←back to thread

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

(www.theguardian.com)
205 points n1b0m | 9 comments | 10 Mar 25 18:32 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
averageRoyalty ◴[10 Mar 25 20:42 UTC] 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 #
wat10000 ◴[10 Mar 25 22:02 UTC] No.43326611[source]▶
A full work week in jail for something that isn’t even a crime is ridiculous.
replies(3): >>43327229 #>>43327339 #>>43327681 #
1. mingus88 ◴[10 Mar 25 23:23 UTC] No.43327339[source]▶
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

replies(1): >>43327854 #
2. wat10000 ◴[11 Mar 25 00:29 UTC] No.43327854[source]▶
“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.

replies(2): >>43328278 #>>43328382 #
3. ◴[11 Mar 25 01:39 UTC] No.43328278[source]▶
4. mingus88 ◴[11 Mar 25 02:01 UTC] No.43328382[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>43328420 #
5. wat10000 ◴[11 Mar 25 02:06 UTC] No.43328420{3}[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>43328521 #>>43328993 #
6. mingus88 ◴[11 Mar 25 02:22 UTC] No.43328521{4}[source]▶
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...

replies(1): >>43334186 #
7. ty6853 ◴[11 Mar 25 03:53 UTC] No.43328993{4}[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>43334145 #
8. wat10000 ◴[11 Mar 25 16:29 UTC] No.43334145{5}[source]▶
I’m not even trying to convince anyone they should be overlooked. I’m fine with deporting this person.
9. wat10000 ◴[11 Mar 25 16:33 UTC] No.43334186{5}[source]▶
I violate US law on daily basis. If you live here, you probably do too.