> "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.
Again, completely false. An EAD does not issue ANY immigration status, period. He had no legal status prior to marriage and still has no legal status because he has no green card and has racked up 20 years of overstay.
EADs are not issued to people with immigration status (eg. citizens or permanent residents). It is ONLY issued to those with no status.
From what I can tell you're right, but this seems like it's 100% the fault of the United States and 0% his. Why would you issue a document certifying authorization to work in the United States that does not imply authorization to be in the United States?
> But U.S. law prohibits illegal immigrants from getting a green card
Your link and quote does not support this specific claim. The law linked is about naturalization and not about being granted permanent resident status.
Where did it say he arrived illegally? Sounds like he’s awaiting Adjustment of Status based on family ties from getting married but doesn’t say what his status was before
I agree that it doesn't say that in the article, but on the other hand, he admits having been here for 20 years. That definitely implies that he is here illegally and knew it. He likely would get denied a green card as a result of that choice.
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.
It doesn't look like injustice that he's been locked up in squalid conditions for five months with no trial or process? How long is he going to be there? Is he going to face a trial or tribunal? Is he getting deported?
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.
Despite breathless claims to the contrary, I strongly suspect that he could volunteer today to be deported, sign the paperwork and be on a plane back to Ireland within days. The gov't would be perfectly happy to rid themselves of the problem, ban him from returning, and send him on his way.
Though I could believe it would take a little longer right now due to the volume of detentions and the apparent incompetence of ICE.
Just includes citizens being able to decide the terms and conditions on which outsiders are allowed into their country. Being able to decide the conditions for immigration is a fundamental consequence of the right of self determination.
What harm was he doing being here for 20 years? Was he engaged in criminal activities? If not, then I just don't see the point in detaining people who have a life here. Have him jump through the hoops to acquire legal status, that's fine. But deportation is cruel. The US is not in danger of being overpopulated. The whole narrative of dangerous illegals over running the country is a far-right boogey man.
That is a moral argument, not a legal one. Plenty of people would call what you are describing a moral hazard to be avoided. I imagine the people who are going through the process legally would be especially outraged.
You go through the legal process to make sure you have all the rights of being here legally and don't have to continue worrying about it. That doesn't mean someone who's status changes over time should be detained and deported simply because they're no longer here legally or their legality is in dispute. There are other ways to handle it.
Why be outraged at someone else's status? People migrate for all sorts of reasons.
Someone who came to the U.S. from a first world country on a 90-day visa waiver meant for tourism and business trips should be immediately deported if they overstay their visa. It’s actually the clearest case for deportation there is.
And you should be outraged at people who don’t follow the rules. One of the things that makes America a first world country is that cutting in line is considered a crime against society and carries heavy social consequences. Saying “don’t make noise when you see other people breaking the rules” is the mentality that exists in the third world country I’m from and it has no place in the U.S.
He has a valid work permit and is married to a US citizen. He's been locked in a cell with terrible conditions for four-and-a-half months and your trying to justify this?
> 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.
Yes it does. He mentions he was able to work because of an Employment Authorization Document associated with his pending I-485 Adjustment of Status, but has been in the US for 20 years.
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.
he received his work permit a month before getting picked up?
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.
The correct approach to do this is the K-1 visa. Anything else is a loophole or fraud. This guy thought he could lie and defraud his way to a visa without doing it properly.
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.
You're making a lot of assumptions here that are not supported by the article. In any case, if his application is not valid, they can deny his green card application. Why throw him in a detention center for months instead of going through the process? Is he a flight risk? Where would he go?
I did not assume anything. He specifically mentions he was able to work because of an EAD associated with his I-485 Adjustment of Status application, which is the only possible pathway to green card after marriage to a USC.
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.
The letter of the law is not black and white. Think critically - why did they turn a relatively blind eye to this issue in all past administrations? Immigrants of any kind are a net benefit to the wealthy and powerful. No billionaire obeys the law to the letter either. It would be nice if we enforced the written law with this level of zeal upon the rich. Pay taxes in "creative" ways? Hire an illegal? Straight to jail, no bail, maximum fine.
So is smoking weed according the US federal government. Whether there is an actual harm being caused that should result in detainment is another matter. I'd argue ripping people away from their lives is a greater harm (via deportation or imprisonment).
There is no single "the locals", every tribe represented a different polity. They warred with each other constantly and conquered and took over land all the time. There is no part of the continent that is held by the original human that arrived here first. Every part has been conquered and reconquered many times. The Europeans are just the latest conquerors. Except in the cases where they literally bought the land. Which also happened.
It turns out they were temporary too, as they were not able to defend their lands. Now we are the locals.
Again, unless you are going to condemn them for any attempt made in their defence, then you can't condemn us. Be consistent, else it's just plain racism.
Side note: if you think ICE is brutal you should read what early European settlers had to endure...
Again, if you're going to condemn Europeans for any actions committed in the course of colonisation and support the natives' right to violent defence of their territory, then you must also grant the current custodians of the territory the right to violent defence against illegal immigrants whose heinous crimes against our people make for often-shocking headlines.
Yes, and just like we will eventually be displaced (violently or not) by new arrivals as well, since "might makes right," correct?
It's just how it goes: white settlers kick brown (Indian descended with some European blood) Mexicans off their land, later brown Mexican descendants jump border into the USA to get that land back, white settler descendants kick them away again but demographics means those white settler descendants are going to get displaced one way or the other.
The math of growth curves doesn't lie. Trump is just a last racist hurrah for what was and what isn't meant to be anylonger.
