[ylow]

Its not so complicated. Not everyone wants a green card. It triggers international taxation, exit taxes if you give it up, etc. If you can maintain a work permit for 20 years, why not? Until life circumstances change sufficiently that it makes sense to have a green card, the balance of pros and cons may not lean towards it.

[colmmacc]

I don't support this kind of detention, but the case reads like he overstayed his original conditions of entry.

According to the court order, he entered the US on the Visa Waiver Program in 2009. He may have a work permit now because anyone can file for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) through an I-765 while they are applying for a green card through marriage, but there's no indication that he had work permits before that. I've encountered Irish people throughout the US in similar situations.

[ylow]

Whether he did really have valid work permits, or not, I have no idea. You seem knowledgeable. But I am just generally mildly frustrated by people online jumping to conclusions assuming malice or criminal intent, while knowing nothing about the US immigration process. It is not surprising that people don't know how US immigration works. Why would one need to unless it is something you have to work with? There are so many misunderstands about H1B, GC, etc.

I do agree that really that the core issue is not with this one particular case, but broadly a pattern of how people are treated, and a failure of due process. People make mistakes. Governments are made up of people who also make mistakes. Process is how you catch mistakes and minimize its occurrence. A failure of due process reduces trust that even fully legal aboveboard immigrants will be treated reasonably and fairly. And that is reducing my confidence that I will be staying in this country long term.

[ivewonyoung]

> You seem knowledgeable. But I am just generally mildly frustrated by people online jumping to conclusions assuming malice or criminal intent, while knowing nothing about the US immigration process

The other side of the coin is that outlets like the Guardian have been intentionally omitting details and writing misleading headlines and stories in order to exaggerate things in a partisan manner. If the person's immigration status from 2010 to mid 2025 was legal, they would've posted that. They have been literally quoting his lawyer in the article. There's been several dozens of such intentionally misleading articles.

[jeffbee]

This article is about a man whose human rights are being violated. When you argue about whether or not he should have been arrested based of parsing the facts and the law, you are putting yourself on the same side as Stephen Miller. There is no ethical basis to afflict this treatment on anyone, so everything in your post after the first comma shouldn't be there.

[palmotea]

> If you can maintain a work permit for 20 years, why not?

But did he? The OP is mum on the matter about what kind of work permit he had for the 19 years before applying for a green card last year. If he did have some kind of work permit, it sounds like a really strange situation. The article says was running his own business, was he sponsoring himself on a temporary worker visa or something?

Given the gaps in the article, I think it's fairly likely he didn't have work permit until recently, and was working here illegally for most of that 20 years.

[ylow]

There is no obligation to provide the public with his life story. Even if provided, few really understand the US immigration process to really comprehend what it means. And finally, does it matter? Even if deportation is fully legally and ethically justified, do the ends justify the means?

[palmotea]

> There is no obligation to provide the public with his life story.

There is an obligation that a reputable newspaper will publish all relevant facts. The initial version of this article was misleading and appeared to omit relevant context to create a sympathetic story.

However, the article has since been updated:

> Culleton entered the US in 2009 on a visa waiver programme and overstayed the 90 day-limit but, after marrying a US citizen and applying for lawful permanent residence, he obtained a statutory exemption that allowed him to work, [his lawyer] told the Guardian. “He had a work-approved authorisation that is tied to a green card application,” she said.

> ...

> Culleton said that when he was arrested he was carrying a Massachusetts driving licence and a valid work permit issued as part of an application for a green card that he initiated in April 2025. He has a final interview remaining.

So it sounds like he was living and working illegally in the US from 2009 until April 2025. It's not clear to me if "statutory exemption" should legally shield him from deportation. Some cursory LLM searches say it doesn't, but I don't think that's definitive.

> And finally, does it matter? Even if deportation is fully legally and ethically justified, do the ends justify the means?

What do you mean? Does the ends of having enforced laws justify enforcing the law? There's a lot going on with this administration an immigration that's totally unjustifiable (like deporting people to random countries with poor human rights records that they have no connection to), but deporting someone who appears to have long violated immigration law back to their home in a first-world country is not some moral outrage. Trying to promote this case into an outrage does no one any good. It only undermines the credibility needed to call out real outrages.

[pas]

the relevant facts would be, whether this guy has a criminal record. the rest is (legal) bullshit.

laws are a (social) technology, enforcing them blindly is just as stupid as any kind of extremism, like "just ban private property" or "just let the market sort it out" and everything in between, and around. ("yes, all men" and so on.)

after all there are laws about detention too. if I were DHS I'd be very afraid not to get picked up by law enforcement for breaking them. oh wait. :(

and yes, there's a political goal. the polity wants to remove some people. the machinery is set to work. still, there are better and worse ways to do this. keeping this guy in this hunger games box is more expensive and less humane than putting him on a plane to Ireland.

[palmotea]

> the relevant facts would be, whether this guy has a criminal record. the rest is (legal) bullshit.

That's just your opinion, and a controversial one.

> after all there are laws about detention too. if I were DHS I'd be very afraid not to get picked up by law enforcement for breaking them. oh wait. :(

And honestly, detention conditions/process along with ICE tactics are where the focus should be, which are egregious and unacceptable and there seems like a consensus against them. But it's overreach to try to delegitimize all deportations or those of non-criminals, and that works against addressing the more serious issues. IMHO, polarization and overreach in the other direction gives the ICE abuses more cover than they'd otherwise get.

> and yes, there's a political goal. the polity wants to remove some people. the machinery is set to work. still, there are better and worse ways to do this. keeping this guy in this hunger games box is more expensive and less humane than putting him on a plane to Ireland.

Honestly, I think that could probably happen pretty fast if the guy wanted it. It seems like this guy is fighting his deportation through a PR campaign (e.g. drum up sympathetic coverage and hope that the rules are bent for the white guy).