Irishman set to be deported from the US

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

I am no US immigration specialist, but what I would think is that once you break some immigration laws (entering or remaining illegally), you are forfeiting your entitlement for most legal immigration routes.

Berserker wrote: »

No problem at all.
No, they review it on a case by case basis and immigration services will decided whether or not you are up to the standards that are required to gain citizenship. Given the nature of the crimes committed by this guy, coupled with the fact that he's been working on a consistent basis, I think he may have accepted.

Actually I was correct.

Confirmation here that that simple fact of overstaying does indeed void certain rights related to legal immigration: https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/things-are-not-looking-good-for-cork-man-facing-deportation-from-us-936921.html

“On the same programme immigration lawyer James O’Malley, who is originally from Limerick, but is now based in New York, said that under the ESTA visitor visa system, if a person overstays they automatically waive the right to challenge the deportation system.”

blackwhite

Cork Trucker wrote: »

If Ireland had the same spent convictions legislation that most of Europe have, such as the departing UK since 1974 the convictions would probably have been expunged and the issue resolved.

Are you someone who believes a conviction should remain in place until a person goes to the grave/crematorium and beyond?

Spent convictions are still supposed to be disclosed under US immigration procedures.

All of the questions are "Have you ever been convicted of........" not "Do you have a criminal record".

How exactly they are supposed to verify the difference if the record is expunged is another issue - but doesn't change the US legal viewpoint that you are supposed to disclose everything.


Either way - I don't think it would have made a difference in this case, because at the time of his original entry into the USA he would have been well within 10 years of his convictions, and still would have had to have lied about it to gain a VISA waiver.

mandrake04

Cork Trucker wrote: »

I had a recent vetting disclosure done and i just looked at it. I was convicted of Section 2 ( common) assault under the non fatal offences against the person act 1997, there are 2 convictions for the same offence recorded on the same date in May 1998, 4 months after i turned 18, i was out on the lash and got heavily drunk/into a fight with 2 people, both matters were dealt with simultaneously by the courts i was convicted on one, the other taken into consideration, this is where i was caught in the legislation as it is classed as more than 1 conviction from the same incident. I've carried that cross for the last 21 years and been rejected by both the U.S and Oz in 2008 as a result, the spent convictions legislation does not apply to my case.

Did you actually serve a custodial sentence of over 12 months? For Australia you would only be rejected if you spent more than 12 months inside.

Cork Trucker

mandrake04 wrote: »

Did you actually serve a custodial sentence of over 12 months? For Australia you would only be rejected if you spent more than 12 months inside.

I never served a custodial sentence, i got heavily fined and that was it, my conviction(s) at the time of application being 10 years old. Offence was January 1998, Conviction 2008, Visa application rejected in the summer of 2008 for both countries. The fact it was assault was the issue, i was never asked the background of it, the level etc, i was done for common assault, the 2 more serious ones are assault causing harm and assault causing serious harm.

Assault in general is just seen as one type and one type only despite the different levels. Needless to say i won't be applying again as i couldn't even if i wanted to for family reasons.

notobtuse

malinheader wrote: »

So if you're illegally in the USA you're still entitled to welfare and medical care.

Yup, 63% of non-citizen households access welfare programs compared to 35% of native households. Emergency medical services are guaranteed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (1986) and require hospitals to provide emergency care regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.

Donald Trump

notobtuse wrote: »

Yup, 63% of non-citizen households access welfare programs compared to 35% of native households. Emergency medical services are guaranteed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (1986) and require hospitals to provide emergency care regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.

Well be honest and open about it and explain what you are referring to



1) Your stats are for non-citizen households. You need to define that. But lets assume that it means a household headed by a non-citizen. So that US-born American citizen children are included in those stats. Either way, it appears to include both legal and illegal immigrants.


