Read that one elsewhere the other day. Two key things to keep in mind: (1): The methods of her detention are absolutely barbaric. I suspect this got a lot worse during the last, oh, 1.5 months....
Read that one elsewhere the other day. Two key things to keep in mind:
(1): The methods of her detention are absolutely barbaric. I suspect this got a lot worse during the last, oh, 1.5 months.
(2): The framing of the victim as tourist is... tenuous. Supposedly, her Instagram indicated she planned to do actual work for customers in the US. On a tourist visa. So, looks a whole lot like a legit visa violation.
She was probably both a tourist and planning to do actual work for customers during her trip, but it's worth noting that she had not yet done so. She was detained because she was suspected of...
The framing of the victim as tourist is... tenuous. Supposedly, her Instagram indicated she planned to do actual work for customers in the US. On a tourist visa. So, looks a whole lot like a legit visa violation.
She was probably both a tourist and planning to do actual work for customers during her trip, but it's worth noting that she had not yet done so. She was detained because she was suspected of planning to work without a visa, something that under no circumstances merits detention of any kind rather than simply denial of entry to the US. They could (and probably should) have just turned her around at the border. But that doesn't make the private contractor who holds detainees any money...
And it's worth noting that even though the evidence she was planning to do work on her tourist visa is pretty clear in this case, there's absolutely nothing mandating that it has to be. She is being held indefinitely, without any sort of trial or access to an attorney, without having even committed any crime yet, solely on the basis of a CBP agent's belief about what she'd do. And there's nothing stopping the same guys who did this to her from doing it to anyone else with less (or no) actual evidence they planned to violate the terms of their visa. The evidence doesn't matter when there's no due process.
My understanding is that the crime of lying to an immigration official was actually completed, assuming you find the evidence of her actual intentions credible. We're only hearing one side here;...
My understanding is that the crime of lying to an immigration official was actually completed, assuming you find the evidence of her actual intentions credible.
We're only hearing one side here; ICE hasn't commented on the matter AFAICT. But supposedly she had her gear on her and was offering appointment bookings in the US. If she then proceeded to say that she did not intend to work in the US, then the crime is already completed. A crime that the US threatens with up to 10 years.
The question in my mind is more, does the punishment fit the crime (no, not until the US penalizes tax evasion of a few thousand dollars by 10 years in prison) and whether her treatment was justifiable. (hell to the no, if we believe what we're hearing, it was/is essentially torture.)
The problem is, of course, that it doesn't matter how credible the evidence was, since she had zero due process. There is absolutely nothing stopping a CBP agent from doing this exact same thing...
assuming you find the evidence of her actual intentions credible
The problem is, of course, that it doesn't matter how credible the evidence was, since she had zero due process. There is absolutely nothing stopping a CBP agent from doing this exact same thing with literally zero evidence -- and what happens when the person who's detained isn't traveling with a friend and isn't from a rich white first-world country?
I agree that the punishment doesn't fit the crime at all, but I think focusing on that alone completely overlooks the other miscarriages of justice in allowing CBP agents to detain anyone indefinitely without due process.
It should terrify everyone that they are violating their own standards for a large number of detainees. What if I am a legit tourist but they got it wrong at the airport and threw me in. And then...
Spending that many days in one of CBP’s short-term detention facilities appears to be a violation of the agency's own internal detention standards, which, “generally limit detention in these facilities to 72 hours,”
It should terrify everyone that they are violating their own standards for a large number of detainees.
What if I am a legit tourist but they got it wrong at the airport and threw me in. And then I can't expect any sort of humane treatment nor does anybody know where I am. [Edit: not that I think guilty people should be treated this way, but to point out that "I'm not doing anything wrong hence I don't have to be afraid" isn't true either]
It's crazy that they're spending money detaining when they could have held her until her flight date or just sent her home same day at her own cost.
I remember reading Count of Monte Cristo where the state forgot Edmund was in prison. When there's this much chaos right now, what if the entire prison personnel got fired overnight replaced by two teen bros who then deleted records of my detainment. It's a crazy thing that doesn't sound so unimaginable right now.
The reason I've heard for this is that they want to have a judge determine all this, so they can permanently bar her from entry. That's impossible when she's home, because her constitutional...
It's crazy that they're spending money detaining when they could have held her until her flight date or just sent her home same day at her own cost.
