I also strongly suggest people read the ACLU's report Resistance, Retaliation, Repression: Two Years in California Immigration Detention. It's from before Trump 2 but no doubt the issues raised in here have only gotten worse
- forced labor in order to afford to eat. The $1/day "Voluntary Work Program" is necessary to afford enough food and there is retaliation if you refuse (including solitary confinement). CoreCivic sells your labor
- dozens of documented deaths from forced labor and medical neglect
- extensive use of solitary confinement often for "minor disciplinary infractions or as a form of retaliation for participating in hunger strikes or for submitting complaints"
Add to that : "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". Such bullshit
People will just flag it instead, sadly. Concentration camps in full view (or rather, the tip of the iceberg) and people will instead bury their heads.
> The Fifth Circuit has held that the VWP statute “‘unambiguously’ limits an alien’s means of contesting removal solely to an application for asylum.” McCarthy v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 459, 460 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). And once an individual violates the terms of the VWP by remaining in the United States for more than ninety days, the individual is no longer entitled to
contest removal on any other basis. Id. at 462. This is true even when an individual has a pending adjustment of status application on the basis of their marriage to a U.S. citizen. Id. at 460, 462.
> Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10. But he argues that
because USCIS accepted and began processing his adjustment of status application, he is entitled to due process protections in its fair adjudication. Id. at 9. The Fifth Circuit has foreclosed this very argument, reasoning that the VWP waiver includes a waiver of due process rights. See Mukasey, 555 F.3d at 462. And “[t]he fact that [Culleton] applied for an adjustment of status before the DHS issued its notice of removal is of no consequence.” Id.
It's shocking that the court could determine this when the whole process of getting permanent residency involves an adjustment of status that allows you to remain in the country even though your visa has expired so long as your application is being processed (which can take a very long time). You just can't leave the country. So to arrest someone while they are following the steps they're supposed to be following, is similar to entrapment (do X and you'll be ok, then they do X and get arrested).
> So to arrest someone while they are following the steps they're supposed to be following
I think the issue complicating this man’s situation is that it appears when you dig into the details that for nearly 16 years he was skirting the system and only tried getting his legal situation resolved just a few months prior to his detainment. He is choosing to fight it which is resulting in the long detention.
Personally I believe we need some legal carve outs for this type of situation, but there is simply no doubt that this guy made a series of poor decisions prior to April of 2025 that has created the situation he is in.
We have seen many stories like this. Some doubt the authenticity, but what is evident is that these things are happening again and again with impunity. Perhaps you don't think the situation is bad enough, or the details are exaggerated.
However, the fact that a man can be pulled of the street despite having legal status should be alarming. You don't need to care about the Irishman, but you should care about justice.
Immigration enforcement is a hot topic today hence why you see lots of such stories. The reality is the federal gov has been aggressive in its enforcement for decades. ICE took a break during the Obama and Biden years for some reason. Might explain younger people are surprised by the renewed enforcement.
Remember that scene in the show Seinfeld where Babu Bhatt is taken from his house for expired immigration papers? That was in 1993.
> The reality is the federal gov has been aggressive in its enforcement for decades. ICE took a break during the Obama and Biden years for some reason.
ICE was created in 2002 (24 years ago). "The Obama and Biden years" make up a full half of ICE's existence.
> he reality is the federal gov has been aggressive in its enforcement for decades.
Sure there has been enforcement, but nothing that comes even close to what we're seeing today (except for Trump 1.0 when CBP were separating parents and children and putting them in cages; today we have that plus a whole lot more including murdering citizen observers). ICE should never have been created (more of the fallout of the Americans surrendering so much of their civil liberties while panicked about 9/11), but at least it was a regular accountable law enforcement org and not a paramilitary terrorizing American cities (which technically makes it a domestic terrorism org).
> ICE should never have been created (more of the fallout of the Americans surrendering so much of their civil liberties while panicked about 9/11)
ICE was created by stripping some non-enforcement functions out of INS (those became functions of Citizenship and Immigration Services), all of the lack of civil liberties that was found in ICE when it got that name and was put under DHS were already present when it was INS.
The idea that the name change was the point of origin of the problem is a story created in the last couple years by peopel who never paid attention to immigration policy before Trump's first term looking for a convenient excuse that is both systemic (rather than tied to a particular recent administration) and old enough to provide an excuse to make it unnecessary to discuss why certain problems persisted during the Biden Administration between the two Trump terms, but also recent enough to support a narrative that despite being systemic, it is a fairly new systemic change and reverting returns to a known good state that is recent enough that it is not out of touch with modern needs.
The problem is that, if you've paid any attention to immigration policy prior to Trump's first term (especially if it was both before and after the creation of ICE), its pretty hard to either consider the creation of ICE a significant sea change or the prior state a known good state.
The real sea change in the style of enforcement was Trump 1, and it was only partially unwound under Biden as a political decision that preserving a tough border image would avoid an electoral cost by appealing to swing voters with whom Trump's demagoguery on immigration had resonance but who were skeptical of some of his other policies, not because of some inherent structural change created when INS was reorganized into ICE that made ICE inherently and uniquely and incurably bad. But though the sea change was later than the "ICE is only 23 years old, and we can just go back" narrative suggests, the state before the sea change, much further back than the creation of ICE, also wasn't great.
Note that I support disbanding ICE and radically restructuring immigration enforcement alongside restructuring the immigration laws; but not because ICE was only created in 2003 and we had something workable before that, but because the system was broken well before 2003, and only avoided becoming a total shitshow up until Trump 1 because of how prior Administrations used (and in some cases exceeded) the broad discretion given them within the system to prevent that, not because the system was well-designed, well-structured, or resilient. And even then, it worked pretty badly, but in ways that the people not intended to be subject to it could (and did!) mostly ignore.
He overstayed the 90 day fiancé visa. Got married eventually. That should have triggered a 5-10 year bar from re-entering the US.
He could have applied for legal status immediately and it is usually waived if you pass the interview process.
Instead, 20 years later he applied for a green card to get a temporary work permit which is usually granted eligible while applying for permanent residency. So he had no work permit or valid status for 20 years.
5 months in detention seems like a long time. They offered to deport him but he refused and supposedly DHS forged his signatures.
It’s a messy case but he could have avoided the detention if he willingly asked to be deported immediately then fight for immigration status from where he has citizenship.
