I get that, and veering over to the other side to avoid a badger or something is understandable, but why would you stay on the other side at that point instead of going back to the road you were originally on? There must be some detail not reported to the public that made it make sense.
"There must be some detail not reported to the public that made it make sense."
Is something people say over and over to try NOT to accept bad things happen a lot to innocent people. It's not always in bad faith and I am not saying it is for you (though it increasingly IS online especially), since we are generally taught as long as we are "good" that it will all be ok and that authority are the good guys. But real life proves that not to be the case much of the time and this disconnect is hard for people to accept so they say things like the above...blame victims...call it fake news etc.
For me it's a natural reaction to seeing sensationalized stories. Step back and ask yourself what the reporter is leaving out of the story, especially when the story seems outrageous on the surface.
Sometimes the story is completely right, but a lot of times they're omitting key details that make it much more sensible.
If that! When I visited northern MN, the boundary waters area, I could have very easily strayed into Canada on the back roads I was traveling. They weren't even paved, there were no ditches, it's mostly water/marsh/swamp up there.
There's just some small road signs here and there notifying of the need to cross into Canada via the checkpoints on the main roads, but they're often posted where you enter the unmaintained gravel road - not right at the border. These back roads were established long before we cared about crossing the Canadian border. If you happen to be camping or canoeing in the area for an extended period, it's very likely you'll get turned around and accidentally go north instead of south on one of these back roads and find yourself in Canada when you get back to driving.
Furthermore since they're not really well maintained, it's possible you'll be taking turns to avoid washouts or other obstructions like fallen trees. You might stray into Canada just to reach your destination because the preferred route is out of service.
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the entire border between the US and Canada has fencing or other barriers. Sometimes there's just a road with an easily-missed sign or plaque. For example: https://www.quora.com/Are-there-really-parts-of-the-US–Canad...
There are loads of spots along the border there where the US/Canada separation is only a grassy median [0]. So it's odd but not unbelievable.
There's an even more extreme example to the east near Vermont where the border runs through individual buildings in the town of Stanstead [1,2] and there are just white lines on some streets you're not supposed to cross.
Pretty funny that there's no street view for the laneways crossing the border in your second line. The SV driver was like "yeah nope, not going there."
Honest question: How are people supposed to cross the border right there? Clearly there's a maintained and passable road there -- there's a stop sign, and then a white line where the border is. Are you supposed to have some pre-approval like TSA pre-check? Call ahead? Stop and wait for a Border Agent to come running out of the library? Go by better to ask forgiveness than ask permission?
The article does say "South of Vancouver". I'm from the Vancouver area and I can't say I've seen random unmarked roads crossing the border (there are some exceptions further east including some campgrounds that are in the US but are only accessible from the Canadian side). It's pretty easy to accidentally cross the border on foot though.
Over the last few months there have been a lot more stories about the US/Canada border. Apparently a lot more people are getting barred arbitrarily from entering the US.
I would normally expect these sort of incident should be resolved with a warning and returning to the other country. It seems for some reason someone decided to make an example out of these guys.
Not sure why the parent is being downvoted. More detail of what happened would surely be informative. Ideally including the perspective of the arresting officer. Why were they pulled over? Why did he suspect they were in the country illegally? Lots of unanswered questions here.
They claim that they were stopped for crossing the border.
> Michael turned onto an unmarked road and moments later, multiple police cars and Border Patrol agents appeared and told him: ‘You crossed an international border’, the family claim.
I wonder how much money the US government is going to waste on arresting, holding, processing, and then deporting people who would have turned around and left if asked.
Can confirm, I was detained by the INS back in the 90s, with my US passport in hand, because I didn't look "American" enough. After holding me for a couple hours I was dismissed with no apology and no explanation, though a customs official helpfully explained that I "looked like a terrorist".
