Man dead after firing at US Border Patrol station in Texas
WASHINGTON — A 27-year-old Michigan man was shot dead by police after opening fire with an assault rifle on a US Border Patrol station in the southern Texas city of McAllen on Monday, local police said.
Ryan Louis Mosqueda attacked the facility shortly after 6 a.m. and US Border Patrol agents returned fire, McAllen Police Chief Victor Rodriguez told reporters.
A McAllen police officer was shot in the knee during the exchange of fire and taken to hospital, Rodriguez said.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said a Border Patrol employee was also injured.
Law enforcement found additional firearms and more ammunition in Mosqueda's vehicle, Rodriguez added.
"There were many, many, dozens of rounds fired by the suspect towards the building and agents in the building," he said.
Writing was spray-painted on the side of the vehicle but Rodriguez did not provide details of what it said or whether it gave any indication of the motive for the attack.
Mosqueda is believed to have ties to the area as he was reported missing from a residence in Weslaco, about 18 miles east of McAllen, Rodriguez said, without giving further details.
The FBI is leading the investigation as it involved an attack on federal officers and a federal building, Rodriguez said.
Flights at the nearby McAllen International Airport were delayed for several hours as law enforcement secured the area.
President Donald Trump, a Republican, has made combating illegal immigration a top priority, sending troops to secure the US-Mexico border and launching aggressive raids in US cities.
The actions—supported by Trump's hardline Republican base—have also led to pushback from Americans concerned about arrests of non-criminals and enforcement tactics that include officers wearing masks to hide their identities.
The number of migrants caught crossing the border illegally has fallen to record lows under Trump, including a new monthly low of about 6,100 in June. — Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
a day ago
- GMA Network
SC affirms Tamayo presidency of Marcos' Partido Federal ng Pilipinas
In a 19-page decision, the SC en banc affirmed the resolutions of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) dated September 6, 2024, and October 3, 2024, concerning the leadership dispute within the party. The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed that South Cotabato Governor Reynaldo Tamayo Jr. is the national president of the Partido Federal ng Pilipinas (PFP), the political party of President Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos Jr. In a 19-page decision, the SC en banc affirmed the resolutions of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) dated September 6, 2024, and October 3, 2024, concerning the leadership dispute within the party. The poll body had dismissed the petition of former Catanduanes Governor Leandro Verceles Jr. and former Capas, Tarlac Mayor Antonio Rodriguez Jr. to resolve the intra-party conflict within PFP for lack of merit. Verceles was claiming to be the PFP's national president, replacing Tamayo, following a supposed election among members in 2023. Meanwhile, Rodriguez was claiming to be the elected secretary general of the party, succeeding retired police general Thompson Lantion. Both alleged that the terms of Tamayo as president, Lantion as secretary general, and George Briones as general counsel of PFP expired on September 18, 2023. Verceles and Rodriguez alleged that Tamayo et al's failure to conduct an election for PFP's national officers before the expiration of their terms of office 'resulted in a governance vacuum, leading to a constitutional crisis within the party.' To address the said crisis, the SC noted that the party's regional members convened and elected their officers in a meeting on December 14, 2023, which put Verceles in power as the national president and Rodriguez as secretary general of PFP. Despite the election, the two claimed that Lantion 'unlawfully submitted' a Sworn Information Update Statement (SIUS) to the Comelec on behalf of the PFP on October 4, 2023, even after his authority already expired. Verceles and Rodriguez argued that their SIUS submitted on December 20 of the same year was the valid one and should be recognized by the Comelec. The Comelec En Banc, however, said that the petition lacked merit, ruling that the Tamayo et al remained as the incumbent officials of the party. The poll body found that the elections conducted in December 2023 were invalid, ruling that Tamayo presented compelling evidence that the elections 'were not called by the proper authority, lacked the required quorum, and failed to comply with the proper notice requirements.' The SC, for its part, affirmed the Comelec en banc's decision and denied the petition for certiorari. The High Court stated that it finds no reason to receive the Comelec's finding regarding the late submission of Verceles and Rodriguez's SIUS as it was well past the Comelec's September 30, 2023, deadline, thus making Tamayo and others' submission 'the valid one.' 'The COMELEC committed no error in refusing to acknowledge Verceles and Rodriguez's SIUS, which was submitted late and without authority,' the SC said. 'To conclude, the COMELEC's findings of fact, based on substantial evidence, are considered final and binding by this Court, especially as the Petition failed to show an arbitrary or whimsical exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the COMELEC,' it added. –NB, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
2 days ago
- GMA Network
Zelenskiy discusses war supplies, Russia sanctions with US lawmakers
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said he had discussed improved air defences and intensified sanctions against Russia with two U.S. lawmakers who are backing a bill to impose tougher punitive measures against Moscow. Zelenskiy, writing early on Friday on Telegram, said he had met Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut in Rome in conjunction with international meetings on Ukraine. "Right now, our priority is strengthening air defences. Russia wants to move on to using 1,000 drones in the space of a single attack," Zelenskiy wrote. "It is therefore important to boost defences, particularly to invest in interceptor drones. We spoke about continuing supplies from the United States and joint weapons production." Ukraine, he said, was ready to work together with Europe to buy "large U.S. Defence packages to protect lives". On Thursday, Zelenskiy said Ukraine had received all necessary political signals for U.S. military aid to resume after a pause last week. He also said that Ukraine had reached agreement with Germany for Berlin to buy two Patriot missile interceptor systems and an accord for Norway to pay for one system. Russia has been intensifying attacks on Ukrainian cities in recent weeks, with Zelenskiy