I don’t think these ends justify the means. It sounds like the government failed early on in what seemed like a benign infraction, and now it is deciding to punish him for it. That’s like getting away with not returning a library book, and then being arrested and taken to prison for thousands in overdue fees when I try to return it later. That’s arbitrary and excessive, hopefully found to be a violation of due process, and should not be defended.
> He overstayed the 90 day fiancé visa. Got married eventually. That should have triggered a 5-10 year bar from re-entering the US.
> He could have applied for legal status immediately and it is usually waived if you pass the interview process.
"Why do people come here illegally? Do it properly!"
I immigrated here from Australia. It would have been cheaper, and faster, to come here on the VWP, get married, and apply for forgiveness, than to do it legally.
Look at our current first lady. Comes here as a working model on a tourist visa. That should also have triggered a ban from re-entering the US.
It's all just such a mess. Revisiting this point:
> He could have applied for legal status immediately and it is usually waived if you pass the interview process.
I got divorced (we had a sincere intent, but we acknowledged we got married sooner than we would if it wasn't for logistics), and missed one of the dates for AOS. To be clear, at that point it's not just that they say "Oh, whatever", it's that the onus is on USCIS to show fraudulent intent. We'd already had some fairly detailed interviews, separately. "What day does the garbage go out? Who usually takes it out? Who is your auto insurance through? What cars do you own between you? What was the last major update done to your home?" and so on, to demonstrate that you'd been living together in a genuine relationship.
As presented, that dude's story as makes little sense to anyone familiar with the immigration process. There is more to this story, I wish the reporter would just tell it.
If it surprises you, then you haven't paid attention to the blatantly unconstitutional actions of DHS in this administration. The purpose is terror and filling deportation quotas, not enforcing immigration law.
Can't you see that they are using immigration questions as an excuse to consolidate power that exceeds immigration enforcement by a large margin? The ability to detain lawful workers or pull people off the street without a warrant from a judge & hold them illegally for a significant duration can become political retaliation or terror tool and a racial profiling vehicle very quickly.
And more over, they basically have proved that the law has no sufficient ability to actually enforce court orders on the ground when the administrative branch is firmly on not obeying them. Even worse, the public opinion has been just mildly annoyed by this - by mildly I mean that only some people decided to bring themselves to the streets, separately and only on the weekends or a single day in most cases.
The city-state of California was playing with fire when they made undocumented workers a political class. The governments only willing to play legal games for so long.
It wasn't the federal government that broke the law first. You can disagree with a law and still follow it. Sanctuary cities don't exist out of the goodness of someones heart. Sanctuary cities exist because they make money at the expense of Americans. (and it's no coincidence these cities have major homelessness problems)
I think you missed my point. I do not deny the existence nor validity of the immigration questions, or whether certain implemented policy is questionable or not. What I tried to argue was that the Trump administration uses those issues, and people's discontent over them, to engineer a mass power consolidation that may do so much harm in the long run (or, probably, within merely a few years) that even if in the process it helps some Americans to gain jobs or whatever it still by no means worth the price yet to be paid.
Did border crossing drop? Yes. Is economy gotta improve? It is complicated like usual. Do these worth to give up a working democracy , i.e. the ability to replace a leader other than waiting for their natural death or committing a revolution? Absolutely not. Democracy's merit isn't that it's the most fair system to pick candidates, but the power to replace leadership without bloodshed and do so within people's lifetime.
What could be the better answer to immigration policy is out of the scope, therefore I would echo the other comment that says this is not about immigration. If this wasn't clear before, it should've been after the two Minneapolis murders and the arrest of Don Lemon, etc etc.
Normalizing paramilitary forces in US cities/areas, especially Democrat-leaning ones. See also early actions of deploying National Guard units (from Southern areas into Northern ones).
It is a salve for the status wound the dimished social and economic station poor white males found themselves in after the civil rights act and the deindustrialization.
It assumes that "I deserve the benefits I or my family once had because I see someone else that now has them."
It sees the social and economic territory as fundamental limited and wants to secure a living space within them.
And it does so by binding to the state and using the state to create that void so that they can regain what they feel was lost.
It must feel amazing, like psychic fentanyl to see what's going down.
These are already arbitrary detentions, well unlawful at least (they're purposeful, just not for legal purposes).
The tens of thousands of detainees aren't being put in hotels... they're going to concentration camps; either in USA where they're forced to work (slavery you might term it, as many (most?) have not broken the law, nor been detained legally); or abroad where the regime's intention appears to be that they die.
You know the revanchist militias who would openly hate everything about our country, while claiming to be "patriots" ? You know how they've been awfully quiet lately ? It's about putting them in charge, at least as far as the bottom-up.
The top-down is something like destroying the United States and subjugating what remains, with many foreign interests aligned here - Russia, China, Big Tech eager to create their surveillance society, religious fundamentalists who just want the world to burn so their ideologies might regain relevance, etc.
Additional context: he claims ICE forged his signature on legal documents.
He should be free while the case proceeds. Seems like exactly the kind of person who is not a flight risk, because the entire reason he’s contesting it is because he’s built a life he doesn’t want to leave.
This is not true. You do not need to be a US resident to register a company, and anyone own shares in a company. There are a variety of visa options, and ways to navigate the process that will work.
I didn't say you needed to be a US resident to register a company.
I said that most pre-GC work-permits (e.g. H1B) don't allow you to own a US-based business. If you're here on a work-permit, they (the govt.) expect you to be an employee of your sponsor, they don't want you to start a business.
To your point,
one can be an investor in a US company without having a US visa/residence/work-permit. Although, to open a business without living in the US, only a handful of states allow this (e.g., Delaware, Wyoming, Nevada).
However, once again, if you are in the US on a work-permit, you need to follow the rules of the work-permit. The rules applicable to non-citizens who are not living in the US on a work-permit may be different.
>I said that most pre-GC work-permits (e.g. H1B) don't allow you to own a US-based business
You can absolutely own a US-based business on a H1B, like you can buy shares in companies, it's just a 100% share. You just cannot work for your company without having an approved H1B from that business or having some other generalized work permit like an EAD.
Most tech startups will be Delaware. And a lot comes down to the definition of "own" which is ambiguous especially as a C-Corp. One may not be CEO, but can be a H1B Co-founder with a non-trivial (for some amount of non-trivial) number of shares. The O-1 far as I can tell allows for startups, and there may be other visa types which I am unaware of.