According to another article, the Canadian border police wouldn't let them back in. It's a shady story— two of the "holidaymakers" had recently been denied US visas and were carrying $16,000 (USD!) in cash
there is the option for a border agent to inspect documents and persons/property like an entry inspection, but the problem occurs when the crossing is not a designated port of entry. They dont have to throw the book at them like they did but "r'spect muh athoritay !" seems to be the predominant mentality.
A grey area where you don't have any rights, if they don't like anything about you they can just put you on the next return flight.
That's if they let you fly there in the first place. I know someone who was denied access because they had a criminal record from over a decade ago, even though it was a minor offence (no prison sentence). This is a UK citizen, so you can imagine how much more difficult it is for someone from a less favourable country.
This is advice for Brits from the US Embassy:
"Can you advise me if my arrest, caution, conviction will prevent me from traveling visa free and registering under ESTA?
We cannot advise whether a traveler’s specific situation will have a bearing on their eligibility to travel visa free under the Visa Waiver Program. Our advice is that if you have ever been arrested, cautioned or convicted you apply for a visa."
Cautioned! You don't even need to be convicted or even arrested for an offence.
One thing I've noticed with the culture of law-enforcement in the US is that there seems to be a mental divide of people into bins of "criminals" and "not criminals."[1] People in the second bin get treated reasonably and people in the first bin get zero benefit of the doubt.
By breaking the law, these travellers got sorted into the "criminals" bin and are now treated like shit. In addition, the high punitive nature of merely being arrested means that probable cause has replaced due process in our system. If a LEO treats you like a criminal (i.e. like human garbage) and has probable cause to do so, you are left with essentially no legal recourse.
1: There's also a 3rd bin of "law enforcement" but that is tangential to this article.
It makes more sense when you realize the two bins are also labeled “not white” and “white.”
(Which also explains the shock white people experience when circumstances result in them being sorted into the “not white” bin — suddenly they’re experiencing treatment from law enforcement they otherwise would never see.)
It is more subtle than that. In most cases a female PoC in business attire is more likely to be sorted into the "not criminal" bin than a white man with a typical "white trash" look.
The racism comes in when you compare reactions to casually dressed white vs casually dressed PoC. And it gets dialed up even higher if the PoC is showing any ethnic styles.
If you use a model of "Random officer X encounters random citizen Y" if citizen Y is a PoC, they are more likely to be prejudged into the "criminal" bin, but this is not the only factor (gender, inferred socioeconomic class, &c. will also play a role).
This is very different than labeling the bins "not white" and "white"
> In addition, the high punitive nature of merely being arrested means that probable cause has replaced due process in our system.
Going beyond that, border patrol has special leeway above and beyond what regular law enforcement can do. They don't need a warrant or even probable cause to search you or your property, and they've been known to intentionally mislead people about their rights and detain them without access to an attorney or a phone call. It's pretty much anything-goes.
I may be extrapolating too much but it seems this is an aspect of American culture in general. We dichotomize things a lot it seems, from the two party system, to culture war. Even when trying to get rid of a dichotomy, like gender activist culture which tries to get rid of gender dichotomy, is ironically still putting people into two bins of being an ally or not.
First, I think there's some trouble in your statement about irony, because you're generalizing all Americans and some perspectives on Americans and then saying they contradict each other. Contradictions aren't valid when they're based on hand-wavy generalizations.
But second, to your point, polarization is studied, and it has grown in American as well as elsewhere on the planet. I've been listening to the Argument Ninja podcast [0] about the topic, as well as reading the series by Tim Urban [1] to better understand what's happening, and hopefully learn what, if any, solutions (and hope) exist.
Oh the irony bit was just pointing out how it even occurs in groups of people that are trying to get rid of a dichotomy (that there are more than two genders), but ironically they still form a different kind of dichotomy. (not taking sides here just supporting initial argument)
I see this a lot in the US: The "Good Guy" vs. "Bad guy" theme is very commonly used, and portrayed news, politics, film, etc.
