[TodPunk]

I'm willing to concede the term "criminal" in exchange for "unlawful entrant" in this instance. Using "criminal" is actually a bit more than what was deserved for describing both her treatment and her infraction. At the time it seemed to flow better, but I'm all for accuracy.

[lambda]

Actually, I can't think of many other civil offenses that warrant detention; so it is somewhat out of place that a civil offense such as using the wrong type of travel authorization by accident results in treatment that is generally reserved for people who have (or are suspected to have, with reasonable suspicion) committed a criminal act. Complaining about treatment that is generally reserved for criminals, or those strongly suspected of being criminals, for a simple bureaucratic error, is a fairly reasonable complaint.

This whole situation occurred because a convenience feature, which allows you to do a fully automated system to get an approval to board a plane to the US, didn't actually properly check for the legality of entering, so they were only ever determined to be using the wrong type of authorization once they had already arrived, leaving no choice but to detain them at the airport in order to deport them. And this is a pretty crappy situation; a very difficult to navigate bureaucracy, that seems to offer a convenience feature to allow an easy way around it, and then makes you waste a flight and be detained for a day just to be flown back again because you're not an expert on the intricacies of immigration law, is a pretty crappy system.

I agree that some of her rhetoric may have been a bit over the top, but it is a pretty awful situation to have been put in, and it seems like there would be much, much more efficient and humane ways of working around it.

[retrogradeorbit]

I agree with all of your points. Very salient. Though, judging by a lot of (presumably) American's comments on this thread, this is the way American's want it. There seems to be a lack of understanding of the intricacies of the law, and a general nastiness that if you fall afoul and are treated harshly, like a criminal, then it's your fault.

I guess it makes sense. The country hasn't become a prison state with the highest incarcerated population in the world by thinking clearly and acting commensurately.

[TodPunk]

I'm agreeing with you that "criminal" was too strong a word. I edited a couple words in to see if that could be made more clear. (I also agreed from the get-go that the immigration system needs reform. It's one of the worst in the world by any measure.)

[lambda]

Yeah, I got that you were agreeing about the word "criminal"; it just sounded like you were objecting to her using the term "criminal" for her treatment as well, and I was pointing out that since this is one of the few ways in which a civil offense can lead to detention, that that's actually not as bad a characterization as I think you were making it out to be.

Anyhow, sounds like on the real issue as opposed to arguing semantics, we're in fairly strong agreement. This immigration system is baroque, inhumane, inefficient, and the results actually run counter to what the system is supposed to be doing.