British tourist detained by US authorities for 10 days over visa issue | Hacker News Reader

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

theguardian.com

205 pointsn1b0m245 comments

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.

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.

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?

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.

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'.

Feel free to not encage people if you don't like the responsibility.

A full work week in jail for something that isn’t even a crime is ridiculous.

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. 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.

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...

I violate US law on daily basis. If you live here, you probably do too.

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.

I’m not even trying to convince anyone they should be overlooked. I’m fine with deporting this person.

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.

They keep people locked up for six months before sending them home?

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.

Yeah, what's habeas corpus.

A legal procedure that protects citizens, which she isn't.

Nah. Habeus Corpus applies to everybody in the US, not just citizens.

If authorities think she should be deported, then deport her. Imprisonment is perverse, it is literally the most expensive option.

Dictating they buy one of the most expensive flights (one of the immediate ones taking off that day) probably isn't a great look either. Like so much else with law enforcement, they look like shit because of the system and incentives set up.

Some do it themselves and are malicious for no good reason, but not literally every time.

You don't get a free flight. Typically either your return ticket is moved if possible, or the airline will claim the cost from you. There's a number of regulations and airline rules, but in general - unless the airline messed up checks at boarding, you're getting charged for the flight back.

That’s the parent’s point: a same-day flight may be expensive for the detainee and look bad for ICE.

Sounds like she was surviving doing chores in exchange for a place to sleep (in two different countries). It's possible she didn't have a plane ticket lined up.

It's so expensive to not take a return ticket, I doubt she didn't had a return plane ticket. Maybe she moved her flight or missed it, but only rich people don't buy a return ticket.

I am not sure if the comment is serious or not. Often one way tix are not much more than half a round trip tix It used to be one way tickets were like 70+% of a round trip, not as much anymore

For international trips it's still the case, at least in my country?

She might even have done this on purpose to get a free ride home

This page[1] says "The majority of removals are carried out by air at U.S. government expense." which sounds like a free flight to me. Looking at prices, a near term one-way, no stops flight is about $500. There's some expensive days, and if you wait two weeks, you can save about $70 on the flight ... doesn't seem to be worth the wait, assuming detention costs are more than $5/day. But I'd say waiting a few days to avoid some of the $1000+ flights would make sense.

Generally I'd expect a deportation process to take quite some time because immigration courts have not been properly staffed. But I would have expected ICE to offer either a withdrawal of application, or voluntary deportation, both of which involve travel arrangements at the alien's expense in order to expedite removal. I think it's probably in the person's better interest to pay for a ticket home (hopefully with some credit for their previously scheduled flight) if they were planning on returning home anyway; better to go home early than sit out your trip in immigration detention.

[1] https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process

There is no world where that bad look means throw them in a prison cell to languish.

10 days and counting of immigration detention (possibly more in the end since she's still detained) plus whatever deportation ICE would eventually conduct undoubtedly costs more than the flight you're describing.

Meanwhile, her British MP has relayed the family's request to arrange voluntary departure, so the trip home wouldn't even be at government expense.

ICE has no legitimate excuse to be slow about permitting voluntary departure unless they're planning to prosecute her criminally, think she won't actually go through with the voluntary departure, or think she will commit crimes before voluntarily departing. None of those seem likely in the scenario we're discussing.

The political environment of the Trump administration might very well be an explanation for why they're not quickly permitting this, but it’s just an explanation at most, not an excuse.

> Detaining is all of: cruel, expensive, unnecessary.

What about those poor private prison corporations that are being deprived of an income?! How dare you! /s

Probably profitable though. A lot of those immigration detention centers are privately operated.

Tacoma Northwest is a private 'detention center'.

FYI Tacoma Northwest is a Geo Group private prison. Geo Group is paid per number of beds at this facility not number occupied so locking her up has zero added expense. But you do not want to be in a Geo private facility especially their immigration facilities.

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?

BTW this would not be the public majority opinion if she was a black man.

It seems shocking from European perspective. At least they did not shot her because of resisting or something.

She might experience the same thing if she planned a "work away" trip to the EU, now that UK is not part of the EU.

No. The EU doesn't treat people like that for such a minor offense.

I suggest you read up on your country's actual visa violation punitive assessment. You'll be surprised I guarantee it if this is your "European" perspective.

The countries who can enforce their visa terms, do. And Europeans are no different, some are even worse than US treatment they're getting.

> some are even worse than US treatment they're getting.

Show one comparable story from an EU country.

I'm curious if you think there is actually none before I go any further

All good, I think your answer here is enough.

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).

Unless you are American. Then the bully shows their teeth.

So do you support invalidating the citizenship of Elon Musk and Melania Trump because they both worked without authorization while on student and tourist visas?

You misinterpret me for someone in support of aggressive immigration policies: I am more in favour of EU-style globally open borders.

But the law should either be applied to everyone equally, or overturned to not be applied at all. "Equally" does not mean you do not account for each individual case's specifics — I was responding to a comment saying there was a "right and wrong way" to apply a law (if it's applied the "wrong way", then law is not applied at all).

I am in favour of abolishing any detention for "illegal immigrants" who agree to voluntary deportation.

Also note that I am not a US citizen, so this is just personal opinion.

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.

> Putting this girl in prison and a jumpsuit is ridiculous.

Should they have put her on house arrest in a hotel room? She doesn't deserve special privileges. A huge swath of the US population would be adamantly against her being treated special.

Do you know that mixed race marriage did not gain majority support in the USA until 1995? Sometimes it is right to not give a fuck about what "a huge swath of the US population thinks".

And in this case, it's not about "special priviledges", it's about the ridiculousness of this process being applied to anyone in her circumstances.

What people say on polls and reality are very different. Most people in all countries don't support mixed race marriage.

Again, discretion is a thing.

Discretion rubs both ways.

Just because it didn't happen to your/our preference this time doesn't mean it never happens.

