MennoNet.com

One of the oddities of American immigration law is that when someone is ordered removed (popularly known as "deportation"), they have certain administrative rights that can suspend this removal. For example, they can assert a variety of defences that don't give them legal presence in the U.S., but do stop a removal action.

Part of this law is that when someone decides to open such a case, they are subject to detention. The government could choose to just let them out with no bond, require a large bond, give them conditions like wearing an ankle monitor, or just put them in detention. They do have a right to leave detention at any time if they decide to accept removal. An example of this is a national of Ireland who decided to overstay a visa in the U.S. a decacde or two ago, was ordered removed, never left the country, and finally over a decade later got caught. He then asserted a defense.

He didn't want to leave the country, so he decided to go in to detention instead.

Now the issue at hand is that the detention facilities have never been intended to be a place someone stays 3 or 4 or 10 years while exhausting every possible legal avenue they might have to avoid removal. The way things are supposed to work is that if you're ordered removed, you go back your home country (in his case, Ireland), unless you have a really compelling reason not to. I can't think of any reason it's some kind of hardship for someone to be sent to Ireland. But nonetheless, he does have a right to choose to be in detention indefinitely.

This is a thread to discuss what the "good" looks like in this case. I do think laws should be executed fairly, including letting people do things that don't make sense to me, but that are their right to do. Some people seem to prefer being in detention in America over going back to their home country like Ireland.

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.

Bootstrap wrote: ↑Thu Feb 12, 2026 11:55 amImmigration courts. Fund them, and these cases can be done with quickly.

They already exist. The legal strategy that is employed is to find something to file for that takes as long as possible. Whether we like it or not, people do have a right to make all kinds of legal filings, and lawyers advise their clients to file things that take a long time.

It is impossible to make every possible legal procedure happen quickly. How much funding do you want the immigration courts to have? What other needs in America should not be met so that more funding can go to immigration courts for migrants who play these sort of legal games

Should we cut food stamps? National defence? Social Security? Healthcare for seniors? Disability?

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.

The immigration courts are funded. Can you point to any solid evidence the problem is a lack of funding?

Legal procedure takes time. There are mandatory notice periods and so on built into the law. And some migrants take advantage of this to try to runthe clock out.

At some point, the correct answer is "If you were ordered removed in 2008, it's time for you to go back to Ireland." If he has a legitimate reason to immigrate into the U.S., he can lodge his application for a visa from Ireland. Ireland is an entirely safe country, as much as America is.

There are only hundreds of immigration judges, not thousands. Judges often carry case dockets in the thousands per judge. Even if a judge can complete several hundred cases per year, a docket of several thousand cases means delays that take years.

Courts in high-volume jurisdictions are setting first appearances one to three years out, and total pending cases are in the millions. If someone files today and their first hearing is scheduled 18–36 months in the future, that delay occurs before any motions, appeals, or continuances. That’s docket congestion, not legal maneuvering.

So what does "good" look like? I don't think "good" looks like waiting years for a first hearing. If that's a given, then I don't think "good" looks like imprisoning them during that time, which is not only needlessly cruel, it is also more expensive.

Bootstrap wrote: ↑Thu Feb 12, 2026 1:33 pm So what does "good" look like? I don't think "good" looks like waiting years for a first hearing. If that's a given, then I don't think "good" looks like imprisoning them during that time, which is not only needlessly cruel, it is also more expensive.

In the case of the Irishman, he overstayed backin 2009 and was ordered removed then. He decided not to do so.

He had his immigration appeals heard and was issued a final order of removal in 2025. For various reasons, he has decided to stay in detention in an American detention facility instead of returning to Ireland.

So what is the "doing good" in this situation? He clearly wants to be in detention in America vs. being returned to Ireland. The judges already heard his case and issued their decision. But he just keeps filing more stuff so he can stay here longer.

JohnH wrote: ↑Thu Feb 12, 2026 1:38 pm

Bootstrap wrote: ↑Thu Feb 12, 2026 1:33 pm So what does "good" look like? I don't think "good" looks like waiting years for a first hearing. If that's a given, then I don't think "good" looks like imprisoning them during that time, which is not only needlessly cruel, it is also more expensive.

