Most active commenters
  • rayiner(5)
  • LPisGood(5)
  • (4)
  • ajmurmann(3)
  • 9283409232(3)
  • comte7092(3)

←back to thread

I'm the Canadian who was detained by ICE for two weeks

(www.theguardian.com)
1009 points n1b0m | 33 comments | 19 Mar 25 11:21 UTC | HN request time: 1.914s | source | bottom
Show context
drumhead ◴[19 Mar 25 12:41 UTC] No.43411088[source]▶
If the objective is to scare people off from going to the USA, then they're doing a magnificent job. I've heard other cases of people with green cards being arrested and put in terrible conditions, with absolutely no reason given. This woman was ready to go back home and not enter the US, but instead she was dragged through hell and only released because she was Canadian. All those with different passports get subjected to their own more oppressive and never ending hells, like being deported to a prison camp in Ecuador with no idea when you'd ever be released.

New America is absolutely terrifying.

replies(15): >>43411114 #>>43411147 #>>43411171 #>>43411190 #>>43411235 #>>43411264 #>>43411273 #>>43411376 #>>43411396 #>>43411482 #>>43411532 #>>43411776 #>>43412004 #>>43413036 #>>43413123 #
1. diggan ◴[19 Mar 25 13:35 UTC] No.43411792[source]▶
> People should be afraid to come to America.

Currently, it seems the tactics are scaring people who already arrived and are residents. Is that also a good thing or just unintended consequence of trying to scare away the dangerous outsiders?

replies(1): >>43413064 #
2. fzeroracer ◴[19 Mar 25 13:49 UTC] No.43411969[source]▶
Because this has historically worked so well with the War On Drugs and the sheer amount of people America puts into prison, yeah? Weird how no matter how hard we ratchet up draconian enforcement measures it doesn't seem to work.

And in this scenario, we're chasing away tourists, foreign talent and more. But hey, at least those sweet private prisons get their kickback from the layers of corruption.

replies(1): >>43413070 #
3. ajmurmann ◴[19 Mar 25 15:06 UTC] No.43412980[source]▶
If your goal is to reduce illegal immigration, a much cheaper way is to heavily fine anyone who employs someone without a valid work permit. For most illegal immigrants the motivation is economic and this would reduce that motivation and bring in money from the fines instead of incurring massive cost from detention and deportation without the negative side effect (?) of deterring tourists and legal immigrants.

(Of course, I think the entire goal is economic foot shooting)

replies(1): >>43413216 #
4. ◴[19 Mar 25 15:12 UTC] No.43413064[source]▶
5. rayiner ◴[19 Mar 25 15:13 UTC] No.43413070[source]▶
Illegal border crossings have dropped to almost zero. The policy is working. Private ICE detention centers don’t get any money if people don’t cross the border illegally.
replies(3): >>43413227 #>>43413555 #>>43414913 #
6. 9283409232 ◴[19 Mar 25 15:20 UTC] No.43413186[source]▶
This administration does not want to reduce illegal immigration. They just want to create fear and headlines. If you wanted to reduce illegal immigration, you have a very easy way of doing it through mandating e-verify.
replies(1): >>43413545 #
7. graemep ◴[19 Mar 25 15:22 UTC] No.43413216[source]▶
The UK does fine employers, its not sufficient to stop it because people work through dodgy contractors.

The UK also fines landlords which has caused problems for people who look or sound foreign, including some British citizens (especially poor ones who tend not to have passports which are the easiest documents to check).

The best proposal I have heard is to provide a cash reward to illegal immigrants for turning in people who knowingly employ them illegally.

The fact that governments do not try these solutions makes me suspect they want to keep that supply of cheap labour - most illegals here work for well under minimum wage.

replies(2): >>43413565 #>>43414305 #
8. quickthrowman ◴[19 Mar 25 15:22 UTC] No.43413220[source]▶
> The only option then is draconian enforcement measures to create a deterrent effect. People should be afraid to come to America.

