Regardless of the circumstances, if you're not a US citizen I would encourage you to not travel to the US. Even if you _are_ a US citizen you may well be harassed and abused by ICE.
Due process under the US Constitution protects everyone in the US, not just US citizens.
Actually, thanks to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that's not exactly true anymore.
You can be detained and deported without first seeing a judge.
(1) "Judge" is not necessarily identical with "due process." (2) Congress can't override constitutional protections by passing new laws. That would require a constitutional amendment.
Also 'immigration judge' is not an Article III Judge for the purposes of Constitutional requirements.
A law cannot overturn the Constitution, you need an Amendment for that. In principle, anyway. If you have a Supreme Court that abdicates its duties then you can do whatever you want, at the cost of legitimacy.
According to Congress and blessed by Supreme Court, immigration law is civil, not criminal and therefore all criminal due process law does not apply.
It's been that way for over 40 years so yes, according to Congress/SCOTUS, this is legal.
The nuances of criminal procedure may not apply, but the fundamental constitutional rights still do, as well as human rights. Indeterminate detention violates both.
Indeterminate detention without end goal violates the law. However, my guess is process is moving along, just extremely slowly.
A distinction without a difference, and it's questionable whether deportation is actually the goal here. If that were the case they could put him on plane today.
They can't put him on a plane without his consent: https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton...
Basically, the guy admits that he overstayed the terms of the Visa Waiver Program, but is arguing that the fact INS started processing his adjustment of status application gives him the right to stay in the U.S. until it's resolved:
> 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.
Remember that the whole point of the Visa Waiver Program is that you're conceding up front that you're just visiting and aren't making a claim for asylum or whatever. The idea is that the U.S. makes it easy for you to enter, in return for you agreeing that the U.S. can easily deport you if you overstay.
Law enforcement likes to say "You can beat the rap, but not the ride".
Not according to the 5th Circuit, sadly....
"The majority stakes the largest detention initiative in American history on the possibility that ‘seeking admission’ is like being an ‘applicant for admission,’ in a statute that has never been applied in this way, based on little more than an apparent conviction that Congress must have wanted these noncitizens detained — some of them the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens,” she added. “Straining at a gnat, the majority swallows a camel.”
https://www.courthousenews.com/fifth-circuit-upholds-trump-a...
The statute is exceedingly clear. Subsection (a) first says: "An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission."
Subsection (b)(2)(A) then says: "Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title."
That applies to those who step across the border as part of a border crossing or rescue. The court decision applies it to all aliens, which is the never before applied part of GP.
The whole point of subsection (a)(1) is to treat all aliens similarly to those who cross the border for purposes of the chapter. Subsection (a)(1) is titled "Aliens treated as applicants for admission."
Subsection (a)(1) then says that "[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States ... shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission."
Who is covered by the phrase "an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted?" What else could that phrase possibly be referring to?
It really doesn't. It should of course.
But SV cheers it on
[flagged]
This Irish man would probably prefer to be removed from the property (country), instead of being indefinitely detained waiting for a trial whose outcome is already known.
The 6th Amendment of the US contains a right to a speedy trial. Otherwise, every arrest can become a life sentence if no trial is ever held.
The article says he refused to sign the deportation paperwork, does that not mean that his continued detention is a choice under his control? He could agree to return to Ireland and they would put him on a plane.
Before we even get into the complete lack of morality in forcefully separating a married couple, removing him from his home and his business; you might want to check what happens to people who do agree to be deported. Plenty of examples where this has not at all been as painless as you are implying.
So getting married should be a loophole in the immigration law?
Compare: "The man refused to sign confession-papers, so that means his continued imprisonment is actually a choice under his control. He could simply confess to jaywalking, and they'd rip him away from his family and life and exile him to the streets of another country within a mere day or two. No problem."
Abject surrender in the face of threats/violence is always, technically, a fast resolution to anything, but it's not the kind of thing we (or the framers of the Constitution) wanted to optimize for.
He's already confessed! He admits he came here under the Visa Waiver Program, overstayed the 90 day limit, and that, as a result, he can be removed without proceedings for a determination of deportability: https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton...
"Thus, individuals that entered the country under VWP are removable 'without referral of the alien to an immigration judge for a determination of deportability.' See 8 C.F.R. § 217.4(b)(1). Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10."
Well, yes, basically this entire situation is one he created himself starting back in 2009. I would love to see a vast increase in legal immigration, and this guy isn't it.
He was also granted bail, but was kept in detention. Was that his choice?
Yes, he should definitely choose to ditch his US citizen wife and move to a place she probably can’t reside or work legally. /s If the government kept you in a tent camp and said you could just sign some papers and be free to leave without your family, would you?
