People who choose detention: What does good look like?

[barnhart]

Would you extend this to voting?

I believe the teachings of Jesus should inform every aspect of our lives.

I believe this as well but voting is not a part of my life.

[Neto]

On one of our return trips to Brazil we met a Brazilian man & his American wife, and after our flight was diverted to another airport (in Brazil), we visited with them during the long lay-over. He had come to the States illegally, in ignorance of the law. (And I tended to believe him, that he really didn't know that entering the US as he did was illegal.)

After he had worked off his 'entry fees' from the 'trafficer' who got him across (which took about 10 years), he moved to Kentucky and met a woman there. He went to their county courthouse to apply for a marriage certificate (still not knowing that he was in the country illegally), which was apparently granted, although the county then reported him as an illegal, and he was deported. She went with him. So being deported does not need to break up a marriage. That would be the choice of the American spouse. (I'm guessing that the US authorities didn't inform them of any legal options they might have had, to be able to appeal the deportation.)

How could he, and his American wife, not have known the law? He was from a small back-water town in Rondonia, and she was an Appalachian mountain girl. I believed them.

[JohnH]

On one of our return trips to Brazil we met a Brazilian man & his American wife, and after our flight was diverted to another airport (in Brazil), we visited with them during the long lay-over. He had come to the States illegally, in ignorance of the law. (And I tended to believe him, that he really didn't know that entering the US as he did was illegal.)

After he had worked off his 'entry fees' from the 'trafficer' who got him across (which took about 10 years), he moved to Kentucky and met a woman there. He went to their county courthouse to apply for a marriage certificate (still not knowing that he was in the country illegally), which was apparently granted, although the county then reported him as an illegal, and he was deported. She went with him. So being deported does not need to break up a marriage. That would be the choice of the American spouse. (I'm guessing that the US authorities didn't inform them of any legal options they might have had, to be able to appeal the deportation.)

How could he, and his American wife, not have known the law? He was from a small back-water town in Rondonia, and she was an Appalachian mountain girl. I believed them.

People can get married regardless of immigration status.

A lot of people get married for economic immigration benefits. An easy test is if they are willing to live in either spouse’s country (or a third country willing to take both of them). If they aren’t there is a major problem.

Utah allows “virtual weddings” which are conducted remotely and both people don’t have to be present together. Often people apply for immigration benefits who aren’t even living together. Needless to say they often are denied a visa and it’s hard for me to see how this is a bad thing. I don’t think marriages for immigration benefits shown be promoted.

[Bootstrap]

In some ways yes, he was using the legal system. But was he also ignoring the requirements that he didn't like? If he is legally allowed only 90 days in the US without a visa - it seems like weasel words to say "He overstayed years ago" as if his overstay isn't a current, ongoing action. You say he was participating in the process the law provides for someone in his position - and maybe he was, but was he following the law? Does the law say he gets to stay in the US without a visa as long as he is applying for one?

Yes, that's the right question - what does the law say?

The law you are looking for is 8 USC 1255: Adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person admitted for permanent residence, and that's basically what it says.

8 U.S.C. §1255 allows certain people who were legally admitted into the U.S. to apply for “adjustment of status” without leaving the country. For spouses of U.S. citizens, Congress specifically removed the normal penalties for overstaying. That means they can remain while the application is processed.

This isn’t a loophole. It was written deliberately into the law.

The reason is that once an American citizen is married and living with their spouse here, forcing the spouse to leave can mean years of separation or forcing the American citizen to leave their own country. Congress decided that protecting American families was more important than requiring couples to separate just to complete paperwork abroad.

I can sympathize with the man - I know someone who married a non-US citizen and it was a tough couple of years for them to not be allowed to come to the US together until proper visas could be obtained. But if we're going to talk about the laws being enforced evenly, why should someone get priority and be allowed to stay in the US while his green card application is processed just because he broke the rules when other people who are following the rules are made to wait outside the US?

The law reflects values as well as rules. One of those values is family unity. Congress decided that protecting American families from prolonged separation was important enough to justify allowing in-country adjustment for spouses.

[Bootstrap]

People can get married regardless of immigration status.

A lot of people get married for economic immigration benefits. An easy test is if they are willing to live in either spouse’s country (or a third country willing to take both of them). If they aren’t there is a major problem.

Utah allows “virtual weddings” which are conducted remotely and both people don’t have to be present together. Often people apply for immigration benefits who aren’t even living together. Needless to say they often are denied a visa and it’s hard for me to see how this is a bad thing. I don’t think marriages for immigration benefits shown be promoted.