Really, I am just saying that the statement "you need a GC to own a business" is far too broad a claim to be true.
You are mistaken. Plenty of people own businesses in the US even as foreigners. I don't even have to step into that country to open one, and also not for a transfer of ownership/shares.
My opinion is probably not but this is ultimately a political conversation.
The article is extremely light on details but fact he doesn't have a Green Card/Lawful Permanent Resident yet would indicate that at some point of his time in United States, he was illegally present, probably for a while.
Sure, he's on path, MAYBE (that's up to immigration courts), to legal status but he's not quite there yet and it's one of those "Are we going to forgive past transgressions?"
I know of no other country that locks people up while they process immigration appeals. That's crazy.
Other countries will either summarily deport you and make you resolve your status from outside the country, or let you stay while you appeal and deport you when your appeals are exhausted. Both are sane things to do, this is not.
> Sure, he's on path, MAYBE (that's up to immigration courts), to legal status but he's not quite there yet and it's one of those "Are we going to forgive past transgressions?"
For a productive member of society? Absolutely, bring him in and let him stay.
There are absolutely some immigrants who should be deported for violent crimes and likewise, but they are a tiny minority of immigrants. So when you set quotas far above that, they start rounding up productive members of society to fill the quotas and ignoring the violent criminals because it’s easier to arrest parents and children.
> The article is extremely light on details but fact he doesn't have a Green Card/Lawful Permanent Resident yet would indicate that at some point of his time in United States, he was illegally present, probably for a while.
That is absolutely false. I know many people who have lived legally in the USA for many many years with valid visas and have intentionally never pursued a green card. Two people come to mind including one who has over 20 years the US on valid visas -- she intentionally never pursued the green card despite both (a) being married to an American and (b) being legally able to get the green card.
Some of them are now pursuing green cards only because of federal government's immigration enforcement not only going after illegal immigrants or criminals but clearly and intentionally pursing immigrants in general -- even those who are legal and without any criminal history.
From my understanding on this issue, spouses of US citizens are handed a green card after paperwork is shuffled, there is no pursuing it.
When discussing this with friends, multiple spouses have pulled out green cards and only newly weds had anything else but green card. She showed her passport with some form attached to it.
>From my understanding on this issue, spouses of US citizens are handed a green card after paperwork is shuffled, there is no pursuing it.
This is incorrect. You do need to pursue it. Just because your friends did pursue it once they were able to, doesn't mean it is automatic. One needs to decide if they want to get their green card or not once they are married to a US citizen.
I emphasize that I'm not defending the Trump regime, but do you know this friend well enough to be confident that she would tell you if her visa situation didn't check out? It would be extremely hard to stay in the US for 20 uninterrupted years on valid visas without permanent residency. O-1s are theoretically indefinite but require yearly renewal, and all of the other common visas I know of have maximum durations below 10 years.
Yes, I am 100% certain of what I said. These individuals have had valid visas in the US and been here for 10-20 years and intentionally have never become green card holders.
One was on a student visa for undergrad and then a student visa for masters for 6 years total (4 for undergrad and 2 for masters), then on a G4 diplomatic visa while working at the World Bank for 5 years, then back to a student visa for 5 years pursuing a PhD, then back to a G4 Diplomatic visa for 6 years while working at the World Bank. This person married an American about 10 years ago and still never pursued a green card out of choice.
Another was on a G4 diplomatic visa while working at the IDB for 3 years, then a student visa for 5 years while pursuing a PhD, then a visa while working at the Federal Reserve for a number of years (not sure of which, but either H1B or J1), and then on a G4 diplomatic visa while working at the IMF.
Of course, these are not your typical situations for the average immigrant. Admittedly, I live in a bit of a bubble surrounded by economists in Washington DC from the World Bank, IMF, IDB, etc who are mostly on G4 diplomatic visas.
My point is it is still possible and one shouldn't presume.
Having dealt with US Immigration law, if you are legally present for 20 years, it's extremely difficult not to transition to GC/Citizenship since work visas in United States generally have a limit and any immigration lawyer would have been clear "Either move to GC or you are going home."
Also, despite all the US screaming about "They took our jobs" with immigrants, the US doesn't really hand out work visas all that much and don't really hand it out to blue collar labors at all.
There is a possibility that he's been on legal visa entire time but I'd give extremely good odds that he wasn't. The fact his immigration lawyer doesn't mention it is very telling.
Huh, the headline is very misleading but the article says this:
> Culleton entered the US in 2009 on a visa waiver programme and overstayed the 90 day-limit
> 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
That's about 15 years of illegal stay according to "the facts in the article".
If someones potential illegal presence justifies ICE to massively overstep any legal due process and break laws, then by definition you are ok if somehow Democrates took over the DHS when they got in power, and used the premise of anti-domestic terrorism to illegally detain any person associated with MAGA for any reason and let them starve/die in prison.
No but is ICE 100% breaking the law or just norms? Immigration law is such a mess and key reason we are here. For past 30 years, a lot of immigration "law" has been Executive Branch keeping a broken system going by just going with vibes. Now we have Executive Branch deciding to 100% change the vibes and system is coming apart in real time.
Reading over court filings, there is collision between two laws. First one is, "Those who marry US Citizens can get Green Card regardless of previous US Immigration violations."
Second one is, VWP admits have no rights. If US decides to deport you, out you go with no further discussion.
Biggest takeaway of Trump immigration actions is Congress has fucked up so bad letting system get to this point.
I guess Im glad people like you finally are starting to admit that you authoritarian rule with martial law where people just get shot in the street. That way we don't have to argue about how government is taking away your personal freedoms, because youd gladly give up the most important one.
I really wonder if people like you are rotten through and through, or is there a situation where "reality" hits hard enough for you to realize that "Oh shit, yea this is actually real and not just internet politics anymore". I guess well find out in a few years. Regardless, when shit hits the fan, just remember - you wanted this.
If we are talking hypotheticals here, anything can be possible. Subject could be an illegitimate direct descendent of Thomas Jefferson, which would make this entire case uniquely newsworthy.
If they are in the US on a work-permit, they have to follow the limitations of the work-permit. They are not free to follow the affordances available to people who are outside the US. For most temporary work-permits, owning a business is not permitted. The govt. wants the worker to work for their sponsor, not own a business. After one gets a GC (i.e. permanent residence), one is free to work for anyone, or start businesses.