The reason I've heard for this is that they want to have a judge determine all this, so they can permanently bar her from entry. That's impossible when she's home, because her constitutional rights guarantees her the right to attend her own trial, so you can't kick her out before the trial, hence this detention....? Also, this whole lying under penalty of perjury is a pretty big deal - max 10 years of prison, so if she ends up detained for a few months and then deported without option of ever reentering the country, that's, for some definition of the word, going easy on her already.
that sounds "reasonable" as in, when there are processes to make sure people appear before a judge in a timely manner, I can understand that policy. I hope they move to a model where it says, hey...
that sounds "reasonable" as in, when there are processes to make sure people appear before a judge in a timely manner, I can understand that policy.
I hope they move to a model where it says, hey you can wait for a judge or just sign this thing saying you're never coming back again, and we'll let you go home today. Save everyone time and money.
I think the problem is more that in order to guarantee their due process rights, you'd have to either (1) deport them now, but allow them to reenter later; (2) allow them free entry in the...
I think the problem is more that in order to guarantee their due process rights, you'd have to either (1) deport them now, but allow them to reenter later; (2) allow them free entry in the country, in the hopes that they appear for the proceedings and then deport them or (3) detain them or (4) do not prosecute, just send them home but allow them reentry.
Both 1 and 2 sound just a little insane. 4 is routinely applied to less severe cases.
I guess the best thing I could come up with is to allow foreigners to waive their rights to be present at the hearing, then deport them and hold the trial in absentia. Whether waiving your own rights like this is even constitutionally legal in the US I can't say.
I wonder how they got her at all at the port of entry. Usually if you say you’re a tourist, it’s not like they can disprove that, and from a country like Germany, you’d just be waived through....
I wonder how they got her at all at the port of entry. Usually if you say you’re a tourist, it’s not like they can disprove that, and from a country like Germany, you’d just be waived through. Visa violations are usually caught in the act for that reason. It’s hard to prove a negative.
Maybe it was just that unusual that a German national crosses a US land border? Slow day at Ysidio?
I'm guessing she actually had the tattoo equipment with her. In Canada we have a Cops style reality show about border control agents and I've seen almost the exact same situation. Only they either...
I'm guessing she actually had the tattoo equipment with her.
In Canada we have a Cops style reality show about border control agents and I've seen almost the exact same situation. Only they either let them through with explicit instructions not to do work, or turn them away.
I wonder. I'd think it would be nearly impossible unless she was streaming at the airport loudly about working, or when asked by the agent if they're here for work or travel she muffed and made a...
I wonder.
I'd think it would be nearly impossible unless she was streaming at the airport loudly about working, or when asked by the agent if they're here for work or travel she muffed and made a joke "little bit of both haha" kind of thing?
Did she bring a bunch of tattoo trade tools?
I remember going to Seattle for PAX convention and the border agent asked if I brought something to sell or volunteering. Lots of people don't know volunteering as a tourist is illegal.
About a decade ago, my US-based company hosted a small conference in Cancun. None of us had work visas or anything (though we were being paid by our US-based company, not by a Mexican company)....
About a decade ago, my US-based company hosted a small conference in Cancun. None of us had work visas or anything (though we were being paid by our US-based company, not by a Mexican company). Because we were dumb and/or cheap, we just ended up using our personal luggage to bring in materials and small equipment. Like I had a bunch of pens, paper, and even power strips in a suit case.
When asked about my intentions at customs, I said I was attending a conference. Which was true. Though I was also working it. Regardless, they let me through.
But one last step was x-raying all my bags, done by a different customs person. When he saw it, right away he was like "Are you hosting a congress (conference)?" I answered honestly. He kinda looked exasperated, looked like he was going to find a supervisor, but then just waved me though, "Just go through, go." Felt like I dodged a bullet. I knew not to say "I'm here for work." But none of my more-travelled coworkers said anything about what happens if they see work-type equipment/materials.
The following year, it was hosted in Canada. That time, I insisted that we ship EVERYTHING to Canada. Pay for a courier to do all the customs stuff for us. Don't bring anything in personal luggage/bags beyond what a normal person would be traveling with. Stop using us as mules.
When asked by Canadian customs my intentions, I again only said "attending a conference." They let me pass with no issue. Plus all I had was my personal belongings plus laptop. My coworker, who didn't get the memo, told them she was working and hosting a conference. They questioned her for like 10-15min.
She reportedly had a tattoo gun with her and posted about it on her social media. I think what has happened to her is a huge miscarriage of justice regardless, but she wasn't making the smartest...