I don't see what point you're trying to make here.

The point was discretion should have been used this care regardless of other times it has been.

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).

> but if that's how US generally deals with people waiting for their court dates, it's what it is.

Historically, (as in: during periods where Trump is not president) it is not.

It did happen before as well: see above comment I made about my IT colleague being drilled for hours when they said they were coming in "for work" instead of "for a business trip".

If you've not passed US border control as a foreigner, you really have no idea of what a pleasant experience it... is not.

My point was not that "being drilled" did not happen.

Being locked up in a detention center for days (and in solitary confinement in at least one recent case) for this sort of violation would have been rare to non-existent.

I crossed the US border many times as a foreigner, although I am now a citizen. The easiest kind of foreigner though - white, anglo, male, middle class. Even those qualifications don't seem like enough to stop the absurd responses from ICE anymore, though.

Was it at a land crossing and were you already denied entry into Canada due to you planing to work there to sustain yourself?

I get it that US could be nicer, but it was Canada who denied entry first (the girl was coming into Canada after being in the US for weeks prior to that).

I just don't think this has changed due to Trump: I could very well see this happening prior to Trump.

Somebody mentioned how average detainee wait for a court date is 50 days! Trump has not been in power long enough to bring the average that high.

> 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.

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.

Were they ever in an orange prison jumpsuit?

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.

>All people involved have jurisdiction on how to apply the law. Putting this girl in prison and a jumpsuit is ridiculous.

So what are you proposing? Giving someone from an European country better treatment than someone from South America? Sounds like racism/white privilege to me.

>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

South Americans are fleeing prosecution from drug gangs or economic devastation. That's a far stronger justification than some girl who "loved the US" and wants to backpack for a few months.

>misinterpreted or misunderstood something and is staying a little longer, spending more money and having good experiences.

As other people have mentioned, it's basically plastered everywhere during the ESTA process that you can't work. "misinterpreted or misunderstood" seems like a stretch.

> Giving someone from an European country better treatment than someone from South America? Sounds like racism/white privilege to me.

No, the proposal is to treat all such cases equivalently, regardless of national origin.

That means no more prison/orange jump suit/inacessibility for Europeans or people from South America who screw up their visa conditions.

>No, the proposal is to treat all such cases equivalently, regardless of national origin.

Your description of "a girl that loved the US, misinterpreted or misunderstood something and is staying a little longer, spending more money and having good experiences" might not have any explicit racial/ethnic element, but it's pretty obvious you're selecting for a certain demographic when you're using criteria like that.

Or are you arguing that nobody should be treated that way? In which case why not just say something like "nobody should be treated this way", instead of qualifying it with so many descriptors?

> "a girl that loved the US, misinterpreted or misunderstood something and is staying a little longer, spending more money and having good experiences"

You seem to be replying to the wrong comment. I never said anything remotely like that.

Yeah was meant for the other guy

> Giving someone from an European country better treatment than someone from South America? Sounds like racism/white privilege to me.

No one is proposing anything like this. Why invent a strawman?

> "misinterpreted or misunderstood" seems like a stretch.

Not if you consider work to mean getting cash in exchange.

Don't worry they do it to citizens too. On one occasion CBP told me they would not let me enter the country. On another they imprisoned me for ~12 hours, on another they asked me if I work in the US and tried to demand ever more intrusive questions about it.

... I am us citizen presenting with us passport, look and talk extremely white with no foreign accent.

How did your situation resolve? Did you sue them?

The situation resolved in my passport being flagged, feds executing a fruitless search warrant (thankfully the doctors would not go through with the full cavity search but i am in debt for the warrant), and lawyers telling me I'm SOL. Everytime I go to the border I make sure my affairs are in order to be disappeared. It's good advice for anyone entering the US.

Edit: just remembered the time they were enraged they had to let me in so threatened to revoke my passport.

> lawyers telling me I'm SOL.

Why? On what basis?

"We've tried litigating these cases before and after always failing we gave up pursuing these kinds of cases" -- in so many words.

I assume it has to do with a federal law that grants immigration agents broad searches and inspections and technically the Fourth Amendment does not fully apply as long as they are within 100 miles of the border or in the functional equivalent of a border (like an airport). The ACLU has a summary page about this.[1]

[1]: https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-...

I wouldn't think that would extend to threats like a cavity search and flagging their passport.

Lady named Cervantes had doctors warrantlessly finger raping her and lost due to jurisdiction fuck fuck games ( i also talked to her lawyer). Happen all the time, CBP lost once iirc in new mexico and letters were sent and thenn promptly ignored. CBP bragged to me about it. They also bragged about flagging trans people claiming their surgical dong was drugs and sending them for exam to fuck with them.

It's not just about security, they admitted they fuck with innocent people just for enjoyment. They cannot be stopped as the courts don't really see them as beholden to the Constitution, it's a huge legal hole and the officers have a crystal clear understanding of this.

This is also why when they needed an unbeholden army to send to Portland to pick up protesters in unmarked vans, they used CBP.

https://holdcbpaccountable.org/2016/08/09/cervantes-v-united...

Dude has said on here before that they voluntarily went to Syria to join in the conflict so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

... on the US allied side. The government has known this for 10+ years, if it was illegal I'd have already went to jail. Look up Ashley Cervantes case if you don't believe it can't happen to anybody.

> 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

No, this is specifically a problem with the US if they withhold many those rights to non citizens. In developed countries existing as a person gives you those rights, not citizenship.

The US does not recognize non-immigrant (tourist/student/some work visas) aliens to be people, thus they don't have all the rights the people have like bearing arms (which is ascribed to people like the 4th amendment does, unlike elsewhere where sometimes citizens is used).

Just a note, but it is “the people” and not just people, since there is a difference.

Again it uses 'the people' in the 4th amendment though, which is usually argued as applying generally to people without a difference. Based on wording 2A and 4A applies to tourists, or neither do.

