Washington state employee and 6-year-old son detained by ICE

[JD2 175]

49 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Sure they do, CBP also has the discretion to not parole her in.  This is really on her though, she needed to make sure she had proper documentation to re-enter.

So we can judge was this a good use of discretion?  I think the answer is clearly no.

Edited August 15 by JD2

[Dashinka 26,107]

28 minutes ago, JD2 said:

So we can judge was this a good use of discretion?  I think the answer is clearly no.

Why is that?  If she had been trying to check in for a flight to the US with her situation, would she have been allowed to board?  Why does she deserve special treatment for not having her documents in order?

[Dashinka 26,107]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

In my mind the logical action would have been to refuser had admission and send her back to Canada, however this seems not possible where the person is not Canadian.

 

Similar ish to the Canadian Lady who sought entry from Mexico on an a TN.

I agree, Canada was not really an option.

[JD2 175]

1 minute ago, Dashinka said:

Why is that?  If she had been trying to check in for a flight to the US with her situation, would she have been allowed to board?  Why does she deserve special treatment for not having her documents in order?

Flights and land borders have always been treated differently.  Airlines have to pay for return fare so they consider their risk.  It's not CBP usually it's airline agents (and even they have discretion too).  Do you really think a paperwork error deserves getting put in detention, your kid losing school or daycare days, your savings being depleted?  Imagine what that is like for her and her family.  Unless there's something else we don't know, this situation screams discretion.

[Crazy Cat 45,247]

16 minutes ago, JD2 said:

Do you really think a paperwork error

"paperwork error" ? It could be called a failure to obtain a proper, approved entry document.  

Edited August 15 by Crazy Cat

[Crazy Cat 45,247]

Her Go Fund Me is currently at $57K+.

Edited August 15 by Crazy Cat

[Dashinka 26,107]

21 minutes ago, JD2 said:

Flights and land borders have always been treated differently.  Airlines have to pay for return fare so they consider their risk.  It's not CBP usually it's airline agents (and even they have discretion too).  Do you really think a paperwork error deserves getting put in detention, your kid losing school or daycare days, your savings being depleted?  Imagine what that is like for her and her family.  Unless there's something else we don't know, this situation screams discretion.

Is she paying for detention?  How is her savings being depleted?  Also, I am not aware of airlines having discretion relative to allowing anyone to board a flight without some form of documentation accepted in the Carrier Guide.  I imagine if an airline employee let's someone on a plane without proper or verified entrance documentation, it could be that employee paying for the cost of having to fly the person back.  In the end, it is the person's responsibility to have their documents in order (not sure where you are going with "paperwork error", elaborate please.  I can imagine what it is like for her and her family, but it of her own making.  When she left the US without proper re-entry documentation or a valid visa, what was the CBP officer supposed to do?  Ideally, she would have been turned around, I don't believe someone from NZ has to have a visa for Canada, so she could have returned to the airport and got on the next flight to Auckland.

[JD2 175]

22 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

"paperwork error" ?

That's the language from the article.

 

1 minute ago, Dashinka said:

Is she paying for detention?  How is her savings being depleted?  Also, I am not aware of airlines having discretion relative to allowing anyone to board a flight without some form of documentation accepted in the Carrier Guide.  I imagine if an airline employee let's someone on a plane without proper or verified entrance documentation, it could be that employee paying for the cost of having to fly the person back.  In the end, it is the person's responsibility to have their documents in order (not sure where you are going with "paperwork error", elaborate please.  I can imagine what it is like for her and her family, but it of her own making.  When she left the US without proper re-entry documentation or a valid visa, what was the CBP officer supposed to do?  Ideally, she would have been turned around, I don't believe someone from NZ has to have a visa for Canada, so she could have returned to the airport and got on the next flight to Auckland.

Did you read the article?  Her savings being depleted is literally in the article.  If you are plucked out of your life and put in detention, you think your bills just stop?  I can't believe I'm having to say this.  And my spouse forgot her GC at home when we went to Cancun and the Consulate told us the Carriers have discretion and one option was to try to board without her GC.  I've posted about the experience before and copied what the Consulate's email said.

[Dashinka 26,107]

3 minutes ago, JD2 said:

That's the language from the article.