I find this to be a dangerous oversimplification. I have never met a single "bad person".
All humans are driven by desires, fears within the constraints of their environment.
Some of decisions turn for the better, others for the worse.
All criminal activity I have seen comes from people who have manoeuvred themselves into bad situations, from which they can't entangle.
So they resort to violence or other kinds of criminal activity in order to bring themselves to a seemingly better place.
I don't want to make excuses for anyone, but the idea that someone is a "bad" or "good" person, just does not make any sense.
I love your optimistic view but lets be real..there are truly evil people in the world. It makes no sense to say we are all only just products of our environment or you could excuse any action that way. Yes people get into situations and I don't think that in most cases it defines that person, like say a person who committed and assault, I think they can go on to live a good life helping little old ladies across the street, but there are just broken toys out there that truly in my mind have little use on this earth. Back in the day the faces of death videos were popular, I can't stomach that stuff but every once in a while someone would suggest I "check this out" and it would be some video of some guy being skinned alive or something. You will not convince me after seeing that, that some people are not truly evil.
>By breaking the law, these travellers got sorted into the "criminals" bin and are now treated like shit.
Only its immigration law so its civil not criminal law.
That's the biggest mental divide I come across, there is a certain group that is very quick to label people as "illegal immigrants" or "illegal aliens" or just plain "illegals". Of course the intent is to convey and suggest illegal = criminal. This group can't wrap their mind around the fact immigration status isn't a crime.
It's only civil for a first infraction, like the people in this story. Disobeying any immigration order or being deported and then returning is civil and criminal.
No. As a preliminary matter there is no such thing as an immigration infraction.
>Disobeying any immigration order...
There is nothing special about an "immigration order" its a court order, the same as any other court order and has nothing to do with ones immigration status.
>or being deported and then returning is civil and criminal.
This 2nd part just goes to my point about mental divides, no where did you mention after deportation the vast majority of deportees have a temporary bar to return and thereafter they may return legally...again this goes to your attempted point about "first infractions." People get deported multiple time, it doesn't become a criminal case after the first deportation.
>Illegal entry (8 usc 1325)
This is/was generally waived as a matter of policy for a first offence.
That isn't an Immigration Law, that is a criminal law. An Immigration Court wouldn't have jurisdiction over those cases. Whether you are a citizen or non citizen if you illegally enter the country thats a crime, and in either case you would go before a criminal court not an immigration court. Again immigration status is not a crime.
>So immigration order might not be 100% accurate, but it's no more wrong than calling it a court order.
Federal Immigration Judges would disagree, Immigration Court is a...Court, and Immigration Judge's issue Court Orders, subject to the same penalties as violating any other court order.
It's a criminal law that has direct bearing on a person's ability to immigrate. Immigration status directly affects the penalties of 8 usc 1325 & 1326. ICE/CBP is going to enforce both.
>Federal Immigration Judges would disagree
They can disagree all they want, but only do it when it's convenient. They're arguing right now they don't even have decision making making capabilities, and can only do what's directed by the executive branch (for the sake of keeping their union). The DOJ can single handily over-rule any order signed by an immigration judge. They're a completely different animal than Article III courts. And so are the orders that they generate.
Can they be enforced by federal officers? Yes, but that's my point, the whole immigration system is complicated and is comprised of many different aspects of government and law.
But you can't split hairs on the intricacies between civil and criminal law (when for immigration, they're highly interwoven) and at the same time argue that a subsidiary of the executive branch should be treated as if it's part of the judiciary branch.
>Again immigration status is not a crime
The article is about crossing the border. By foreigners without a visa. Illegally.
>But you can't split hairs on the intricacies between civil and criminal law (when for immigration, they're highly interwoven)
Its not splitting hairs, its how the law and courts work. There is a difference between civil and criminal laws and courts.
Point to a single Immigration Court case where the Court has sentenced someone to jail/prison for a criminal act. You can't because Immigration Courts don't have jurisdiction over criminal cases.