She reportedly had a tattoo gun with her and posted about it on her social media. I think what has happened to her is a huge miscarriage of justice regardless, but she wasn't making the smartest choices on that front.
I recall a story where a guy was visiting his adult daughter who had moved countries. During a conversation with the border agent he mentioned he was going to help paint a room or hang some...
I recall a story where a guy was visiting his adult daughter who had moved countries. During a conversation with the border agent he mentioned he was going to help paint a room or hang some shelves or something.
Got turned away as he was taking away work from a citizen.
My wife really wants to go to California in July. I think it's a bad idea at this point and articles like this make me even more nervous about the idea.
My wife really wants to go to California in July. I think it's a bad idea at this point and articles like this make me even more nervous about the idea.
For what it's worth, California is doing everything it can to NOT work with ICE (immigration and customs enforcement). I am still technically an employee for my county government (not working...
For what it's worth, California is doing everything it can to NOT work with ICE (immigration and customs enforcement). I am still technically an employee for my county government (not working right now), and we just got an email detailing what we are supposed to do with ICE interactions, based on California law. In short, we cannot interfere with legal actions, but we are supposed to request search warrants and contact our supervisor and County Council immediately. We don't provide any employment or immigration status without a legal subpoena. I don't think any of this would change this news story, but California is doing what we can to resist.
Read that one elsewhere the other day. Two key things to keep in mind:
(1): The methods of her detention are absolutely barbaric. I suspect this got a lot worse during the last, oh, 1.5 months.
(2): The framing of the victim as tourist is... tenuous. Supposedly, her Instagram indicated she planned to do actual work for customers in the US. On a tourist visa. So, looks a whole lot like a legit visa violation.
(3): In spite of (2), (1) bears repeating.
She was probably both a tourist and planning to do actual work for customers during her trip, but it's worth noting that she had not yet done so. She was detained because she was suspected of planning to work without a visa, something that under no circumstances merits detention of any kind rather than simply denial of entry to the US. They could (and probably should) have just turned her around at the border. But that doesn't make the private contractor who holds detainees any money...
And it's worth noting that even though the evidence she was planning to do work on her tourist visa is pretty clear in this case, there's absolutely nothing mandating that it has to be. She is being held indefinitely, without any sort of trial or access to an attorney, without having even committed any crime yet, solely on the basis of a CBP agent's belief about what she'd do. And there's nothing stopping the same guys who did this to her from doing it to anyone else with less (or no) actual evidence they planned to violate the terms of their visa. The evidence doesn't matter when there's no due process.
My understanding is that the crime of lying to an immigration official was actually completed, assuming you find the evidence of her actual intentions credible.
We're only hearing one side here; ICE hasn't commented on the matter AFAICT. But supposedly she had her gear on her and was offering appointment bookings in the US. If she then proceeded to say that she did not intend to work in the US, then the crime is already completed. A crime that the US threatens with up to 10 years.
The question in my mind is more, does the punishment fit the crime (no, not until the US penalizes tax evasion of a few thousand dollars by 10 years in prison) and whether her treatment was justifiable. (hell to the no, if we believe what we're hearing, it was/is essentially torture.)
The problem is, of course, that it doesn't matter how credible the evidence was, since she had zero due process. There is absolutely nothing stopping a CBP agent from doing this exact same thing with literally zero evidence -- and what happens when the person who's detained isn't traveling with a friend and isn't from a rich white first-world country?
I agree that the punishment doesn't fit the crime at all, but I think focusing on that alone completely overlooks the other miscarriages of justice in allowing CBP agents to detain anyone indefinitely without due process.
It should terrify everyone that they are violating their own standards for a large number of detainees.
What if I am a legit tourist but they got it wrong at the airport and threw me in. And then I can't expect any sort of humane treatment nor does anybody know where I am. [Edit: not that I think guilty people should be treated this way, but to point out that "I'm not doing anything wrong hence I don't have to be afraid" isn't true either]
It's crazy that they're spending money detaining when they could have held her until her flight date or just sent her home same day at her own cost.
I remember reading Count of Monte Cristo where the state forgot Edmund was in prison. When there's this much chaos right now, what if the entire prison personnel got fired overnight replaced by two teen bros who then deleted records of my detainment. It's a crazy thing that doesn't sound so unimaginable right now.