Your argument that courts will eventually hear a case ignores the reality that immigration proceedings are often slow, and delays can cause irreparable harm to the individual (for instance those facing deportation by the current Trump administration).

Second, I disagree with your stance on strict enforcement without discretion, this often lead to unjust outcomes. Laws exist to serve justice, not just to be enforced blindly.

Third, addressing your "ignorance of the law" argument, sure it may not be a defense, but the expectation that everyone fully understands a convoluted legal system is unreasonable.

Immigration in the US is designed around rewarding the daring liar.

Overstaying a visa isn't even illegal and extremely difficult to enforce, and working informally is trivial and pretty much impossible to enforce in a country where citizens don't have to carry ID (sometimes even to vote). Anyone 100+ miles into the country on a tourist visa is basically home free, probably even for life and triply so if they speak English and look European.

So what the US does is put the meanest scariest motherfuckers around in CBP/HSI at the border and then say whatever they need to turn the crank, which does little to someone who knows what's happening but great at scaring a naive German woman who doesn't realize border officers are basically playing a confidence game.

"One way" to apply the law does not mean the strictest way to do so: it means that it should always be applied the same. Hopefully, in the mildest possible way until a situation requires harsher enforcement.

The fact that courts are slow is a problem unto itself that should be solved independently.

> There is only one way to enforce the law

Treating every possible infraction like a hard felony is both costly to the taxpayer and chilling to tourists.

The approach of ICE appears to be: Nobody has rights, no search is unreasonable, harvest all the data, then lock everyone up and put them at the back of a hearing queue.

Post-9/11 America is a horrible border experience for legitimate tourists. It is repeatedly noted about how unwelcome you are and how very little you need to do to be incarcerated and deported.

Who said anything about taking the hardest line?

You could treat everyone amicably until proven otherwise.

I was just expanding on how ICE seems to implement its "one way to enforce the law".

They catch and detain people. Sometimes, some of the people with jobs, homes, families —something to lose— get bail after a hearing, but they only account for ~50% of ICE detainees. When you also factor that the average ICE detention is over 50 days, many of the people who attain bail, are only doing so after many weeks in prison.

I'm not saying you agree with that, but you seemed to be [at least partially] rebutting the previous comment. I think this case, and many like it could be dealt with that don't involve being kidnapped at the border. Either just rebuffing their entry, or trusting them enough and allowing them to return home via an internal airport if they already have a return ticket.

Or even just trusting people until they've committed a crime. Many people with border issues are merely suspected that they might be intending to work, intending to stay.

What do you do in this particular case? This person was at a land crossing between Canada and US and Canada already denied entry first.

I am pretty sure the law does not have an option of "be escorted to the nearest international airport/exit at deportee's cost", but in this case, having an option to leave yourself in 48h or face even harsher bans would have likely worked.

At almost every level officers and officials have the ability to exercise discretion in their enforcement of the law. What happened to this lady was likely within the confines of the law but was it justice?

I think in this particular case, it's really hard for an immigration officer to do something nicer: she's been denied entry on either side of a land crossing due to obviously admitting to planning to or having already worked.

At an international airport, there's a large transit area where someone can dwell until they find a departing option.

The article says

> She had previously been staying with a host family in Portland, Oregon, under a similar arrangement after spending some time sightseeing in New York City, where she first arrived from the UK at the start of the year.

This article is like one of those tricky word problems where they try to hide information, and you have to piece it together, but I think the trip was planned for four months, but if she only entered the US after the start of the year, she can't have overstayed a 90-day visa as of yet. Perhaps her plan was to go to Canada 10 days ago and spend the rest of her time there, departing back to the UK from Canada and not transiting the US on the way back; I don't know the details of Canada immigration, but someone elsewhere in the thread indicates a 180 day limit was common; and I'd assume that would start on first entry to Canada, so the duration of the stay would be fine in that case. Or perhaps her plan was to come back to the US after a side trip to Canada and then depart from the US to the UK, in which case her planned trip is outside the limit, but she hasn't overstayed yet.

But I think the issue seems to be more likely because of doing work on a tourist visa, which was subject to scrutiny because Canada denied entry, likely over planning to work on a tourist visa? Canada does have the International Experience Canada (IEC) Program [1] which allows for young adults aged 18 to 35 (18 to 30 in some countries) to work in Canada while visiting, but afaik, the US has nothing similar.

[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...

The article says "[she] was told she should have applied for a working visa, instead of a tourist visa", so it's fair to assume she had a proper B2 tourist visa, which lets you stay for 6 months.

VWP/ESTA is a "tourist visa" in all but name, and it's much more likely that a UK citizen would be using this instead of going through the full B2 visa application rigmarole.

I don't think enforcing the law is the problem so much as the reaction. Why is she jailed rather than simply placed on one of the daily nonstops from Sea-Tac to Heathrow?

That plan doesn't have enough suffering.

Given the sum of facts, poor vacation planning is a fair interpretation of the final story. There's a general absence of hostility towards the US in this story and instead a sense of attraction and willingness to spend vacation time and money here.

We should be directing the treatment of such minor offenses through polished administrative pathways and not 10 days in prison. That person will likely not come back ever again, and it's a shame because there's every indication that this woman would be a fine visitor and customer to local businesses, US and Canadian.

They're just here for pure sightseeing under the most amicable of moods. 10 days in prison.

detaining for 10 days is nonsense. Just deny entry and send them back.

Back to where? They were detained at the US land border after Canada denied them entry as well.

planes exist

The country on their passport.

It's not clear from the article whether she exceeded the 90 day limit on any single entry. However, there is no limit on the number of times a visitor can re-enter and use their 90 day visa. It's up the the immigration officer's discretion to decide whether or not to admit them under that visa again but assuming one exit and enter within 90 days there's no legal issue with re-entering again immediately.

Good catch, I didnt quite catch that she was denied reentry to Canada!

There is no mention of her using the visa waiver program. In fact it talks about her "tourist visa" (which allows up to 6 months).

>In fact it talks about her "tourist visa" (which allows up to 6 months).

No, if you read the article carefully it never stated that she had a tourist visa at all. Only that she was told "she should have applied for a working visa, instead of a tourist visa". That's not the same as her possessing a tourist visa. Moreover a "tourist visa" (of 6 months) isn't something you can apply for at the border. If she just showed up at the border, then by all likelihood she's getting in via the Visa Waiver Program, which has a 90 day limit.

So it sounds like what happened was that she drove across the US border from Canada, tried getting in using the Visa Waiver Program, the border guards grilled her, she cracked under pressure (ie. admitted she was going to do stuff inconsistent with the Visa Waiver Program), and they tried to deport her back to Canada. However, Canada doesn't want to take her back so she's stuck in limbo.

The article is annoying unclear on the issue of what visa she had, but you're probably right.

I think she drove (or walked, mode of transportation is unspecified) across the border into Canada, was told her visa was inadequate for her planned activity and to return to the US to apply for a proper visa, when she did return to the US, she was detained.

The article is confusing though. This BBC article has a much clearer and more detailed timeline of her travels.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c80y3yx1jdyo

You used to be able (specific countries only) get an automatic visa on entry.

There were people active in the San Francisco startup scene from multiple countries who would go for a 'holiday' nearby (mexico, canada, etc) for a week every 2-3 months and then get a new 3 month visa on re-entry. One of them told me that after almost two years of that he started getting tougher conversations at re-entry, but was still allowed through.

This is from 2010ish, so maybe things have changed. But it certainly isn't possible to just assume that she broke the rules from that description, because it hinges on extremely technical reading of multiple overlapping legislation and regulation.

Side note on people trying to reason outside their field of knowledge: any American who has never had to deal with visas for incoming people has a useless opinion. The US media on this is hyperpolitical garbage and grievance politics. Not particularly directed at the original poster, just a request to so many indulged Americans who feel informed and entitled on this topic while they are demonstrably wrong.

Overstay on a visa is a civil offense, not a criminal one. Yes, you're subject to deportation, but shouldn't be subject to detention.

So, no, ICE/CBP is not enforcing the law.

A similar story about Ice detaining a German tourist in California indefinitely. Jessica Brösche has spent more than a month in detention center after being denied entry at San Diego from Mexico.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/03/ice-german-t...

The hypocrisy of everything under this administration boggles the mind. "You're here illegally! No, we won't let you leave!"

I think it’s malicious incompetence.

They probably rolled this out so fast and fired everyone who could manage it at the same time that it’s running at the stage of “how do we not starve these people” levels of chaos.

What a shit show though.

ICE probably has quotas for detainment, so they're imprisoning people who would previously have been sent home.

Every day is a slow day these days so those guys who were hired to detain people are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

It's like being pulled over for nothing because there's nobody else to pull over at 1am on a Tuesday.

I have English relatives, my son-in-laws family, lovely people. They want to come visit again, but are concerned about the craziness of the current administration. When they visit, they spend plenty of money and have a great time. Does the GOP think tourists from other countries aren't paying attention?!?

Wanted to visit US for 2 weeks next year or one after with kids. Forget that, will reevaluate that decision in 4 years but not holding my breath about future development. Shame...

I hear Canada's nice...

>"Does the GOP think"

uh oh, must have insulted "critical thinking doge fans".

While I acknowledge my tongue in cheek quote is not on brand for HN, and the GOP has demonstrated a long term, 40-year strategy of embracing ancient middle eastern value systems to co-op US government, that does not mean the current crop of leaders are deep thinkers.

It's part of the ICE grift. Ninety percent of ICE detention facilities are run by private companies. This has been going on through many administrations of all political stripes so sadly non partisan in a way, but there's no good excuse for this privatization for profit, it incentivizes making it harder for legal representation and reducing the number of judges, to increase the length of detention.

More than one: https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/usa-einreise-zweiter-deutscher-... (in German)

That tourist couldn’t be admitted to the IS, nor returned to Mexico as they didn’t have permission.

So they had to wait for deportation?

She had an airline ticket. She missed that flight now.

> Brösche had her German passport, confirmation of her visa waiver to enter the country, and a copy of her return ticket back to Berlin

Yes, but where was she supposed to go before her flight?

She was trying to commit immigration fraud by coming to work to the US with ESTA. There was evidence. So she could not be let in. She also could not be legally turned around. And deportation takes time.

Of course, it is not desirable to detain such people. And it is especially unfortunate that she was in a for-profit detention facility and suffered mistreatment there. But what is the other option? Let in people with a known history of immigration fraud?

When someone is warned many, many times during the ESTA application process that they may not work in the US during their stay, and they still decide to do so illegally, then sometimes there are consequences to these actions. Even if this person is German.

Of course, it is sad and unfortunate that these things happen. And perhaps laws could change so that small scale offenders are inconvenienced less, but there is a big debate about that with regard to sanctuary cities and decriminalizing petty crime, and it does seem like it’s not the way to go either. Alternatively, the penalty is a deterrent for an offence. Maybe one shouldn’t expect pleasant treatment if they willingly break laws.

> She was trying to commit immigration fraud by coming to work to the US with ESTA. There was evidence. So she could not be let in. She also could not be legally turned around. And deportation takes time.

Even if we accept everything you say as true (which it very well may be, so sure), you’ve papered over the crux of the isssue with “deportation may take time”.

No. Deportation takes no time whatsoever. ICE has been deporting people within hours of detaining them even in situations where they don’t want to go back to their home countries or their home country doesn’t want to accept them.

But even beyond that, the only reason it’s “taking time” is because the Trump administration fired a whole bunch of immigration judges slowing the entire process down.

End of the day you can make all the excuses you want. My friends who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the U.S. in the past are not gonna come anymore.

Literally no one benefits from this mess but all some people can do is defend the stupidest of policies and actions.

In the US, deportation takes months to years after someone is found guilty of an immigration offense. Detention is ordinarily limited to 180 days, and this has been true since about 2001.

It even takes months to years in Germany, and detention is reviewed every 180 days for Duldung status.

The truth is this German citizen was deported very quickly compared to many others and under otherwise relatively normal circumstances.

Remember that all news media has a bias (humans simply are biased, a map is not the territory, and all that), and it was probably in someone’s interest to exaggerate the story as they did (maybe simply for clicks, maybe for politics).

Outside of the use of solitary confinement, I don’t see how her deportation process could have been practically improved. When you speak of people being deported immediately, you are probably talking about turning around at the border (refusing entry when someone can go back and doesn’t become trapped). This is preferred by everyone but can’t always be done. Maybe it is aspirational to do it in more cases (immigrant buses to the airport or similar), but I don’t know any country that does it like that.

i was following this on another site before it showed up here:

1)UK citizens dont need a visa perse coming into canada as a tourist

1b) electronic travel authorization form is not required for UK citizens coming to canada over land border.

2)she was staying at Workaway, which depending on how you interpret/misinterpret is "working" (which it possibly is, a little shady on what they are.) so canada may have thought she was going to work... which a tourist visa doesnt cover

so my guess is canadian authorities felt she was coming here to work, which she didnt have the proper paperwork so got denied.

USA authorities upon re-entry attempt, probably felt she is scamming the ESTA 90 days being on a "4 month" trip, staying at workaway locations... and playing devils advocate, there is no proof that this is NOT what she was trying to do... going to a short trip in canada before going back thinking it resets ESTA (they have to be gone from usa for a reasonable time)

so much unknowns.

i think they were right to detain her/deny her entry... but the length of detainment is at issue.

very first thing i think of when viewing their site is this is some lodging for volunteer/unpaid labour. https://www.workaway.info/

> very first thing i think of when viewing their site is this is some lodging for volunteer/unpaid labour. https://www.workaway.info/

I'm certainly not an immigration lawyer but my understanding is that _no_ work, none, even in exchange for room and board, is allowed on a tourist visa in the US.

Workaway looks like it isn't compatible with a tourist visa in the US and their website doesn't really call that out. Seems like something that nine times out of ten if you're just quiet about it it'll never come up and you'd be fine.

But unfortunately Canada refused entry and then questions were asked. Rough.

“Generally you will be expected to help around 5 hours per day in exchange for food and accommodation. Some hosts may give a paid allowance to ensure they are offering at least the minimum wage in their country.”

That doesn’t make it legal, particularly in the US

The hint is in the name itself.

I wonder how Camp America is doing it these days.

https://www.campamerica.co.uk/the-experience/camp-jobs/campo...

Back in 1997 I participated. I had to get a J-1 visa, worked in a summer camp for about two months and got $400 pocket money. I entered the country using the program description, no deception.

Later I actually worked in the US - on a simple business trip visa - B1. For 12 months, interrupted by trips back home. Legally! Reentry got harder and harder with each return trip, and in the end I was taken to the back. But after explaining everything I git the stamp, no problem.

The secret: A big German company wanted to make the software of a big Silicon Valley company work on their platform. The obstacle: That company would not let their source code leave their premises. So this German job normally done in Germany had to be done on premise at the SV company. I still was a full German employee, only a temporary change of office because of that policy. It was acceptable for immigration. I don't think I would try that kind of thing again these days though.

You can just say reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1j7qumk/uk_girl_sw...

not everyone uses reddit. i did not see it on reddit.. it was from another news site.

reviewing timelines, it made news circle from facebook before it hit reddit.

I traveled quite a bit at one point and it was beaten into my head repeatedly that you never mention work unless you have a work visa

It was acceptable to say you were there for a day for a “meeting” but that was still a touchy subject they could absolutely detain you for. “They” in this case was not the U.S. border patrol. All countries want to keep out workers who don’t have the right visa

Needless to say, telling border patrol of any country that you are a residing at someone’s house to work under the table in exchange for housing should get you in trouble.

The U.S. just seems more amenable to making your life hell over it right now

Based just on the details in the report, it seems refusing entry is justified. Or at least not very strange.

What I don't understand is, why not just send her back home vs detaining her? Maybe someone that's more knowledgeable here can chime in. Is it standard practice to detain someone, especially for an extended period, vs just putting them on the first plane back home?

The idea might be to create a clear example that becomes popular and known so that others who might attempt the same will be dissuaded

When you are at a land border, but neither country on either side of the border will grant you entry, there is no easy 'way out'.

She could not fly to the UK directly from that border location.

When arrested, she has to go through the proper deportation process - and that might well be very expensive, and she might not have the money to pay. Deportations can easily cost 10x a regular flight cost due to the extra security needed.

> When arrested, she has to go through the proper deportation process

Why? Surely if both the US and the deportee agree that deportation is A-OK then you don't need judges and whatnot involved? Surely having a cop drive her to the airport and make sure she gets on a flight is wildly less work involved for everyone than whatever the fuck is going on now?

Citizens from developed countries think that the immigration rules applied to folks from developing and poorer countries may not be seriously interpreted for them. This is just a good example where crackdown has occurred according to the letter of the law.

The US has always been a scary place to cross the border. I'm a Brit and have been to 50+ countries and the US is the only one that seems like it's trying to find a reason to arrest you. The others generally don't give problems or possibly just refuse entry and you have to go back.

The other thing that puzzles me about the US is they give basically law abiding travellers all sorts of grief while at the same time letting people just wander in from Mexico and live for years. Odd system.

The US doesn't just let people wander in. The US-Mexico border is incredibly militarized, with multiple lines of checkpoints on either side and a massive amount of technology and manpower to support patrolling the desert between ports. It's closer to a conflict border than it is to a typical international border.

>The US doesn't just let people wander in. The US-Mexico border is incredibly militarized, with multiple lines of checkpoints on either side. [...] It's closer to the DMZ than it is to a typical international border.

Unless "multiple lines of checkpoints" actually means "multiple booths so visitors can be processed in parallel", this is most certainly false. Here's the San Ysidro boreder crossing in Tijuana:

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5423767,-117.0289817,331m/da...

You can see a wide fanout to a bunch of booths, a secondary screening area north of that, and some administrative buildings. That's not "multiple lines of checkpoints". It's just one checkpoint. There might be more drug sniffer dogs than the average border crossing elsewhere, but for the typical traveler it's otherwise not that much different.

San Ysidro is a port, only a small part of a much larger system run by the US CBP that extends up to 100 miles into the US. Here's the map of checkpoints for San Diego sector where San Ysidro is [0]. You can see an outdated map of the commonly used checkpoints for the whole US [1]. There's also a bunch of invisible infrastructure hidden between these checkpoints, from ALPR to facial recognition systems, not to mention regular patrols by USBP. Each sector's run a bit differently in practice, depending on various constraints and the different kinds of crossing they see. Tucson sector uses more mobile checkpoints because of congressional limitations for example, while Yuma sector focuses more on deep-desert patrolling in cooperation with tribal authorities because that's a well-developed coyote route.

A reasonably similar system of checkpoints exists on the Mexican side as well, oriented against people heading north.

[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/GAO-05-4...

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/USBP_Int...

Well maybe not but I was watching in mild amazement a bunch of Chinese cross the border in a 60 minutes segment. It's more hurry over through a gap than wander. https://youtu.be/M7TNP2OTY2g?t=38

I was thinking the odd nature of US immigration is probably down to it being more legalistic than other countries - more lawyers and courts. That could account for both the hard time with legal visitors and also the Mexican border in that the people in that video I think were relying on legal protections for asylum seekers and the like.

I think you have a point about the legalistic nature. In the video you shared, they had a detail about how it is much harder than in the past for Chinese people to get into the US via a port of entry because visas are scarce. So crossing at a fence gap, or with a ladder or tunnel is their “hack” to actually get into the country. I’m not knowledgeable about the details of the policy in the mentioned in the video that doesn’t allow the border agents to prevent someone from crossing.

I agree - I've traveled a few times to the US to speak at conferences and every time the border agent tried to entrap me - i.e., tried to get me to confess that I'm being paid for my presentation, which obviously isn't covered by ESTA. I've never been paid, classic academic. But they still try every time! How much can a regular person earn in speaking fees that this would warrant interviews?

EU/Australia/New Zealand/Japan has been the opposite experience - they never asked.

I am starting to understand why "Abolish the ICE" has been a slogan, sounds like a cesspool of heavy-handed extra-judicial lawlessness. Another key slogan phrase: Do not open for the ICE.

Crazy as it seems I feel it's not safe to say this on my main account any more - I've done more than 100 trips to the US for work in the last decade but I've now concluded I've done my last for a few years at least. There's been a real uptick in these stories and now people legally in the US are being actively targeted and effectively disappeared for speech it doesn't feel like normalcy or due process apply. Similarly I wouldn't have visited China during the cultural revolution.

This can potentially accelerate more in US than in China because of for-profit prisons.

Probably shouldn't tell border patrol you're doing unpaid labor in a country you're visiting. When speaking to authorities it's best to say the absolute minimum required for the encounter.

I've never had anything to do with foreign exchange students, but are they absolutely prohibited from work of any kind?

If there is ambiguity, then we can't have them here.

Basically.

In the US, it's very clear. If they don't have work authorization from USCIS, they shouldn't be doing work. There's some guidelines out there on the internet [1], but the students should be extremely careful; any form of compensation or expectation of future compensation for their work could put them in serious trouble. The University of Michigan has a more fleshed out guideline page for their international students [2].

[1] https://marksgray.com/immigration-blog/can-foreign-nationals...

[2] https://internationalcenter.umich.edu/students/employment-vo...

Musk is lucky enforcement wasn't as strict back then.

Cannot citizenship be revoked for past violations?

There are acceptable grounds for revocation of naturalization [1], but I'm not sure that having previously violated visa terms necessarily qualifies. The question becomes was he lawfully admitted to permanent residency, and was there a concealment of material facts or willful misrepresentation involved in the process. We would need to really see his immigration file and have knowledge of the dates he was in the US, and when he performed work.

[1] https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter...

Not really. It has only happened a couple times in hundreds of years and was about foreign spys

> but are they absolutely prohibited from work of any kind?

Generally yes.

But you can have on-campus jobs to supplement your income, and there are at least two programs (CPT and OPT) that let you get approval for limited-term employment in your area of study. CPT also requires university approval.

Both would require university approval. OPT is literally structured as a course at the university.

You can also do OPT "post-completion" of your degree - this also gives your (new) employer some time to apply for a longer-term work visa.

And you need to get work authorization (EAD card) for that. It’s not a given

She was on a tourist visa. She should have gotten a J-1 visa who can do 20 hours/week part time work with some constraints. Some details about this visa: https://yfuusa.org/2024/05/16/j1-student-visa/

or dont lie, apply for appropriate work permits/visa entries/travel authorizations if you are going to work whether its paid or not.

You can get banned from coming to the US if they catch you lying about the reason you're crossing the border. It's a long arduous process and lawyer fees to get the ban overturned. Happened to a Canadian I knew a decade ago when they tried to enter on a tourist visa for business purposes.

I'm sure it's similar in other countries but US has always been very strict given the huge amount of people trying to work there and the very finite supply of work visas.

From my experience you'll also get extra scruntiny if you're traveling solo like this girl. I was secondary screened twice coming for business where they double checked my paperwork and TSA lady in the back asked a bunch of silly questions (like "what is PayPal").

Statements like these make me happy I live in Europe.

Just some of my personal anecdotes:

I was travelling to Ireland(Dublin) as a tourist and during questioning by a border agent I mentioned that I might check my email (they noticed my laptop), the border agent simply advised me that my visa did not allow work but since I was clearly being transparent about my actions and intentions that there was no reason for them to block me or require me to apply for a working visa, so after what was a friendly chat, I was on my way.

I've also had similar interactions in other European countries such as Germany(Munich) and the UK(London Gatwick) - both of which are particularly thorny about economic migrants posing as other types of visitors or asylum seekers, again no problems and the staff are courteous while conducting their duties professionally.

Meanwhile my last trip to the USA during Trump 1.0 involved the border agent not even speaking to me, but instead holding out his hand for paperwork - so I'd hand him a paper, and if it wasn't the one he wanted, he'd flick it back at me. It's obvious he's just trying to start shit so he can have an excuse to abuse the power granted to him. (LaGuardia Airport).

This has been the case before the current administration. It isn't administration elusive. There is a lack of professionalism by some US border agents.

It is way harder for an Iranian to travel to Europe as a tourist than for them to travel to USA. Especially if you travel often like once a year.

USA has 10 year tourist visas. Europe gives you the bare minimum to visit every time.

European country really gave me bad taste when it comes to visa experience. Gave me the absolute minimum despite having a good paying job - and even after marrying a EU citizen I still had a hard time.

This is news because this woman happens to be from a developed country and not a developing countries.

Europe treats tourists from developing countries way worse than US does when you apply even for short term tours with all details. US looks at bigger picture, history if any, financial conditions but Europe literally wants you to have planned down everything to the most relevant detail and will then issue a visa 1 or 2 days longer than the itinerary and ask you to piss off

If you live in Europe you'll need a visa to work in the US. You want to live in the US to not need the visa.

Well, I live in Europe and work for an American company and I don't need a visa. In general, the USA is a very nice country to visit but for long-term living I prefer the EU.

Are you saying you're in the US working without a visa?

No, I'm in the EU but working for an American company. This is the best arrangement in terms of money and quality of life for me.

Sure as you might, I assume you're a citizen of the EU. That really just means you're happy you live in an area where you're a citizen with effectively no limit on what you can do in areas where your citizenship is acceptable to do what you want to do.

Don't forget, your country absolutely has their own visa terms, and they absolutely do enforce it.

I'm personally satisfied with my citizenship as well.

Barter isn’t really “unpaid”, but you also just shouldn’t be working if you don’t have work authorization. Border authorities have the means and motivation to validate any story you have about your stay.

I have long suspected the reason for aggressive treatment of minor offenders is that they are an easy target and a quick way to meet your prosecution quota.

I have many times heard about foreign students who come to the USA under completely proper arrangements but run afoul of immigration because of some innocent remark. My advice to visitors is to never mention to officials any circumstance in which you might come into contact with business or financial operations.

Speaking of quotas: I wouldn’t surprised if part of the reason for her lengthy detention was “we have to meet jail occupancy targets” (or “we have to boost our jail occupancy metrics”.)

My solution is just to avoid the US like the plague. This is after the countless of stories of people being detained at the border, having their electronics gone through and having to report all of your social media accounts for some fucking reason.

I doubt there needs to be some higher agenda. At the border you're at the whims of power tripping border guards and TSA. A whole lot can happen if you get the wrong person who's in a bad mood or simply confused. And once flagged you get pushed into a byzantine process and the next person you speak to won't care how you got into it or if the first guy was unfair, the process is the process.

A reasonable response to this for UK govt would be to check American tourists and see if they are properly complying with the law. Law is so complicated, no way you can't find at least one violation.

Also, the article states that other people in the prison had been there for much longer time ("months"), but nobody writes articles about them.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/03/ice-german-t...

Earlier this month, the Guardian also had an article of a German tourist who crossed over the land border (San Ysidro Port of Entry, I assume) who was detained for a long while too. The details seemed kind of similar to this situation where it involves suspicion of tourists working in the USA without the proper authorizations.

there is a second german tourist now in the same situation, detained while trying to visit his fiancee: https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1j7xjhf/it_is_li...

Couple days ago there was a report of another German tourist being arrested and held without legal counsel.

It seems like there was good reason for these concerns that the person was going to work. However, the person was right there at the border. Why did we not just turn them back around. I don't think they had overstayed their time in Mexico? Further they had a return flight weeks ago. AFAIk we have been paying to keep this person detained for over a month now. Why not at least put them on their original flight back. This entire approach with detention and deportations seems a very expensive solution.

Edit: In general it seems that if the goal is to reduce illegal immigration, it would be much cheaper to deter most illegal migrants who generally come for economic reasons by fining employers of workers without permits. Instead of cost it brings in money and the illegal workers will deport themselves if all work dries up.

It seems like a common detail for both situations is both travelers were at a land crossing. It sounds like a nightmare scenario but I bet they also could have been bounced back and forth between the guards of either country. At that point, one side will have to take on detention responsibilities because neither side will trust the person to make good on their return plans.

It would be great if articles on the matter could include research on the scenario you describe. FWIW, ChatGPT tells me the German tourist could likely have returned to Mexico.

Interestingly, it sounds like both of these arrests were made at the same crossing from Tijuana: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/german-tourists-detai...

The description of the second case also sounds quite dehumanizing to say the least.

While I don't like the whole "detaining people instead of just turning them around", but the German you are referring to was a tattoo artist who had posted on their instagram that they were doing pop-up tattoo events in LA, and then tried to enter on a tourist visa. She very much was in violation of the law, in other words.

just deny entry. detaining someone for multiple months for tattoos is evil.

The story is missing an important detail, I'm not assuming malice btw, why was she refused entry into Canada as well?

Edit: Lol, there's literally nothing wrong with this observation. HN has truly gone down the gutter. I know not everybody here is part of the hivemind but the few that are completely spoil the experience for everybody else.