2) Define what "welfare programs" means for those that are not aware of the system. Irish people will not be so familiar with it. It is not the same as the Irish system. Many of those could be low-income workers availing of medicaid. Immigrants often do the lower paid jobs. They can't afford their own private medical insurance. Someone in a "career job" - well their employer often pays a big chunk of their medical insurance. The reason people pay for private insurance is not out of some sense of responsibility - it is because if you can afford it, you will get it. It is not like the Irish system. Your "stats" are presented as if 63% of immigrants are getting a free ride and handed free money and houses no bother




And while hospitals cannot turn away emergencies, this literally means they must admit them, treat the emergency injury and that's that. It does not mean they have to do it for free. If someone gets knocked down by a car, taken to A&E, kept in for 2 days and patched up, the hospital will treat them. But they will chase for money. They will usually discount the treatment from their headline prices, but as you are probably aware, that might be bringing the bill down from 50k for those two overnight stays to 10k or 5k. They will basically patch you up and kick you out. There won't be any follow up care or physiotherapy or that kind of thing.

Donald Trump

seasidedub wrote: »

Can I just add that I recently paid a painter 970e to paint the outside of the house which was done over the course of a week, couple of hours in the evening as the painter is so busy and has a waiting list.

I imagine if the man in question comes back, he'll be ok for work......

Ironically that painter probably doesn't paint the outside of his own house.


That's because I assume that his own house does not have block walls and is surrounded by glass. And it's located at the top of a really steep hill. With nothing else for over one mile in every direction. And he sits there all day looking out through his telescope.


I'm guessing the above. But all I know is

he definitely saw you coming

NSAman

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well be honest and open about it and explain what you are referring to



1) Your stats are for non-citizen households. You need to define that. But lets assume that it means a household headed by a non-citizen. So that US-born American citizen children are included in those stats. Either way, it appears to include both legal and illegal immigrants.


2) Define what "welfare programs" means for those that are not aware of the system. Irish people will not be so familiar with it. It is not the same as the Irish system. Many of those could be low-income workers availing of medicaid. Immigrants often do the lower paid jobs. They can't afford their own private medical insurance. Someone in a "career job" - well their employer often pays a big chunk of their medical insurance. The reason people pay for private insurance is not out of some sense of responsibility - it is because if you can afford it, you will get it. It is not like the Irish system. Your "stats" are presented as if 63% of immigrants are getting a free ride and handed free money and houses no bother




And while hospitals cannot turn away emergencies, this literally means they must admit them, treat the emergency injury and that's that. It does not mean they have to do it for free. If someone gets knocked down by a car, taken to A&E, kept in for 2 days and patched up, the hospital will treat them. But they will chase for money. They will usually discount the treatment from their headline prices, but as you are probably aware, that might be bringing the bill down from 50k for those two overnight stays to 10k or 5k. They will basically patch you up and kick you out. There won't be any follow up care or physiotherapy or that kind of thing.

And where does the balance of that headline bill come from? Other insured people.

I know I have been on both ends of this scale, with insurance and without insurance for the same thing.

With insurance, the cost was 5000 dollars

Without insurance it cost me 200 dollars.

Drugs in insurance cost me 350 dollars without insurance it cost me 40 dollars....

All this has to be paid for.It is the American Citizen and legal immigrants who are footing the bills in the form of tax and higher costs personally.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-immigration (I am one myself) but there is a way legally to do it.

Donald Trump

NSAman wrote: »

And where does the balance of that headline bill come from? Other insured people.

I know I have been on both ends of this scale, with insurance and without insurance for the same thing.

With insurance, the cost was 5000 dollars

Without insurance it cost me 200 dollars.

Drugs in insurance cost me 350 dollars without insurance it cost me 40 dollars....

All this has to be paid for.It is the American Citizen and legal immigrants who are footing the bills in the form of tax and higher costs personally.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-immigration (I am one myself) but there is a way legally to do it.