> move to a place she probably can’t reside legally
Are you suggesting that Ireland is even more strict on immigration than the US is?
If he were here illegally, they wouldn't need him to agree to be deported.
That does not make any sense. They just offered him the chance to waive the court process and go back to Ireland immediately. It does not mean that he must be here legally. It just means that a court will have to make that determination before any further steps can be taken.
If he had been found to be here illegally, they would not need him to voluntarily consent to being deported. I hope that's obvious.
So apparently you get one chance to sign documents while you are being forcibly detained with no access to legal representation.
Lol.
Yeah, that sounds like a great way to run a country.
There's a follow-up story from The Guardian that seems to have details relevant to this line of questioning: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/09/irish-man-se...
First of all, back in November, a judge approved his release on bond, which he paid, but the government ignored that order and continued to detain him.
After his detention, he was asked to sign paperwork opting for voluntary deportation; he refused, but then the government proceeded to claim in court that he had signed documents to that effect, which he and his lawyer insist must be falsified or otherwise in error. However a judge allowed them to stand, which removes his ability to appeal. Now, either because the government is inept or malicious, he seems to be stuck in a legal limbo unless his lawyer can challenge the government's documentation or force an analysis of those forms.
He probably wants to remain with his wife and home, just like Abrego Garcia did, who currently has been returned to his Maryland home and family, despite what the DOJ said would never happen.
Do they also lock you up on the property for 5 months while they figure out how to remove you from the property?
People’s inability to comprehend the need for basic legal rights like Habeas Corpus is incredible. We literally have leaders who don’t know what that means and when challenged on it, don’t even bother to look it up and remain uninformed when asked months later.
And fools defend them.
This guy admits he entered under the Visa Waiver Program in 2009, then remained in the country illegally: https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton... ("Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10.").
If he wants to go home, he can just go home under the DOJ's Voluntary Departure Program: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1480811/dl
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy, public trial in criminal prosecutions, protecting defendants from excessive, prejudicial delays between indictment or arrest and trial.
There's also a line in the Constitution about "cruel and unusual punishment" which this would surely fit.
Sure but the courts have ruled that a "speedy trial" can take years (I don't agree with this, it's just what the courts have decided). Additionally if you're not a US citizen you don't necessarily have all the same rights as a citizen, and your case is processed in civil court. Anyone can be detained, and a good judge won't release illegal immigrants from detention since they're just not going to return to court until after their hearing.
The man clearly states that he is here legally, under a work permit.
The State says "Due process" now means your body may be used in the hard labor prison archipelago. How quickly we Rationalize. How shamefully human we are.
It is hard to conceive of five months as "speedy" if someone is being detained for the duration.
Also: a nation is not a private residence. That's an analogy that irritates me when I see it.
Not sure if this is intentional ragebait
@rayiner Do you understand that justifying his 5 month detention without due process means you are justifying your own 5 month detention without due process?
He is getting due process. He admitted to a federal court that he came to the US in 2009 under a Visa Waiver Program, which is limited to 90 days: https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton... ("Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10.").
By contrast, I'm a naturalized citizen. My dad came here on a valid H visa because he's an expert in public health and a U.S. company wanted to hire someone with his qualifications.
Constitution also garuntees a speedy trial and specifically calls out these type of long detentions without conviction or trial being used as punishment.
[edit- not accurate currently]
Looks like this actually got unflagged if it was flagged before. That's rare here.
Increasingly this seems like a scam intended to re-route my tax dollars into the private prison corporations that donate to the Trump campaign. What purpose other purpose could this possibly serve?
Getting Americans used to imprisoning every one they want.
[flagged]
There's no such thing as "coming to the US illegally" if you cross at a border checkpoint with a valid stamp or visa. There are only visa or stamp overstays, which is a civil matter. Your analogy to Australia is specious because the vast majority of people being rounded up and detained came here legally on a visa, and then stopped meeting the requirements of that visa. Australia's law is specific to people who bypassed our border checkpoints, since you would have needed a visa or a stamp to get through in the first place.
It is a matter of your opinion whether court proceedings are "frivolous." We have a common law system here in the US which allows a judge some latitude in their decisionmaking, up to and including issuing a ruling contrary to established precedent when the precedent doesn't make any sense in the specific situation we're in. If we want to continue having trials, we have to allow even trials which we consider cut and dried so that the truth may be examined and an informed judgement rendered. This is the heart of our civilization and if you throw that away then you will see how brutal things can get without our system.
Australia's mandatory detention is controversial. I don't see why people need to be detained while they have ongoing court cases. I don't see what harm an undocumented person causes by simply being in the country. Most of them are not criminals, they're just here for better living conditions, work opportunities or family.
