Most active commenters
  • viraptor(3)

←back to thread

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

(www.theguardian.com)
205 points n1b0m | 11 comments | 10 Mar 25 18:32 UTC | HN request time: 1.807s | source | bottom
Show context
decimalenough ◴[10 Mar 25 19:58 UTC] No.43325298[source]▶
If she is on a "four-month backpacking trip around North America" and tried to return to the US, she has exceeded the 90-day limit allowed by the Visa Waiver Program (which counts days both in the US and "adjacent territories") and is now an illegal overstayer. The unpaid labor stuff and getting refused entry to Canada is icing on the cake.

For the record, I'm no fan of ICE/CBP, but it looks like they're just enforcing the law here.

replies(12): >>43325471 #>>43325516 #>>43325540 #>>43325546 #>>43325574 #>>43325742 #>>43326297 #>>43326878 #>>43326919 #>>43327831 #>>43327898 #>>43329184 #
viraptor ◴[10 Mar 25 20:10 UTC] No.43325471[source]▶
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.
replies(4): >>43325590 #>>43326528 #>>43327083 #>>43327143 #
toast0 ◴[10 Mar 25 20:19 UTC] No.43325590[source]▶
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?
replies(1): >>43325666 #
viraptor ◴[10 Mar 25 20:25 UTC] No.43325666[source]▶
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.
replies(2): >>43325847 #>>43325869 #
1. xethos ◴[10 Mar 25 20:44 UTC] No.43325869[source]▶
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.

replies(3): >>43325977 #>>43326131 #>>43326825 #
2. viraptor ◴[10 Mar 25 20:55 UTC] No.43325977[source]▶
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.
replies(3): >>43326118 #>>43326282 #>>43326948 #
3. lepton ◴[10 Mar 25 21:08 UTC] No.43326118[source]▶
That’s the parent’s point: a same-day flight may be expensive for the detainee and look bad for ICE.
4. Klonoar ◴[10 Mar 25 21:09 UTC] No.43326131[source]▶
There is no world where that bad look means throw them in a prison cell to languish.
5. dmix ◴[10 Mar 25 21:24 UTC] No.43326282[source]▶
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.
replies(2): >>43327032 #>>43327074 #
6. jkaplowitz ◴[10 Mar 25 22:25 UTC] No.43326825[source]▶
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.

7. toast0 ◴[10 Mar 25 22:41 UTC] No.43326948[source]▶
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

8. orwin ◴[10 Mar 25 22:50 UTC] No.43327032{3}[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>43330543 #
9. nomdep ◴[10 Mar 25 22:55 UTC] No.43327074{3}[source]▶
She might even have done this on purpose to get a free ride home
10. bruceb ◴[11 Mar 25 09:01 UTC] No.43330543{4}[source]▶
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
replies(1): >>43341225 #
11. orwin ◴[12 Mar 25 09:18 UTC] No.43341225{5}[source]▶
For international trips it's still the case, at least in my country?