If you are used to US system, you are familiar with the difference between in-network and out-of-network. And that difference can be substantial. What you would pay a few tens of Euros for in Ireland could be billed as a headline figure for thousands in US

Headline figure is usually not the one paid

NSAman

Donald Trump wrote: »

If you are used to US system, you are familiar with the difference between in-network and out-of-network. And that difference can be substantial. What you would pay a few tens of Euros for in Ireland could be billed as a headline figure for thousands in US

Headline figure is usually not the one paid

I'm familiar with the terms.

When you have NO insurance... which was the case (thanks Obama Care) these are the figures, not simply in-network and out-of-network.

Oh add to that the penalty of 700 dollars for not having insurance on my Tax return.

By the way, the figures above were for the same treatment for the same issue, IN the same hospital.

Donald Trump

NSAman wrote: »

I'm familiar with the terms.

When you have NO insurance... which was the case (thanks Obama Care) these are the figures, not simply in-network and out-of-network.

Oh add to that the penalty of 700 dollars for not having insurance on my Tax return.

By the way, the figures above were for the same treatment for the same issue, IN the same hospital.

You missed my point.


The hospitals do not charge the economic cost of their services as their headline costs. The insurance companies do deals for in-network charges although they don't necessarily actually receive this amount as there will be other discounts - this is especially true for medication. Suppose you have a procedure done. As a simplistic example for those not familiar with how it might typically work, you have a $20 deductible/co-pay and your plan pays 80% of the remainder. The out-of-network cost is quoted as $250. The in-network is quoted as $120. You are in-network. Then you pay $40 ($20 co-pay + 20% of 100). You'd naively expect the insurance has to pay the other $80 but in reality they don't. They have other discounts and rebates behind the scenes so that they might also only actually pay another $20. So the provider actually receives $60 in total.


When you are saying that drugs with insurance cost you $350 I assume you are referring to what was on the bill to your insurance. As explained above, you will have your contribution based off this figure of $350. The insurance company doesn't actually pay the remainder. What the system does is make is make you pay a larger contribution while also tricking you into thinking you are getting more benefit than you actually are from your insurance. Additionally, for drugs, there are actually a lot of other middle men creaming off along the way before the money gets back to the maker of the drugs. The actual cost can be pennies on the dollar.

If you are out-of-network, your insurance company will either cap what they will pay out on - although this is usually based on a comparison basis with other providers in the area and so there is a cartel/pseudo-collusion effect. You will have a much higher deductible for out-of-network and then a lower percentage covered.



Anyway, my point to the above is that if you are just one individual with no insurance, they hospital will take advantage of you for the $250 if they can get away with it. Nothing is done about it because most people have insurance and don't care. If you can't pay, maybe they'll do a deal with you for $50. They will still make money on that.



If you get knocked off your bicycle and brought to the ER by ambulance and have a few scans/X-rays taken and are kept in overnight for observation, it isn't actually costing the hospital $10k to do that. That could be their headline costs. But nobody is paying that. (I'm not exaggerating on the 10k cost either, as I am sure you can attest to if you are familiar with the system). What the law quoted in that other post basically says is that if you are badly injured and lying in the door of the hospital, they can't refuse to treat you until you prove you can pay their fees.

holyhead

As an illegal he wouldn't have been paying taxes?

dudara

holyhead wrote: »

As an illegal he wouldn't have been paying taxes?

Actually, illegals can pay taxes in the US. They can have an SSN and be fully compliant in most aspects of their lives, bar visa/citizenship. This guy was apparently running a painting business and employing others, IIRC.

olestoepoke

holyhead wrote: »

As an illegal he wouldn't have been paying taxes?

I was illegally living in the US for many years and paid taxes in the hope that it would help me attain status one day. A lot of illegal Irish in NY do this. The tax man is happy to take money from anyone and there is a system in place to do this.

holyhead

Entering a country and not leaving when expected to do so is akin to setting a ticking time bomb. Entering a country, for work purposes which does not entertain people with previous convictions is daft. I thought his marriage to an American might have spared him deportation. Would her marraige to an Irish man let her be a resident in Ireland?

