British tourist detained by US authorities for 10 days over visa issue

Enforcing the law is one thing. If they refused entry or forced her to fly back immediately, nobody would care much. Detaining is all of: cruel, expensive, unnecessary.

Forcing her to fly back immediately (and detaining until the flight if not immediate) seems reasonable, but both countries at a land crossing can't refuse entry. The article states she was refused entry to Canada, and then detained when she returned to the US; I don't know if there are international norms here, but I think in this situation if both countries would refuse entry, one of them has to accept entry and consider immigration detention; and it doesn't seem unfair for that to be the country where the person in question was before the first crossing?

Sure, they could consider detention. But then there are daily flights back to the UK. Anything beyond an overnight stay (if necessary for the wait) is unfair.

I'm not convinced it's the Americans responsibility to get her back to a suitable international airport as quickly as possible and put her in the next flight out. 10 days does seem excessive, but I don't see why she should be a priority either. I would imagine up to 5 working days fits within the realm of 'reasonable'.

Dictating they buy one of the most expensive flights (one of the immediate ones taking off that day) probably isn't a great look either. Like so much else with law enforcement, they look like shit because of the system and incentives set up.

Some do it themselves and are malicious for no good reason, but not literally every time.

You don't get a free flight. Typically either your return ticket is moved if possible, or the airline will claim the cost from you. There's a number of regulations and airline rules, but in general - unless the airline messed up checks at boarding, you're getting charged for the flight back.

That’s the parent’s point: a same-day flight may be expensive for the detainee and look bad for ICE.

There is no world where that bad look means throw them in a prison cell to languish.

Sounds like she was surviving doing chores in exchange for a place to sleep (in two different countries). It's possible she didn't have a plane ticket lined up.

> Detaining is all of: cruel, expensive, unnecessary.

What about those poor private prison corporations that are being deprived of an income?! How dare you! /s

Feel free to not encage people if you don't like the responsibility.

A full work week in jail for something that isn’t even a crime is ridiculous.

Yeah, what's habeas corpus.

10 days and counting of immigration detention (possibly more in the end since she's still detained) plus whatever deportation ICE would eventually conduct undoubtedly costs more than the flight you're describing.

Meanwhile, her British MP has relayed the family's request to arrange voluntary departure, so the trip home wouldn't even be at government expense.

ICE has no legitimate excuse to be slow about permitting voluntary departure unless they're planning to prosecute her criminally, think she won't actually go through with the voluntary departure, or think she will commit crimes before voluntarily departing. None of those seem likely in the scenario we're discussing.

The political environment of the Trump administration might very well be an explanation for why they're not quickly permitting this, but it’s just an explanation at most, not an excuse.

A legal procedure that protects citizens, which she isn't.

This page[1] says "The majority of removals are carried out by air at U.S. government expense." which sounds like a free flight to me. Looking at prices, a near term one-way, no stops flight is about $500. There's some expensive days, and if you wait two weeks, you can save about $70 on the flight ... doesn't seem to be worth the wait, assuming detention costs are more than $5/day. But I'd say waiting a few days to avoid some of the $1000+ flights would make sense.

Generally I'd expect a deportation process to take quite some time because immigration courts have not been properly staffed. But I would have expected ICE to offer either a withdrawal of application, or voluntary deportation, both of which involve travel arrangements at the alien's expense in order to expedite removal. I think it's probably in the person's better interest to pay for a ticket home (hopefully with some credit for their previously scheduled flight) if they were planning on returning home anyway; better to go home early than sit out your trip in immigration detention.

[1] https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process

Nah. Habeus Corpus applies to everybody in the US, not just citizens.

It's so expensive to not take a return ticket, I doubt she didn't had a return plane ticket. Maybe she moved her flight or missed it, but only rich people don't buy a return ticket.

She might even have done this on purpose to get a free ride home

Probably profitable though. A lot of those immigration detention centers are privately operated.

If authorities think she should be deported, then deport her. Imprisonment is perverse, it is literally the most expensive option.

FYI Tacoma Northwest is a Geo Group private prison. Geo Group is paid per number of beds at this facility not number occupied so locking her up has zero added expense. But you do not want to be in a Geo private facility especially their immigration facilities.

Tacoma Northwest is a private 'detention center'.

Going to a country for work on a tourist visa (waiver) and without a working permit is ridiculous on top of staying longer than the usually allowed 90 days in any sequence of 180 consecutive days. Do not put yourself in a position for a foreign government to put you in detention and "hope for the best".

If she was staying in Portland with a family doing chores (aka work) in exchange for housing (aka compensation) then I’m pretty sure that’s illegal.