 

Did you read the article?  Her savings being depleted is literally in the article.  If you are plucked out of your life and put in detention, you think your bills just stop?  I can't believe I'm having to say this.  And my spouse forgot her GC at home when we went to Cancun and the Consulate told us the Carriers have discretion and one option was to try to board without her GC.  I've posted about the experience before and copied what the Consulate's email said.

Having to say what?  Doesn't she now have a fairly large charity site now, seems her savings is growing.   Where does the discretion end?  What if discretion is used and it turns out it is not the case of a relatively harmless person entering the US at the discretion of a CBP officer that just met her.  The simple fact is this was her issue and her consequences.  Your spouse got lucky, he could have easily been turned around as CBP does not always follow what the DoS says.  Anyway, it is enough of the debate, she had no documentation to re-enter the US, sure detention was probably not the best course, but I doubt she could return to Canada.  If she had come to VJ, would you have advised her to go to Canada without AP? 

[Crazy Cat 45,247]

23 minutes ago, JD2 said:

That's the language from the article.

I know.  It sounds a lot like "undocumented".

[JD2 175]

15 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Having to say what?  Doesn't she now have a fairly large charity site now, seems her savings is growing. 

Yea, great system we have.  Great use of people's money.

 

17 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

What if discretion is used and it turns out it is not the case of a relatively harmless person entering the US at the discretion of a CBP officer that just met her.

You can concoct countless scenarios.  What if this New Zealander mother is actually a secret member of Tren de Aragua?  Or a secret member of Hamas?  Or both groups simultaneously?  By that logic we should never use discretion ever.  They should make reasonable judgments based on the facts before them.  Y'all are going to logical extremes to defend this admin's cruel, unforgiving policy (like the other side did to defend Biden's overly generous asylum policy).

[Boiler 47,887]

Well if this is the new route no need for Consulate Processing, head for the Border enter on HP and file to adjust.

[Dashinka 26,107]

13 minutes ago, JD2 said:

Yea, great system we have.  Great use of people's money.

 

You can concoct countless scenarios.  What if this New Zealander mother is actually a secret member of Tren de Aragua?  Or a secret member of Hamas?  Or both groups simultaneously?  By that logic we should never use discretion ever.  They should make reasonable judgments based on the facts before them.  Y'all are going to logical extremes to defend this admin's cruel, unforgiving policy (like the other side did to defend Biden's overly generous asylum policy).

Yes, the pendulum swings.  I am curious as to how you believe she was actually admissible short of being given HP? 

[yuna628 9,899]

1 hour ago, JD2 said:

Flights and land borders have always been treated differently.  Airlines have to pay for return fare so they consider their risk.  It's not CBP usually it's airline agents (and even they have discretion too).  Do you really think a paperwork error deserves getting put in detention, your kid losing school or daycare days, your savings being depleted?  Imagine what that is like for her and her family.  Unless there's something else we don't know, this situation screams discretion.

I can imagine what she's going through is a terrible experience. However, it is one that she got herself into. Sure, I could perhaps in a reasonable scenario after investigating the facts of the case find that she deserves grace. But that is not what the law does. It is doubtful that it will be given to her, and in this instance how can we get people to take their literal lives and status in this country seriously? No one thinks that they will be getting into an accident when they don't put on a seatbelt or drink alcohol.... and yet, it happens over and over again. And no, the government has never made things easy for people to understand or realize they are going to make a mistake beforehand. It's intentional I imagine.

1 hour ago, Crazy Cat said:

"paperwork error" ? It could be called a failure to obtain a proper, approved entry document.  

I don't think I could call it paperwork error... more like subject did not understand how these things work and in their ignorance failed to consider what would happen. Should we in some future world decide to give people some kind leniency for genuine mistakes? For instance some sort of penalty that would be less life altering?

1 hour ago, Crazy Cat said:

Her Go Fund Me is currently at $57K+.

 Good lord! Really? She's nearly going to beat the other guy's fund. Well I'm sure the lawyer will get paid.

[Boiler 47,887]

$57,643 raised
 

just now and no link easy to find if you want to.

 

Horribly misleading thought they had rules about that.

Edited August 15 by Boiler