>The article is about crossing the border. By foreigners without a visa. Illegally.
No criminal charge was brought against these folks. They are NOT in a federal prison awaiting a federal criminal case. They are in an Immigration Detention Facility waiting to appear before a civil Immigration Judge.
Could criminal charges be filed? sure, but then the Immigration Court would lose jurisdiction, they would go to a Federal Prison and appear before a Federal Criminal Court for the criminal case. Even if they were sentenced for the crime of illegal boarder crossing and sentenced to prison, they would serve their term in a federal prison not in a immigration detention facility, and likely ICE would be waiting outside the prison the day they get released and ICE would re-detain them, put them back in a Federal Immigration Detention Center pending civil removal (deportation proceedings) in Immigration Court.
one of the elements of a crime is the formulated intent.
if you kill someone with the intent to do so, you are commiting murder. if you didnt intend to harm someone, but were intentionally negligent with your parking brake and someone dies, you didnt intend to harm , thus notmurder, but manslaughter, or negligent harm of some sort is the crime.
these people didnt intend to cross the border illegally, most certainly the passengers didnt, and i would estimate, they all would have surrendered to inspection and turned around to disembark,given the choice
1- the civil aspect handles part of this. It only requires equitable enforcement.
2- the act of traveling on the road was intentional, even if they were lost. What you are arguing would be more applicable if they were in a wreck, and pushed across the border. But even that is a stretch.
They may have been advised of this, hence playing up the "swerved to not hit an animal" part of their story.
I think it was "avoiding wildlife" rather than swerving.
in that region there are herds of caribou, buffalo and sometimes quite contrary pods of moose. The traffic delay can be extreme as you have to wait for them to move on, as it is a major offense to interfere with wildlife migration, even tangentially. a lot of people get lost or stranded on a fire/logging road trying to skirt around the crossing.
Ive encountered such people many times and helped them out to the road. I do have to wonder if there was a hue of skin that was stimulating to those border agents, no mention of anything like that, so im left to wonder about it. Most border agents in those areas are quite cordial and deal with hikers and hunters all the time, usually its just a matter of showing passport, explaining what your doing and where you crossed, then turn around and dont make the same mistake for a long while.
I don't know why I read it that way, but you're right. "Avoiding wildlife." I had a picture of an unavoidable turn in my head.
Which maybe goes to show they're being a bit over-ambiguous. Or maybe I just read it wrong.
>a hue of skin that was stimulating to those border agents, no mention of anything like that
If they weren't white, they almost certainly would have mentioned it, with the story being so sympathetic to their victimhood. The media doesn't pass on the chance to play up racism for stories like these.
What I said is "status is not a crime." Illegal entry into the Country is a crime, whether you are a citizen or not, its a crime.
Nevertheless, these people were not charged with a crime or illegally entering the Country, nor does Immigration Court have jurisdiction over criminal cases.
They are currently being held in an Immigration Detention Center and facing removal (deportation), thats civil, not criminal.
If they were charged with a crime, they would 1st go to criminal court. It happens all the time, an undocumented person commits a crime (of fraud or moral turpitude), gets charged, found guilty, serves time, then upon release from jail/prison ICE is there to meet them, detain them in a Immigration Detention Center/facility while they face the civil Immigration case.
Just because they weren't charged with a crime doesn't mean they weren't arrested for a crime. People get arrested for crimes they are never charged for all the time.
[edit]
> The occupants were arrested for illegally entering the US without inspection. During processing, records revealed the two adults that had previously been denied access to the US, CBP said on Tuesday.
>People get arrested for crimes they are never charged for all the time.
Yes and the point is we don't call those folks "illegals."
You responded to my comment, specifically:
>This group can't wrap their mind around the fact immigration status isn't a crime.
