People who choose detention: What does good look like?

[ken_sylvania]

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.

I suppose that argument could be used against just about any kind of law enforcement. Is it an obvious good to lock up a married man for tampering with emissions systems on diesel trucks? Is it an obvious good to levy a fine against a man who has small children to feed?

[Bootstrap]

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.

I suppose that argument could be used against just about any kind of law enforcement. Is it an obvious good to lock up a married man for tampering with emissions systems on diesel trucks? Is it an obvious good to levy a fine against a man who has small children to feed?

Except that this man wasn’t ignoring the legal system — he was using it. He overstayed years ago, but he later married a U.S. citizen and filed for adjustment of status. He received work authorization and was participating in the process the law provides for someone in his position.

I’m not arguing that married people should be exempt from the law. And if there is a valid removal order — including a still-valid 2009 order — then the government has legal authority to enforce it. That factual question matters.

But removal requires a lawful basis and lawful process. And even when authority exists, enforcement always involves discretion. That’s true in criminal law and immigration law alike. Judges exercise judgment. Prosecutors exercise discretion. Agencies decide how and when to enforce.

So the question isn’t whether laws should be enforced. It’s whether they are being enforced lawfully, proportionally, and in a way consistent with the constitutional limits that protect all of us.

[JohnH]

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.

He overstayed in 2009. He received a notice to appear before immigration court in 2025. After that notice, he got married (in spring of 2025).

Like you have wished we would do, he got a speedy appearance in front of immigration court and was ordered deported. The legal path of adjusting his status does not excuse him from detention because he is currently present unlawfully.

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.

His case was already adjudicated in September 2025. He has filed appeals to try to remain in the country, as is his right. The flip side of this is that the government can decide to hold him in detention whilst he is waiting. Considering he ignored prior orders from ICE going back to 2009, this is reasonable of them to do so.

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.

His case was adjudicated in September 2025 and he was ordered to leave the country. (He could wait in Ireland to wait until his equivalent to a green card is approved.) So he had a valid, lawful order for removal.

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.

Did you miss the part where he is wanted in Ireland on criminal charges, and has been wanted since 2009, which is probably why he came into the U.S., overstayed, and chooses to stay in detention instead of return to Ireland?

He could apply for residency for his wife in Ireland if they really want to stay together; however, I am pretty sure he knew about his difficulties he would have being legally present in the U.S. before he chose to get married to an American.

[JohnH]

I’m not arguing that married people should be exempt from the law. And if there is a valid removal order — including a still-valid 2009 order — then the government has legal authority to enforce it. That factual question matters.

It's interesting how you say "if there is". Is there a reason to think the orders for his removal aren't lawful?

You said you want "speedy" immigration courts. He got that. He got a speedy immigration hearing before his adjustment of status was approved.

But removal requires a lawful basis and lawful process. And even when authority exists, enforcement always involves discretion. That’s true in criminal law and immigration law alike. Judges exercise judgment. Prosecutors exercise discretion. Agencies decide how and when to enforce.

Wait... so which do you want? Do you want a lawful basis and lawful process, or do you want "discretion"?

So the question isn’t whether laws should be enforced. It’s whether they are being enforced lawfully, proportionally, and in a way consistent with the constitutional limits that protect all of us.

Do you think Irish people, white people, and Western Europeans are somehow being treated unlawfully, disproportionately, and in a way inconsistent with Constitutional limits?

What exactly do you assert is going on here?

Do you think it is lawful for him to try to stay in the U.S. to avoid facing justice for the criminal charges levied against him in 2009 in Ireland?

[ken_sylvania]

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.

I suppose that argument could be used against just about any kind of law enforcement. Is it an obvious good to lock up a married man for tampering with emissions systems on diesel trucks? Is it an obvious good to levy a fine against a man who has small children to feed?

Except that this man wasn’t ignoring the legal system — he was using it. He overstayed years ago, but he later married a U.S. citizen and filed for adjustment of status. He received work authorization and was participating in the process the law provides for someone in his position.

I’m not arguing that married people should be exempt from the law. And if there is a valid removal order — including a still-valid 2009 order — then the government has legal authority to enforce it. That factual question matters.

But removal requires a lawful basis and lawful process. And even when authority exists, enforcement always involves discretion. That’s true in criminal law and immigration law alike. Judges exercise judgment. Prosecutors exercise discretion. Agencies decide how and when to enforce.

So the question isn’t whether laws should be enforced. It’s whether they are being enforced lawfully, proportionally, and in a way consistent with the constitutional limits that protect all of us.

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?

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?

I don't know if the guy was following the rules or not, and I'm not saying he wasn't. I'm just asking the questions. I totally do not trust the US Government to tell the truth about things like this.

[JimFoxvog]

What does good look like? The golden rule describes it. The Bible teaching to treat foreigners as the native born answers the question.

[JohnH]

What does good look like? The golden rule describes it. The Bible teaching to treat foreigners as the native born answers the question.

Where does the NT say this? (I don’t follow OT law.)

[JimFoxvog]

What does good look like? The golden rule describes it. The Bible teaching to treat foreigners as the native born answers the question.

Where does the NT say this? (I don’t follow OT law.)

Jesus taught what we call the golden rule in Matthew 7.12, Luke 6.31, and Mark 12.31. Jesus told us that loving God and neighbor summarizes the Old Testament law that we should follow. The teaching of treating foreigners as the native-born is one part of loving our neighbor as ourselves.

We live in a fallen world. Our leaders are fallen sinners. I do not expect governments to follow what the Bible teaches is good. That doesn't mean it isn't good.

[JohnH]

What does good look like? The golden rule describes it. The Bible teaching to treat foreigners as the native born answers the question.

Where does the NT say this? (I don’t follow OT law.)

Jesus taught what we call the golden rule in Matthew 7.12, Luke 6.31, and Mark 12.31. Jesus told us that loving God and neighbor summarizes the Old Testament law that we should follow. The teaching of treating foreigners as the native-born is one part of loving our neighbor as ourselves.

Would you extend this to voting?

[JimFoxvog]

Would you extend this to voting?

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