←back to thread

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

(www.theguardian.com)
205 points n1b0m | 4 comments | 10 Mar 25 18:32 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
sergers ◴[10 Mar 25 20:43 UTC] No.43325851[source]▶
i was following this on another site before it showed up here:

1)UK citizens dont need a visa perse coming into canada as a tourist

1b) electronic travel authorization form is not required for UK citizens coming to canada over land border.

2)she was staying at Workaway, which depending on how you interpret/misinterpret is "working" (which it possibly is, a little shady on what they are.) so canada may have thought she was going to work... which a tourist visa doesnt cover

so my guess is canadian authorities felt she was coming here to work, which she didnt have the proper paperwork so got denied.

USA authorities upon re-entry attempt, probably felt she is scamming the ESTA 90 days being on a "4 month" trip, staying at workaway locations... and playing devils advocate, there is no proof that this is NOT what she was trying to do... going to a short trip in canada before going back thinking it resets ESTA (they have to be gone from usa for a reasonable time)

so much unknowns.

i think they were right to detain her/deny her entry... but the length of detainment is at issue.

very first thing i think of when viewing their site is this is some lodging for volunteer/unpaid labour. https://www.workaway.info/

replies(5): >>43326832 #>>43326846 #>>43327137 #>>43327240 #>>43327287 #
1. yibg ◴[10 Mar 25 23:12 UTC] No.43327240[source]▶
Based just on the details in the report, it seems refusing entry is justified. Or at least not very strange.

What I don't understand is, why not just send her back home vs detaining her? Maybe someone that's more knowledgeable here can chime in. Is it standard practice to detain someone, especially for an extended period, vs just putting them on the first plane back home?

replies(2): >>43327311 #>>43327315 #
2. newyankee ◴[10 Mar 25 23:20 UTC] No.43327311[source]▶
The idea might be to create a clear example that becomes popular and known so that others who might attempt the same will be dissuaded
3. londons_explore ◴[10 Mar 25 23:20 UTC] No.43327315[source]▶
When you are at a land border, but neither country on either side of the border will grant you entry, there is no easy 'way out'.

She could not fly to the UK directly from that border location.

When arrested, she has to go through the proper deportation process - and that might well be very expensive, and she might not have the money to pay. Deportations can easily cost 10x a regular flight cost due to the extra security needed.

replies(1): >>43330457 #
4. Doxin ◴[11 Mar 25 08:48 UTC] No.43330457[source]▶
> When arrested, she has to go through the proper deportation process

Why? Surely if both the US and the deportee agree that deportation is A-OK then you don't need judges and whatnot involved? Surely having a cop drive her to the airport and make sure she gets on a flight is wildly less work involved for everyone than whatever the fuck is going on now?