Your pointing to a criminal charge that has nothing to do with my point. Sure citizens and immigrants alike can commit crimes, including illegal boarder crossing, but illegal border crossing has nothing to do with immigration status. Immigration status is itself not a crime.
I was responding to the first half of your comment, not the second, specifically:
>> By breaking the law, these travellers got sorted into the "criminals" bin and are now treated like shit.
> Only its immigration law so its civil not criminal law.
[edit]
And to respond to your second half, colloquially the word "illegal" is used to refer to civil matters all the time (e.g. illegally parked car). Not all undocumented immigrants are here illegally, but those who would be legally deported if discovered are.
>the word "illegal" is used to refer to civil matters all the time (e.g. illegally parked car)
That's referring to a thing not a person. You would not label the owner of that illegally parked vehicle as an "illegal", "illegal car owner", etc... If a person illegally breaches a contract you don't call them a "illegal contractor". The term "illegal" is applied to undocumented immigrants because it fits a narrative.
>By breaking the law, these travellers got sorted into the "criminals" bin and are now treated like shit.
Going back to your illegally parked car, do we put the owner of that illegally parked car in the criminal bin and treat them like shit. Of course not, that would be ridiculous. Undocumented immigrants should be extended the same courtesy, and even if detained and put into civil removal proceedings they should not be treated as criminals or like shit for that matter.
> Not all undocumented immigrants are here illegally, but those who would be legally deported if discovered are.
Sorry, I don't know what your trying to say here. Any undocumented immigrant can be detained and subjected to removal/deportation proceedings at anytime...they don't need to commit any crime for this to happen.
Being put into a prison without a bed and separating a mother from her child for a wrong turn seems like it's criminal, not civil. Civil would be being asked to show up to court, not being imprisoned.
Yes it does seem criminal...but its not. Thats my point Immigrants in detention centers/immigration proceedings are treated like criminals, but they aren't (certainly a immigrant could be a criminal, but thats separate from anything to do with Immigration detention and Immigration Courts).
You only need to see a bad guy try to sweet talk the cops once to understand why law enforcement is so skeptical of anyone with a hint of possible guilt. This is doubly frustrating if you're the victim of a crime.
Not saying it justifies the treatment, but it does explain the binning, to some extent.
@dang
Can we get this article flagged? If I wanted something like this I’d visit /news or /worldnews.
Immigration and the political climate in the US is very hot right now. It’s not the reason I read HN, if you want your rage fix read elsewhere.
> Hacker News Guidelines
What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Significant geopolitical events have become a mainstay of HN, for better or worse. This one is a landmark example because it falls outside of the pattern people have (sadly) grown accustomed to.
Edit: The second sentence was referring to the significance of the event (and why it would therefore be interesting to people on HN); I didn't mean to say the HN post itself was an outlier in some way.
61 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 75.8 ms ] thread> A police officer then pulled them over, told them they were in the US state of Washington and arrested them.
Horrible and inexcusable experience to be sure, but the explanation for how they ended up in the US needs some work.
Did this across a European border by accident. Took us 10 minutes to notice the different style of road furniture.
Is something people say over and over to try NOT to accept bad things happen a lot to innocent people. It's not always in bad faith and I am not saying it is for you (though it increasingly IS online especially), since we are generally taught as long as we are "good" that it will all be ok and that authority are the good guys. But real life proves that not to be the case much of the time and this disconnect is hard for people to accept so they say things like the above...blame victims...call it fake news etc.
Sometimes the story is completely right, but a lot of times they're omitting key details that make it much more sensible.
There's just some small road signs here and there notifying of the need to cross into Canada via the checkpoints on the main roads, but they're often posted where you enter the unmaintained gravel road - not right at the border. These back roads were established long before we cared about crossing the Canadian border. If you happen to be camping or canoeing in the area for an extended period, it's very likely you'll get turned around and accidentally go north instead of south on one of these back roads and find yourself in Canada when you get back to driving.