Aren’t you a first generation immigrant? What if your family would’ve been scared to come to the US?

Those are rhetorical questions, by the way.

replies(2): >>43416620 #>>43422769 #
9. 9283409232 ◴[19 Mar 25 15:22 UTC] No.43413227{3}[source]▶
Border apprehensions have dropped to historic lows. That does not mean border crossings have dropped to historic lows. I also don't fully trust data coming out of this administration.
10. comte7092 ◴[19 Mar 25 15:39 UTC] No.43413469[source]▶
The only option is to pursue draconian “enforcement” on people who enter through ports of entry following the established legal process?

Let’s not kid ourselves here, it’s not nor has it ever been about “illegal” immigration, it’s immigration in general.

replies(1): >>43415111 #
11. LPisGood ◴[19 Mar 25 15:43 UTC] No.43413508[source]▶
> Millions of illegal immigrants and putative refugees came over in the last four years

Refugees are good. We do welcome your hurdled masses yearning to be free, after all. People should not be afraid to come to America, and I find the sentiment that they should to be disgusting.

As far as illegal crossings, 4 years is a very odd and politicized way to say that; you don’t care about the millions of crossings that happened in the 4 years before?

Obama deported more people than anyone in history, and Biden deported more than Trump. Deporting “suspected gang members” with no due process is antithetical to the American system. We purport to be a nation of laws and justice.

If you want to decrease illegal crossings then do that - but illegally invoking _war powers_ to perform extraordinary rendition as a deterrent is plainly not the way to do it.

12. LPisGood ◴[19 Mar 25 15:46 UTC] No.43413545[source]▶
I agree. It seems like the goal is not reducing illegal immigration, but creating fear. This is why they’re coming after lawful residents for things like political speech.
replies(1): >>43416674 #
13. LPisGood ◴[19 Mar 25 15:47 UTC] No.43413555{3}[source]▶
There is absolutely no reason to think illegal border crossings were ever much higher than they are today.
replies(1): >>43416606 #
14. disgruntledphd2 ◴[19 Mar 25 15:48 UTC] No.43413565{3}[source]▶
Yeah, it's totally doable for the US to deport all the illegal immigrants. The consequences would most likely be pretty high inflation, but it's totally doable.

While I dislike the UK requirement to have a passport on your first day at work, I understand why it exists.

15. fads_go ◴[19 Mar 25 15:54 UTC] No.43413648[source]▶
Yes, they should be afraid, just like it says at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty.

rayiner, I'm wondering if your bloodline is 100% native american, because otherwise it seems like the person you are afraid of is yourself.

replies(3): >>43413793 #>>43414093 #>>43415150 #
16. ◴[19 Mar 25 16:04 UTC] No.43413793[source]▶
17. xyzzyz ◴[19 Mar 25 16:24 UTC] No.43414093[source]▶
20 years after that poem was affixed to the Statue of Liberty, a new immigration law was passed that practically banned almost all immigration. It was passed, because the American population rejected the immigration policy that that poem represented.

I don't think that 120 years later, bringing up that poem is meant to evoke some kind of universal American spirit. This is not what Americans actually believed back then, and it's not what Americans believe today. That poem has been rejected at the ballot box.

18. ajmurmann ◴[19 Mar 25 16:40 UTC] No.43414305{3}[source]▶
What makes it hard to investigate the dodgy contractors? I don't fully understand why this is harder than identifying illegal immigrants.
replies(1): >>43414441 #
19. graemep ◴[19 Mar 25 16:53 UTC] No.43414441{4}[source]▶
The dodgy contractors take a markup for taking the risk away from employers. A lot of them are criminals with connections to people smugglers, are both willing and able to get away with things someone with a more legitimate business would not. They are a layer of plausible deniability.
replies(1): >>43419136 #
20. ◴[19 Mar 25 17:29 UTC] No.43414913{3}[source]▶
21. rayiner ◴[19 Mar 25 17:44 UTC] No.43415111[source]▶
What do you think the point is of having immigration laws? It’s to control how many immigrants come in and which ones. If you essentially make all the illegal immigration “legal” then you’ve erased the difference.
replies(1): >>43415419 #
22. rayiner ◴[19 Mar 25 17:46 UTC] No.43415150[source]▶
I’m 100% Bangladeshi on both sides going back to before anyone knows. I wasn’t even born here.