Beechwoodspark

Keith is wrong and he is caught out now

so the sob stories and violin playing has started.

Morning Ireland reporting that an ICE official has presented this man with an offer which would require him to leave the USA for a minimum of five years, after which time he may reapply to enter that country, with no guarantee of admittance.

Not agreeing could mean 4 years in prison.

Sad, I'm not so concerned about the man at the centre of this, but his children

Beechwoodspark

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Morning Ireland reporting that an ICE official has presented this man with an offer which would require him to leave the USA for a minimum of five years, after which time he may reapply to enter that country, with no guarantee of admittance.

Not agreeing could mean 4 years in prison.

If he has any ounce of intelligence he should take that offer

weldoninhio

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

If he has any ounce of intelligence he should take that offer

If past actions are any measure of his intelligence I’d imagine he’ll be doing 4 years.

Beechwoodspark

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

If he has any ounce of intelligence he should take that offer

Yeah, I think you're right.

Still, it's terribly hard on his kids. They're being deprived of a hardworking Dad for no logical reason.

Patrick2010

On a related note I see Fintan O Toole is writing again about the 2004 referendum removing automatic citizenship for children born in Ireland to counter the welfare tourism where women were arriving at late stages of their pregnancy to get Irish citizenship. Backed up by the ICCL and Imigrant council of Ireland,


ICCLtweet
‏Verified account @ICCLtweet

ICCL campaigned against this racist amendment to our Constitution back in 2004. It resulted in a discriminatory citizenship process and may have violated the GFA. But it can be fixed without a referendum if the govt are willing. @fotoole @IrishTimesOpEd


Immigrant Council.ie
‏Verified account @immigrationIRL

Thoughtful & insightful from @fotoole. 100% agree with analysis, but also agree with @rivasmj & our colleague @colinlenihan- we don't need to repeal, we can just amend existing legislation
So it was passed by 79% but they want to repeal without another vote

weldoninhio

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yeah, I think you're right.

Still, it's terribly hard on his kids. They're being deprived of a hardworking Dad for no logical reason.

You think there is no logical reason for immigration laws??

blackwhite

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Morning Ireland reporting that an ICE official has presented this man with an offer which would require him to leave the USA for a minimum of five years, after which time he may reapply to enter that country, with no guarantee of admittance.

Not agreeing could mean 4 years in prison.

Sad, I'm not so concerned about the man at the centre of this, but his children

I assume the 4 years in prison is followed by deportation?

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

You think there is no logical reason for immigration laws??

No, there is.

I think in this case, where someone has kids in America and has shown himself to be hardworking and reliable over many years, it's a waste of time and a human tragedy to put him in prison.

Everyone loses.

Donald Trump

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No, there is.

I think in this case, where someone has kids in America and has shown himself to be hardworking and reliable over many years, it's a waste of time and a human tragedy to put him in prison.

Everyone loses.

BarryD2

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Morning Ireland reporting that an ICE official has presented this man with an offer which would require him to leave the USA for a minimum of five years, after which time he may reapply to enter that country, with no guarantee of admittance.

Not agreeing could mean 4 years in prison.

Sad, I'm not so concerned about the man at the centre of this, but his children

It was described as an offer, so reading between the lines there may be an unstated understanding that when he does reapply that he'll be successful. Maybe the family will have to move here for a few years and then back to USA.

Calhoun

Patrick2010 wrote: »

On a related note I see Fintan O Toole is writing again about the 2004 referendum removing automatic citizenship for children born in Ireland to counter the welfare tourism where women were arriving at late stages of their pregnancy to get Irish citizenship. Backed up by the ICCL and Imigrant council of Ireland,


ICCLtweet
‏Verified account @ICCLtweet

ICCL campaigned against this racist amendment to our Constitution back in 2004. It resulted in a discriminatory citizenship process and may have violated the GFA. But it can be fixed without a referendum if the govt are willing. @fotoole @IrishTimesOpEd


Immigrant Council.ie
‏Verified account @immigrationIRL

Thoughtful & insightful from @fotoole. 100% agree with analysis, but also agree with @rivasmj & our colleague @colinlenihan- we don't need to repeal, we can just amend existing legislation
So it was passed by 79% but they want to repeal without another vote

Typical bull**** from vested interests. We had to change the legislation because we were the security loop hole in Europe.

