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".
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.
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.
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.
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
“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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
It’s not strictly a crime, but immigration/visa fraud is a “removable offence”. It is the law that a person committing it will be removed. Sometimes immediate removal is not possible and these people must be detained and housed.
This is not all that ridiculous. What would be ridiculous is if people who have in the past, or would have by the virtue of entering into a country, committed immigration fraud were let in. Or if they were left unhoused and stateless, stuck at a border. Detaining and removing them is much more sensible.
Of course, ideally, it would be much more pleasant for the offender if they were given an option to enter anyway and leave on their own accord. But perhaps this is also an unreasonable expectation when one commits serious offences. Must we be nice to those who don’t respect our laws?
There is a lot to be said about our responsibilities to offenders, the paradox of tolerance, and similar.
This is about the same level of lawbreaking as slightly exceeding the speed limit. I have no problem with removing them. Jailing them for days first is ridiculous. Imagine if you got pulled over for speeding and they stuck you in jail for days until they could be bothered to find you a ride home.
It’s normal for detention in such scenarios to take months in both the US and Germany.
Since about 2001, it has been limited in the US to 180 days. In Germany, detention is reviewed every six months, and some people are granted exceptional leave to remain, but it is not capped.
Immigration offenses are much more severe than an administrative penalty for speeding. Largely, no one debates that.
There are plenty of people who have spent years in immigration detention in places like Thailand and the Philippines because they can't afford the cost of the flight out, and they can't earn the money because they're stuck in detention.