Furthermore since they're not really well maintained, it's possible you'll be taking turns to avoid washouts or other obstructions like fallen trees. You might stray into Canada just to reach your destination because the preferred route is out of service.
There's an even more extreme example to the east near Vermont where the border runs through individual buildings in the town of Stanstead [1,2] and there are just white lines on some streets you're not supposed to cross.
[0] https://goo.gl/maps/XasmFG9Ms6FJUUsRA
[1] https://goo.gl/maps/5aWrrN5TjuE8ennS7
[2] https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/stanstead-town-bor...
Edit: I'm not sure that these still exist as a standalone thing. They may have been phased out after 9/11.
Over the last few months there have been a lot more stories about the US/Canada border. Apparently a lot more people are getting barred arbitrarily from entering the US.
I would normally expect these sort of incident should be resolved with a warning and returning to the other country. It seems for some reason someone decided to make an example out of these guys.
> Michael turned onto an unmarked road and moments later, multiple police cars and Border Patrol agents appeared and told him: ‘You crossed an international border’, the family claim.
From: https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/15/british-family-jailed-swervin...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50067575
That's if they let you fly there in the first place. I know someone who was denied access because they had a criminal record from over a decade ago, even though it was a minor offence (no prison sentence). This is a UK citizen, so you can imagine how much more difficult it is for someone from a less favourable country.
This is advice for Brits from the US Embassy: "Can you advise me if my arrest, caution, conviction will prevent me from traveling visa free and registering under ESTA? We cannot advise whether a traveler’s specific situation will have a bearing on their eligibility to travel visa free under the Visa Waiver Program. Our advice is that if you have ever been arrested, cautioned or convicted you apply for a visa."
Cautioned! You don't even need to be convicted or even arrested for an offence.
By breaking the law, these travellers got sorted into the "criminals" bin and are now treated like shit. In addition, the high punitive nature of merely being arrested means that probable cause has replaced due process in our system. If a LEO treats you like a criminal (i.e. like human garbage) and has probable cause to do so, you are left with essentially no legal recourse.
1: There's also a 3rd bin of "law enforcement" but that is tangential to this article.
(Which also explains the shock white people experience when circumstances result in them being sorted into the “not white” bin — suddenly they’re experiencing treatment from law enforcement they otherwise would never see.)
The racism comes in when you compare reactions to casually dressed white vs casually dressed PoC. And it gets dialed up even higher if the PoC is showing any ethnic styles.
If you use a model of "Random officer X encounters random citizen Y" if citizen Y is a PoC, they are more likely to be prejudged into the "criminal" bin, but this is not the only factor (gender, inferred socioeconomic class, &c. will also play a role).
This is very different than labeling the bins "not white" and "white"
Going beyond that, border patrol has special leeway above and beyond what regular law enforcement can do. They don't need a warrant or even probable cause to search you or your property, and they've been known to intentionally mislead people about their rights and detain them without access to an attorney or a phone call. It's pretty much anything-goes.
fixed wording
But second, to your point, polarization is studied, and it has grown in American as well as elsewhere on the planet. I've been listening to the Argument Ninja podcast [0] about the topic, as well as reading the series by Tim Urban [1] to better understand what's happening, and hopefully learn what, if any, solutions (and hope) exist.
[0] https://kevindelaplante.com/podcast/
[1] https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/08/story-intro.html
I find this to be a dangerous oversimplification. I have never met a single "bad person".
All humans are driven by desires, fears within the constraints of their environment. Some of decisions turn for the better, others for the worse. All criminal activity I have seen comes from people who have manoeuvred themselves into bad situations, from which they can't entangle. So they resort to violence or other kinds of criminal activity in order to bring themselves to a seemingly better place. I don't want to make excuses for anyone, but the idea that someone is a "bad" or "good" person, just does not make any sense.
Only its immigration law so its civil not criminal law.