saying Moscow had deployed around 400 drones and 18 missiles on Wednesday night, primarily targeting the capital. The previous night, Russian forces launched a record 728 drones at Ukraine. U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he had approved sending U.S. defensive weapons to Ukraine and was considering additional sanctions on Moscow, underscoring his frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the failure to make progress on solving Russia's war with Ukraine. Zelenskiy discussed U.S. weapons supplies in Rome on Wednesday with Trump's Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg. In his comments on Telegram, Zelenskiy said that, together with Graham and Blumenthal, he had discussed the legislation on tougher sanctions against Russia "and those who support it in the war". "Undoubtedly, this is precisely the lever that can bring peace closer and make diplomacy worthwhile," he wrote. The bill calls for a 500% tariff on goods imported from countries that continue to buy Russian oil, gas, uranium and other exports. —Reuters
GMA Network
2 days ago
- GMA Network
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order after US Supreme Court ruling
People protest outside the US Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship as the court hears arguments over the order in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2025. Jim Watson/ AFP CONCORD, New Hampshire — A federal judge on Thursday has again barred US President Donald Trump's administration from enforcing his executive order limiting birthright citizenship across the country after the US Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to block his policies using nationwide injunctions. US District Judge Joseph Laplante in Concord, New Hampshire, made the ruling after immigrant rights advocates implored him to grant class action status to a lawsuit they filed seeking to represent any babies whose citizenship status would be threatened by the implementation of Trump's directive. Laplante agreed the plaintiffs could proceed as a class, allowing him to issue a fresh judicial order blocking implementation of the Republican president's policy nationally. The question of whether to issue an injunction was "not a close call," he said, noting children could be deprived of US citizenship if Trump's order took effect. "That's irreparable harm, citizenship alone," he said. "It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.' The judge said he would stay his ruling for seven days to allow the Trump administration to appeal and would issue a written decision by the end of the day. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Under the Supreme Court's decision, Trump's executive order had been set to take effect on July 27. The ACLU and others had filed the suit just hours after the Supreme Court on June 27 issued a 6-3 ruling, powered by its conservative majority, that narrowed three nationwide injunctions issued by judges in separate challenges to Trump's directive. The suit was filed on behalf of non-US citizens living in the United States whose babies might be affected. Class actions Looking to seize upon an exception in the Supreme Court's ruling, the lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the decision allows judges to continue to block Trump policies on a nationwide basis in class action lawsuits. The three judges who issued nationwide injunctions found that Trump's directive likely violates citizenship language in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. The amendment states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The Justice Department has argued that Trump's order conforms with the Constitution and has asked Laplante to find that the plaintiffs cannot sue as a class. The Supreme Court's ruling did not address the legal merits of Trump's order, which the Republican president issued as part of his hardline immigration agenda on his first day back in office in January. Trump's order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if it takes effect nationally, according to Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who have challenged it. Universal injunctions The Supreme Court ordered lower courts to reconsider the scope of the three injunctions that had blocked Trump's order from being enforced anywhere in the country against anyone after finding judges lack the authority to issue so-called "universal injunctions" that cover people who are not parties to the lawsuit before the judge. Although the Trump administration hailed the ruling as a major victory, federal judges have continued to issue sweeping rulings blocking key parts of Trump's agenda found to be unlawful. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the decision for the court, made clear that it did not prevent plaintiffs from obtaining essentially the same type of relief as provided in a nationwide injunction by instead bringing class action lawsuits that seek to represent all similarly situated people, among other exceptions. Immigrant rights advocates launched two proposed class actions that same day, including the one before Laplante, who in a related case also concluded in February that Trump's order was likely unconstitutional. Laplante, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, ruled that Trump's order contradicted the 14th Amendment and a 1898 Supreme Court ruling interpreting it. In that case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court interpreted that amendment as recognizing the right to birthright citizenship regardless of the immigration status of a baby's parents. Laplante agreed at the time that an injunction was warranted, saying that "the denial of citizenship to the plaintiffs' members' children would render the children either undocumented noncitizens or stateless entirely." But Laplante limited the scope of his order to members of the three immigrant rights nonprofit organizations who pursued the case before him. Lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday urged Laplante to go further by certifying a nationwide class of babies and their parents who would be affected by Trump's order, saying that absent a court order thousands of families nationally would be unprotected. Laplante noted during Thursday's hearing that he was the one judge who had not issued a nationwide injunction in his previous ruling on Trump's order. "It's a better process to narrow these decisions and not have judges create national policy," he said. "That said, the Supreme Court suggested a class action is a better option.' Trump's administration countered that the three noncitizens parents and expectant parents seeking to serve as lead plaintiffs have immigration statuses that are too different to be able to pursue a single class action together and that an injunction at this time would "short-circuit" the usual lengthier process required for them to obtain relief. — Reuters
