4 ms·

Even with some co-mingling of facts, is 5 months detention still proportionate? That’s the crux of it.

by medion 8mo ago

stackskipton 8mo ago
My opinion is probably not but this is ultimately a political conversation. The article is extremely light on details but fact he doesn't have a Green Card/Lawful Permanent Resident yet would indicate that at some point of his time in United States, he was illegally present, probably for a while. Sure, he's on path, MAYBE (that's up to immigration courts), to legal status but he's not quite there yet and it's one of those "Are we going to forgive past transgressions?"
- pavlov 8mo ago
  > “at some point of his time in United States, he was illegally present, probably for a while” How do you conclude that from the facts in the article?
  - exe34 8mo ago
    It's not a conclusion, it's an assumption.
  - stackskipton 8mo ago
    Having dealt with US Immigration law, if you are legally present for 20 years, it's extremely difficult not to transition to GC/Citizenship since work visas in United States generally have a limit and any immigration lawyer would have been clear "Either move to GC or you are going home." Also, despite all the US screaming about "They took our jobs" with immigrants, the US doesn't really hand out work visas all that much and don't really hand it out to blue collar labors at all. There is a possibility that he's been on legal visa entire time but I'd give extremely good odds that he wasn't. The fact his immigration lawyer doesn't mention it is very telling.
  - ivewonyoung 8mo ago
    Huh, the headline is very misleading but the article says this: > Culleton entered the US in 2009 on a visa waiver programme and overstayed the 90 day-limit > Culleton said that when he was arrested he was carrying a Massachusetts driving licence and a valid work permit issued as part of an application for a green card that he initiated in April 2025 That's about 15 years of illegal stay according to "the facts in the article".
- ActorNightly 8mo ago
  If someones potential illegal presence justifies ICE to massively overstep any legal due process and break laws, then by definition you are ok if somehow Democrates took over the DHS when they got in power, and used the premise of anti-domestic terrorism to illegally detain any person associated with MAGA for any reason and let them starve/die in prison.
  - stackskipton 8mo ago
    No but is ICE 100% breaking the law or just norms? Immigration law is such a mess and key reason we are here. For past 30 years, a lot of immigration "law" has been Executive Branch keeping a broken system going by just going with vibes. Now we have Executive Branch deciding to 100% change the vibes and system is coming apart in real time. Reading over court filings, there is collision between two laws. First one is, "Those who marry US Citizens can get Green Card regardless of previous US Immigration violations." Second one is, VWP admits have no rights. If US decides to deport you, out you go with no further discussion. Biggest takeaway of Trump immigration actions is Congress has fucked up so bad letting system get to this point.
    - ActorNightly 8mo ago
      [flagged]
- ryan_j_naughton 8mo ago
  > The article is extremely light on details but fact he doesn't have a Green Card/Lawful Permanent Resident yet would indicate that at some point of his time in United States, he was illegally present, probably for a while. That is absolutely false. I know many people who have lived legally in the USA for many many years with valid visas and have intentionally never pursued a green card. Two people come to mind including one who has over 20 years the US on valid visas -- she intentionally never pursued the green card despite both (a) being married to an American and (b) being legally able to get the green card. Some of them are now pursuing green cards only because of federal government's immigration enforcement not only going after illegal immigrants or criminals but clearly and intentionally pursing immigrants in general -- even those who are legal and without any criminal history.
  - SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
    I emphasize that I'm not defending the Trump regime, but do you know this friend well enough to be confident that she would tell you if her visa situation didn't check out? It would be extremely hard to stay in the US for 20 uninterrupted years on valid visas without permanent residency. O-1s are theoretically indefinite but require yearly renewal, and all of the other common visas I know of have maximum durations below 10 years.
    - ryan_j_naughton 8mo ago
      Yes, I am 100% certain of what I said. These individuals have had valid visas in the US and been here for 10-20 years and intentionally have never become green card holders. One was on a student visa for undergrad and then a student visa for masters for 6 years total (4 for undergrad and 2 for masters), then on a G4 diplomatic visa while working at the World Bank for 5 years, then back to a student visa for 5 years pursuing a PhD, then back to a G4 Diplomatic visa for 6 years while working at the World Bank. This person married an American about 10 years ago and still never pursued a green card out of choice. Another was on a G4 diplomatic visa while working at the IDB for 3 years, then a student visa for 5 years while pursuing a PhD, then a visa while working at the Federal Reserve for a number of years (not sure of which, but either H1B or J1), and then on a G4 diplomatic visa while working at the IMF. Of course, these are not your typical situations for the average immigrant. Admittedly, I live in a bit of a bubble surrounded by economists in Washington DC from the World Bank, IMF, IDB, etc who are mostly on G4 diplomatic visas. My point is it is still possible and one shouldn't presume.
- rjrjrjrj 8mo ago
  > it's one of those "Are we going to forgive past transgressions?" For ICE enthusiasts, forgiveness is reserved for Presidential candidates.
  - Natfan 8mo ago
    only white male racist presidential candidates
- nkrisc 8mo ago
  > Sure, he's on path, MAYBE (that's up to immigration courts), to legal status but he's not quite there yet and it's one of those "Are we going to forgive past transgressions?" For a productive member of society? Absolutely, bring him in and let him stay. There are absolutely some immigrants who should be deported for violent crimes and likewise, but they are a tiny minority of immigrants. So when you set quotas far above that, they start rounding up productive members of society to fill the quotas and ignoring the violent criminals because it’s easier to arrest parents and children.
- zarzavat 8mo ago
  I know of no other country that locks people up while they process immigration appeals. That's crazy. Other countries will either summarily deport you and make you resolve your status from outside the country, or let you stay while you appeal and deport you when your appeals are exhausted. Both are sane things to do, this is not.
  - yencabulator 8mo ago
    The US has a very strong belief in punishing people. It helps them create an "out group" to shun. For those people, the worse the conditions of your jail are, the better. It's some sort of a relic of the specific religious background common in the USA, and it's disgusting. Other parts of the world believe in human dignity and helping people fix the things that are broken in their lives. Look up Norwegian prisons...