Moving people around detention centers to hide them from lawyers and families, while too often ignoring court orders and due process is also extremely concerning. As are the poor conditions often reported in these detention facilities. The process should be humane and legal.
> I don't see why people need to be detained while they have ongoing court cases.
Because it turns the immigration system on its head. People come to the U.S., stay for years while court proceedings drag on, and in most cases the government eventually gives up. The U.S. issues 65,000 or so skilled worker visas annually, but over a million people enter illegally. At that point, why even bother having an immigration system?
> Most of them are not criminals, they're just here for better living conditions, work opportunities or family.
Do you think keeping out criminals is why we have an immigration system?
Oh no, immigrants! What a terrible issue. Let’s worry about that rather than the problems created by wealthy people who are citizens of this country. Every person who cares deeply about immigration unknowingly signals that their priorities are bullshit.
People who think immigration isn't important are just ignorant about culture and the reasons some societies are more successful than others.
It's just the liberal version of Bush thinking that he could turn Iraq into a democracy using laws on paper.
Immigrants are a problem created by wealthy people with the intention of dumping the cost of labour.
You could control the price of labor far more directly by increasing the minimum wage instead of this system of cruelty people are building.
[flagged]
So you don't care if injustice happens to other people, only if it could happen to you?
I had a family member imply that it's okay for ICE to stop and harass non white people because "let's face it, most illegals aren't white".
Rights are optional, for other people.
Why is it understandable that ICE goes after people from developing countries? That being said, I don't know how ICE is allowed to detain anyone for months and move them around so they're hard to locate. Sounds extremely illegal and unconstitutional. Don't know why anyone supports this BS. Really makes me feel sad for my country.
I think the implication is that people from third-world countries want what the US has so they're likely to take more risks to come to/stay in the US, whereas visitors from other western countries are less likely to stay because they have less to gain and more to lose if they're caught.
It comes across as pretty racist the way they said it, but a charitable interpretation does make sense despite that.
[flagged]
> The man concedes he came to the U.S. illegally.
Not according to the article?
> "And I did, I complied with everything they said. They asked me if I had a Green Card, I said I didn't, I said I was married to a citizen and that I had a marriage-based petition in place and I was just about to receive my Green Card and that I had a work permit to be here and work."
> He said he had received the work permit about "a month or so earlier", so as far as he knew he was covered.
It's in the legal filings: https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton...
"Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10."
He came to the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program, which is limited to 90 days, back in 2009.
And yet neither has he been removed nor has he been granted access to a trial.
I also like these parts:
> Culleton testified that he did not sign the Notice nor did he write “I’m married to a citizen and have a work permit” on it.
> Secore testified that he remembered serving the Notice on Culleton, but not watching Culleton sign it.
> Secore also testified that the paperwork was riddled with mistaken dates because of the way ICE’s computer system operates.
> Secore testified that he should have caught those errors when processing the paperwork, but that he “missed” them.
> And yet neither has he been removed nor has he been granted access to a trial.
What do you think that proves?
You are completely incorrect. An Employment Authorization Document, which he is referring to, does not imply or confer ANY immigration status.
https://universityfinance.richmond.edu/payroll/international...
An EAD gives a person legal status to work in the United States but has fewer privileges than a green card.
Again, completely false. An EAD does not issue ANY immigration status, period. He had no legal status prior to marriage and still has no legal status because he has no green card and has racked up 20 years of overstay.
EADs are not issued to people with immigration status (eg. citizens or permanent residents). It is ONLY issued to those with no status.
From what I can tell you're right, but this seems like it's 100% the fault of the United States and 0% his. Why would you issue a document certifying authorization to work in the United States that does not imply authorization to be in the United States?
He has a valid work permit and is married to a US citizen. He's been locked in a cell with terrible conditions for four-and-a-half months and your trying to justify this?
> the person is being detained only because he is refusing to return to his country of citizenship
He's being detained because ICE chose to detain him.
> But U.S. law prohibits illegal immigrants from getting a green card
Your link and quote does not support this specific claim. The law linked is about naturalization and not about being granted permanent resident status.
Sorry, you're right. The provision that applies that to green cards is 8 USC 1255. There was a Supreme Court case about this recently: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-315_q713.pdf
Where did it say he arrived illegally? Sounds like he’s awaiting Adjustment of Status based on family ties from getting married but doesn’t say what his status was before
I agree that it doesn't say that in the article, but on the other hand, he admits having been here for 20 years. That definitely implies that he is here illegally and knew it. He likely would get denied a green card as a result of that choice.
As much as I loathe everything about how ICE is conducting their activities these days, this case does not seem like a good candidate for sympathy, it does not look like injustice.