That’s not actually quite true. You can own a business on a work permit, you just can’t work for it. Which is mostly a pointless arrangement, but possible.
It's perversely hilarious to see people supporting fascism for its attacking other individuals, and then demonstrating zero awareness of how little regulation applies to capital crossing borders. It's a crab bucket, alright.
> Originally from County Kilkenny, Culleton has lived in the US for more than 20 years, is married to a US citizen and runs a plastering business in the Boston area.
> ...
> 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.
Something doesn't add up. How do you live in the US for 20 years (I assume doing plastering work), and only just apply for a green card? Is it common for people to get an H1-B or something like that for such work? Even so, I'd think it would be relatively easy for an Irish person to jump from that to a green card (unlike someone from India or China).
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.
> 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.
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
H1-B is for speciality occupations, like software engineers. A laborer from Ireland isn't going to qualify for that. There are lots of people who come to the US on a tourist visa and overstay with the intent on living and working here. They have family or friends who get them set up with a job and place to live. They work under the table, etc. After a while they can live pretty much like a regular American, and in many states get a drivers license. Boston has lots of Irish illegal immigrants, Chicago has lots of Polish.
The way most of them normalize their immigration status is by marrying a US Citizen who can sponsor a green card.
Probably didn't want worldwide tax-serf status or FATCA banking clusterfuck until the immigration politics fiasco changed the calculus enough it was worth the drawbacks.
It is not the same thing, but I have an aunt who lived in the US for some 30 years on a green card.
She had been working all that time (employed) and she owned an apartment in Miami. She didn't give a royal fuck about citizenship, and only acquired it some 10 or 15 years ago due to mounting pressure from family.
There is no doubt it was the best course of action given the current government actions.
Edit: Moreover, she practically can't speak english. Her spoken spanish has acquired a strong cuban ring, although she hasn't been to cuba, go figure.
Do you really think it would make a difference? POTUS and his entourage have been lying to us on TV while we watch the same clips of their ICEtapo shooting people in the face for brandishing a phone and calling them domestic terrorists. They've picked up people during their citizenship ceremony. Do you seriously think that a piece of paper would make the slightest bit of difference?
Yes. There's a number of people who have successfully defeated the Trump regime's attempts to oppress them by securing a piece of paper saying they're not allowed to. It doesn't work all the time, and you have every right to be furious about the times when it doesn't, but it's counterproductive to overgeneralize and conclude that legal rights don't matter at all.
Right now ICE hasn't opened any of their human warehouse "internment camps"
and their quota is "only" 3000 souls per day
Now scale that out 1,000 more days and predict what's going down
Every tourist will be a viable target, there are no consequences for arresting people with paperwork, it just meets quota
Heck they could be grabbing athletes, there were some events this year in US where athletes from various countries in Africa could not get visa permits
I'm still trying to figure out the justification of ICE operating in foreign countries. Are there illegal immigrants in Italy? This is not about immigration.
> Mr Culleton said he would like Taoiseach Micheál Martin to mention his case to President Donald Trump when he visits the Oval Office next month.
Wow, so basically a banana republic, any matter should be resolved by one person, literally the president himself!!
> "To this day we still don't know why he was picked up by ICE.
I think they are thinking of “criminal records”, and they see there’s nothing so it should be ok, but I suggest they dig deeper, it’s not about crimes anymore, he probably said something in social media criticizing XYZ and that’s enough to flag him for deportation, that’s the reality now.
Why is this flagged? As a former foreign TN-1 visa holder, this sort of thing is (a) topically relevant to me, _qua_ software engineer, and (b) technically interesting.
What is the valence of deciding that 'curiosity' (the HN gold standard for relevance) does not include topics like this?
HN, blink twice if you can hear me; the billionaires seem to be foisting a worldview on us through you.
For a real answer, if something being posted to HN only requires it be relevant to someone and be interesting, doesn't that mean that anything is allowed? There is currently a conflict between groups of HN users as to what is reasonable to post here and what isn't.
Well not exactly. The guidelines are contradictory. They say that "Anything that good hackers would find interesting" is on topic, but "Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports" are off topic. How do you resolve the difference? It's just a cultural decision as to what is allowed and what isn't.
I'd strongly suggest people read the article instead of discussing the title.
- Unsafe conditions in detention.
- Detained people fighting over food (due to insufficient amount).
- A fake signature(!). Violating a judge's orders.
- Multiple US Constitution violations (which, yes, does apply to non-citizens/work-visa holders/even illegal immigrants).
This is a "hero case," but if this is happening here, imagine what people with less financial means and interest from the media are going through.
I also strongly suggest people read the ACLU's report Resistance, Retaliation, Repression: Two Years in California Immigration Detention. It's from before Trump 2 but no doubt the issues raised in here have only gotten worse
https://www.aclunorcal.org/publications/resistance-retaliati...
Some of those issues:
- forced labor in order to afford to eat. The $1/day "Voluntary Work Program" is necessary to afford enough food and there is retaliation if you refuse (including solitary confinement). CoreCivic sells your labor
- dozens of documented deaths from forced labor and medical neglect
- extensive use of solitary confinement often for "minor disciplinary infractions or as a form of retaliation for participating in hunger strikes or for submitting complaints"
Add to that : "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". Such bullshit
> I'd strongly suggest people read the article
People will just flag it instead, sadly. Concentration camps in full view (or rather, the tip of the iceberg) and people will instead bury their heads.
Yeah, I have definitely noticed that a lot of Americans on HN would rather flag uncomfortable articles about their country.
There is a copy of a court order here which gives more legal details [https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton...]
> The Fifth Circuit has held that the VWP statute “‘unambiguously’ limits an alien’s means of contesting removal solely to an application for asylum.” McCarthy v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 459, 460 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). And once an individual violates the terms of the VWP by remaining in the United States for more than ninety days, the individual is no longer entitled to contest removal on any other basis. Id. at 462. This is true even when an individual has a pending adjustment of status application on the basis of their marriage to a U.S. citizen. Id. at 460, 462.
> Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10. But he argues that because USCIS accepted and began processing his adjustment of status application, he is entitled to due process protections in its fair adjudication. Id. at 9. The Fifth Circuit has foreclosed this very argument, reasoning that the VWP waiver includes a waiver of due process rights. See Mukasey, 555 F.3d at 462. And “[t]he fact that [Culleton] applied for an adjustment of status before the DHS issued its notice of removal is of no consequence.” Id.
