←back to thread

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

(www.theguardian.com)
205 points n1b0m | 3 comments | 10 Mar 25 18:32 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
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 #
necovek ◴[10 Mar 25 23:11 UTC] No.43327229[source]▶
Going to a country for work on a tourist visa (waiver) and without a working permit is ridiculous on top of staying longer than the usually allowed 90 days in any sequence of 180 consecutive days. Do not put yourself in a position for a foreign government to put you in detention and "hope for the best".
replies(1): >>43327863 #
wat10000 ◴[11 Mar 25 00:30 UTC] No.43327863[source]▶
Agreed. But I care a lot more about what my government does to people who break the rules than I care about people breaking minor rules.
replies(1): >>43328057 #
1. necovek ◴[11 Mar 25 00:58 UTC] No.43328057[source]▶
Agreed as well. But the question is punted down to how do you decide if someone is breaking minor rules or major ones instead?

AFAIK, US usually resolves that with courts (in this case Immigration Court). That requires a court date which is not as quick to come by.

The way to improve the situation for the future is to introduce changes to the law to allow voluntary deportation for anyone who's not a wanted criminal — but the laws are what they are, and I wouldn't want immigration clerks to have the full power.

replies(1): >>43328387 #
2. wat10000 ◴[11 Mar 25 02:01 UTC] No.43328387[source]▶
Court is not the only way. How many people do you know who got thrown in jail for a minor speeding offense? The system is plainly capable of distinguishing between “needs to go to jail until they can see a judge” and “can go home” cases. This one is just silly, though: it’s “must go home” combined with “can’t leave.”

You can have a system that treats people humanely. We choose not to.

replies(1): >>43335728 #
3. necovek ◴[11 Mar 25 18:45 UTC] No.43335728[source]▶
You are not wrong: I am saying that the laws could be improved to clearly define how immigrants are treated and to offer them a default option of "voluntary deportation" at their own cost.