As was said with other referendum's recently the people voted and it must be respected .

It's amazing the hyberbolic language being used the system doesn't discriminate against individuals or skin color. If you want an example of why the right is on the rise this is it.

Donald Trump

Calhoun wrote: »

Typical bull**** from vested interests. We had to change the legislation because we were the security loop hole in Europe.

As was said with other referendum's recently the people voted and it must be respected .

That problem started with GFA. The issue was that a referendum was held so that Articles 2 &3 were removed. In their place it was put that anyone born on the island of Ireland could claim Irish citizenship. Before that it was not in the constitution. The law of unintended consequences did however prevail.


Obviously the constitution is more concrete and cannot be adapted to suit fast changing environments. The impact of having that inserted into the constitution was that, when people started arriving literally off the boat from England and whisked to the hospital to give birth, there was nothing that could be done to legislate against it. It was dangerous for those involved.


Often, the people coming were coming just to give birth and then go back to another EU country. It was a massive loophole and rightly closed. Taking it out of the constitution does not mean those children cannot be granted citizenship. It just means that it can be dealt with at an administrative or legislative level. Ireland had been the only European nation to grant unconditional jus soli rights. One cannot say it was racist to remove that unconditionality, and bring Ireland more into line with every other European country, without also claiming that all other countries are similarly racist.



If other countries had had the same system, it would not have been nearly as much of an issue. But because Ireland was the only one, it was going to be targeted as a loophole to be taken advantage of

Calhoun

I am all for putting in a better system that actually reviews applications in a timely manner but it must be fair impartial and not have a mechanism that allows abuse by appeal.

Especially not by a group like the ICCL who are very politically motivated. A clear transparent system will be better for all.

rob316

25K raised already on gofundme for this sob story, beggars belief. Feel sorry for his kids and wife but he needs to be a man and take responsibility. This is all his own doing, from overstaying the holiday visa to his minor possession charges.

There is no grey area in the law.

Donald Trump

rob316 wrote: »

25K raised already on gofundme for this sob story, beggars belief. Feel sorry for his kids and wife but he needs to be a man and take responsibility. This is all his own doing, from overstaying the holiday visa to his minor possession charges.

There is no grey area in the law.

Why do people keep saying he overstayed his Visa.


Did he not enter the US under the "Visa Waiver Program". The clue being in the name. It allows the CBP official, at their discretion, to allow citizens of the relevant countries, to enter the US for the purpose of a temporary visit when that person is not in possession of a valid visa

weldoninhio

rob316 wrote: »

25K raised already on gofundme for this sob story, beggars belief. Feel sorry for his kids and wife but he needs to be a man and take responsibility. This is all his own doing, from overstaying the holiday visa to his minor possession charges.

There is no grey area in the law.

He's been told that he has to sign the form to return to Ireland by Friday or he'll be imprisoned.

weldoninhio

Donald Trump wrote: »

Why do people keep saying he overstayed his Visa.


Did he not enter the US under the "Visa Waiver Program". The clue being in the name. It allows the CBP official, at their discretion, to allow citizens of the relevant countries, to enter the US for the purpose of a temporary visit when that person is not in possession of a valid visa

I think they mean he overstayed the Visa Waiver, which he obtained fraudulently. The visa waiver only allows you to stay for 90 days, which he overstayed.

rob316

Donald Trump wrote: »

Why do people keep saying he overstayed his Visa.


