8 ms·

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 Pr

• viraptor 2y ago
  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.
  • toast0 2y ago
    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?
    • viraptor 2y ago
      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.
      • averageRoyalty 2y ago
        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'.
        • gopher_space 2y ago
          Feel free to not encage people if you don't like the responsibility.
        • wat10000 2y ago
          A full work week in jail for something that isn’t even a crime is ridiculous.
          • necovek 2y ago
            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".
            • wat10000 2y ago
              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.
              • necovek 2y ago
                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.
                • wat10000 2y ago
                  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.
      • xethos 2y ago
        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.
        • viraptor 2y ago
          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.
          • lepton 2y ago
            That’s the parent’s point: a same-day flight may be expensive for the detainee and look bad for ICE.
          • dmix 2y ago
            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.
            • orwin 2y ago
              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.
              • bruceb 2y ago
                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
  • dessimus 2y ago
    > 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
  • anigbrowl 2y ago
    Probably profitable though. A lot of those immigration detention centers are privately operated.
    • _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      Tacoma Northwest is a private 'detention center'.
  • _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    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.
• kennysoona 2y ago
  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?
  • immibis 2y ago
    BTW this would not be the public majority opinion if she was a black man.
  • scarface_74 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • timeon 2y ago
    It seems shocking from European perspective. At least they did not shot her because of resisting or something.
    • necovek 2y ago
      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.
      • kennysoona 2y ago
        No. The EU doesn't treat people like that for such a minor offense.
    • latency-guy2 2y ago
      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.
      • 2y ago
• gobblegobble2 2y ago
  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.
  • decimalenough 2y ago
    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.
• toast0 2y ago
  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/services/work-canada/iec.html https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...
• lastofthemojito 2y ago
  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?
  • thfuran 2y ago
    That plan doesn't have enough suffering.
• threatofrain 2y ago
  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.
• buyucu 2y ago
  detaining for 10 days is nonsense. Just deny entry and send them back.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • decimalenough 2y ago
    Back to where? They were detained at the US land border after Canada denied them entry as well.
    • buyucu 2y ago
      planes exist
    • abenga 2y ago
      The country on their passport.
• almog 2y ago
  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.
• Aloha 2y ago
  Good catch, I didnt quite catch that she was denied reentry to Canada!
• cpncrunch 2y ago
  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).
  • gruez 2y ago
    >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.
    • cpncrunch 2y ago
      The article is annoying unclear on the issue of what visa she had, but you're probably right.
    • toast0 2y ago
      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 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c80y3yx1jdyo
• cthulha 2y ago
  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.
• ryan_lane 2y ago
  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.