3 ms·

> So to arrest someone while they are following the steps they're supposed to be following I think the issue complicating this man’s situation is that it appea

by kcplate 8mo ago

> So to arrest someone while they are following the steps they're supposed to be following I think the issue complicating this man’s situation is that it appears when you dig into the details that for nearly 16 years he was skirting the system and only tried getting his legal situation resolved just a few months prior to his detainment. He is choosing to fight it which is resulting in the long detention. Personally I believe we need some legal carve outs for this type of situation, but there is simply no doubt that this guy made a series of poor decisions prior to April of 2025 that has created the situation he is in.

insane_dreamer 8mo ago
yeah, probably so. but what should matter is whether you're in compliance _now_. But if we do really want to arrest people who were at some point out of compliance in terms of their visa status, let's start with Elon and Melania, and we can talk about going through everyone's else's history and deporting them if they broke the immigration rules.
- kcplate 8mo ago
  Sometimes the details betray the narrative. I believe even more strongly that this guy created his own mess after reading the ruling. https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton-ruling.pdf https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton... There are quite a few missing but important details not in the news story. Apparently he complicated matters and put himself into a no win legal situation by choosing against applying for asylum. The “forged” signatures turned out to be a close match to checks that were provided to the court that he admitted to signing. He also admitted to the court that his memory was hazy around that time. There was also no need for immigration officials to forge his name on those documents because if he refused to sign the notice document it had the same legal result as if he did. SOP would be for an immigration official to simply indicate “refusal to sign” on the document. Unfortunately our laws don’t always protect us from ourselves.
tpm 8mo ago
> for nearly 16 years he was skirting the system This is the one thing that pops up often in these cases and my European head can't understand this. Obviously people do this because they can but why does the system allow this? People should be forced to sort out their legal situation one way or another in timely manner, because if something happens after decades (like what's going on now) it will cause lots of damage for many people including families with children. This many people living in legal limbo also encourages lawless behavior of the agencies. It would be very hard to skirt the system like that in many European countries. Not impossible, some people do it anyway, but that means more or less living completely underground without healthcare, driving license, any sort of banking etc.
- belorn 8mo ago
  There was a similar problem in Sweden. In the old system a person could first seek asylum, get denied, then seek a work visa, get denied, then seek a student visa, get denied and then repeat the process since now enough years has passed. People could also simply go underground for a period of time and then restart the process. Two law changes was added last year to prevent this. First, any decision remains in force indefinite as long the person remains in the country. The second is that all applications will be running simultaneous and the final decision is given at the same time, with no option to change application afterward if the result returned negative. The system has some drawbacks, especially if the applicant apply for the wrong thing and don't change it until the decision has been reached, but it removes stalling and delaying tactics.
  - tpm 8mo ago
    > In the old system a person could first seek asylum... Yes but that still means communicating with the institutions and having some sort of legal status. What is en masse happening in the US and to a lesser extent was (or is, not sure, but see for example the Windrush scandal) happening in the UK is that people legally enter the country and have for a time legal standing to reside there, but that lapses, laws change etc., and just nobody cares deeply enough to solve the situation one way or another? And then decades pass and bad things start to happen. But all of this was entirely avoidable and I don't mean just 'not voting for Trump' avoidable, but in a systematic manner. We could compare that to the situation in Spain where there is a group of illegal migrant workers who are exploited as cheap work force. Now they are given a chance to legalise their status but that too is happening after decades of neglect. Of course there are similar groups in other countries.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

by kcplate 8mo ago

insane_dreamer 8mo ago

yeah, probably so. but what should matter is whether you're in compliance _now_. But if we do really want to arrest people who were at some point out of compliance in terms of their visa status, let's start with Elon and Melania, and we can talk about going through everyone's else's history and deporting them if they broke the immigration rules.

kcplate 8mo ago
Sometimes the details betray the narrative. I believe even more strongly that this guy created his own mess after reading the ruling. https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton-ruling.pdf https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton... There are quite a few missing but important details not in the news story. Apparently he complicated matters and put himself into a no win legal situation by choosing against applying for asylum. The “forged” signatures turned out to be a close match to checks that were provided to the court that he admitted to signing. He also admitted to the court that his memory was hazy around that time. There was also no need for immigration officials to forge his name on those documents because if he refused to sign the notice document it had the same legal result as if he did. SOP would be for an immigration official to simply indicate “refusal to sign” on the document. Unfortunately our laws don’t always protect us from ourselves.

tpm 8mo ago

> for nearly 16 years he was skirting the system This is the one thing that pops up often in these cases and my European head can't understand this. Obviously people do this because they can but why does the system allow this? People should be forced to sort out their legal situation one way or another in timely manner, because if something happens after decades (like what's going on now) it will cause lots of damage for many people including families with children. This many people living in legal limbo also encourages lawless behavior of the agencies. It would be very hard to skirt the system like that in many European countries. Not impossible, some people do it anyway, but that means more or less living completely underground without healthcare, driving license, any sort of banking etc.

belorn 8mo ago
There was a similar problem in Sweden. In the old system a person could first seek asylum, get denied, then seek a work visa, get denied, then seek a student visa, get denied and then repeat the process since now enough years has passed. People could also simply go underground for a period of time and then restart the process. Two law changes was added last year to prevent this. First, any decision remains in force indefinite as long the person remains in the country. The second is that all applications will be running simultaneous and the final decision is given at the same time, with no option to change application afterward if the result returned negative. The system has some drawbacks, especially if the applicant apply for the wrong thing and don't change it until the decision has been reached, but it removes stalling and delaying tactics.
- tpm 8mo ago
  > In the old system a person could first seek asylum... Yes but that still means communicating with the institutions and having some sort of legal status. What is en masse happening in the US and to a lesser extent was (or is, not sure, but see for example the Windrush scandal) happening in the UK is that people legally enter the country and have for a time legal standing to reside there, but that lapses, laws change etc., and just nobody cares deeply enough to solve the situation one way or another? And then decades pass and bad things start to happen. But all of this was entirely avoidable and I don't mean just 'not voting for Trump' avoidable, but in a systematic manner. We could compare that to the situation in Spain where there is a group of illegal migrant workers who are exploited as cheap work force. Now they are given a chance to legalise their status but that too is happening after decades of neglect. Of course there are similar groups in other countries.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]