Did he not enter the US under the "Visa Waiver Program". The clue being in the name. It allows the CBP official, at their discretion, to allow citizens of the relevant countries, to enter the US for the purpose of a temporary visit when that person is not in possession of a valid visa

Ya he over stayed on the ESTA visa waiver, which is for holiday purposes up to a max 90 days.

is_that_so

Donald Trump wrote: »

Why do people keep saying he overstayed his Visa.


Did he not enter the US under the "Visa Waiver Program". The clue being in the name. It allows the CBP official, at their discretion, to allow citizens of the relevant countries, to enter the US for the purpose of a temporary visit when that person is not in possession of a valid visa

Do you have a link for that? Anything I've read suggests it's an admin tool made available to a certain number of developed countries, of which Ireland is one.

JustAThought

Well I hope he has the wit to cash in that 25k and withdraw it in cash before his bank accounts are frozen and he is ineligible to access the money. It will set him up nicely in Ireland for a deposit for a house for him & his family. Drugs conviction, overstaying his visa, now crybabying to the irish press and government. He did well for himself -now its time to man up and accept responsibility - not allcourts and government agencies are as soft as Ireland.

Bob24

holyhead wrote: »

Would her marraige to an Irish man let her be a resident in Ireland?

Most likely, especially since she is the mother of 2 children who already are Irish citizens (assuming the father was born in Ireland, which I believe is the case).

The third child she has from an American citizen would probably be a bit less straight forward if they wanted to bring him here (just talking about the legal aspect in Ireland, not any informal or legal right the father might claim to see the child in the US). But given the media agitation around this and the fact that the Irish government have put themselves under pressure by saying they would provide assistance, I think it is safe enough to assume Irish authorities would facilitate this as well.

From The Irish Times, Wife of Keith Byrne says his treatment by US is ‘so unfair’:

The American wife of an Irish man who has been threatened with deportation from the US has said it is “so unfair” that possession of marijuana for personal use charges from “many years ago” is halting his bid for citizenship.... Ms Byrne said her husband was fined twice for possession of “a very small amount” of marijuana in Ireland in his early 20s. “Those little incidents have followed him here and destroyed his bid to become a citizen.

“It’s unfair that something so small should have an impact,” she added.

Leaving aside the emotional and familial issues, the Yanks are impractical morons if a guy who has contributed much to their country was refused permanency for possession of pot for personal use in his early 20s in a different country. Fair enough if he was convicted of supplying, but this is not the case according to the above.

Anyway, their rules; their country. Hopefully the young and currently carefree potheads of Ireland will take note that American puritanism on this issue is not some urban myth and that they really will hold a simple conviction like this in your younger days against you.

Donald Trump

weldoninhio wrote: »

I think they mean he overstayed the Visa Waiver, which he obtained fraudulently. The visa waiver only allows you to stay for 90 days, which he overstayed.

I am not meaning to be pedantic, but it is subtly different.

You don't obtain anything under VWP (except for admission to the country). Think of it as how I explained it - it just allows the CBP official the discretion to allow you to come into the country under certain conditions. If he broke those conditions by not making a full disclosure or by not honouring the exit condition then that is of course breaking the VWP rules.



You can fill out your Esta completely correctly online, you can have an exemplary past and have your complete itinerary for your first ever visit to the US mapped out, and the person sitting at the USCBP counter in Dublin can decide not to let you in because they don't like your haircut. You have waived any right of appeal by filling out your ESTA. You would just need to make a trip to the Embassy to apply for a formal Visa if you subsequently wanted to visit the US.

weldoninhio

Deleted User wrote: »

From The Irish Times, Wife of Keith Byrne says his treatment by US is ‘so unfair’:




Leaving aside the emotional and familial issues, the Yanks are impractical morons if a guy who has contributed much to their country was refused permanency for possession of pot for personal use in his early 20s in a different country. Fair enough if he was convicted of supplying, but this is not the case according to the above.