It doesn't look like injustice that he's been locked up in squalid conditions for five months with no trial or process? How long is he going to be there? Is he going to face a trial or tribunal? Is he getting deported?
If you think he should be free to stay in the US, fine; if you think he deserves to be deported, fine; what he doesn't deserve is to be corralled indefinitely in filthy conditions just because they need to meet their quotas.
If you don't think that's injustice then there's something wrong with your sense of morality.
Despite breathless claims to the contrary, I strongly suspect that he could volunteer today to be deported, sign the paperwork and be on a plane back to Ireland within days. The gov't would be perfectly happy to rid themselves of the problem, ban him from returning, and send him on his way.
Though I could believe it would take a little longer right now due to the volume of detentions and the apparent incompetence of ICE.
In your view, is legality always and invariably the same as justice? In other words, are all laws just, and all that's just is codified as law?
> always and invariably
When you frame a question as an absolute, I feel comfortable answering no.
If you have a real philosophical argument you want to make, go for it.
Just includes citizens being able to decide the terms and conditions on which outsiders are allowed into their country. Being able to decide the conditions for immigration is a fundamental consequence of the right of self determination.
What harm was he doing being here for 20 years? Was he engaged in criminal activities? If not, then I just don't see the point in detaining people who have a life here. Have him jump through the hoops to acquire legal status, that's fine. But deportation is cruel. The US is not in danger of being overpopulated. The whole narrative of dangerous illegals over running the country is a far-right boogey man.
That is a moral argument, not a legal one. Plenty of people would call what you are describing a moral hazard to be avoided. I imagine the people who are going through the process legally would be especially outraged.
> But deportation is cruel.
The cruelty is the point.
Nowhere in the article does he "concede he came to the U.S. illegally."
Yes it does. He mentions he was able to work because of an Employment Authorization Document associated with his pending I-485 Adjustment of Status, but has been in the US for 20 years.
There is no US visa that allows living there for 20 years without work authorization. He entered illegally (or overstayed illegally) then tried to adjust status based on marriage, which is fraud.
he received his work permit a month before getting picked up?
it sounds like he was here legally. Maybe not the whole time, i dont know that for sure! but certainly at least at the time he was picked up by ICE goons.
The correct approach to do this is the K-1 visa. Anything else is a loophole or fraud. This guy thought he could lie and defraud his way to a visa without doing it properly.
Another alternative is the CR-1 visa, also a legitimate pathway.
The New York Times attempted to cover this scheme a few months ago but when you look into all the cases they all involve lying to the government or outright fraud, for example one case they highlighted was of someone who entered on a K-1 visa, which requires marriage within 90 days and which you legally agree to do, marrying TWO YEARS after entry and attempting to adjust status. So basically, committing massive immigration fraud and betting the government won't notice.
You're making a lot of assumptions here that are not supported by the article. In any case, if his application is not valid, they can deny his green card application. Why throw him in a detention center for months instead of going through the process? Is he a flight risk? Where would he go?
I did not assume anything. He specifically mentions he was able to work because of an EAD associated with his I-485 Adjustment of Status application, which is the only possible pathway to green card after marriage to a USC.
There is no U.S. visa which allows 20 year stays with no work authorization. Doesn't exist. So he entered illegally.
>Why throw him in a detention center
Because he committed immigration fraud? Overstaying means you lied to CBP. Entering illegally is a crime, too.
The letter of the law is not black and white. Think critically - why did they turn a relatively blind eye to this issue in all past administrations? Immigrants of any kind are a net benefit to the wealthy and powerful. No billionaire obeys the law to the letter either. It would be nice if we enforced the written law with this level of zeal upon the rich. Pay taxes in "creative" ways? Hire an illegal? Straight to jail, no bail, maximum fine.
So is smoking weed according the US federal government. Whether there is an actual harm being caused that should result in detainment is another matter. I'd argue ripping people away from their lives is a greater harm (via deportation or imprisonment).
You are all immigrants there. You all came on boats, you or your ancestors. Killed almost all natives and claim you’re the legal ones.
If you wouldn't condemn the previous tenants for trying to defend their lands against invaders, then you have no right to condemn us. Hopefully we will have more success.
> then you have no right to condemn us.
You should read the constitution.
Why would I condemn people who were wiped by your ancestors? They were the locals, you’re just… temporary. You don’t even care for the land!
There is no single "the locals", every tribe represented a different polity. They warred with each other constantly and conquered and took over land all the time. There is no part of the continent that is held by the original human that arrived here first. Every part has been conquered and reconquered many times. The Europeans are just the latest conquerors. Except in the cases where they literally bought the land. Which also happened.