←back to thread

205 points n1b0m | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.937s | 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 #
kennysoona ◴[] No.43325516[source]
There's a right and a wrong way to enforce the law, though.

Putting her in a literal prison and in an orange jumpsuit is overkill. Clearly she just screwed up and thought what she was doing was ok, but isn't a threat. Let her go back to the UK and no longer be eligible for ESTA. How is that not sufficient?

replies(4): >>43326612 #>>43326777 #>>43327042 #>>43327122 #
necovek ◴[] No.43327122[source]
There is only one way to enforce the law, which is to enforce it upon learning of all the circumstances, both in favour and not in favour of the accused. The fact that you are not familiar with the law never protects you by design ("oh sorry, I never realised I wasn't allowed to just take their bike and ride away") — so it's upon the courts to make judgement on the entire set of circumstances.

The problem with any immigration service in the world is that they are dealing with non-citizens which lack most protections citizenship would have given them — which means that it may take its sweet time before courts actually hear her defense and probably decide as you suggest (along with introducing a 3 or 5 year ban on entering the US).

replies(7): >>43327562 #>>43327726 #>>43327767 #>>43328105 #>>43328473 #>>43330563 #>>43337148 #
kennysoona ◴[] No.43327767[source]
All people involved have jurisdiction on how to apply the law. Putting this girl in prison and a jumpsuit is ridiculous.

It creates yet another person who will come to rightfully hate the US, gets bad press affecting tourism and business, and for what? For a girl that loved the US, misinterpreted or misunderstood something and is staying a little longer, spending more money and having good experiences.

Enforce the law, sure, whatever, but the jumpsuit and 10 days in a detention center are barbaric and unnecessary. There's a reason this wouldn't have happened before a wannabe dictator was in power.

replies(4): >>43327878 #>>43328027 #>>43328112 #>>43328417 #
necovek ◴[] No.43328027[source]
I agree that the conditions are far from ideal, but if that's how US generally deals with people waiting for their court dates, it's what it is.

This does not mean US should not work to improve those conditions for everyone — I don't see a difference between a Mexican person overstaying or her overstaying from the angle of immigration clerks — it should! US should also certainly adapt laws to avoid any "detention" for people open to "voluntary deportation".

In my non-EU European country, arbitrary application of laws is exactly what's the issue. This leads to rampant corruption and society going crazy (it's not about being a good citizen, it's about not getting caught being a bad one).

replies(2): >>43328421 #>>43328552 #
1. kennysoona ◴[] No.43328552[source]
> I agree that the conditions are far from ideal, but if that's how US generally deals with people waiting for their court dates, it's what it is.

It's what it is under Trump. 3 months ago Someone in this situation wouldn't have been detained for this long and in the news for such a minor offense.

> This does not mean US should not work to improve those conditions for everyone

This wasn't happening before for cases like this. All the worst CBP agents are empowered now and have no checks on their authority. That's the problem.

replies(1): >>43340396 #
2. necovek ◴[] No.43340396[source]
More than a decade ago, a UK or Italian colleague travelling into US for a business trip said in an entry interview they are coming in "for work". An IT person, and way before Trump himself even had an idea of becoming a president.

They were drilled for hours until finally they let them in: it required producing a lot of paperwork by the company hosting the event on top of the traveller's documentation.

replies(1): >>43341046 #
3. kennysoona ◴[] No.43341046[source]
Were they ever in an orange prison jumpsuit?
replies(1): >>43372595 #
4. necovek ◴[] No.43372595{3}[source]
Nope, but they never admitted to already having worked on their temporary visit visa (waiver), or that they were denied entry in nearby country due to planning to work there. And they were at an international airport which would have given them easier option to get deported.