Anyway, their rules; their country. Hopefully the young and currently carefree potheads of Ireland will take note that American puritanism on this issue is not some urban myth and that they really will hold a simple conviction like this in your younger days against you.

He was refused permanency, and is being deported, because he entered the country fraudulently and illegally.

Donald Trump

is_that_so wrote: »

Do you have a link for that? Anything I've read suggests it's an admin tool made available to a certain number of developed countries, of which Ireland is one.

A link for what? That you don't need a Visa for a scheme that is called the "Visa Waiver Program"?


I can't think of anything else you can be asking though so after much in-depth specialist research, I found a niche obscure site called "wikipedia" and buried and hidden in the first line in the first paragraph of the page is the sentence

wikipedia wrote:

The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) is a program of the United States Government which allows citizens of specific countries to travel to the United States for tourism, business, or while in transit for up to 90 days without having to obtain a visa.

The CBP person at the desk can refuse admittance. It is at their total discretion and there is no right or means of appeal. However if you have a valid Visa they can't refuse you for no reason. (i.e you can't walk up to them and punch them in the face and say "read my visa bitch" if you have a visa and expect to be allowed to pass but they also can't make a determination that you are likely to overstay and not allow you entry as long as your paperwork is in order). Under VWP they can just say the analogy of "Not tonight pal. Regulars only" and you can do nothing about it.

gmisk

Deleted User wrote: »

From The Irish Times, Wife of Keith Byrne says his treatment by US is ‘so unfair’:




Leaving aside the emotional and familial issues, the Yanks are impractical morons if a guy who has contributed much to their country was refused permanency for possession of pot for personal use in his early 20s in a different country. Fair enough if he was convicted of supplying, but this is not the case according to the above.

Anyway, their rules; their country. Hopefully the young and currently carefree potheads of Ireland will take note that American puritanism on this issue is not some urban myth and that they really will hold a simple conviction like this in your younger days against you.

The Irish Times really need to check what they post the subheading is below, joke of a paper. Its hard not to feel some sympathy for him and his family but no idea why this is getting so much publicity.

Irishman failed to secure residency in America over marijuana possession in Irish

blackwhite

Deleted User wrote: »

From The Irish Times, Wife of Keith Byrne says his treatment by US is ‘so unfair’:




Leaving aside the emotional and familial issues, the Yanks are impractical morons if a guy who has contributed much to their country was refused permanency for possession of pot for personal use in his early 20s in a different country. Fair enough if he was convicted of supplying, but this is not the case according to the above.

Anyway, their rules; their country. Hopefully the young and currently carefree potheads of Ireland will take note that American puritanism on this issue is not some urban myth and that they really will hold a simple conviction like this in your younger days against you.

My understanding of the case is that it's not necessarily the two convictions are the issue - it's that he must have lied about them in order to obtain his original Visa Waiver.
Any conviction for drugs offences makes you ineligible for a waiver, and instead you need to obtain a Visa for entry.

Lying on the Visa Waiver application (similar to lying on an ESTA application under the current system) is a Federal felony, and is seen as a massive black mark against any future immigration applications.

is_that_so

Donald Trump wrote: »

A link for what? That you don't need a Visa for a scheme that is called the "Visa Waiver Program"?


I can't think of anything else you can be asking though so after much in-depth specialist research, I found a niche obscure site called "wikipedia" and buried and hidden in the first sentence of the page is the sentence



The CBP person at the desk can refuse admittance. It is at their total discretion and there is no right or means of appeal

Saw that already. You also claimed he couldn't overstay. What he was permitted to do was stay a limited time so any day over that is overstaying. TBH not really sure why you're going down this hair-splitting path given that he satisfies the conditions for deportation.

rob316

There is mexicans deported every day of the week for the same, but its supposedly unfair because he is White Irish.

Donald Trump

is_that_so wrote: »

Saw that already. You also claimed he couldn't overstay. What he was permitted to do was stay a limited time so any day over that is overstaying. TBH not really sure why you're going down this hair-splitting path given that he satisfies the conditions for deportation.