The reason I've heard for this is that they want to have a judge determine all this, so they can permanently bar her from entry. That's impossible when she's home, because her constitutional rights guarantees her the right to attend her own trial, so you can't kick her out before the trial, hence this detention....? Also, this whole lying under penalty of perjury is a pretty big deal - max 10 years of prison, so if she ends up detained for a few months and then deported without option of ever reentering the country, that's, for some definition of the word, going easy on her already.
that sounds "reasonable" as in, when there are processes to make sure people appear before a judge in a timely manner, I can understand that policy.
I hope they move to a model where it says, hey you can wait for a judge or just sign this thing saying you're never coming back again, and we'll let you go home today. Save everyone time and money.
I think the problem is more that in order to guarantee their due process rights, you'd have to either (1) deport them now, but allow them to reenter later; (2) allow them free entry in the country, in the hopes that they appear for the proceedings and then deport them or (3) detain them or (4) do not prosecute, just send them home but allow them reentry.
Both 1 and 2 sound just a little insane. 4 is routinely applied to less severe cases.
I guess the best thing I could come up with is to allow foreigners to waive their rights to be present at the hearing, then deport them and hold the trial in absentia. Whether waiving your own rights like this is even constitutionally legal in the US I can't say.
There is this tool. Locator.ice.gov
I'm not sure if it applies for people detained by the border authority, but it would be a place to check.
I wonder how they got her at all at the port of entry. Usually if you say you’re a tourist, it’s not like they can disprove that, and from a country like Germany, you’d just be waived through. Visa violations are usually caught in the act for that reason. It’s hard to prove a negative.
Maybe it was just that unusual that a German national crosses a US land border? Slow day at Ysidio?
I'm guessing she actually had the tattoo equipment with her.
In Canada we have a Cops style reality show about border control agents and I've seen almost the exact same situation. Only they either let them through with explicit instructions not to do work, or turn them away.
I wonder.
I'd think it would be nearly impossible unless she was streaming at the airport loudly about working, or when asked by the agent if they're here for work or travel she muffed and made a joke "little bit of both haha" kind of thing?
Did she bring a bunch of tattoo trade tools?
I remember going to Seattle for PAX convention and the border agent asked if I brought something to sell or volunteering. Lots of people don't know volunteering as a tourist is illegal.
About a decade ago, my US-based company hosted a small conference in Cancun. None of us had work visas or anything (though we were being paid by our US-based company, not by a Mexican company). Because we were dumb and/or cheap, we just ended up using our personal luggage to bring in materials and small equipment. Like I had a bunch of pens, paper, and even power strips in a suit case.
When asked about my intentions at customs, I said I was attending a conference. Which was true. Though I was also working it. Regardless, they let me through.
But one last step was x-raying all my bags, done by a different customs person. When he saw it, right away he was like "Are you hosting a congress (conference)?" I answered honestly. He kinda looked exasperated, looked like he was going to find a supervisor, but then just waved me though, "Just go through, go." Felt like I dodged a bullet. I knew not to say "I'm here for work." But none of my more-travelled coworkers said anything about what happens if they see work-type equipment/materials.
The following year, it was hosted in Canada. That time, I insisted that we ship EVERYTHING to Canada. Pay for a courier to do all the customs stuff for us. Don't bring anything in personal luggage/bags beyond what a normal person would be traveling with. Stop using us as mules.
When asked by Canadian customs my intentions, I again only said "attending a conference." They let me pass with no issue. Plus all I had was my personal belongings plus laptop. My coworker, who didn't get the memo, told them she was working and hosting a conference. They questioned her for like 10-15min.
She reportedly had a tattoo gun with her and posted about it on her social media. I think what has happened to her is a huge miscarriage of justice regardless, but she wasn't making the smartest choices on that front.
I recall a story where a guy was visiting his adult daughter who had moved countries. During a conversation with the border agent he mentioned he was going to help paint a room or hang some shelves or something.
Got turned away as he was taking away work from a citizen.
My wife really wants to go to California in July. I think it's a bad idea at this point and articles like this make me even more nervous about the idea.
For what it's worth, California is doing everything it can to NOT work with ICE (immigration and customs enforcement). I am still technically an employee for my county government (not working right now), and we just got an email detailing what we are supposed to do with ICE interactions, based on California law. In short, we cannot interfere with legal actions, but we are supposed to request search warrants and contact our supervisor and County Council immediately. We don't provide any employment or immigration status without a legal subpoena. I don't think any of this would change this news story, but California is doing what we can to resist.