People should know the legal context of this, which is that the Fifth Circuit is out of step with every other circuit in the country on this.
Two judges on the 5th overturned what ~150 other judges have found, including some extremely right wing Trump-appointed ones. Just shambolic.
https://www.lawdork.com/p/fifth-circuit-immigration-detentio...
It's shocking that the court could determine this when the whole process of getting permanent residency involves an adjustment of status that allows you to remain in the country even though your visa has expired so long as your application is being processed (which can take a very long time). You just can't leave the country. So to arrest someone while they are following the steps they're supposed to be following, is similar to entrapment (do X and you'll be ok, then they do X and get arrested).
> So to arrest someone while they are following the steps they're supposed to be following
I think the issue complicating this man’s situation is that it appears when you dig into the details that for nearly 16 years he was skirting the system and only tried getting his legal situation resolved just a few months prior to his detainment. He is choosing to fight it which is resulting in the long detention.
Personally I believe we need some legal carve outs for this type of situation, but there is simply no doubt that this guy made a series of poor decisions prior to April of 2025 that has created the situation he is in.
We have seen many stories like this. Some doubt the authenticity, but what is evident is that these things are happening again and again with impunity. Perhaps you don't think the situation is bad enough, or the details are exaggerated.
However, the fact that a man can be pulled of the street despite having legal status should be alarming. You don't need to care about the Irishman, but you should care about justice.
Immigration enforcement is a hot topic today hence why you see lots of such stories. The reality is the federal gov has been aggressive in its enforcement for decades. ICE took a break during the Obama and Biden years for some reason. Might explain younger people are surprised by the renewed enforcement.
Remember that scene in the show Seinfeld where Babu Bhatt is taken from his house for expired immigration papers? That was in 1993.
I I don't remember anyone harassing people on the streets based on their skin color, and shooting American citizens for exercising their rights.
I'm afraid I don't since I was too young back then, and never really watched Sienfeld, but man oh man, that sounds terrible.
Perhaps we've been living a lie this whole thing.
I must have missed the episode where Babu spent months in a concentration camp despite having his paperwork in order and doing nothing wrong.
> ICE took a break during the Obama and Biden years for some reason.
This is simply not true.
> The reality is the federal gov has been aggressive in its enforcement for decades. ICE took a break during the Obama and Biden years for some reason.
ICE was created in 2002 (24 years ago). "The Obama and Biden years" make up a full half of ICE's existence.
> he reality is the federal gov has been aggressive in its enforcement for decades.
Sure there has been enforcement, but nothing that comes even close to what we're seeing today (except for Trump 1.0 when CBP were separating parents and children and putting them in cages; today we have that plus a whole lot more including murdering citizen observers). ICE should never have been created (more of the fallout of the Americans surrendering so much of their civil liberties while panicked about 9/11), but at least it was a regular accountable law enforcement org and not a paramilitary terrorizing American cities (which technically makes it a domestic terrorism org).
> ICE should never have been created (more of the fallout of the Americans surrendering so much of their civil liberties while panicked about 9/11)
ICE was created by stripping some non-enforcement functions out of INS (those became functions of Citizenship and Immigration Services), all of the lack of civil liberties that was found in ICE when it got that name and was put under DHS were already present when it was INS.
The idea that the name change was the point of origin of the problem is a story created in the last couple years by peopel who never paid attention to immigration policy before Trump's first term looking for a convenient excuse that is both systemic (rather than tied to a particular recent administration) and old enough to provide an excuse to make it unnecessary to discuss why certain problems persisted during the Biden Administration between the two Trump terms, but also recent enough to support a narrative that despite being systemic, it is a fairly new systemic change and reverting returns to a known good state that is recent enough that it is not out of touch with modern needs.
The problem is that, if you've paid any attention to immigration policy prior to Trump's first term (especially if it was both before and after the creation of ICE), its pretty hard to either consider the creation of ICE a significant sea change or the prior state a known good state.
The real sea change in the style of enforcement was Trump 1, and it was only partially unwound under Biden as a political decision that preserving a tough border image would avoid an electoral cost by appealing to swing voters with whom Trump's demagoguery on immigration had resonance but who were skeptical of some of his other policies, not because of some inherent structural change created when INS was reorganized into ICE that made ICE inherently and uniquely and incurably bad. But though the sea change was later than the "ICE is only 23 years old, and we can just go back" narrative suggests, the state before the sea change, much further back than the creation of ICE, also wasn't great.
Note that I support disbanding ICE and radically restructuring immigration enforcement alongside restructuring the immigration laws; but not because ICE was only created in 2003 and we had something workable before that, but because the system was broken well before 2003, and only avoided becoming a total shitshow up until Trump 1 because of how prior Administrations used (and in some cases exceeded) the broad discretion given them within the system to prevent that, not because the system was well-designed, well-structured, or resilient. And even then, it worked pretty badly, but in ways that the people not intended to be subject to it could (and did!) mostly ignore.
He overstayed the 90 day fiancé visa. Got married eventually. That should have triggered a 5-10 year bar from re-entering the US.
He could have applied for legal status immediately and it is usually waived if you pass the interview process.
Instead, 20 years later he applied for a green card to get a temporary work permit which is usually granted eligible while applying for permanent residency. So he had no work permit or valid status for 20 years.
5 months in detention seems like a long time. They offered to deport him but he refused and supposedly DHS forged his signatures.
It’s a messy case but he could have avoided the detention if he willingly asked to be deported immediately then fight for immigration status from where he has citizenship.
I don’t think these ends justify the means. It sounds like the government failed early on in what seemed like a benign infraction, and now it is deciding to punish him for it. That’s like getting away with not returning a library book, and then being arrested and taken to prison for thousands in overdue fees when I try to return it later. That’s arbitrary and excessive, hopefully found to be a violation of due process, and should not be defended.
> He overstayed the 90 day fiancé visa. Got married eventually. That should have triggered a 5-10 year bar from re-entering the US. > He could have applied for legal status immediately and it is usually waived if you pass the interview process.
"Why do people come here illegally? Do it properly!"
I immigrated here from Australia. It would have been cheaper, and faster, to come here on the VWP, get married, and apply for forgiveness, than to do it legally.
Look at our current first lady. Comes here as a working model on a tourist visa. That should also have triggered a ban from re-entering the US.
