1d ago

Irish woman living in US for decades detained by immigration officials

www.theguardian.com

An Irish woman who has lived legally in the US for four decades has been detained by immigration officials for the last week because of a criminal record dating back almost 20 years.

Cliona Ward, 54, was detained at San Francisco airport on 21 April after returning from Ireland to visit her sick father and is being held at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) facility in Tacoma, Washington.

Ward holds a green card but has convictions for drug possession from 2007 and 2008, which she believed had been expunged, her family said.

You're viewing a single thread.

90 comments

She has two prior felony drug convictions. She thought those were expunged but they weren't. So when she indicated otherwise on her paperwork, that triggered an arrest. This probably would have happened under the Biden administration too, but it wouldn't have made the news.
- Hold up. From the article:
  She was released to obtain documentation about the allegedly expunged convictions and presented them to Ice officials at San Francisco airport on 21 April, after which she was again detained and sent to the facility at Tacoma, said Holladay.
  She brought documentation about the expunged convictions to ICE, so presumably she had some kind of evidence they had been expunged. I am pretty sure she wouldn't have been arrested under the Biden administration, or any other American administration before that. She posed no flight risk, and a judge would have had to review the evidence before an arrest would have been made.
  You know, Due Process and all. It still existed six months ago, and the Constitution was still considered binding by a lot of people in government. Very many people. Some say, the best people.
- You believe this was the first time she traveled to and from Ireland in he past 40 years?
  Lol
  
  It’s possible I know a guy from Ireland who lived in the US illegally for decades. He never went home for fear of not being allowed back in.
  
  She has a green card
- Well the article states explicitly that she traveled frequently between the US and Ireland and never had an issue before. Things have changed dramatically under this administration.
- I find it funny that you're being downvoted when both upvoted responses to you contradict each other.
  She posed no flight risk
  You believe this was the first time she traveled to and from Ireland in he past 40 years?
  After getting off a plane... Not a flight risk! Literally history of leaving the country regularly.
  Regardless, 40 years here and hasn't naturalized yet? Odd... But yes if she was to have filled out a form incorrectly or differently than she had before she would be detained until it's cleared up... and immigration judges aren't really well know for having oodles of free time at the moment. So I'm not sure that length of time in detention is valid to discuss here without also talking about how we don't have enough judges for how many cases are currently open.
  But the article itself says something pretty incorrect.
  “Where people have green cards and citizenship rights there shouldn’t be an issue so we will be pursuing this on a bilateral basis to make sure that those who are legitimately entitled to be in the US are free from any challenges or difficulties of this kind,”
  That's wrong. You can lose green card status under a myriad of cases. One of them is simply by leaving the country for an extended period of time. Which the article also fails to outline how long she was in Ireland for.
  I don't see any statement from any immigration body or other officials and I don't see any evidence that this is related to her previous convictions in the article... They just bring it up out of nowhere for no apparent rhyme or reason. And since they brought it up... they couldn't confirm? What kind of reporting is this?
  the Guardian could not verify this was the case
  Why not? Seems like it would be easy to pull up a simple conviction history and see if it's there.
  But yes, your assertion that this sort of stuff happened under Biden is correct. My naturalized grandfather (Who's lived in the US for ~40 years and has been naturalized for ~30 years) flew a few times under the Biden administration and was held up by immigration at least once that I recall. Mostly because he still retains his original accent and can be hard to understand (Subject-verb-object structure is kind of optional in his native tongue and he still speaks like that's the case at times. It can be hard to follow).
  
  For there to be a flight risk, there would have to be a crime being committed. She's already done the time for her past conviction, so there's nothing to flee, and thus no flight risk.
  Her leaving the country and coming back is not a crime when she has a valid visa allowing her to do that.
  
  I addressed this... You can lose your green card. If immigration thinks that her green card might not be valid anymore, then it would be a crime to enter the country.
  She didn't have a visa, she had a green card (https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/all-visa-categories.html - green card isn't a visa and isn't present on the visa list). And depending on the circumstances of her leaving the country she could have absolutely lost the green card, eg if she left the country for 6 months. This article doesn't provide enough information to actually understand what happened was wrong. Further since she's just a green card holder, she likely still has her citizenship to Ireland (though admittedly speculation). So no Visas would have occurred at all in this process at all.
  I'm telling you this as a person who holds dual citizenship and my ENTIRE family (except for one person) was immigrants who all fully naturalized. I understand the visa/green card process really well because my mother naturalized and I was old enough to rationalize questions on the matter and directly asked her. Similar stories for both of my grandparents though at different ages.
  It may very well be that she only left the country for a couple of days, had all the proper documentation, and filled everything out properly. Then we have issues, but we already know that wasn't the case since she had to go home to collect more of those documents and the article doesn't tell us anything meaningful further.
  And as my anecdote can speak to, even if you're naturalized/a citizen. If you say the wrong thing that can be grounds to investigate further, regardless of what administration is in office.
  
  Well if you read the article it says she left to visit Ireland earlier this year and returned in March. There's no way she invalidated her green card by staying out of the country for 6 months. It also states she visited Ireland many times during the last 20 years and never had an issue.
  
  I did read the article... but I will admit that I missed "earlier this year" specifically. But I did notice the dates that came after that.
  [...] and after returning to the US was stopped at Seattle airport on 19 March and held for three days.
  She was released to obtain documentation about the allegedly expunged convictions and presented them to Ice officials at San Francisco airport on 21 April
  She took over a month to get her documents to the officials. I now see it as much more likely that she is detained again specifically because she missed a deadline to return with the documents and they're detaining her specifically because doing that is considered a flight risk, until the matter is resolved.
  
