The as built does not currently match the plan provided by the constitution and rule of law. Please see your nearest democratic representative to address the problem.
You can be detained and deported without first seeing a judge.
It's been that way for over 40 years so yes, according to Congress/SCOTUS, this is legal.
Basically, the guy admits that he overstayed the terms of the Visa Waiver Program, but is arguing that the fact INS started processing his adjustment of status application gives him the right to stay in the U.S. until it's resolved:
> Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10. But he argues that because USCIS accepted and began processing his adjustment of status application, he is entitled to due process protections in its fair adjudication. Id. at 9. The Fifth Circuit has foreclosed this very argument, reasoning that the VWP waiver includes a waiver of due process rights. See Mukasey, 555 F.3d at 462. And “[t]he fact that [Culleton] applied for an adjustment of status before the DHS issued its notice of removal is of no consequence.” Id.
Remember that the whole point of the Visa Waiver Program is that you're conceding up front that you're just visiting and aren't making a claim for asylum or whatever. The idea is that the U.S. makes it easy for you to enter, in return for you agreeing that the U.S. can easily deport you if you overstay.
"The majority stakes the largest detention initiative in American history on the possibility that ‘seeking admission’ is like being an ‘applicant for admission,’ in a statute that has never been applied in this way, based on little more than an apparent conviction that Congress must have wanted these noncitizens detained — some of them the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens,” she added. “Straining at a gnat, the majority swallows a camel.”
https://www.courthousenews.com/fifth-circuit-upholds-trump-a...
Subsection (b)(2)(A) then says: "Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title."
Subsection (a)(1) then says that "[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States ... shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission."
Who is covered by the phrase "an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted?" What else could that phrase possibly be referring to?
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.
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.
"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."
Are you suggesting that Ireland is even more strict on immigration than the US is?
Lol.
Yeah, that sounds like a great way to run a country.
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.
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.
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
@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?
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.
Also: a nation is not a private residence. That's an analogy that irritates me when I see it.
It is a matter of your opinion whether court proceedings are "frivolous." We have a common law system here in the US which allows a judge some latitude in their decisionmaking, up to and including issuing a ruling contrary to established precedent when the precedent doesn't make any sense in the specific situation we're in. If we want to continue having trials, we have to allow even trials which we consider cut and dried so that the truth may be examined and an informed judgement rendered. This is the heart of our civilization and if you throw that away then you will see how brutal things can get without our system.
Moving people around detention centers to hide them from lawyers and families, while too often ignoring court orders and due process is also extremely concerning. As are the poor conditions often reported in these detention facilities. The process should be humane and legal.
Because it turns the immigration system on its head. People come to the U.S., stay for years while court proceedings drag on, and in most cases the government eventually gives up. The U.S. issues 65,000 or so skilled worker visas annually, but over a million people enter illegally. At that point, why even bother having an immigration system?
> Most of them are not criminals, they're just here for better living conditions, work opportunities or family.
Do you think keeping out criminals is why we have an immigration system?
It's just the liberal version of Bush thinking that he could turn Iraq into a democracy using laws on paper.
Neighborhood dogs are barking for some reason!
Rights are optional, for other people.
It comes across as pretty racist the way they said it, but a charitable interpretation does make sense despite that.
Not according to the article?
> "And I did, I complied with everything they said. They asked me if I had a Green Card, I said I didn't, I said I was married to a citizen and that I had a marriage-based petition in place and I was just about to receive my Green Card and that I had a work permit to be here and work."
> He said he had received the work permit about "a month or so earlier", so as far as he knew he was covered.
"Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10."
He came to the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program, which is limited to 90 days, back in 2009.
I also like these parts:
> Culleton testified that he did not sign the Notice nor did he write “I’m married to a citizen and have a work permit” on it.
> Secore testified that he remembered serving the Notice on Culleton, but not watching Culleton sign it.
> Secore also testified that the paperwork was riddled with mistaken dates because of the way ICE’s computer system operates.
> Secore testified that he should have caught those errors when processing the paperwork, but that he “missed” them.
What do you think that proves?
An EAD gives a person legal status to work in the United States but has fewer privileges than a green card.
EADs are not issued to people with immigration status (eg. citizens or permanent residents). It is ONLY issued to those with no status.
As much as I loathe everything about how ICE is conducting their activities these days, this case does not seem like a good candidate for sympathy, it does not look like injustice.
If you think he should be free to stay in the US, fine; if you think he deserves to be deported, fine; what he doesn't deserve is to be corralled indefinitely in filthy conditions just because they need to meet their quotas.
If you don't think that's injustice then there's something wrong with your sense of morality.
Though I could believe it would take a little longer right now due to the volume of detentions and the apparent incompetence of ICE.
When you frame a question as an absolute, I feel comfortable answering no.
If you have a real philosophical argument you want to make, go for it.
> the person is being detained only because he is refusing to return to his country of citizenship
He's being detained because ICE chose to detain him.
Your link and quote does not support this specific claim. The law linked is about naturalization and not about being granted permanent resident status.
There is no US visa that allows living there for 20 years without work authorization. He entered illegally (or overstayed illegally) then tried to adjust status based on marriage, which is fraud.
it sounds like he was here legally. Maybe not the whole time, i dont know that for sure! but certainly at least at the time he was picked up by ICE goons.
Another alternative is the CR-1 visa, also a legitimate pathway.
The New York Times attempted to cover this scheme a few months ago but when you look into all the cases they all involve lying to the government or outright fraud, for example one case they highlighted was of someone who entered on a K-1 visa, which requires marriage within 90 days and which you legally agree to do, marrying TWO YEARS after entry and attempting to adjust status. So basically, committing massive immigration fraud and betting the government won't notice.
There is no U.S. visa which allows 20 year stays with no work authorization. Doesn't exist. So he entered illegally.
>Why throw him in a detention center
Because he committed immigration fraud? Overstaying means you lied to CBP. Entering illegally is a crime, too.