It's all just such a mess. Revisiting this point:
> He could have applied for legal status immediately and it is usually waived if you pass the interview process.
I got divorced (we had a sincere intent, but we acknowledged we got married sooner than we would if it wasn't for logistics), and missed one of the dates for AOS. To be clear, at that point it's not just that they say "Oh, whatever", it's that the onus is on USCIS to show fraudulent intent. We'd already had some fairly detailed interviews, separately. "What day does the garbage go out? Who usually takes it out? Who is your auto insurance through? What cars do you own between you? What was the last major update done to your home?" and so on, to demonstrate that you'd been living together in a genuine relationship.
As presented, that dude's story as makes little sense to anyone familiar with the immigration process. There is more to this story, I wish the reporter would just tell it.
If it surprises you, then you haven't paid attention to the blatantly unconstitutional actions of DHS in this administration. The purpose is terror and filling deportation quotas, not enforcing immigration law.
It's never been about immigration.
But what it is about? What's the end game in detaining lawful workers?
Can't you see that they are using immigration questions as an excuse to consolidate power that exceeds immigration enforcement by a large margin? The ability to detain lawful workers or pull people off the street without a warrant from a judge & hold them illegally for a significant duration can become political retaliation or terror tool and a racial profiling vehicle very quickly.
And more over, they basically have proved that the law has no sufficient ability to actually enforce court orders on the ground when the administrative branch is firmly on not obeying them. Even worse, the public opinion has been just mildly annoyed by this - by mildly I mean that only some people decided to bring themselves to the streets, separately and only on the weekends or a single day in most cases.
The city-state of California was playing with fire when they made undocumented workers a political class. The governments only willing to play legal games for so long.
It wasn't the federal government that broke the law first. You can disagree with a law and still follow it. Sanctuary cities don't exist out of the goodness of someones heart. Sanctuary cities exist because they make money at the expense of Americans. (and it's no coincidence these cities have major homelessness problems)
I think you missed my point. I do not deny the existence nor validity of the immigration questions, or whether certain implemented policy is questionable or not. What I tried to argue was that the Trump administration uses those issues, and people's discontent over them, to engineer a mass power consolidation that may do so much harm in the long run (or, probably, within merely a few years) that even if in the process it helps some Americans to gain jobs or whatever it still by no means worth the price yet to be paid.
Did border crossing drop? Yes. Is economy gotta improve? It is complicated like usual. Do these worth to give up a working democracy , i.e. the ability to replace a leader other than waiting for their natural death or committing a revolution? Absolutely not. Democracy's merit isn't that it's the most fair system to pick candidates, but the power to replace leadership without bloodshed and do so within people's lifetime.
What could be the better answer to immigration policy is out of the scope, therefore I would echo the other comment that says this is not about immigration. If this wasn't clear before, it should've been after the two Minneapolis murders and the arrest of Don Lemon, etc etc.
Normalizing paramilitary forces in US cities/areas, especially Democrat-leaning ones. See also early actions of deploying National Guard units (from Southern areas into Northern ones).
The end game?
It is a salve for the status wound the dimished social and economic station poor white males found themselves in after the civil rights act and the deindustrialization.
It assumes that "I deserve the benefits I or my family once had because I see someone else that now has them."
It sees the social and economic territory as fundamental limited and wants to secure a living space within them.
And it does so by binding to the state and using the state to create that void so that they can regain what they feel was lost.
It must feel amazing, like psychic fentanyl to see what's going down.
Paving the way for arbitrary detentions and concentration camps.
These are already arbitrary detentions, well unlawful at least (they're purposeful, just not for legal purposes).
The tens of thousands of detainees aren't being put in hotels... they're going to concentration camps; either in USA where they're forced to work (slavery you might term it, as many (most?) have not broken the law, nor been detained legally); or abroad where the regime's intention appears to be that they die.
signal fear, which causes a drop in legal immigration
You know the revanchist militias who would openly hate everything about our country, while claiming to be "patriots" ? You know how they've been awfully quiet lately ? It's about putting them in charge, at least as far as the bottom-up.
The top-down is something like destroying the United States and subjugating what remains, with many foreign interests aligned here - Russia, China, Big Tech eager to create their surveillance society, religious fundamentalists who just want the world to burn so their ideologies might regain relevance, etc.
Per article he owns a business.
Usually a pre-Green-Card work permit doesn't allow that (you need a GC to own a business).
This article is an example of sophisticated co-mingling of facts and omissions, designed to obfuscate the context.
Still shouldn’t warrant five months of detention.
Additional context: he claims ICE forged his signature on legal documents.
He should be free while the case proceeds. Seems like exactly the kind of person who is not a flight risk, because the entire reason he’s contesting it is because he’s built a life he doesn’t want to leave.
This is not true. You do not need to be a US resident to register a company, and anyone own shares in a company. There are a variety of visa options, and ways to navigate the process that will work.
I realize this is complicated,
I didn't say you needed to be a US resident to register a company.
I said that most pre-GC work-permits (e.g. H1B) don't allow you to own a US-based business. If you're here on a work-permit, they (the govt.) expect you to be an employee of your sponsor, they don't want you to start a business.
To your point,
one can be an investor in a US company without having a US visa/residence/work-permit. Although, to open a business without living in the US, only a handful of states allow this (e.g., Delaware, Wyoming, Nevada).
However, once again, if you are in the US on a work-permit, you need to follow the rules of the work-permit. The rules applicable to non-citizens who are not living in the US on a work-permit may be different.
>I said that most pre-GC work-permits (e.g. H1B) don't allow you to own a US-based business
You can absolutely own a US-based business on a H1B, like you can buy shares in companies, it's just a 100% share. You just cannot work for your company without having an approved H1B from that business or having some other generalized work permit like an EAD.
Most tech startups will be Delaware. And a lot comes down to the definition of "own" which is ambiguous especially as a C-Corp. One may not be CEO, but can be a H1B Co-founder with a non-trivial (for some amount of non-trivial) number of shares. The O-1 far as I can tell allows for startups, and there may be other visa types which I am unaware of.
Really, I am just saying that the statement "you need a GC to own a business" is far too broad a claim to be true.
> you need a GC to own a business
You are mistaken. Plenty of people own businesses in the US even as foreigners. I don't even have to step into that country to open one, and also not for a transfer of ownership/shares.
