Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

This Irish man would probably prefer to be removed from the property (country), instead of being indefinitely detained waiting for a trial whose outcome is already known.

The 6th Amendment of the US contains a right to a speedy trial. Otherwise, every arrest can become a life sentence if no trial is ever held.

The article says he refused to sign the deportation paperwork, does that not mean that his continued detention is a choice under his control? He could agree to return to Ireland and they would put him on a plane.

Compare: "The man refused to sign confession-papers, so that means his continued imprisonment is actually a choice under his control. He could simply confess to jaywalking, and they'd rip him away from his family and life and exile him to the streets of another country within a mere day or two. No problem."

Abject surrender in the face of threats/violence is always, technically, a fast resolution to anything, but it's not the kind of thing we (or the framers of the Constitution) wanted to optimize for.

He's already confessed! He admits he came here under the Visa Waiver Program, overstayed the 90 day limit, and that, as a result, he can be removed without proceedings for a determination of deportability: https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton...

"Thus, individuals that entered the country under VWP are removable 'without referral of the alien to an immigration judge for a determination of deportability.' See 8 C.F.R. § 217.4(b)(1). Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10."

Well, yes, basically this entire situation is one he created himself starting back in 2009. I would love to see a vast increase in legal immigration, and this guy isn't it.

Before we even get into the complete lack of morality in forcefully separating a married couple, removing him from his home and his business; you might want to check what happens to people who do agree to be deported. Plenty of examples where this has not at all been as painless as you are implying.

So getting married should be a loophole in the immigration law?

There's a follow-up story from The Guardian that seems to have details relevant to this line of questioning: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/09/irish-man-se...

First of all, back in November, a judge approved his release on bond, which he paid, but the government ignored that order and continued to detain him.

After his detention, he was asked to sign paperwork opting for voluntary deportation; he refused, but then the government proceeded to claim in court that he had signed documents to that effect, which he and his lawyer insist must be falsified or otherwise in error. However a judge allowed them to stand, which removes his ability to appeal. Now, either because the government is inept or malicious, he seems to be stuck in a legal limbo unless his lawyer can challenge the government's documentation or force an analysis of those forms.

Yes, he should definitely choose to ditch his US citizen wife and move to a place she probably can’t reside or work legally. /s If the government kept you in a tent camp and said you could just sign some papers and be free to leave without your family, would you?

> move to a place she probably can’t reside legally

Are you suggesting that Ireland is even more strict on immigration than the US is?

After some research, it might be fairly simple for them to get into Ireland and fairly simple for her to get permission to stay as a spouse of an Irish citizen. Her getting a work permit may be a lot harder, so it may not be viable for them to survive there, especially if he's going in jobless too.

If he were here illegally, they wouldn't need him to agree to be deported.

That does not make any sense. They just offered him the chance to waive the court process and go back to Ireland immediately. It does not mean that he must be here legally. It just means that a court will have to make that determination before any further steps can be taken.

If he had been found to be here illegally, they would not need him to voluntarily consent to being deported. I hope that's obvious.

I know it sounds crazy, but they do need his consent to being deported.

Coming to the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program means you waive any rights you have to claim asylum, etc. This guy admits he came here under Visa waiver, and that he overstayed his visa by years. But they still can’t deport him, because he’s raising new legal arguments based on being married to a US citizen.

Your version of events is not supported by the article. I think what you're calling "crazy" is due process itself.

The article is describing facts that are the subject of public court proceedings in which the man has made admissions about the facts of what happened: https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton...

He probably wants to remain with his wife and home, just like Abrego Garcia did, who currently has been returned to his Maryland home and family, despite what the DOJ said would never happen.

He was also granted bail, but was kept in detention. Was that his choice?

So apparently you get one chance to sign documents while you are being forcibly detained with no access to legal representation.

Lol.

Yeah, that sounds like a great way to run a country.

Do they also lock you up on the property for 5 months while they figure out how to remove you from the property?

People’s inability to comprehend the need for basic legal rights like Habeas Corpus is incredible. We literally have leaders who don’t know what that means and when challenged on it, don’t even bother to look it up and remain uninformed when asked months later.

And fools defend them.

This guy admits he entered under the Visa Waiver Program in 2009, then remained in the country illegally: https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton... ("Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10.").

If he wants to go home, he can just go home under the DOJ's Voluntary Departure Program: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1480811/dl

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy, public trial in criminal prosecutions, protecting defendants from excessive, prejudicial delays between indictment or arrest and trial.

Sure but the courts have ruled that a "speedy trial" can take years (I don't agree with this, it's just what the courts have decided). Additionally if you're not a US citizen you don't necessarily have all the same rights as a citizen, and your case is processed in civil court. Anyone can be detained, and a good judge won't release illegal immigrants from detention since they're just not going to return to court until after their hearing.

There's also a line in the Constitution about "cruel and unusual punishment" which this would surely fit.

The man clearly states that he is here legally, under a work permit.

Not sure if this is intentional ragebait

@rayiner Do you understand that justifying his 5 month detention without due process means you are justifying your own 5 month detention without due process?

He is getting due process. He admitted to a federal court that he came to the US in 2009 under a Visa Waiver Program, which is limited to 90 days: https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton... ("Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10.").

By contrast, I'm a naturalized citizen. My dad came here on a valid H visa because he's an expert in public health and a U.S. company wanted to hire someone with his qualifications.

The State says "Due process" now means your body may be used in the hard labor prison archipelago. How quickly we Rationalize. How shamefully human we are.

It is hard to conceive of five months as "speedy" if someone is being detained for the duration.

Also: a nation is not a private residence. That's an analogy that irritates me when I see it.

Constitution also garuntees a speedy trial and specifically calls out these type of long detentions without conviction or trial being used as punishment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com