  A far more likely scenario is that she needed to schedule an appointment with an official to present the documents. She was released from custody on the 21st and presented them exactly a month later.
  
  Regardless, 40 years here and hasn't naturalized yet? Odd.
  Nothing odd about it. An Irish passport is measurably better than an American one.
  Edit: You can live in a different country for the vast majority of your life and still feel like it's not your home country. My sister has lived in the UK for over forty years and is very much Irish.
  
  Nothing odd about it. An Irish passport is measurably better than an American one.
  You don't give up an Irish one to get an American one.
  Source: Am dual citizen with 2 passports.
  
  You don't have to but I wouldn't naturalise in her situation either. Under no circumstances would I pledge allegiance to a country that I felt wasn't mine and if I had a green card I wouldn't bother.
  That's not to say I might not feel that way about another country in the future but as I said my sister has been living in the UK for over two thirds of her life and would never consider getting a British passport. Even her adult daughter chooses an Irish one.
  If you don't mind me asking why bother with the dual citizenship? And did you feel any weirdness pledging yourself to the second country?
  
  No pledging required. I hold 2 citizenships by birth.
  Edit: Weird to live somewhere for nearly half a century and not "feel" that it's yours... Why not just go back "home"?
  
  She married an Englishman and raised her kids there because Ireland in 1980 was not exactly thriving. She was around 20 when she left so definitely old enough to feel thoroughly Irish for a lifetime. She still has her accent and all.
  She does talk about moving back here occasionally.
  
  I dunno. I'm strongly a "home is where you make it" sort of thing. I couldn't care less where I was specifically born. But to each their own I suppose.
  
  You're aware that 'flight risk' isn't a literal term right? Like, it doesn't mean that there's a chance they're going to board a plane and fly away lol
  
  No shit Sherlock.
  A person in law enforcement custody who is considered likely to abscond
  People who travel regularly are more likely to abscond than someone who doesn't travel at all... Why do I have to explain something so simple?
  Literally history of leaving the country regularly.
  I even noted that specifically.
  
  Because that's a broad generalization that's based on the assumption that being well-traveled makes you more likely to flee the law. Her continual travel to and from her home country has no bearing on whether or not she poses a flight risk. If that were true, anyone that moves away from home and regularly travels by car to and from their hometown should be held in custody.
  
  their hometown
  ...
  Literally history of leaving the country regularly.
  I'm just going to quote this until you read it apparently. Somehow "hometown" = "Country" to you.
  
  Was she leaving the country legally? Yes.
  Was she re-entering the country legally? Yes.
  Did she ever have a warrant out for her arrest during those times that she left the country? No.
  That's the bottom line. But for the sake of the argument, I never equated hometown and country. I merely used it as a metaphor to show you how travelling to her home country doesn't qualify her as a flight risk.
  
  So leaving a town to you is equivalent to the travel it takes to leave the country? You don't see significant differences between the two? Then I can't communicate with you on that particular point. We will not come to any consensus there. Especially when you say "I never equated hometown and country. I merely used it as a metaphor" I never did... but did. Your two sentences directly contradict.
  Did she ever have a warrant out for her arrest during those times that she left the country? No.
  How do you know this? She thought her stuff was expunged. Which clearly it wasn't since apparently they pulled it up. If it's still in the records somewhere... or she reported it to them inaccurately. That's inconsistent information and I would expect agents to investigate.
  
  So leaving a town to you is equivalent to the travel it takes to leave the country?
  Other than distance traveled, the time afforded to travel said distance, and providing the requisite documents needed to cross a border(which she had), yes. The article doesn't mention how often she traveled to Ireland. Maybe she went every other year to celebrate Christmas with her family.
  Especially when you say "I never equated hometown and country. I merely used it as a metaphor" I never did... but did. Your two sentences directly contradict.
  No, using a metaphorical comparison does not literally equate the two things being compared. A metaphor suggests that one thing is like another in some figurative or symbolic way, not that they are literally the same.
  She thought her stuff was expunged. Which clearly it wasn't since apparently they pulled it up. If it's still in the records somewhere...
  It says in the article that she presented them with documentation of the expungement of her charges. So if she was able to provide them with documentation, it clearly took place. It shouldn't take a law degree to figure out that having your criminal records expunged doesn't wipe any trace of them from government databases. It only removes them from the public eye and prevents them from coming up during background checks for things like housing or employment. The government would still have a record of her prior convictions.
  
  Other than distance traveled, the time afforded to travel said distance, and providing the requisite documents needed to cross a border(which she had)
  So then not the same at all? And we know she didn't have all the documents she needed because she had to go get some.
  It says in the article that she presented them with documentation of the expungement of her charges.
  That would have been a month after the initial detainment. That's why she had to leave to go get the documents. She didn't have it with her at the initial detainment. That's my point. She likely filled out some form incorrectly which didn't match up with what their database says. And now they are detaining her until it's cleared up by a court. It sucks, sure... but this is how it goes.
  
  What are you not getting about this situation? She traveled with no issue for 2 decades before this. Why would you need to travel with expungement documents in the first place. That doesn't apply to travel at all, which is why she was released to get them. Being detained by ICE indefinitely isn't a "that sucks...but that's just how it goes sometimes" situation. And that's why there's an article about it. But if you want keep licking boots, you might just get to the center. I won't stop you.

90 comments