Deaths per 10,000 border crossers are up 5 times from a decade ago


They gather around a large red cross overlooking State Route 80 near Bisbee. The half-dozen people are here to honor the memory of Gerzon Estuardo Salucio Samayoa, a 21-year-old Guatemalan man who died nearby while crossing into the United States.

Despite a decrease in migrant crossings and Border Patrol apprehensions on the southern border, the number of bodies recovered from the desert remains high.

So far this fiscal year, which started in October, more than 50 bodies have been found. And the deadliest months for migrants are coming.


It should be noted that deaths are only increasing for illegal border crossers. If you follow the rules, get an appropriate visa, and cross at approved border crossings your risks of dying haven’t increased at all. While sad, breaking the law is supposed to have consequences.


But this isn’t one of them, unless you are guilty of a capital crime.


Well speeding is a crime also but the punishment isn’t death. There are groups that place water and food in places in the wilderness where people cross. I think we need more of that


But, speeding increases your risk of getting into an automobile accident, and potentially dying. It’s one of the reasons they set speed limits on roads. Entering a country illegally exposes you to much more risk than entering a country legally. Robbing a bank doesn’t carry the death penalty, but nobody is arguing that we should disarm police to reduce the risk of bank robbery to the criminal.


Why is it problem trying to make the crossing safer? Believe me the drug smugglers and the terrorist trying to get across the border or well-equipped and not the ones that are dying from exposure . What we have is people so desperate for a better way of life you’re willing to risk their lives to cross the border . As Catholics arent supposed to be compassionate and loving towards all- should not we be concerned about the plight of these people ? I don’t believe we can merely dismiss it says “well they knew the risk they were taking”


How does making a crossing safer not encourage more people to cross in turn? If there is very strong border security though, lives may be saved by fewer people attempting too cross.


No one is arguing that there isn’t more risk in doing these illegal things. My only objection is your phrase “should have consequences”, with emphasis on the word “should”.

We know that speeding increases the risk of dying in an accident. But we do all we can to prevent that with safe car designs, road designs, etc. We know that robbing banks is risky, but we do all we can to prevent those deaths by designing banks and systems so that they can be defended without killing anyone. Similarly, we know that illegally crossing the border is risky. But we should do what we can to defend the border without using the risk of dying as our main deterrent. Would you seed the landscape with poisonous snakes? With land mines? These measures can all be defended using your argument that breaking the law should have consequences.


Some people say seatbelts encourage more people to speed. But even if that were true, it would not be a sufficient argument for getting rid of them.

Reducing the risk of death may have the consequence of making some people decide to risk the crossing, but that is an unavoidable consequence of doing the moral thing.

But I agree that strong inherent physical security at the border is both effective and humane.


Crossing the border illegally is a criminal act. Criminal acts are inherently unsafe. I can have compassion towards a starving man who steals a loaf of bread without excusing his unlawful behavior or thinking we should make the stealing of bread easier.


How can it be moral to facilitate immorality?


So the ONLY option we as Catholics have is to make it easier for the illegals to cross our borders? I believe we are being compassionate and loving if we prevent them from entering into the USA. We privately need to help them improve the conditions in their country.


I recall Australia was seeing a high casualty rate from illegals entering by boat. They saved many lives when they shut down all entry of illegals by boat.

What wasn’t explicit in the OP was the coyotes or smugglers are the real danger here. By cracking down and stopping illegal entry, we too can save many lives, and put the smugglers out of business.


In fiscal year 2015, there were 21 **deaths per 10,000 apprehensions **in the Tucson Sector. That year alone, remains of 135 migrants were found in the desert, while the Border Patrol reported a little more than 63,000 arrests.

That’s more than double the rate in 2010, the deadliest year on record. Until 2007, the death rate for border crossers never exceeded 4 per 10,000 apprehensions.

While the number of **deaths relative to the number of Border Patrol apprehensions **has increased…

These statistics are all compared to the number of apprehensions. It could be that the death rate of people crossing the border is going up or it could be that the rate of apprehensions is going down. either one would make the number of deaths relative to the number of Border Patrol apprehensions go up.


Isn’t that the whole point of building a border wall? A way to force people to cross at safe boarder crossings? The problem is that as border patrols have become more vigilant people are crossing in more and more dangerous places. The “safe routes” of the past often had access to streams or other water sources. So if you have 80% of people crossing at these safe, but illegal, places it makes sense to patrol these areas. So once that happened you had more and more people crossing illegally in areas like the Sonoran desert that has almost no water.

Do you suggest we increase border patrols in the most rugged areas and continue to add water stations? Border patrol already intentionally avoids the water stations because groups had complained that they used them to trap illegal immigrants. The immigrant supporters say that increased border patrols just make it so that people continue to chose more dangerous routes

So what solution is there to maintain border sovereignty while making it safe? Putting up border fence or detection grids with quick response teams to apprehend them before they die would make the most sense, but liberals are completely opposed to closing the borders in those ways. Short of saying that we will not pickup illegal immigrants they seem bound and determined to avoid capture even if it means walking through the desert in the height of summer with no food or water.


First of all, even if the act of crossing the border is illegal, it is not necessarily immoral for those doing it (although it might be immoral, depending on their circumstances). Secondly, even if the act of crossing the border is immoral, providing the necessities of life to those engaged in that immoral act is not complicity in their immorality. This is an excellent example of double effect, where the good of keeping them from dying outweighs the good of keeping them out of the country.


Why cant we do all three?


What do you mean by “necessities of life”?


Crossing into a country illegally is one of mans laws, not Gods law, helping people that choose to do this by setting out food or water or thru some other means is probably a good thing in Gods eyes.


It’s both illegal and immoral. Genuine refugees are legal immigrants.

If you sincerely think their home country is hell, then donate to the appropriate charity and agitate your reps for a military take over of their existing govt.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit