German electrical engineer with green card stripped and 'violently interrogated'
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
CBP: “When an individual is found with drug-related charges and tries to reenter the country, officers will take proper action.”
Assuming they're both referring to the same incident, the conclusion is that CBP is now turning back Green Card holders who have ever faced any drug-related charges. (It's not clear from the article, but the careful wording "has no active legal issues" suggests that he was convicted.)
The only question is whether they were looking before.
Most biographies have Jørn Utzon declining invitations to attend the opening and to later design the interiors in Australia (he did so remotely) after some major fallings out over cost with a new government after those that intially commissioned the work left.
eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B8rn_Utzon
https://www.abcalumni.au/utzon_finding_the_master_architect
It's difficult to imagine him turned away at the border if the record is accurate that he never attempted to return after leaving.
Seems hardly surprising, although "
following a tip-off by informants in London; his bags were searched by Customs officials, who found a large amount of what was then considered pornographic material, which included photographs, prints, books, a spool of film, some rubber masks, and sticks of incense.
I must admit I did think you may have confused a musician with the designer, .. although I'd pegged someone more in the vein of Percy Grainger (who's a bit too early in history and an Australian citizen so .. not) than Eugene.
Who hasn't been tripped up by an ex partner with an interest in the occult?
The architect and designer Jørn Utzon apparently never attempted to return after a falling out over funding and refused two invitations (to the opening and to return and design interiors ).
Perhaps the tour guide and yourself are thinking about the conducter who lobbied for the Opera House and got the project started as a concept.
If one were honestly pessimistic they might say that this is always done, but only due to politics is it being reported.
Peace in Europe now seems like nothing more than the remnants of a dream, just like the American dream.
Maybe we've reached a place where this quote from Catch 22 (also sampled in Survivor Guilt from Rise Against) is more relevant than ever :
"Rome was destroyed Greece was destroyed, Persia was destroyed Spain was destroyed All great countries are destroyed Why not yours? How much longer do you think your country will last? Forever?"
Any immigration law that gates entry likely runs afoul of the poem on the statue of liberty. Blocking entry from specific countries may be a gray area, but anything that blocks based on merit is a problem and those laws have existed for quite some time now.
That being said, the rule of law means increasingly less where the government is now defying court orders with absolutely no repercussions [1].
This is the US in its 1933+ Germany arc.
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-removes-hundreds-alleged...
But here's the darker truth: Hitler won. I mean Germany didn't physically win the war, obviously. But fascism won. The US fundamnetally changed post-WW2. We immediately went into the Red Scare and the threat of nuclear annihilation that ultimately culminated in the complete destruction of worker solidarity and leftism in the US by the 1980s. We put literal Nazi generals in charge of NATO [1]. There are (IIRC) 65 coups or attempted coups the US has engaged in since WW2.
What you have to remember about Hitler was that he was a product of material conditions. One can argue that if it wasn't Hitler who started WW2, it would've simply been a different German. The Spanish Flu, the Armistice, hyperinflation, the Great Depression, etc all aligned to foment a Hiter-like figure.
How far back do you go? The seeds for WW2 were planted by WW1. WW1 is really a product of colonialism, of empires and of nationalism, particularly in the post-Napoleon era. I'm not saying history is inevitable but it's naive to think WW2 was simply a product of one man.
Both were afraid of an agrarian reform from the 'left' (which was divided, mostly because the USSR would rather have fascists rather than liberal/republican socialists), because it would decrease their personal power immensely.
Not that you're wrong overall, the tactics Nazi used were inspired from the colonisation era, from Gallieni mostly, a bit from Bouchot, but also from their own pre-WW1 colonies were the 'solution' was first implemented (but as no one cared and as the Mozambique tribes didn't wrote anything, the only story we have left are from South Africans who lived near the border.
If you could go back in time, would you? That whole "Butterfly Effect" thing is more than just a little terrifying when you start to wander down that rabbit-hole even a little bit. How completely screwed up could the future you return to end up bein', and does it just keep gettin' worse the more you try to "fix" it? Is finding out worth the risk of trying? Just feels like one of those "bells you cannot un-ring". I genuinely hope nobody ever actually invents real time travel. I just cannot see that playing out well at all.
In this timeline. In the infinite other timelines, there's an infinity of Hitlers, and another infinity where there never was for an infinity of different reasons. Damned time travelers, creating scary multiverses... ;)
Sad but hopefully these stories will bring some positive changes in immigration system for everyone.
But in all of these cases, they were alleged to have violated conditions of their visa, which is not an uncommon thing and exactly what the courts are for. Evidence will be presented (or not) and then a ruling will be made. Even for the most extreme situations like Venezuela, those cases are still in court and very much ongoing.
To me it just seems like the amount of outrage is disproportionate because most of these cases are unsettled and too many assumptions are being made.
As for why so many stories happening in a short period, the Trump administration has stated that existing laws simply weren't being enforced, and now they are. Which if true, could certainly be a simpler (and less inflammatory) reason why these cases are appearing now.
> And a British woman was detained in “horrendous conditions” for three weeks, her family said, after a *visa mix-up*. [emphasis mine]
implies a simple administrative error. However, as detailed later in the article and supported by well-known facts, the situation was more complex. In reality:
- The woman had been working in the US in exchange for accommodation — an arrangement explicitly prohibited under a tourist visa.
- She then attempted to replicate this arrangement in Canada, only to be turned away.
- By the time she was redirected, US authorities had already identified that she had violated visa regulations by working.
A straightforward search for “work in return for accommodation USA visa” clearly confirms that tourist visas do not permit any form of employment, whether paid in cash or in kind.
It’s understandable that enforcement measures must serve as a deterrent, and not just return the situation to what it should have been. But even if he severity of detention might be debatable in this case, the core issue here is the article’s misleading characterization.
Using the term "visa mix-up" not only downplays the deliberate actions taken by the individual but also appears intended to cast doubt as to whether the fault lies with the individual or with the US government.
Like "you can live for free in this room as long as you keep the house clean". It's not like she went there to work, she just did chores
Frankly, you're the one that miss characterizing her.
When you say "It's not like she went there to work, she just did chores" you seem to imply that people come to the US because they want to work. They come for various reasons, and work is a thing that's necessary for most people, to achieve other ends.
For this woman, working during her vacation was a means to fund her travels. She didn't come to the US with work as her primary purpose, but I'm assuming the work was integral to her plan because otherwise accommodation would be expensive.
You can be a full-time employee whose only job is doing chores, but that's not what's described here, it's just doing (some of ) the household chores for a single house/family which you're living with
There is even a term for it, though the practice has been falling out of fashion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au_pair
To be clear, I'm not arguing that this practice is in line with the tourist visa. I'm saying that calling that work is not what most people would understand under that term. And she most likely wasn't even aware that this (probably) wasn't permissable. My issue is your miss characterization of her doing this knowing that it's not allowed. Young people usually aren't very informed, and you're pushing a narrative of her going there for gainful employment, when she's likely just doing this to experience life in another culture for a few months.
There is even a term for it, though the practice has been falling out of fashion
- you need a J-1 visa: https://j1visa.state.gov/programs/au-pair, and
- you must to be 18 to 26 years old, and
when she's likely just doing this to experience life in another culture for a few months
The issue was never the deportation, it was her treatment during this process. (And the grandparents miss characterization of her motivations)
To address your final remark: The idea of au pair was to grow as a person during their formative years, it's something upper middle class teenagers/young adults did, which is also why theyre usually not a illegal immigration risk, because they've already got plenty of privileges at home. You seem to think it's something people did go move up in the world, which this never was - at least I've never met anyone doing it with the desire to get a good job. They all just wanted to meet people, experience life and broaden their horizon.
Or stated less charitably: they wanted to escape their parents home but didn't yet know what they wanted to do with their lives. That's not really a problem people trying to move up in the world have.
But there is a reason why au pair isn't really done anymore, and it's partly because a lot of hosts saw the guests as cheap labor, which is why you need a work visa nowadays.
The issue was never the deportation, it was her treatment during this process.
It’s understandable that enforcement measures must serve as a deterrent, and not just return the situation to what it should have been. But even if he severity of detention might be debatable in this case, the core issue here is the article’s misleading characterization.
My point is that The Guardian is portraying this as some innocent 'mix-up' when in fact the person has been an adult for 10 years and can reasonably be expected to know that they can't work on a tourist visa, even if they're paid in kind and not in cash.
But it probably was a simple mix-up by her. I'd bet she literally didn't know. Does that make her ignorant and likely extremely immature? Totally, but if she weren't... She wouldn't be trying to do au pair to begin with
I don't think that coverage was misleading at all, frankly
AirB&B hosts may say you need to clean up afterwards, including sweeping up and even putting the sheets into the washing machine.
That's definitely a domestic chore, yes? You pay less for the room in exchange for some unpaid domestic labor.
Should that result in detention?
If I were a French citizen and had a US friend online who offered me a place to stay during my visit who said "and while you're here you need to help me learn Python generators" - should that result in my detention?
I have been paid to teach Python courses in several countries.
Or, suppose my bestie is 8 months pregnant, and now lives in NYC instead of Paris. I offer to come over to help with the last month and first two months of the baby. I'll also use her place as a home base while exploring the city.
That's definitely domestic labor. Do you think it should be prohibited and/or result in detention?
I assure you that cases like this happen a lot.
The question is one of amount, not nature.
She made a deal with strangers for exchange of value.
There's a difference in nature.
(You also gave the AirBNB example. For that case, just watch the direction of money flow.)
Is your argument now that if you do domestic work for a friend then it doesn't count as work?
How well do you need to know someone before they are no longer a stranger?
You seems to suggest that since "work was integral to her plan", then if work was not integral to her plan, for example, if she could afford to pay for a hotel every night, but wanted the experience of living with an American family, including helping with domestic chores, then you think that sort of unpaid domestic labor would be okay?
I ask because I'm struggling to understand why you emphasize the nature of the work, when you seem to think that identical domestic work for other reasons is okay.
I ask because I'm struggling to understand why you emphasize the nature of the work
What is special about the nature of the work (domestic chores)? Would you see things differently if she were working as a barista or doing a bit of coding in return for accommodation? If so, why?You seem to think there is no de minimis threshold.
I can't tell if that's because it's specifically domestic work that makes you think that, which is why I gave an example of teaching you Python generators in exchange for a place to crash while I visit the US.
It might take you two hours to teach me python generators. That's not enough to convince me to let a stranger stay at my place for a week.
We had exchange students in our school.
There's also sites for people who want to host foreign visitors.
https://justlikehome.com/become-a-host/
> Our homestay program is designed exclusively for our international visitors. Hosting international visitors is the best way to experience the world without leaving your home! Hosting provides families with the unique opportunity to share their cultures and learn about different cultures, all while being in the comfort of their own homes.
https://www.workaway.info/en/hosttype/family
> With Workaway you can find 14136 local hosts and families for volunteering around the world. Low cost immersive travel without having to pay expensive agency fees.
The entire idea of couchsurfing is that people will let strangers into their home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CouchSurfing
> The idea arose after Fenton found a cheap flight from Boston to Iceland but did not have lodging. Fenton hacked into a database of the University of Iceland and randomly e-mailed 1,500 students asking for a homestay. He received between 50 and 100 offers and chose to stay at the home of an Icelandic rhythm and blues singer.
CouchSurfing is the real sharing economy, not the BS that Airbnb pushes.
Don't look only to your own feelings to deny what other people clearly do.
There's also sites for people who want to host foreign visitors.
https://justlikehome.com/become-a-host/
Your homestay participant pays Just Like Home for each four-week stay at the beginning of each cycle. The host family is paid for the four week stay at the end of the first week of the stay. If either party is not satisfied with the match, the host family must refund the unused portion of the homestay fee.
With Workaway you can find 14136 local hosts and families for volunteering around the world.
Hosts generally are asked to provide accommodation and food in exchange for help from Workawayers of around 4-5 hours per day 5 days a week.The examples of hosting a foreign exchange student, and of couchsurfing, remain.
That a person is deported for cleaning around the house on a tourist visa is ridiculous.
But unfortunately, many/most countries have ridiculous visa rules. And even more unfortunately, we live in a time were people enforcing these rules have lost all common sense.
If you ever watch those border security shows, they often show people having visas denied for exactly the same reason, and whether it's the US or other places like Australia and UK.
- Nelson Mandela
At least when I was a kid there was the idea that prisons should be used to rehabilitate.
Now it seems like it's only for cruel punishment and profit extraction.
All the situations from the article seem like they had a legitimate reason for the person being detained and / or prevented from entering the country, and we also only hear a one-sided story.
I actually travelled to the US yesterday for business meetings and I was a bit worried after all those fear-mongering articles from the past few weeks, but immigration took me literally 3 minutes, and was as easy as when I came 6 months ago.
There's plenty to be concerned about with this administration but the majority of reporting is going to be schlock like this, an article of anecdotes that confirm biases without a shred of mention of if anything resembling data.
That's not true, though. From the article:
> The US Customs and Border Protection service told US media the claims about his case were “blatantly false”, without saying which points it disputed.
> The CBP sent the Guardian the same statement, without further explanation. The statement also said: “When an individual is found with drug-related charges and tries to reenter the country, officers will take proper action.”
Clearly, the press here tried to get the government's side of the story, and they included the extent of their response.
> immigration took me literally 3 minutes, and was as easy as when I came 6 months ago.
This strikes me as very disingenuous. Are you suggesting that since you didn't have a problem that none exists?