That's what I was confused about. I was thinking my add blocking maybe cut out a paragraph from the text at first.

> Canadian authorities told her to go back to the US and fill in new paperwork before returning to cross into Canada.

If it's not mistake, and the article is complete, it sounds like the reporter skipped some important details about what Canada did. Hopefully an honest mistake.

Canada has been cracking down on their border for the last year as well since the student worker controversy. It says:

> She was planning to stay with a host family where she would carry out domestic chores in exchange for accommodation and was told she should have applied for a working visa, instead of a tourist visa

She probably told the Canadian border that was her plan in Canada as well and told her she needs a work visa. Basically like a live in house keeper.

She was not detained by Canada's border service.

Canada's border service sent her back to the US. At that point, the US can't exactly tell her to go back to Canada, and have her walk back and forth until the problem solves itself.

Immigration detention pending a return to the country of origin seems reasonable at that point. 10 days of detention to figure out transportation to the country of origin doesn't seem reasonable though.

> and have her walk back and forth until the problem solves itself.

God I had a memory of Lemmings pop up. Thank you for that, it made me smile.

Can you quote the specific part of my comment (or anybody's comment) where such thing is claimed?

And none of the USA-bashers here seem to care about that. It got me thinking there's more to this story, too.

Second time today I read about this kind of story: https://www.10news.com/news/team-10/it-is-like-jail-german-m...

I'm just waiting for this immigration crackdown to be done with and then we'll need to see who will be blamed for bad economy numbers.

They are ahead of you already, they are going to fudge/hide the numbers. https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-admin-disbands-two... This is like Soviet/CCCP style make the numbers match the plan sort of thing.

I am quite afraid to comment things on internet nowadays

The proposed prosecution of environmental non profit groups looks like they are edging their way towards that end. https://newrepublic.com/post/192660/trump-fbi-charge-climate...

Here's an example of how broken the discourse is over immigration and how the media has grossly failed with their responsibility in reporting something remotely factual.

The majority of undocumented migrants aren't border crosses. They're visa overstayers [1].

And of course the "migrant crime" hysteria is completely made up. Despite there being at least 10 million undocumented migrants, the number of murders commited by both documented and undocumented migrants in 2024 was 29 [2]. Not 29,000. TWENTY NINE. That's a per-capita crime rate significantly lower than the American population.

[1]: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecu...

[2]: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistic...

[2] Is an incorrect interpretation. There is no nationwide data on murders by illegal immigrants, only some states like Texas collect this. CPB does not deport many murderers because they are serving prison sentences in the US. In 2022 there were 67 Texas murders by illegal immigrants, more than the supposed CPB FY22 number just in one state.

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2024-06/Policy-Ana...

The per capita trend is still directionally the same as your claim in Texas.

The problem with illegal immigrant murders is there is a legal and proportional way to prevent all of them - don't let them in the first place. This isn't so easy for other murderers.

Little known fact: traveling to Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean doesnt extend your 90 day visit to the US, in fact you keep the original 90 day stamp so the days spent in those places essentially count against the 90 days.

This is a convenience for travelers to North America, you only need to enter the US once. But seems like she wasn't aware of this.

Frankly, I wouldn't dare to overstay my tourist visa in the US either 10 or 20 years ago. The articles notes "four month", a standard US tourist visa for an ESTA country (e.g. the UK) would grant 90 days upon arrival; any travel within Canada counts too. Canada, however, grants 180 days, helping explain why Canada may not have seen an issue. Whenever travelling elsewhere for more than 1 month, check _everything_; including your travel insurance, most only last 60 days.

> helping explain why Canada may not have seen an issue

The article seems to indicate that Canada did have an issue:

> Canadian authorities told her to go back to the US and fill in new paperwork before returning to cross into Canada.

It seems that she was detained after re-entering the US upon being refused entry into Canada.

Ah. I missed that; maybe Canada only recognises the US visa stay if one entered the US first. I did this research back in 2017, and I may misremember some details.

i think she was "working" but potentially unpaid/compensated in lodging staying a t https://www.workaway.info/ (which was reported by the BBC where she was staying)

This site now has a popup for the US

> Important information about visiting: United States > If you are NOT a US CITIZEN and are planning to visit to work, volunteer or study, YOU WILL NEED THE CORRECT VISA. To find out more information you need to contact the embassy in your home country BEFORE traveling.

But a quick look around near me looks like work for immigration purposes, so someone on a tourist visa to the US should not be participating.

If you are trying to get a visa anywhere, it's very standard for them to ask if you have ever been denied entry to any country, and it raises a lot of red flags (regardless of the reason). It's entirely possible she mentioned the denial when talking to the US authorities, and that caused them to detain her until she could be suitably deported.

I suspect that people don't read the small print about the 90 days counting for your entire time on the continent. That said it's unclear her exact itinerary from the story

Ultimately if you go to a hostile country though, you need to have a good support network. You wouldn't travel to say China and breach your visa. The US is a hostile country and should be treated as such.

It sounds like she was rightfully detained, but it seems crazy to hold her for 10+ days. Why not just let her get back on a flight to the UK and tell her not to come back for 10 years or whatever.

Yeah, some details are definitely missing.

My understanding is that they typically do, you book your own ticket for and they put you on a plane, even later the same day if you want. They'll only keep you in detention if you're trying to fight the deportation and have to wait for a hearing, or if you have no way to pay for a ticket -- then they find a low-cost ticket some time out and hold you until then.

I will be avoiding all US travel in the near future. No need to get close to this kind of lunacy.

Hot Take: People should be allowed to travel and live wherever they want, if they can work/pay for it and follow local laws.

The local laws include requiring a valid visa.

Well I mean the freedom to travel and choose where you live should be a basic human right, and local laws aren't supposed to override basic rights.

The world isn't a single country, and for good reason.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com