←back to thread

205 points n1b0m | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
decimalenough ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
averageRoyalty ◴[] No.43325847[source]
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'.
replies(4): >>43326584 #>>43326611 #>>43326783 #>>43327121 #
stefan_ ◴[] No.43326783[source]
Yeah, what's habeas corpus.
replies(1): >>43326921 #
1. psychlops ◴[] No.43326921[source]
A legal procedure that protects citizens, which she isn't.
replies(1): >>43326979 #
2. amanaplanacanal ◴[] No.43326979[source]
Nah. Habeus Corpus applies to everybody in the US, not just citizens.