←back to thread

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

(www.theguardian.com)
205 points n1b0m | 1 comments | 10 Mar 25 18:32 UTC | HN request time: 0.201s | source
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 #
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 #
1. 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.