That's the biggest mental divide I come across, there is a certain group that is very quick to label people as "illegal immigrants" or "illegal aliens" or just plain "illegals". Of course the intent is to convey and suggest illegal = criminal. This group can't wrap their mind around the fact immigration status isn't a crime.
No. As a preliminary matter there is no such thing as an immigration infraction.
>Disobeying any immigration order...
There is nothing special about an "immigration order" its a court order, the same as any other court order and has nothing to do with ones immigration status.
>or being deported and then returning is civil and criminal.
This 2nd part just goes to my point about mental divides, no where did you mention after deportation the vast majority of deportees have a temporary bar to return and thereafter they may return legally...again this goes to your attempted point about "first infractions." People get deported multiple time, it doesn't become a criminal case after the first deportation.
This is/was generally waived as a matter of policy for a first offence.
The status of being/remaining in the country is a civil matter, and not necessarily criminal.
But crossing the border illegally is criminal.
>court order
It's an immigration "court" order, which is administrative/executive (under the DOJ), and which is not an article III court.
So immigration order might not be 100% accurate, but it's no more wrong than calling it a court order.
That isn't an Immigration Law, that is a criminal law. An Immigration Court wouldn't have jurisdiction over those cases. Whether you are a citizen or non citizen if you illegally enter the country thats a crime, and in either case you would go before a criminal court not an immigration court. Again immigration status is not a crime.
>So immigration order might not be 100% accurate, but it's no more wrong than calling it a court order.
Federal Immigration Judges would disagree, Immigration Court is a...Court, and Immigration Judge's issue Court Orders, subject to the same penalties as violating any other court order.
>Federal Immigration Judges would disagree
They can disagree all they want, but only do it when it's convenient. They're arguing right now they don't even have decision making making capabilities, and can only do what's directed by the executive branch (for the sake of keeping their union). The DOJ can single handily over-rule any order signed by an immigration judge. They're a completely different animal than Article III courts. And so are the orders that they generate.
Can they be enforced by federal officers? Yes, but that's my point, the whole immigration system is complicated and is comprised of many different aspects of government and law.
But you can't split hairs on the intricacies between civil and criminal law (when for immigration, they're highly interwoven) and at the same time argue that a subsidiary of the executive branch should be treated as if it's part of the judiciary branch.
>Again immigration status is not a crime
The article is about crossing the border. By foreigners without a visa. Illegally.
Its not splitting hairs, its how the law and courts work. There is a difference between civil and criminal laws and courts.
Point to a single Immigration Court case where the Court has sentenced someone to jail/prison for a criminal act. You can't because Immigration Courts don't have jurisdiction over criminal cases.
>The article is about crossing the border. By foreigners without a visa. Illegally.
No criminal charge was brought against these folks. They are NOT in a federal prison awaiting a federal criminal case. They are in an Immigration Detention Facility waiting to appear before a civil Immigration Judge.
Could criminal charges be filed? sure, but then the Immigration Court would lose jurisdiction, they would go to a Federal Prison and appear before a Federal Criminal Court for the criminal case. Even if they were sentenced for the crime of illegal boarder crossing and sentenced to prison, they would serve their term in a federal prison not in a immigration detention facility, and likely ICE would be waiting outside the prison the day they get released and ICE would re-detain them, put them back in a Federal Immigration Detention Center pending civil removal (deportation proceedings) in Immigration Court.
if you kill someone with the intent to do so, you are commiting murder. if you didnt intend to harm someone, but were intentionally negligent with your parking brake and someone dies, you didnt intend to harm , thus notmurder, but manslaughter, or negligent harm of some sort is the crime.
these people didnt intend to cross the border illegally, most certainly the passengers didnt, and i would estimate, they all would have surrendered to inspection and turned around to disembark,given the choice
2- the act of traveling on the road was intentional, even if they were lost. What you are arguing would be more applicable if they were in a wreck, and pushed across the border. But even that is a stretch.