Even with some co-mingling of facts, is 5 months detention still proportionate? That’s the crux of it.

by medion 8mo ago

Even with some co-mingling of facts, is 5 months detention still proportionate? That’s the crux of it.

My opinion is probably not but this is ultimately a political conversation. The article is extremely light on details but fact he doesn't have a Green Card/Lawful Permanent Resident yet would indicate that at some point of his time in United States, he was illegally present, probably for a while. Sure, he's on path, MAYBE (that's up to immigration courts), to legal status but he's not quite there yet and it's one of those "Are we going to forgive past transgressions?"

pavlov 8mo ago
> “at some point of his time in United States, he was illegally present, probably for a while” How do you conclude that from the facts in the article?
- exe34 8mo ago
  It's not a conclusion, it's an assumption.
- stackskipton 8mo ago
  Having dealt with US Immigration law, if you are legally present for 20 years, it's extremely difficult not to transition to GC/Citizenship since work visas in United States generally have a limit and any immigration lawyer would have been clear "Either move to GC or you are going home." Also, despite all the US screaming about "They took our jobs" with immigrants, the US doesn't really hand out work visas all that much and don't really hand it out to blue collar labors at all. There is a possibility that he's been on legal visa entire time but I'd give extremely good odds that he wasn't. The fact his immigration lawyer doesn't mention it is very telling.
- ivewonyoung 8mo ago
  Huh, the headline is very misleading but the article says this: > Culleton entered the US in 2009 on a visa waiver programme and overstayed the 90 day-limit > Culleton said that when he was arrested he was carrying a Massachusetts driving licence and a valid work permit issued as part of an application for a green card that he initiated in April 2025 That's about 15 years of illegal stay according to "the facts in the article".
ActorNightly 8mo ago
If someones potential illegal presence justifies ICE to massively overstep any legal due process and break laws, then by definition you are ok if somehow Democrates took over the DHS when they got in power, and used the premise of anti-domestic terrorism to illegally detain any person associated with MAGA for any reason and let them starve/die in prison.
- stackskipton 8mo ago
  No but is ICE 100% breaking the law or just norms? Immigration law is such a mess and key reason we are here. For past 30 years, a lot of immigration "law" has been Executive Branch keeping a broken system going by just going with vibes. Now we have Executive Branch deciding to 100% change the vibes and system is coming apart in real time. Reading over court filings, there is collision between two laws. First one is, "Those who marry US Citizens can get Green Card regardless of previous US Immigration violations." Second one is, VWP admits have no rights. If US decides to deport you, out you go with no further discussion. Biggest takeaway of Trump immigration actions is Congress has fucked up so bad letting system get to this point.
  - ActorNightly 8mo ago
    [flagged]
ryan_j_naughton 8mo ago
> The article is extremely light on details but fact he doesn't have a Green Card/Lawful Permanent Resident yet would indicate that at some point of his time in United States, he was illegally present, probably for a while. That is absolutely false. I know many people who have lived legally in the USA for many many years with valid visas and have intentionally never pursued a green card. Two people come to mind including one who has over 20 years the US on valid visas -- she intentionally never pursued the green card despite both (a) being married to an American and (b) being legally able to get the green card. Some of them are now pursuing green cards only because of federal government's immigration enforcement not only going after illegal immigrants or criminals but clearly and intentionally pursing immigrants in general -- even those who are legal and without any criminal history.
- SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
  I emphasize that I'm not defending the Trump regime, but do you know this friend well enough to be confident that she would tell you if her visa situation didn't check out? It would be extremely hard to stay in the US for 20 uninterrupted years on valid visas without permanent residency. O-1s are theoretically indefinite but require yearly renewal, and all of the other common visas I know of have maximum durations below 10 years.
  - ryan_j_naughton 8mo ago
    Yes, I am 100% certain of what I said. These individuals have had valid visas in the US and been here for 10-20 years and intentionally have never become green card holders. One was on a student visa for undergrad and then a student visa for masters for 6 years total (4 for undergrad and 2 for masters), then on a G4 diplomatic visa while working at the World Bank for 5 years, then back to a student visa for 5 years pursuing a PhD, then back to a G4 Diplomatic visa for 6 years while working at the World Bank. This person married an American about 10 years ago and still never pursued a green card out of choice. Another was on a G4 diplomatic visa while working at the IDB for 3 years, then a student visa for 5 years while pursuing a PhD, then a visa while working at the Federal Reserve for a number of years (not sure of which, but either H1B or J1), and then on a G4 diplomatic visa while working at the IMF. Of course, these are not your typical situations for the average immigrant. Admittedly, I live in a bit of a bubble surrounded by economists in Washington DC from the World Bank, IMF, IDB, etc who are mostly on G4 diplomatic visas. My point is it is still possible and one shouldn't presume.
rjrjrjrj 8mo ago
> it's one of those "Are we going to forgive past transgressions?" For ICE enthusiasts, forgiveness is reserved for Presidential candidates.
- Natfan 8mo ago
  only white male racist presidential candidates
nkrisc 8mo ago
> Sure, he's on path, MAYBE (that's up to immigration courts), to legal status but he's not quite there yet and it's one of those "Are we going to forgive past transgressions?" For a productive member of society? Absolutely, bring him in and let him stay. There are absolutely some immigrants who should be deported for violent crimes and likewise, but they are a tiny minority of immigrants. So when you set quotas far above that, they start rounding up productive members of society to fill the quotas and ignoring the violent criminals because it’s easier to arrest parents and children.
zarzavat 8mo ago
I know of no other country that locks people up while they process immigration appeals. That's crazy. Other countries will either summarily deport you and make you resolve your status from outside the country, or let you stay while you appeal and deport you when your appeals are exhausted. Both are sane things to do, this is not.
- yencabulator 8mo ago
  The US has a very strong belief in punishing people. It helps them create an "out group" to shun. For those people, the worse the conditions of your jail are, the better. It's some sort of a relic of the specific religious background common in the USA, and it's disgusting. Other parts of the world believe in human dignity and helping people fix the things that are broken in their lives. Look up Norwegian prisons...