Shoes not tied properly? => 5 months in jail, it's only right.
You seem to be searching for the slightest absurdity to justify any of this happening.
Didn't say "God bless you" when I sneezed?
Even with some co-mingling of facts, is 5 months detention still proportionate? That’s the crux of it.
My opinion is probably not but this is ultimately a political conversation.
The article is extremely light on details but fact he doesn't have a Green Card/Lawful Permanent Resident yet would indicate that at some point of his time in United States, he was illegally present, probably for a while.
Sure, he's on path, MAYBE (that's up to immigration courts), to legal status but he's not quite there yet and it's one of those "Are we going to forgive past transgressions?"
I know of no other country that locks people up while they process immigration appeals. That's crazy.
Other countries will either summarily deport you and make you resolve your status from outside the country, or let you stay while you appeal and deport you when your appeals are exhausted. Both are sane things to do, this is not.
> Sure, he's on path, MAYBE (that's up to immigration courts), to legal status but he's not quite there yet and it's one of those "Are we going to forgive past transgressions?"
For a productive member of society? Absolutely, bring him in and let him stay.
There are absolutely some immigrants who should be deported for violent crimes and likewise, but they are a tiny minority of immigrants. So when you set quotas far above that, they start rounding up productive members of society to fill the quotas and ignoring the violent criminals because it’s easier to arrest parents and children.
> The article is extremely light on details but fact he doesn't have a Green Card/Lawful Permanent Resident yet would indicate that at some point of his time in United States, he was illegally present, probably for a while.
That is absolutely false. I know many people who have lived legally in the USA for many many years with valid visas and have intentionally never pursued a green card. Two people come to mind including one who has over 20 years the US on valid visas -- she intentionally never pursued the green card despite both (a) being married to an American and (b) being legally able to get the green card.
Some of them are now pursuing green cards only because of federal government's immigration enforcement not only going after illegal immigrants or criminals but clearly and intentionally pursing immigrants in general -- even those who are legal and without any criminal history.
From my understanding on this issue, spouses of US citizens are handed a green card after paperwork is shuffled, there is no pursuing it.
When discussing this with friends, multiple spouses have pulled out green cards and only newly weds had anything else but green card. She showed her passport with some form attached to it.
Also, I did dig up the court filings: https://habeasdockets.org/media/documents/71921787/004_18103...
Yes, he was here unlawfully (Admitted as tourist and overstayed) for a period but due to his marriage, he on path to Green Card.
>From my understanding on this issue, spouses of US citizens are handed a green card after paperwork is shuffled, there is no pursuing it.
This is incorrect. You do need to pursue it. Just because your friends did pursue it once they were able to, doesn't mean it is automatic. One needs to decide if they want to get their green card or not once they are married to a US citizen.
And it costs thousands of dollars.
Which is (or was) a good deal, but hardly a formality.
I emphasize that I'm not defending the Trump regime, but do you know this friend well enough to be confident that she would tell you if her visa situation didn't check out? It would be extremely hard to stay in the US for 20 uninterrupted years on valid visas without permanent residency. O-1s are theoretically indefinite but require yearly renewal, and all of the other common visas I know of have maximum durations below 10 years.
Yes, I am 100% certain of what I said. These individuals have had valid visas in the US and been here for 10-20 years and intentionally have never become green card holders.
One was on a student visa for undergrad and then a student visa for masters for 6 years total (4 for undergrad and 2 for masters), then on a G4 diplomatic visa while working at the World Bank for 5 years, then back to a student visa for 5 years pursuing a PhD, then back to a G4 Diplomatic visa for 6 years while working at the World Bank. This person married an American about 10 years ago and still never pursued a green card out of choice.
Another was on a G4 diplomatic visa while working at the IDB for 3 years, then a student visa for 5 years while pursuing a PhD, then a visa while working at the Federal Reserve for a number of years (not sure of which, but either H1B or J1), and then on a G4 diplomatic visa while working at the IMF.
Of course, these are not your typical situations for the average immigrant. Admittedly, I live in a bit of a bubble surrounded by economists in Washington DC from the World Bank, IMF, IDB, etc who are mostly on G4 diplomatic visas.
My point is it is still possible and one shouldn't presume.
So basically you played "Well Ackwually" card when you knew that path is not available to 99.9% of immigrants.
You can presume when you read the article and realize he was working in blue collar trade so your experience does not apply.
EDIT: And they would likely transition to Green Cards the second that their work visas expired.
> it's one of those "Are we going to forgive past transgressions?"
For ICE enthusiasts, forgiveness is reserved for Presidential candidates.
> “at some point of his time in United States, he was illegally present, probably for a while”
How do you conclude that from the facts in the article?
Having dealt with US Immigration law, if you are legally present for 20 years, it's extremely difficult not to transition to GC/Citizenship since work visas in United States generally have a limit and any immigration lawyer would have been clear "Either move to GC or you are going home."
Also, despite all the US screaming about "They took our jobs" with immigrants, the US doesn't really hand out work visas all that much and don't really hand it out to blue collar labors at all.
There is a possibility that he's been on legal visa entire time but I'd give extremely good odds that he wasn't. The fact his immigration lawyer doesn't mention it is very telling.
Huh, the headline is very misleading but the article says this:
> Culleton entered the US in 2009 on a visa waiver programme and overstayed the 90 day-limit
> 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
That's about 15 years of illegal stay according to "the facts in the article".
It's not a conclusion, it's an assumption.
If someones potential illegal presence justifies ICE to massively overstep any legal due process and break laws, then by definition you are ok if somehow Democrates took over the DHS when they got in power, and used the premise of anti-domestic terrorism to illegally detain any person associated with MAGA for any reason and let them starve/die in prison.
No but is ICE 100% breaking the law or just norms? Immigration law is such a mess and key reason we are here. For past 30 years, a lot of immigration "law" has been Executive Branch keeping a broken system going by just going with vibes. Now we have Executive Branch deciding to 100% change the vibes and system is coming apart in real time.
Reading over court filings, there is collision between two laws. First one is, "Those who marry US Citizens can get Green Card regardless of previous US Immigration violations."
Second one is, VWP admits have no rights. If US decides to deport you, out you go with no further discussion.
Biggest takeaway of Trump immigration actions is Congress has fucked up so bad letting system get to this point.
