her and a friend in his car.
McGregor “came on to her”, but she did not want to have sexual intercourse with him as she was on her period, the court heard.
Arrest warrants have been issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former defence secretary Yoav Gallant and a senior Hamas commander by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The warrants against the senior Israeli figures are for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the war in Gaza that Israel launched following the 7 October attacks by Hamas.
The prime minister’s office said the warrants against him and Gallant were “anti-semitic” and said Israel “rejects with disgust the absurd and false actions”.
Another warrant was issued for the arrest of Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al Masrifor alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Neither Israel nor the US are members of the ICC. Israel has rejected the court’s jurisdiction and denies committing war crimes in Gaza.
US President Joe Biden described the warrants against Israeli leaders as “outrageous”, adding “whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence – none – between Israel and Hamas”.
Former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett said the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were a “mark of shame” for the ICC.
The court originally said it was seeking arrest warrants for the three men in May for the alleged crimes and today announced that it had rejected challenges by Israel and issued warrants of arrest.
In its update, the ICC said it found “reasonable grounds to believe” that Netanyahu and Gallant “bear criminal responsibility” for alleged crimes.
These, the court said, include “the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts”.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the ICC’s decision sent a “terrible message”.
“The court has minimised how Hamas fights – deliberately from within civilian infrastructure and cruelly using Palestinian civilians as human shields, tragically leading to many casualties,” the board said.
“Democratic governments, and people around the world, should consider how they would have responded to an October 7th perpetrated against their country, involving mass murder, rape, and hostage-taking.
“We should all be focused on defeating the Hamas terrorists, liberating the hostages, ensuring that civilians in Gaza receive all necessary aid and working towards a sustainable peace for Israelis and Palestinians to prevent these horrible conflicts in the future.
“The decision of the ICC is counter-productive in all these respects.”
Three arrest warrants have been issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) but the two most significant are those against Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant.
The court in their statement said that they have reasonable grounds to believe that those two men, have been carrying out the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts.
Ever since the arrest warrants were first sought there have been a lot of legal challenges. But the court has rejected all that and has now issued these arrest warrants.
So what does it mean? Well, practically, it would mean that Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant couldn’t travel to any state that is a signatory of the ICC – about 120 countries around the world, including the UK and many European countries.
Were Netanyahu to travel to any of those countries, he should be arrested by the police forces of those countries. And it’ll be very interesting to see what Sir Keir Starmer’s reaction is to this.
But the US, Israel’s closest ally, is not a signatory of the ICC. I think Netanyahu will have support on the other side of the Atlantic.
Also, these ICC arrest warrants don’t always get carried out. We saw President Vladimir Putin, who had an arrest warrant issued for him after the invasion of Ukraine, travel to Mongolia a couple of months ago and nothing was done about that.
But in terms of the reputations of Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, in terms of that legacy, they are now wanted suspects, wanted to be put on trial for war crimes. And it is a label that will never leave them.
Warrant for Hamas leader
The ICC also said it has issued an arrest warrant for Hamas leader Al Masri, saying it has “reasonable grounds to believe” that he is responsible for crimes against humanity including murder, extermination, torture, rape, as well as war crimes including taking hostages.
Discussing the 7 October attacks, the court said: “In light of the coordinated killings of members of civilians at several separate locations, the Chamber also found that the conduct took place as part of a mass killing of members of the civilian population, and it therefore concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the crime against humanity of extermination was committed.”
In its statement, the ICC said the prosecution was not in a position to determine whether Al Masri is dead or alive, so was issuing the arrest warrant.
The court previously said it was seeking an arrest warrant for Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas who was subsequently killed in July.
The home secretary has refused to say if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be arrested if he landed on British soil after an international arrest warrant was issued for him.
On Thursday, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli defence secretary Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the war in Gaza.
But Yvette Cooper said the ICC, which the UK is a member of, is independent and while the government respects that, it “wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment” on the processes involved.
She told Sky News: “We’ve always respected the importance of international law, but in the majority of the cases that they pursue, they don’t become part of the British legal process.
“What I can say is that obviously, the UK government’s position remains that we believe the focus should be on getting a ceasefire in Gaza.”
However, Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the foreign affairs committee in parliament, told Sky News: “If Netanyahu comes to Britain, our obligation under the Rome Convention would be to arrest him under the warrant from the ICC.
“Not really a question of should, we are required to because we are members of the ICC.”
An ICC arrest warrant was also issued for Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al Masri, the mastermind behind the 7 October attacks in Israel, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Advertisement
Israel claims Al Masri was killed earlier this year but the ICC said that has not been confirmed, so it was issuing the arrest warrant.
Netanyahu’s office said the warrants against him and Gallant were “anti-semitic” and said Israel “rejects with disgust the absurd and false actions”.
Neither Israel nor the US are members of the ICC. Israel has rejected the court’s jurisdiction and denies committing war crimes in Gaza.
US President Joe Biden described the warrants against Israeli leaders as “outrageous”, adding: “Whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence – none – between Israel and Hamas.”
Former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett said the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were a “mark of shame” for the ICC.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the ICC’s decision sent a “terrible message”.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Friday he would invite Netanyahu to visit Hungary and he would guarantee the arrest warrant would “not be observed”.
However, both France and Italy signalled they would arrest Netanyahu if he came to their countries.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:52
Why have arrest warrants been issued?
The ICC originally said it was seeking arrest warrants for the three men in May for the alleged crimes and on Thursday announced that it had rejected challenges by Israel and issued warrants of arrest.
In its update, the ICC said it found “reasonable grounds to believe” that Netanyahu and Gallant “bear criminal responsibility” for alleged crimes.
These, the court said, include “the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts”.
It is the first time a sitting leader of a major Western ally has been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity by a global court of justice.