
U.S. border officials: Our work balances 'enforcement with empathy'
July 29 (UPI) -- In a time when many Americans disapprove of current U.S. immigration efforts, officials at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Tuesday pointed out that CBP does more than protect Americans from illegal activity at the nation's borders.
Since 2010, the New York office of U.S. Customs and Border Protection has partnered with the nonprofit Global Medical Relief Fund to provide assistance in a series of humanitarian acts and medical relief to children in over 64 nations.
"U.S. Customs and Border Protection is responsible for protecting the country," Frank Russo, field director of the CBP's New York office, noted in a statement.
But border agency officials spoke of a "commitment" to "balancing enforcement with empathy."
On Tuesday, the federal government revealed that last year in June three young adult victims of violent attacks in Tanzania linked to tribal and ritualistic beliefs "were able to receive urgent medical care and prosthetics in the United States" due to CBP and GMRF working hand-in-hand.
The three young African natives born albino were, according to officials, "targeted and mutilated due to superstitions that their body parts bring good luck."
They were lifted to the United States and stayed on Staten Island at GMRF's Dare to Dream House in New York for children getting medical treatment.
The Staten Island-based GMF sees support from a network of international embassies and medical entities such as Shriners Children's in Philadelphia.
Officials noted that whole the three albino survivors had since aged out of pediatric care, private medical company Med East had stepped-up to provide new prosthetics for the Tanzanian natives at no cost.
Russo reportedly visited the group. On Tuesday he called the CBP job "incredibly challenging."
GMRF claims 500 children in 59 countries have been helped by their work with at 1 million "lives changed."
However, the "commitment" by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to balance empathy and enforcement arrived as other federal law enforcement agencies, particularly U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has seen a barrage of criticism.
ICE has faced waves of public backlash and negative media attention, including recent attempts on the lives of ICE agents in the Trump administration's bid to curtail illegal immigration due to what many say has been unprofessional behavior and other questionable acts.
But Russo says efforts like CBP's work with Global Medical Relief Fund are "immensely rewarding and demonstrate the humanitarian side of what we do."
Meanwhile, the two entities on August 17 are set to welcome others via Dubai in the Middle East on a flight that will bring medical care and critical supplies in the area of prosthetic body parts.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
A delicious irony: Why Trump prefers Mexican Cola-Cola
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Why are Mexican Cokes sweetened with sugar and US Cokes sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup? Because in the United States, high-fructose corn syrup is cheaper than sugar thanks to a long history of corn subsidies and sugar tariffs. In my home state of Illinois, I live surrounded by fields growing corn not for eating but for processing — into ethanol, animal feed, and high-fructose corn syrup. Advertisement Outside this country, however, cane sugar is the default sweetener. That's why Mexican Coke tastes different — some say it's more authentically sweet. The soft drink has become a cult favorite, a symbol of nostalgia and purity in a market saturated with manufactured sweetness. It's also a reminder of how deeply our food systems are shaped by policy decisions, not just taste. Advertisement This isn't the first time Coca-Cola has been the subject of national discussion. In the early 20th century, the US government took Coca-Cola to court under the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 for 'misbranding' and 'adulteration.' At the time, the drink contained negligible amounts of both coca and kola (with their implied medicinal claims as stimulants) but significant amounts of caffeine. The case went all the way to the Fast forward to today and we're in a very different moment. The Trump administration is working to gut and undermine many of the very institutions that protect our health. The National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and yes, the FDA, have all faced budget cuts, staff reductions, and political interference. The American Public Health Association has warned that these rollbacks threaten the health and safety of all Americans. Advertisement At this moment we may want to import something else from Mexico: leadership in public health. There, health advocates and regulators have developed education campaigns and public policy about sugar-sweetened beverages, including those Mexican Cokes, the products of a business model exported from the US, and their links to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease. They've As a historian, I won't weigh in on whether cane sugar is healthier than corn syrup. That's a question for nutritionists and scientists. But I do know this: a president's personal preferences are no substitute for robust public institutions. You can't regulate a food system by tweet. You can't protect consumers with nostalgia. You can't set policy by piecemeal targeting of products based on particularistic agendas and transactional politics. And you certainly can't build a healthier nation by dismantling the very agencies tasked with safeguarding it. If we're serious about health, we might take a page from Mexico. Because in the end, it's not about which Coke tastes better. It's about which country is doing more to protect its people from the consequences of unchecked sweetness and power.