I guess Im glad people like you finally are starting to admit that you authoritarian rule with martial law where people just get shot in the street. That way we don't have to argue about how government is taking away your personal freedoms, because youd gladly give up the most important one.
I really wonder if people like you are rotten through and through, or is there a situation where "reality" hits hard enough for you to realize that "Oh shit, yea this is actually real and not just internet politics anymore". I guess well find out in a few years. Regardless, when shit hits the fan, just remember - you wanted this.
So that deserves five months of imprisonment and inhumane conditions?
Gosh, we have very different ideas of policy.
You should back up "usually"
The article is clear: man imprisoned without due process for months.
> you need a GC to own a business
Citation needed.
The bussiness can be lawfully owned by his US native wife. There are possibilities, but as you say, the article is lacking.
If we are talking hypotheticals here, anything can be possible. Subject could be an illegitimate direct descendent of Thomas Jefferson, which would make this entire case uniquely newsworthy.
People from other countries can own US companies even if they've never been to the US.
If they are in the US on a work-permit, they have to follow the limitations of the work-permit. They are not free to follow the affordances available to people who are outside the US. For most temporary work-permits, owning a business is not permitted. The govt. wants the worker to work for their sponsor, not own a business. After one gets a GC (i.e. permanent residence), one is free to work for anyone, or start businesses.
That’s not actually quite true. You can own a business on a work permit, you just can’t work for it. Which is mostly a pointless arrangement, but possible.
It's perversely hilarious to see people supporting fascism for its attacking other individuals, and then demonstrating zero awareness of how little regulation applies to capital crossing borders. It's a crab bucket, alright.
btw Musk overstayed a Canadian student visa to work in the USA, both illegal
and historically documentable
there's probably good reason he's writing 5 Million dollar checks a pop to various PACs
This is the location he is lodged at. Note the tents don't yet appear in the imagery.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/toWTEuEPDXigwwr78
https://maps.apple.com has higher resolution imagery, but note the location is mismarked (the old facility was by the airport).
> Originally from County Kilkenny, Culleton has lived in the US for more than 20 years, is married to a US citizen and runs a plastering business in the Boston area.
> ...
> 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.
Something doesn't add up. How do you live in the US for 20 years (I assume doing plastering work), and only just apply for a green card? Is it common for people to get an H1-B or something like that for such work? Even so, I'd think it would be relatively easy for an Irish person to jump from that to a green card (unlike someone from India or China).
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.
> 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.
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
We call this getting paid under the table.
H1-B is for speciality occupations, like software engineers. A laborer from Ireland isn't going to qualify for that. There are lots of people who come to the US on a tourist visa and overstay with the intent on living and working here. They have family or friends who get them set up with a job and place to live. They work under the table, etc. After a while they can live pretty much like a regular American, and in many states get a drivers license. Boston has lots of Irish illegal immigrants, Chicago has lots of Polish.
The way most of them normalize their immigration status is by marrying a US Citizen who can sponsor a green card.
I imagine it’s in his wife’s name.
Probably didn't want worldwide tax-serf status or FATCA banking clusterfuck until the immigration politics fiasco changed the calculus enough it was worth the drawbacks.
It is not the same thing, but I have an aunt who lived in the US for some 30 years on a green card.
She had been working all that time (employed) and she owned an apartment in Miami. She didn't give a royal fuck about citizenship, and only acquired it some 10 or 15 years ago due to mounting pressure from family.
There is no doubt it was the best course of action given the current government actions.
Edit: Moreover, she practically can't speak english. Her spoken spanish has acquired a strong cuban ring, although she hasn't been to cuba, go figure.
I think once you get citizenship, you are forever taxed on your world income. So it makes sense for some people to not do it.
Do you really think it would make a difference? POTUS and his entourage have been lying to us on TV while we watch the same clips of their ICEtapo shooting people in the face for brandishing a phone and calling them domestic terrorists. They've picked up people during their citizenship ceremony. Do you seriously think that a piece of paper would make the slightest bit of difference?
Yes. There's a number of people who have successfully defeated the Trump regime's attempts to oppress them by securing a piece of paper saying they're not allowed to. It doesn't work all the time, and you have every right to be furious about the times when it doesn't, but it's counterproductive to overgeneralize and conclude that legal rights don't matter at all.
it didn't work for those with a 1st, 2nd or 4th amendment rights.
No way LA Olympics can happen
Right now ICE hasn't opened any of their human warehouse "internment camps"
and their quota is "only" 3000 souls per day
Now scale that out 1,000 more days and predict what's going down
Every tourist will be a viable target, there are no consequences for arresting people with paperwork, it just meets quota
Heck they could be grabbing athletes, there were some events this year in US where athletes from various countries in Africa could not get visa permits
I'm still trying to figure out the justification of ICE operating in foreign countries. Are there illegal immigrants in Italy? This is not about immigration.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7007390/2026/01/30/ice-wint...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/at-winter-olympics-pr...
Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46947501
> Mr Culleton said he would like Taoiseach Micheál Martin to mention his case to President Donald Trump when he visits the Oval Office next month.
Wow, so basically a banana republic, any matter should be resolved by one person, literally the president himself!!
> "To this day we still don't know why he was picked up by ICE.
I think they are thinking of “criminal records”, and they see there’s nothing so it should be ok, but I suggest they dig deeper, it’s not about crimes anymore, he probably said something in social media criticizing XYZ and that’s enough to flag him for deportation, that’s the reality now.
Why is this flagged? As a former foreign TN-1 visa holder, this sort of thing is (a) topically relevant to me, _qua_ software engineer, and (b) technically interesting.
What is the valence of deciding that 'curiosity' (the HN gold standard for relevance) does not include topics like this?
HN, blink twice if you can hear me; the billionaires seem to be foisting a worldview on us through you.
The idea that the US operates under a system of laws is now too controversial for HN.
For a real answer, if something being posted to HN only requires it be relevant to someone and be interesting, doesn't that mean that anything is allowed? There is currently a conflict between groups of HN users as to what is reasonable to post here and what isn't.
That is how the guidelines read. If practice varies from theory, one must ask who, and what, is being practiced.
Well not exactly. The guidelines are contradictory. They say that "Anything that good hackers would find interesting" is on topic, but "Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports" are off topic. How do you resolve the difference? It's just a cultural decision as to what is allowed and what isn't.
Fuck this NAZI bullshit.
NAZI Punks Fuck off