You apparently haven't been keeping track of all the madness.
First of all, the immigration laws aren't rational. The states aren't "legal" and "illegal", but "documented" and "undocumented". It's often the case that The Official Way To Do Things can cause you to transition from a "documented" state to an "undocumented" state and back again while in the country. Part of what people like the author are trying to do is to help people who made the documented -> undocumented transition to complete their undocumented -> documented transition before ICE an export them somewhere.
Secondly, ICE has basically been given a target of 500k people to expel. They've always had a reputation for being more on the "bully / asshole" side than normal, and now those people have been given a blank check to crank it up to 11.
Finally, there are clear, documented cases of ICE breaking the law and then trying to play games to get around it. Go look up the Abrego-Garcia case:
1. He came in legally, and was documented -- he had a court order forbidding him from being extradited to El Salvador, and was checking in regularly.
2. They swept him up, erroneously identified him as a gang member, and shipped him out to El Salvador before anyone had a chance to do anything to protest
3. They admitted in court that extraditing him was a mistake; but then said, "Well, he's out of our jurisdiction now, we can't do anything to get him back."
4. When, after months of wrangling, they finally did bring him back, they decided to charge him with a crime for something he did years ago (even though they didn't decide to charge him with anything back then, and had plenty of opportunities to do so earlier).
So basically, 1) The immigration laws are broken: not just and not really follow-able 2) ICE often don't follow the law unless browbeaten by the courts to do so 3) they often try to entirely avoid the courts by playing jurisdictional games.
There's a good reason that large numbers of intelligent, dedicated patriots are organizing to oppose ICE.
> Part of what people like the author are trying to do is to help people who made the documented -> undocumented transition to complete their undocumented -> documented transition before ICE an export them somewhere.
Can you provide an example of such transition (for the context of the discussion)?
As an example, sometimes the time it takes for things to be processed can be longer than the timeframe one has to actually submit extension paperwork. This can lead to gaps where one loses their status temporarily and may have several months where its illegal for them to work in the country.
> Right to work (i.e., having a valid EAD card) and immigration status are two different things
They're extremely intertwined and often practically the same thing. They become an "illegal migrant" for continuing to work to pay for groceries and rent while not having a lawful status allowing such activity. A deportable offense, correct?
> Their workloads increased significantly over the past 3-4 years due to various factors, unfortunately.
Good job showing your true colors. Issues like this have existed for decades. I know of people that struggled in this exact scenario in the 90s and 2000s, and I was only a child at the time. Maybe we should have passed that bipartisan immigration bill the orange man said no to which would have actually funded processing the workload. In the end though this administration doesn't want these people, they want to send them to prison camps. You can tell by watching what they do, raiding people showing up to their court proceedings, sending them to hellhole detention facilities without any due process, and ignoring court decisions.
> They're extremely intertwined and often practically the same thing.
Well, no? You can have a valid status but without right to work. For example, B1/2 or F-2 visas.
> They become an "illegal migrant" for continuing to work to pay for groceries and rent while not having a lawful status allowing such activity.
This is not true. Working without authorization is simply that: unauthorized employment. By itself it does not lead to become an illegal immigrant. However, it can jeopardize future changes in status, etc.
> Good job showing your true colors.
What?
> I know of people that struggled in this exact scenario in the 90s and 2000s, and I was only a child at the time.
Which are what?
> Maybe we should have passed that immigration bill the orange man said no to which would have actually funded processing the workload.
Biden could have done it during his term in 2020-22: he had both the senate and the house. Yet, he didn’t. It’s extremely naive to think that lack of reform is due to Trump. No party is interested in changing the status quo. Especially, if you consider how anti illegal immigration the Democratic Party was pre 2021 or so (enough to watch Bernie’s interviews pre 2020).
Working without authorization is being an illegal migrant being an "illegal immigrant". They're doing things here not allowed by any kind of visa or authorization they may or may not have. Kind of one of the problems with the term, you'll define it one way while others will define it another.
You're showing your true colors suggesting this issue happened during Biden's term, and now you're both sides-ing the issue. One side's solution was passing an immigration reform bill and hiring more judges and administration to handle the influx in applications. The others is to send people to CECOT and other prison camps with no due process (even those with legal status) and ignore the courts. They're not the same.
> Working without authorization is being an illegal migrant being an "illegal immigrant".
No. Illegal immigrant is someone who entered without inspection, or someone who overstayed their visa (e.g., B1 tourist admitted for 90 days, and who failed to leave the US). See here, for example, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/illegal_immigrant
In contrast to that, the same individual on B1 visa admitted for 90 days who decided to work without authorization, and caught, will not be considered illegal immigrant, because they are in the country legally even though they violate some terms of their visa. Of course, when caught they probably will be deported, which again won't make them illegal immigrants.
I do not know why can accept that these are two different definitions. I personally know F-2 visa holders who had to not work between EADs. It did not make them illegal immigrants, because they had a valid status.
> You're showing your true colors suggesting this issue happened during Biden's term, and now you're both sides-ing the issue. One side's solution was passing an immigration reform bill and hiring more judges and administration to handle the influx in applications. The others is to send people to CECOT and other prison camps with no due process (even those with legal status) and ignore the courts. They're not the same.
I am sorry, but I do not plan to engage in emotions and hypotheticals as it is not constructive and leads nowhere.
Like, say, continuing to work the job even after their work visa expired?
> I personally know F-2 visa holders who had to not work between EADs. It did not make them illegal immigrants
I'm not talking about those people who lawfully stop working during that window, I'm talking about those who do not have that luxury to coast for 90+ some odd days. I do not know why you can't seem to understand it.
Actually, I do. Because you're the kind of person who acts like our immigration woes happened 3-4 years ago.
> will not be considered illegal immigrant
You're narrowly defining "illegal immigrant" as someone without any visa status. Most others would include violating the terms of their lawful admission, aka working when they're on a tourist visa. There isn't an official government definition to "illegal immigrant" under the law.
> engage in emotions and hypotheticals
These statements are not hypotheticals. They are detaining those with lawful status. They are sending people to CECOT without due process. They are ignoring court opinions. The Republican party did vote down a bipartisan bill in the end because Trump didn't want it. You appear to not engage with reality.
> Like, say, continuing to work the job even after their work visa expired?
Yes? I've literally wrote it in my comment.
> I'm not talking about those people who lawfully stop working during that window, I'm talking about those who do not have that luxury to coast for 90+ some odd days.
I do not understand what does it have to do with anything? Definitions are definitions, and reasons for violating the terms of the visa are reasons for violating the terms. Do you want to call anyone one who is not the citizen illegal immigrant? Be my guest.
> Because you're the kind of person who acts like our immigration woes happened 3-4 years ago.
I have no idea what are you talking about. If you can, please form a coherent argument.
> These statements are not hypotheticals. They are detaining those with lawful status. They are sending people to CECOT without due process. They are ignoring court opinions. The Republican party did vote down a bipartisan bill in the end because Trump didn't want it. You appear to not engage with reality.
What reality? How old are you?
I am old enough to remember that in the beginning of Obama's administration Democrats controlled both the senate and the House, as well as the presidency. Was it Trump that prevented them from fixing the immigration system?
This is hacker news, not reddit. Try to engage like an adult.
> Their workloads increased significantly over the past 3-4 years due to various factors, unfortunately.
Must be outside of your context window. You were clearly drawing in the idea this backlog of cases and immigration state we're in is the result largely from Biden's term. I see no other real reason to include such a statement. It's been true for decades.
> Do you want to call anyone one who is not the citizen illegal immigrant? Be my guest.
Not what I'm suggesting in the slightest. Reread my statements to find out more.
> What reality?
Denying obvious facts. Incredible. Please inform yourself to the reality of today before engaging. I'm not going to continue engaging with people who can't see what's happening around them and denying clear facts.
> in the beginning of Obama's administration Democrats controlled both the senate and the House, as well as the presidency. Was it Trump that prevented them from fixing the immigration system?
Ah yes, the democrats had four years of control of the government since Obama was elected, they didn't completely solve immigration, therefore they're at fault for sending people to CECOT without due process. Makes total rational sense.
I do blame most of the Democrats for not adequately solving things and running campaigns they seem like they're trying to lose (Beto telling Texans he's going to take away their guns, wtf?), but acting like they're doing the same things is denying reality. It's probably true most of both sides don't really want to fix the problem, but one is building prison camps and sending people to places like CECOT and one is making deferred actions. Quite different wouldn't you say?
The Republicans have been in charge of Congress for most of the last 20+ years. Why haven't they passed meaningful immigration reform? It's not like Biden and Obama vetoed that many immigration bills.
Once again, reconnect with reality again before you reply. Learn what the Trump administration is actually doing before you both-sidesing it more.
> Must be outside of your context window. You were clearly drawing in the idea this backlog of cases and immigration state we're in is the result largely from Biden's term. I see no other real reason to include such a statement. It's been true for decades.
Sure. However, areas I am interested in, become significantly worse the past 3-4 years, e.g., EB2-NIW, and similar categories. I have no idea why you think I mentioned it as a "Biden's fault" comment. But, whatever lol
> Not what I'm suggesting in the slightest.
Then why are you arguing that anyone on a valid visa but engaging in unauthorized work becomes an illegal immigrant?
> Denying obvious facts. Incredible.
Where?
> Once again, reconnect with reality again before you reply.
I am.
> Learn what the Trump administration is actually doing before you both-sidesing it more.
I am not interested, tbh. I have a life. Our convo began with me asking you for an example of a documented-> undocumented->documented transition, and you failed to provide it. Instead, you tried to argue that someone who is on a valid status but engages in unauthorized employment is illegal immigrant, which I disputed. Then, you backtracked, and went on a tangent about Biden, Trump, camps, etc.
> The others is to send people to CECOT and other prison camps with no due process (even those with legal status) and ignore the courts.
> I am sorry, but I do not plan to engage in emotions and hypothetical
> Learn what the Trump administration is actually doing before you both-sidesing it more.
>I am not interested
So just willfully ignorant. Strange how you seem to be so well versed on the topic but choose to bury your head in the sand on anything current.
> Then, you backtracked
I have not changed my stance on anything I've claimed in this entire thread.
> someone who is on a valid status but engages in unauthorized employment is illegal immigrant
I mean, they are. They're overstaying their work visa and are fraudulently applying and staying under a different visa under false pretenses. What do we call people who overstay visas (continuing employment under a temporary work visa) and apply for other visas under false pretenses?
I guess I did fail to show a documented->undocumented->documented, only a legal->illegal->legal change. Sorry, my bad. They're still involved in illegal, undocumented labor. But even then, that's under the assumption they bothered applying for some other visa in the in-between time, not everyone does.
I think this already means that he was in deportation proceedings, no?
My understanding (perhaps not complete, and I would like to learn more) is that he was in deportation process and the only place he could not get deported to was El Salvador.
My understanding is the court said not to send him back to El Salvador (he is from there) because he's an El Salvadorean gang member, and a rival gang would kill him there.
No, that is merely what the US government alleged. There's an allegation from a suspended cop that he is a gang member because he wore a Chicago Bulls hat, and that's all ICE is basing itself on to call him a gang member.
The court said not to send him back to El Salvador because he applied for asylum, and was granted asylum because he faced dangers in El Salvador. Not because he's a gang member, which are allegations that have never been proven.
Ah, yes, "Tired of Being Politically Correct (@USBornNRaised)" is certainly a very accurate source for information, and is definitely not the kind of person that would repost shitty edited pictures for political gain.
Journalists ? Judges ? What's that ? Real americans get their news from random propaganda accounts on X.
You are a liar. Plain and simple. He DID NOT come in legally. He had a deportation order and was granted a "witholding of removal" status in 2019 because he claimed he will face persecution BY MS-13's RIVAL GANG if he were to be deported to El Salvador. The rest of your nonsense can be safely ignored.
So here we have what I think is some of the nonsense of the current laws. My understanding is that how you generally apply for asylum is:
1. Show up in the country one way or another
2. Apply for asylum
So, is #1 "illegal", since he didn't have an official reason to be here long-term when he came into the country? Or is #1 "legal", since the laws for step 2 seem to be written in a way that step 1 is necessary?
If you know more about how asylum actually works, feel free to enlighten me.
> He left El Salvador at the age of 16, around 2011, to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen and was living in Maryland.
> Although he was denied asylum, the immigration judge did issue an order shielding Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he faced credible threats of violence from a gang there that had terrorized him and his family.
Where did you read, "rival gang"? Under what circumstances are you ok with forcibly removing people to other countries without a trial? What scenarios is it ok to do so and also ignore judge's orders?
First of all, the immigration laws aren't rational. The states aren't "legal" and "illegal", but "documented" and "undocumented". It's often the case that The Official Way To Do Things can cause you to transition from a "documented" state to an "undocumented" state and back again while in the country. Part of what people like the author are trying to do is to help people who made the documented -> undocumented transition to complete their undocumented -> documented transition before ICE an export them somewhere.
Secondly, ICE has basically been given a target of 500k people to expel. They've always had a reputation for being more on the "bully / asshole" side than normal, and now those people have been given a blank check to crank it up to 11.
Finally, there are clear, documented cases of ICE breaking the law and then trying to play games to get around it. Go look up the Abrego-Garcia case:
1. He came in legally, and was documented -- he had a court order forbidding him from being extradited to El Salvador, and was checking in regularly.
2. They swept him up, erroneously identified him as a gang member, and shipped him out to El Salvador before anyone had a chance to do anything to protest
3. They admitted in court that extraditing him was a mistake; but then said, "Well, he's out of our jurisdiction now, we can't do anything to get him back."
4. When, after months of wrangling, they finally did bring him back, they decided to charge him with a crime for something he did years ago (even though they didn't decide to charge him with anything back then, and had plenty of opportunities to do so earlier).
So basically, 1) The immigration laws are broken: not just and not really follow-able 2) ICE often don't follow the law unless browbeaten by the courts to do so 3) they often try to entirely avoid the courts by playing jurisdictional games.
There's a good reason that large numbers of intelligent, dedicated patriots are organizing to oppose ICE.