Sorry. I was not focusing on the "overstaying" part. I just pointed out he didn't have a Visa. Under VWP he would need to leave the country within 90 days. (You can reset the 90 days by exiting and re-entering, but not to Canada or Mexico and there is no guarantee, and actually unlikely that, you will be re-admitted if the CBP suspects that is what you are doing).


If you are still in the country after 90 days then you fall out of status. They can deport you and bar you from re-entry if they want. If your man is being threatened with 5 years in jail, I reckon there might be a bit more to it. Or maybe the 5 years is for making a false declaration. I don't think you'd get a prison sentence for "overstaying".

Donald Trump

rob316 wrote: »

There is mexicans deported every day of the week for the same, but its supposedly unfair because he is White Irish.

Are you surprised it is in the Irish news? I would assume it's not newsworthy because of this specific fella himself but moreso that it highlights a potential issue for tens of thousands of other Irish people living in the US without status



Generally, things make the news in Ireland that are related to Irish people that would not make the news anywhere else.

weldoninhio

Donald Trump wrote: »

Sorry. I was not focusing on the "overstaying" part. I just pointed out he didn't have a Visa. Under VWP he would need to leave the country within 90 days. (You can reset the 90 days by exiting and re-entering, but not to Canada or Mexico and there is no guarantee, and actually unlikely that, you will be re-admitted if the CBP suspects that is what you are doing).


If you are still in the country after 90 days then you fall out of status. They can deport you and bar you from re-entry if they want. If your man is being threatened with 5 years in jail, I reckon there might be a bit more to it. Or maybe the 5 years is for making a false declaration. I don't think you'd get a prison sentence for "overstaying".

There was an immigration lawyer, from Mayo originally working in NY, who said the max penalty for lying on your visa waiver is 10 years imprisonment.

Bob24

blackwhite wrote: »

My understanding of the case is that it's not necessarily the two convictions are the issue - it's that he must have lied about them in order to obtain his original Visa Waiver.
Any conviction for drugs offences makes you ineligible for a waiver, and instead you need to obtain a Visa for entry.

Lying on the Visa Waiver application (similar to lying on an ESTA application under the current system) is a Federal felony, and is seen as a massive black mark against any future immigration applications.

Yep, he would have filled-out a form similar to this one: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NhlML.jpg

With a clear warning that answering yes to one of the security questions requires special pre-clearance, and another clear warning that being in breach of the waiver programme would result in deportation/refusal to enter (and in this case he was in breach of the programme in 2 ways: lying on the form to avoid the required pre-clearance process, and overstaying compared to the duration granted by the waiver).

So Just with these there is more than minor drug offences behind the decision (and there might be more we don’t know).

rd1izb7lvpuksx

Donald Trump wrote: »

However if you have a valid Visa they can't refuse you for no reason. (i.e you can't walk up to them and punch them in the face and say "read my visa bitch" if you have a visa and expect to be allowed to pass but they also can't make a determination that you are likely to overstay and not allow you entry as long as your paperwork is in order). Under VWP they can just say the analogy of "Not tonight pal. Regulars only" and you can do nothing about it.

This is 100% wrong. From https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program/requirements-immigrant-and-nonimmigrant-visas:

Issuance of a visa does not guarantee entry to the United States. A visa simply indicates that a U.S. consular officer at an American embassy or consulate has reviewed the application and that officer has determined that the individual is eligible to enter the country for a specific purpose. The CBP Officer at the port-of-entry will conduct an inspection to determine if the individual is eligible for admission under U.S. immigration law.

CBP can deny entry for holders of valid visas in exactly the same circumstances as people availing of a visa waiver - there is no additional rights or considerations granted. They can absolutely make a determination that you intend to overstay and deny you entry. The only difference is that under the visa waiver programme, you waive your right to appeal to an Immigration Judge.