In the case of the Irishman, he overstayed backin 2009 and was ordered removed then. He decided not to do so.

He had his immigration appeals heard and was issued a final order of removal in 2025. For various reasons, he has decided to stay in detention in an American detention facility instead of returning to Ireland.

So what is the "doing good" in this situation? He clearly wants to be in detention in America vs. being returned to Ireland. The judges already heard his case and issued their decision. But he just keeps filing more stuff so he can stay here longer.

I don't know what grounds he is filing on, and to what courts. Because I know nothing about the case, I really cannot comment. "more stuff" doesn't tell me if it has any merits.

Has this been reported publicly? Is it possible to find the basic facts?

“3 hots and a cot” is an old saying.

Originally and chiefly American English, the slang phrase three hots and a cot means:
three daily meals plus a bed for the night—i.e., basic food and shelter.

This phrase is principally used in relation to the military, to prison, and to shelters for homeless people.
https://wordhistories.net/2025/08/22/th ... s-and-cot/

Bootstrap wrote: ↑Thu Feb 12, 2026 2:50 pm

JohnH wrote: ↑Thu Feb 12, 2026 1:38 pm

Bootstrap wrote: ↑Thu Feb 12, 2026 1:33 pm So what does "good" look like? I don't think "good" looks like waiting years for a first hearing. If that's a given, then I don't think "good" looks like imprisoning them during that time, which is not only needlessly cruel, it is also more expensive.

In the case of the Irishman, he overstayed backin 2009 and was ordered removed then. He decided not to do so.

He had his immigration appeals heard and was issued a final order of removal in 2025. For various reasons, he has decided to stay in detention in an American detention facility instead of returning to Ireland.

So what is the "doing good" in this situation? He clearly wants to be in detention in America vs. being returned to Ireland. The judges already heard his case and issued their decision. But he just keeps filing more stuff so he can stay here longer.

I don't know what grounds he is filing on, and to what courts. Because I know nothing about the case, I really cannot comment. "more stuff" doesn't tell me if it has any merits.

Has this been reported publicly? Is it possible to find the basic facts?

Yes.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -detention

JohnH wrote: ↑Thu Feb 12, 2026 4:21 pm

Bootstrap wrote: ↑Thu Feb 12, 2026 2:50 pm Has this been reported publicly? Is it possible to find the basic facts?

Yes.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -detention

OK, so he did overstay his visa. But since then, he married a U.S. citizen and applied for lawful permanent residence. As part of that process, he was granted work authorization. He was following the legal path available to him for adjusting his status through marriage.

Culleton entered the US in 2009 on a visa waiver program and overstayed the 90-day limit. But after marrying a US citizen and applying for lawful permanent residence, he obtained a statutory exemption that allowed him to work.

Is his application for lawful permanent residence the “more stuff” you were talking about? That’s the standard legal process for someone in his position. It’s not automatic, and a pending application doesn’t by itself prevent removal proceedings — but applying for adjustment of status through a U.S. citizen spouse is precisely what immigration law provides for in this situation.

And when you say he “chose” detention, that seems misleading. According to reporting, he was apprehended by ICE while out in Massachusetts, and an immigration judge later issued a removal order. The government says he was offered the option of voluntary departure; he and his lawyer are contesting aspects of the case. That’s very different from saying he voluntarily chose to be detained.

ICE first apprehended Culleton while he was outside a Home Depot in Saugus, Massachusetts, where he was in the process of returning items he had purchased, said Okoye. She believes that agents identified him as a non-citizen by running his license plate.

He is married, employed, his wife lives in Boston, and they clearly intend to continue their life together. Whatever one thinks about immigration enforcement in general, it’s hard to see breaking up a marriage in the middle of an ongoing adjustment process as an obvious good.

Bootstrap wrote: ↑Thu Feb 12, 2026 4:39 pm He is married, employed, his wife lives in Boston, and they clearly intend to continue their life together. Whatever one thinks about immigration enforcement in general, it’s hard to see breaking up a marriage in the middle of an ongoing adjustment process as an obvious good.

"let not man put asunder"