5 ms·

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 fa

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).

bgnn 2y ago
Unless you are American. Then the bully shows their teeth.
Cheer2171 2y ago
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?
- necovek 2y ago
  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.
kennysoona 2y ago
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.
- jonnybgood 2y ago
  > 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.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    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.
    - gggtttkkk88 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        I wasn't born in the USA.
        gggtttkkk88 2y ago
        [flagged]
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        My ancestors (going back to the 1400s) were the living embodiment of "the mutt mindset", only rooted in northern Europe. Someone who didn't want to fight in the Hugenot wars ran off to England, and the fucking began...
        gggtttkkk88 2y ago
bmicraft 2y ago
> 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.
- ty6853 2y ago
  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).
  - therealpygon 2y ago
    Just a note, but it is “the people” and not just people, since there is a difference.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      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.
swat535 2y ago
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.
- ty6853 2y ago
  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.
- necovek 2y ago
  "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.
oliwarner 2y ago
> 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.
- necovek 2y ago
  Who said anything about taking the hardest line? You could treat everyone amicably until proven otherwise.
  - oliwarner 2y ago
    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.
    - necovek 2y ago
      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.
davkan 2y ago
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?
- necovek 2y ago
  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.

bgnn 2y ago

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

Cheer2171 2y ago

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?

necovek 2y ago
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.

kennysoona 2y ago

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.

jonnybgood 2y ago
> 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.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  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.
  - gggtttkkk88 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      I wasn't born in the USA.
      - gggtttkkk88 2y ago
        [flagged]
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        My ancestors (going back to the 1400s) were the living embodiment of "the mutt mindset", only rooted in northern Europe. Someone who didn't want to fight in the Hugenot wars ran off to England, and the fucking began...
        gggtttkkk88 2y ago

bmicraft 2y ago

> 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.

ty6853 2y ago
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).
- therealpygon 2y ago
  Just a note, but it is “the people” and not just people, since there is a difference.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    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.

swat535 2y ago

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.

ty6853 2y ago
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.
necovek 2y ago
"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.

oliwarner 2y ago

> 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.

necovek 2y ago
Who said anything about taking the hardest line? You could treat everyone amicably until proven otherwise.
- oliwarner 2y ago
  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.
  - necovek 2y ago
    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.

davkan 2y ago

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?

necovek 2y ago
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.