They may have been advised of this, hence playing up the "swerved to not hit an animal" part of their story.
in that region there are herds of caribou, buffalo and sometimes quite contrary pods of moose. The traffic delay can be extreme as you have to wait for them to move on, as it is a major offense to interfere with wildlife migration, even tangentially. a lot of people get lost or stranded on a fire/logging road trying to skirt around the crossing.
Ive encountered such people many times and helped them out to the road. I do have to wonder if there was a hue of skin that was stimulating to those border agents, no mention of anything like that, so im left to wonder about it. Most border agents in those areas are quite cordial and deal with hikers and hunters all the time, usually its just a matter of showing passport, explaining what your doing and where you crossed, then turn around and dont make the same mistake for a long while.
Which maybe goes to show they're being a bit over-ambiguous. Or maybe I just read it wrong.
>a hue of skin that was stimulating to those border agents, no mention of anything like that
If they weren't white, they almost certainly would have mentioned it, with the story being so sympathetic to their victimhood. The media doesn't pass on the chance to play up racism for stories like these.
IANAL, but up to 6 months in prison for first infraction under Title 18 (which is US Criminal code).
There are additionally civil penalties.
Nevertheless, these people were not charged with a crime or illegally entering the Country, nor does Immigration Court have jurisdiction over criminal cases.
They are currently being held in an Immigration Detention Center and facing removal (deportation), thats civil, not criminal.
If they were charged with a crime, they would 1st go to criminal court. It happens all the time, an undocumented person commits a crime (of fraud or moral turpitude), gets charged, found guilty, serves time, then upon release from jail/prison ICE is there to meet them, detain them in a Immigration Detention Center/facility while they face the civil Immigration case.
[edit]
> The occupants were arrested for illegally entering the US without inspection. During processing, records revealed the two adults that had previously been denied access to the US, CBP said on Tuesday.
Source:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50067575
Yes and the point is we don't call those folks "illegals."
You responded to my comment, specifically:
>This group can't wrap their mind around the fact immigration status isn't a crime.
Your pointing to a criminal charge that has nothing to do with my point. Sure citizens and immigrants alike can commit crimes, including illegal boarder crossing, but illegal border crossing has nothing to do with immigration status. Immigration status is itself not a crime.
>> By breaking the law, these travellers got sorted into the "criminals" bin and are now treated like shit.
> Only its immigration law so its civil not criminal law.
[edit]
And to respond to your second half, colloquially the word "illegal" is used to refer to civil matters all the time (e.g. illegally parked car). Not all undocumented immigrants are here illegally, but those who would be legally deported if discovered are.
That's referring to a thing not a person. You would not label the owner of that illegally parked vehicle as an "illegal", "illegal car owner", etc... If a person illegally breaches a contract you don't call them a "illegal contractor". The term "illegal" is applied to undocumented immigrants because it fits a narrative.
>By breaking the law, these travellers got sorted into the "criminals" bin and are now treated like shit.
Going back to your illegally parked car, do we put the owner of that illegally parked car in the criminal bin and treat them like shit. Of course not, that would be ridiculous. Undocumented immigrants should be extended the same courtesy, and even if detained and put into civil removal proceedings they should not be treated as criminals or like shit for that matter.
> Not all undocumented immigrants are here illegally, but those who would be legally deported if discovered are.
Sorry, I don't know what your trying to say here. Any undocumented immigrant can be detained and subjected to removal/deportation proceedings at anytime...they don't need to commit any crime for this to happen.
Not saying it justifies the treatment, but it does explain the binning, to some extent.
Might have a case for lawsuit arguing alienation of affections:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_affections
Immigration and the political climate in the US is very hot right now. It’s not the reason I read HN, if you want your rage fix read elsewhere.
> Hacker News Guidelines
What to Submit On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Edit: The second sentence was referring to the significance of the event (and why it would therefore be interesting to people on HN); I didn't mean to say the HN post itself was an outlier in some way.