←back to thread

300 points proberts | 10 comments | | HN request time: 1.049s | source | bottom

I'll be here for the next 6 hours. As usual, there are countless possible topics and I'll be guided by whatever you're concerned with but as much as possible I'd like to focus on the recent changes and potential changes in U.S. immigration law, policy, and practice. Please remember that I am limited in providing legal advice on specific cases for obvious liability reasons because I won't have access to all the facts. Please stick to a factual discussion in your questions and comments and I'll try to do the same in my responses. Thank you!
Show context
radicalbyte ◴[] No.43365531[source]
How do you protect people visiting or participating in YC from ICE? There have been two dozen stories of random tourists being disappeared for no good reason from all over the US.

Given that the policy is in the very early stages of implementation we can expect those numbers to reach the hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands in the next few months.

replies(1): >>43367077 #
worik ◴[] No.43367077[source]
> There have been two dozen stories of random tourists being disappeared for no good reason from all over the US.

Really?

That is frightening. I plan to be a tourist in the USA within a decade.

Can you expand on that?

replies(1): >>43367634 #
Alupis ◴[] No.43367634[source]
It's BS. Random tourists aren't being "disappeared for no good reason". A "tourist" that overstayed by 2 years without applying for a Visa and/or started working here are being deported back to their home nation - in accordance with the law.

There's a tremendous amount of scaremongering, fearmongering, and misinformation being thrown about currently. Majority of it is very much over stated hyperbole.

replies(4): >>43367677 #>>43370373 #>>43370733 #>>43436053 #
gm678 ◴[] No.43367677[source]
> Canadian woman put in chains, detained by ICE after entering San Diego border

> She said the officer refused to allow her to go back to Mexico and ordered her to be detained. She was kept in a cold room at the border by CBP before being arrested by ICE, who placed her at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Mooney claimed in the middle of the night she, along with a group of 30 other women, was rounded up to get transferred to a facility in Arizona. CBP wouldn’t tell Team 10 the reason for Mooney’s detention, citing privacy restrictions.

https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/never-seen-anything-s...

> A German tourist detained by US immigration authorities is due to be deported back to Germany on Tuesday after spending more than six weeks in detention, including eight days in solitary confinement. Both Germans were held at the Otay Mesa Detention Center, a prison in San Diego, California. Brösche and Lofving had attempted to enter the US from Tijuana in Mexico on 25 January.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/11/german-tourist...

replies(2): >>43367877 #>>43368003 #
Alupis ◴[] No.43367877[source]
If you believe that's the entire story - walked across the border was arrested - then I have a bridge to sell you...
replies(3): >>43367949 #>>43368143 #>>43371240 #
1. acdha ◴[] No.43367949[source]
If you were right, they could easily clear the record by actually charging her. In several of the cases, they held people for extended periods rather than letting them leave the country which they really shouldn’t be doing if they don’t have enough evidence for at least one charge.
replies(2): >>43367990 #>>43378654 #
2. Alupis ◴[] No.43367990[source]
The linked articles have no information in them, except a sob story told through one perspective.

For all we know, the US was coordinating extradition or release into their home country. A person attempting to illegally crossing the border (such as the two in the article) have committed a crime and could be held on that alone - yet they were released back to their home country. Seems like a pretty good ending for them, unless you are advocating they should be charged and imprisoned here for longer?

replies(2): >>43368976 #>>43369219 #
3. wrboyce ◴[] No.43368976[source]
What sort of fucking shithole backwards country locks people up for weeks (including over a week in solitary!) for arriving with an invalid visa? If you think that is a proportional response you are a nasty, nasty person.
replies(3): >>43369944 #>>43375761 #>>43378168 #
4. jakefromstatecs ◴[] No.43369219[source]
> The linked articles have no information in them, except a sob story told through one perspective.

Here, how about this article: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jasmine-mooney-canadian-detaine...

If this is not sufficient (It includes statements from an ICE spokesperson), then please do mention what type of evidence it is that you're looking for.

> For all we know, the US was coordinating extradition or release into their home country.

The evidence that we have does not indicate that, and in fact, indicates that these Jasmine Mooney was unnecessarily held for 6 days across two different locations, then unnecessarily transferred to Arizona for an additional period of time.

It seems like a very faulty thought process to pretend that there exists evidence to contradict what the current evidence suggests, rather than to simply base your judgement on available evidence.

> A person attempting to illegally crossing the border (such as the two in the article) have committed a crime and could be held on that alone

Jasmine Mooney - a Canadian citizen, was crossing the boarder, with the paperwork for a work visa, in order to turn them into the US consulate to apply for the visa. This isn't even required by the way under NAFTA: https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary....

It specifically notes that Canadian citizens need not apply at the U.S. consulate, contrary to the information provided by the customs agent.

How reasonable is it to you, that a person would attempt to follow the correct procedure to apply for a work visa according to the U.S. government's own website, then be detained and transferred several times, one of them being literally to a detention facility 209 miles away simply because her visa was denied at the border of Mexico (Before she even entered the U.S. by the way)

Here's another source for this, which includes statements by an immigration lawyer noting how unusual the handling of this is: https://globalnews.ca/news/11080371/canadian-woman-detained-...

> Seems like a pretty good ending for them, unless you are advocating they should be charged and imprisoned here for longer?

How is it a good ending to be detained and transferred hundreds of miles because paperwork at the boarder isn't correct? Isn't the whole point that they shouldn't be in the U.S. at all? So why is it then that we waste so many resources to send them all over the U.S. instead of just denying entry?.. How does this make any sense to you?

5. ignotus02 ◴[] No.43369944{3}[source]
One that has individuals in government with a history advocating for private prisons where most undocumented immigrants are housed. 6 weeks probably leads to some solid profits for the bottom line.

Solitary is probably a bonus charge.

6. worik ◴[] No.43375761{3}[source]
> What sort of fucking shithole backwards country locks people up for weeks (including over a week in solitary!) for arriving with an invalid visa?

The USA.

Or Russia

Tweedledum and Tweedledee

7. chgs ◴[] No.43378168{3}[source]
Needs to be some reciprocation on American “digital nomads” on tourist visa.
8. pandaman ◴[] No.43378654[source]
Immigration proceedings are usually administrative, this is why people often proclaim that visa violations are as same as parking violations. So there is no need to charge as there is no trial and there is administrative detention among the punishments. On the same note, "immigration judge" is not a member of the Judiciary but an officer of the Executive branch and "immigration court" is an Executive office as same as DMV.

There are criminal charges possible but are not necessary to indefinitely detain and/or deport any non-citizen who appeared on the border.

replies(1): >>43382033 #
9. acdha ◴[] No.43382033[source]
Again, my point is simply that if there were some more serious offenses as the person I responded to alluded they could easily respond to reporters saying this isn’t a simple administrative mistake.
replies(1): >>43383116 #
10. pandaman ◴[] No.43383116{3}[source]
You seem to be confused over the meaning of word "administrative". In this context it means that the matter is entirely in the hands of the executive power so there is no charging and no trial.