His mom: "he had faced misdemeanour charges about 10 years ago."<p>CBP: “When an individual is found with drug-related charges and tries to reenter the country, officers will take proper action.”<p>Assuming they're both referring to the same incident, the conclusion is that CBP is now turning back Green Card holders who have <i>ever</i> faced any drug-related charges. (It's not clear from the article, but the careful wording "has no active legal issues" suggests that he was convicted.)
So much for "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." We have installed a despotic ruler and his cronies.
If anyone is unfortunate enough to find themselves in a situation where they have legal status and are likewise detained upon re-entering the US, CBP cannot strip you of your green card. Only an immigration judge can do that. CBP may try and pressure you into self-deporting. This article mentions that. You do not have to sign that form and you have an absolutely right to go before an immigration judge.<p>That being said, the rule of law means increasingly less where the government is now defying court orders with absolutely no repercussions [1].<p>This is the US in its 1933+ Germany arc.<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-removes-hundreds-alleged-venezuelan-gang-members-under-now-blocked-authority-2025-03-16/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-removes-hundreds-alleged...</a>
Related (one of the three) <i>Germany tightens travel advice to US after three citizens detained</i> (182 points, 5 days ago, 168 comments) <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43433071">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43433071</a>
Although I'm not fully versed in every detail of the case, the article’s phrasing raises serious concerns about its accuracy and intent. For example, this sentence<p>> And a British woman was detained in “horrendous conditions” for three weeks, her family said, after a *visa mix-up*. [emphasis mine]<p>implies a simple administrative error. However, as detailed later in the article and supported by well-known facts, the situation was more complex. In reality:<p>- The woman had been working in the US in exchange for accommodation — an arrangement explicitly prohibited under a tourist visa.<p>- She then attempted to replicate this arrangement in Canada, only to be turned away.<p>- By the time she was redirected, US authorities had already identified that she had violated visa regulations by working.<p>A straightforward search for “work in return for accommodation USA visa” clearly confirms that tourist visas do not permit any form of employment, whether paid in cash or in kind.<p>It’s understandable that enforcement measures must serve as a deterrent, and not just return the situation to what it should have been. But even if he severity of detention might be debatable in this case, the core issue here is the article’s misleading characterization.<p>Using the term "visa mix-up" not only downplays the deliberate actions taken by the individual but also appears intended to cast doubt as to whether the fault lies with the individual or with the US government.
"No one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens but its lowest ones."<p>- Nelson Mandela
The article mentions a lot of cases, but I'm really wondering if all of this is new following Trump's changes in policies or if it's just business as usual.<p>All the situations from the article seem like they had a legitimate reason for the person being detained and / or prevented from entering the country, and we also only hear a one-sided story.<p>I actually travelled to the US yesterday for business meetings and I was a bit worried after all those fear-mongering articles from the past few weeks, but immigration took me literally 3 minutes, and was as easy as when I came 6 months ago.