And yes, of course that’s what I’m afraid of! My family left a country full of people like us to come here. Why would we want millions of others coming behind us to turn here into there?

23. comte7092 ◴[19 Mar 25 18:07 UTC] No.43415419{3}[source]▶
The conversation I engaged with was about people who are following the law. You are arguing against a point I never made here.

I’d ask you what the point of having laws is if we are going to detain and deport people outside of the established legal process.

This thread is in response to an individual who came here on a valid work visa.

replies(1): >>43416578 #
24. rayiner ◴[19 Mar 25 19:55 UTC] No.43416578{4}[source]▶
From the article:

> He claimed I also couldn’t work for a company in the US that made use of hemp – one of the beverage ingredients. He revoked my visa, and told me I could still work for the company from Canada, but if I wanted to return to the US, I would need to reapply.

> I restarted the visa process and returned to the same immigration office at the San Diego border, since they had processed my visa before and I was familiar with it.

This lady is Canadian. She has her visa revoked. Then she goes back to an immigration office on the San Diego border to apply for a visa? Last I checked, no part of the San Diego border is in Canada. So how did she find herself in U.S. custody with a revoked visa?

replies(1): >>43417685 #
25. rayiner ◴[19 Mar 25 19:58 UTC] No.43416606{4}[source]▶
This does not seem to be a disputed fact that there were a massive increase in the number of border crossings under Biden.
replies(1): >>43435578 #
26. ◴[19 Mar 25 20:00 UTC] No.43416620[source]▶
27. genewitch ◴[19 Mar 25 20:05 UTC] No.43416674{3}[source]▶
TIL vandalism is speech
replies(2): >>43429477 #>>43435587 #
28. comte7092 ◴[19 Mar 25 21:52 UTC] No.43417685{5}[source]▶
> So how did she find herself in U.S. custody with a revoked visa?

The original officer likely lacked the authority to actually revoke her visa:

https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM040311.html

9 FAM 403.11-3(B) (U) When You May Not Revoke A Visa (CT:VISA-1463; 02-01-2022)

a. (U) You do not have the authority to revoke a visa based on a suspected ineligibility or based on derogatory information that is insufficient to support an ineligibility finding, other than a revocation based on driving under the influence (DUI). A consular revocation must be based on an actual finding that the individual is ineligible for the visa.

b. (U) Under no circumstances should you revoke a visa when the individual is in the United States, or after the individual has commenced an uninterrupted journey to the United States, other than a revocation based on driving under the influence (DUI). Outside of the DUI exception, revocations of individuals in, or en route to, the United States may only be done by the Department's Visa Office of Screening, Analysis, and Coordination (CA/VO/SAC).

29. ajmurmann ◴[20 Mar 25 01:36 UTC] No.43419136{5}[source]▶
I get the isolation the contractors provide but why can't one audit the contractors?
30. account42 ◴[20 Mar 25 13:13 UTC] No.43422769[source]▶
> Those are rhetorical questions, by the way.

Why? Because you wouldn't like the answer?

31. 9283409232 ◴[20 Mar 25 22:00 UTC] No.43429477{4}[source]▶
Who are you talking about because no one mentioned any names here?
32. LPisGood ◴[21 Mar 25 13:40 UTC] No.43435578{5}[source]▶
After the pandemic it picked up as a result of the pandemic drop off, but it settled.
33. LPisGood ◴[21 Mar 25 13:40 UTC] No.43435587{4}[source]▶
What vandalism are you referring to? I wasn’t referring to any cases where any kind of property damage occurred.