These are legitimate questions for judges to consider, but I don't think online forums are a place for us to make these judgements about others.

Suppose you were an immigrant receiving government benefits. Would you want an online forum to debate the validity of your marriage? Some things are clearly just negative gossip, the kind the Bible warns against.

[Bootstrap]

Immigration courts. Fund them, and these cases can be done with quickly.

If you don't do that, prisons are MUCH more expensive than just letting people live their lives while they wait. And much more expensive than simply funding the immigration courts.

Now that we know the details, it really is that simple.

They were already following the process laid out in 8 U.S.C. §1255. ICE detained him anyway, even though he had a pending adjustment application and a work permit.

If someone is eligible to adjust status and has a case pending, the question is really how to handle the case efficiently and humanely. Immigration courts are severely backlogged. Detention is expensive. Allowing people with pending legal cases to live and work while their case proceeds is far less costly than holding them in detention.

If the backlog is the problem, the obvious solution is to fund the courts adequately so cases can be resolved promptly. The goal is to enforce the law, not to punish people and make a spectacle of them.

If the goal is to enforce the law, then do it fairly and efficiently. Detaining someone who is already in the legal process, with a work permit and a family here, doesn’t fix the backlog. It just shifts the burden of the system’s own delays onto vulnerable families.

[JohnH]

Immigration courts. Fund them, and these cases can be done with quickly.

If you don't do that, prisons are MUCH more expensive than just letting people live their lives while they wait. And much more expensive than simply funding the immigration courts.

Now that we know the details, it really is that simple.

They were already following the process laid out in 8 U.S.C. §1255. ICE detained him anyway, even though he had a pending adjustment application and a work permit.

If someone is eligible to adjust status and has a case pending, the question is really how to handle the case efficiently and humanely. Immigration courts are severely backlogged. Detention is expensive. Allowing people with pending legal cases to live and work while their case proceeds is far less costly than holding them in detention.

If the backlog is the problem, the obvious solution is to fund the courts adequately so cases can be resolved promptly. The goal is to enforce the law, not to punish people and make a spectacle of them.

If the goal is to enforce the law, then do it fairly and efficiently. Detaining someone who is already in the legal process, with a work permit and a family here, doesn’t fix the backlog. It just shifts the burden of the system’s own delays onto vulnerable families.

Are any laws not being followed?

Do you have any commentary on him being a fugitive from justice from Ireland?

Do you think fugitives should be given green cards?

[Bootstrap]

Now that we know the details, it really is that simple.

They were already following the process laid out in 8 U.S.C. §1255. ICE detained him anyway, even though he had a pending adjustment application and a work permit.

If someone is eligible to adjust status and has a case pending, the question is really how to handle the case efficiently and humanely. Immigration courts are severely backlogged. Detention is expensive. Allowing people with pending legal cases to live and work while their case proceeds is far less costly than holding them in detention.

If the backlog is the problem, the obvious solution is to fund the courts adequately so cases can be resolved promptly. The goal is to enforce the law, not to punish people and make a spectacle of them.

If the goal is to enforce the law, then do it fairly and efficiently. Detaining someone who is already in the legal process, with a work permit and a family here, doesn’t fix the backlog. It just shifts the burden of the system’s own delays onto vulnerable families.

Are any laws not being followed?

That’s exactly what the courts are for. They can decide. He had a pending application under §1255 and work authorization, which means he was already in the legal process Congress created for people in his position.

The question is whether detention is necessary while that decision is pending. I don't think that's what "good" looks like.

[JohnH]

That’s exactly what the courts are for. They can decide. He had a pending application under §1255 and work authorization, which means he was already in the legal process Congress created for people in his position.

The question is whether detention is necessary while that decision is pending. I don't think that's what "good" looks like.

If someone is a fugitive from justice in Ireland, would you feel detention may be appropriate whilst awaiting this decision? (As a reminder, they already made their decision, but he lodged an appeal, which is why it is taking longer.)

[Bootstrap]

That’s exactly what the courts are for. They can decide. He had a pending application under §1255 and work authorization, which means he was already in the legal process Congress created for people in his position.

The question is whether detention is necessary while that decision is pending. I don't think that's what "good" looks like.

If someone is a fugitive from justice in Ireland, would you feel detention may be appropriate whilst awaiting this decision? (As a reminder, they already made their decision, but he lodged an appeal, which is why it is taking longer.)

If he were an actual public safety threat, detention would make sense. But a low-level offense under appeal isn’t the same as being a dangerous fugitive. Let the courts decide — detention should be based on real risk, weighed against the cost of tearing apart a family and their livelihood.