Add to this the 4mo trip on a 90 day tourist visa and I would expect nothing less than detention since they can’t exactly turn her around since CA already turned her away

It’s not strictly a crime, but immigration/visa fraud is a “removable offence”. It is the law that a person committing it will be removed. Sometimes immediate removal is not possible and these people must be detained and housed.

This is not all that ridiculous. What would be ridiculous is if people who have in the past, or would have by the virtue of entering into a country, committed immigration fraud were let in. Or if they were left unhoused and stateless, stuck at a border. Detaining and removing them is much more sensible.

Of course, ideally, it would be much more pleasant for the offender if they were given an option to enter anyway and leave on their own accord. But perhaps this is also an unreasonable expectation when one commits serious offences. Must we be nice to those who don’t respect our laws?

There is a lot to be said about our responsibilities to offenders, the paradox of tolerance, and similar.

This is about the same level of lawbreaking as slightly exceeding the speed limit. I have no problem with removing them. Jailing them for days first is ridiculous. Imagine if you got pulled over for speeding and they stuck you in jail for days until they could be bothered to find you a ride home.

“Illegal” and “a crime” are not synonymous. Immigration violations are mostly civil infractions, similar to jaywalking and low-level speeding offenses.

Among other things, this means that you don’t get a public defender if you can’t afford a lawyer for your immigration case.

Agreed. But I care a lot more about what my government does to people who break the rules than I care about people breaking minor rules.

Agreed as well. But the question is punted down to how do you decide if someone is breaking minor rules or major ones instead?

AFAIK, US usually resolves that with courts (in this case Immigration Court). That requires a court date which is not as quick to come by.

The way to improve the situation for the future is to introduce changes to the law to allow voluntary deportation for anyone who's not a wanted criminal — but the laws are what they are, and I wouldn't want immigration clerks to have the full power.

And? She violated the terms of her visa. That's illegal. She was detained at the border because of this.

I agree that 10 days in lockup feel excessive for this, but I honestly, as someone who has traveled and crossed many borders, I have a hard time finding sympathy. I wouldn't expect to be treated well at many, many border crossings if I was found to have broken the law while I was in country.

It sure would be nice if the USG scolded her and told her to get back to court in 14 days for her immigration trial, but that's a laughable misread of the current government's position on immigration. And Trump has been ringing that bell loudly for a decade now. Immigrants arriving on a tourist visa and simply staying forever is the most common form of illegal immigration and this is exactly how I would expect the Trump administration to treat someone in her position.

Court is not the only way. How many people do you know who got thrown in jail for a minor speeding offense? The system is plainly capable of distinguishing between “needs to go to jail until they can see a judge” and “can go home” cases. This one is just silly, though: it’s “must go home” combined with “can’t leave.”

You can have a system that treats people humanely. We choose not to.

My point is that it’s a low level of illegality that does not deserve a week or two in jail. We have the concept of proportionate punishment. You don’t go to jail for jaywalking. You do go to jail for grand theft. The legislature has decided that most immigration offenses are more like jaywalking. Such offenses should not result in being locked up for days.

If you have a hard time finding sympathy for someone who made a mistake that harmed nobody, was told they have to leave, and then was locked up for a week and a half and not allowed to leave, I suggest you work on that because it really should not be difficult.

She entered the country and knowingly violated the terms of entry. She did so knowing the country was being taken over by the most vocal anti-immigration administration in generations.

I feel bad for her, but not _that_ bad. Again, when I'm traveling in a foreign country, I make it a point know the laws and not break them. Her entire trip was predicated on violating US law so...

Visa violations are mala prohibata offenses. I've found it nearly impossible to convince someone who believes such offenses should be overlooked that they shouldn't, or the other way around, because it cuts to the very core of our beliefs. You'll never change someone's mind on this unless you reshape their whole value system.

It’s normal for detention in such scenarios to take months in both the US and Germany.

Since about 2001, it has been limited in the US to 180 days. In Germany, detention is reviewed every six months, and some people are granted exceptional leave to remain, but it is not capped.

Immigration offenses are much more severe than an administrative penalty for speeding. Largely, no one debates that.

I am not sure if the comment is serious or not. Often one way tix are not much more than half a round trip tix It used to be one way tickets were like 70+% of a round trip, not as much anymore

I’m not even trying to convince anyone they should be overlooked. I’m fine with deporting this person.

They keep people locked up for six months before sending them home?

I violate US law on daily basis. If you live here, you probably do too.

You are not wrong: I am saying that the laws could be improved to clearly define how immigrants are treated and to offer them a default option of "voluntary deportation" at their own cost.

There are plenty of people who have spent years in immigration detention in places like Thailand and the Philippines because they can't afford the cost of the flight out, and they can't earn the money because they're stuck in detention.

For international trips it's still the case, at least in my country?