UPI
3 hours ago
- UPI
1 dead, 22 sickened by Harlem Legionnaires' disease cluster
Pedestrians walk by water coming out of an open fire hydrant in the Harlem section of Manhattan as excessive heat and high temperatures continues in New York City on Thursday, July 17, 2025. City health officials said Wednesday that at least one person has died and 22 others have fallen ill with Legionnaires' disease in Harlem since Friday. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo July 31 (UPI) -- An outbreak of Legionnaires' disease in Harlem has killed one person and sickened nearly two dozen others, New York City health officials said. The cluster was first detected Friday, and as of Wednesday, one person has died from the severe lung infection and 22 others have become sick with the disease. Legionnaires' disease is a type of pneumonia caused by Legionella bacteria that grow in warm water. Those who inhale mist that contains the bacteria can get sick with the disease, which can cause flu-like symptoms, while complications can be fatal. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, between 8,000 and 18,000 people are hospitalized with Legionnaires' disease each year in the United States. The New York City Health Department said in a statement Wednesday that all operable cooling towers in the investigation area have been sampled and officials have directed building owners with initial positive screening results to initiate remediation within 24 hours. "Anyone with flu-like symptoms should contact a healthcare provider as soon as possible," Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr. Toni Eyssallenne of the NYC Health Department said. "Legionnaires' disease can be effectively treated if diagnosed early, but New Yorkers at higher risk, like adults aged 50 and older, those who smoke or have chronic lung conditions, should be especially mindful of their symptoms and seek care as soon as symptoms begin." The investigation into the Harlem cluster is ongoing.


Medscape
5 hours ago
- Medscape
Dupilumab Controls Cancer Rx-Related Skin Toxicities
TOPLINE: Patients with antibody-drug conjugate (ADC)-related skin reactions had higher response rates and fewer treatment discontinuations when treated with dupilumab than with systemic steroids. METHODOLOGY: Researchers evaluated 163 patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who received an ADC from January 2020 through September 2024, with follow-up until December 2024. The analysis included 27 adult patients with ADC-induced dermatologic adverse events (dAEs); 11 were treated with dupilumab (63.6% women; 81.8% White) and 16 were treated with systemic steroids alone (37.5% women; 81.2% White). Researchers analyzed the severity of dAEs, treatment responses, and cancer treatment discontinuation rates. TAKEAWAY: In the dupilumab group, 82% of patients received enfortumab vedotin for genitourinary malignancies, and 46% received pembrolizumab. Clinical presentations of dAEs included eczematous eruptions in 54% of patients, morbilliform eruptions in 46%, and vesiculobullous eruptions in 27%. In the steroid-treated group, all patients received enfortumab vedotin with pembrolizumab for genitourinary malignancies. In the dupilumab group, 70% of patients experienced grade 3 events, whereas 56% in the steroid-only group experienced grade 2 reactions. In the dupilumab group vs the steroid-only group, 73% vs 56% of patients achieved complete response, and 27% vs 25% achieved partial response of skin reactions, respectively. Among those on dupilumab, the median time to first clinical response was 24 days, and the median time to best clinical response was 52 days. In the dupilumab group, no patients discontinued treatment because of dAEs vs 43.8% in the steroid-only group (P < .05). IN PRACTICE: 'Dupilumab appears promising as a steroid-sparing treatment of ADC-induced cutaneous toxicities,' which 'are difficult to manage and can disrupt cancer treatment,' the study authors wrote. 'Further research is essential to explore its broader utility and economic feasibility,' they added. SOURCE: The study was led by Ian Nykaza, BS, of the Dermatology Service, Department of Medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City. It was published online on July 30 in JAMA Dermatology. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included the small study size, retrospective design, treatment heterogeneity, and limited ADC diversity. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute's Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748. Several authors reported receiving personal fees and research funding from various sources. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.