Oregon

ICE Jails and Deports College Student for Offering Spanish Tutoring Lessons

Christina Alonso spent 48 hours in the United States, all of them in an Oregon jail.

|

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Field Operations officer
Glenn Fawcett/ZUMA Press/Newscom

When Cristina Alonso decided to travel from her native Spain to the United States this past summer, she hoped to experience the best America had to offer. Instead she spent the whole trip in an Oregon jail.

On July 5, Alonso arrived at Portland International Airport for a planned six-week vacation. Waiting to greet her was Laurie Bridges, a librarian at Oregon State University, who had met Alonso in Spain and invited her to stay with her family in Corvallis, Oregon.

Instead, Bridges writes on the ACLU of Oregon's website, the 22-year-old college student was detained while going through customs, then shipped to the Northern Oregon Regional Correctional Facility (NORCOR).

Alonso would be held two days at the jail, where she was unable to contact either her host family in the U.S. or her relatives back in Spain. She reportedly received poor treatment from jail staff, was denied medical treatment, and then was deported from the country.

"I would have never believed that this could happen in the United States, let alone in Oregon," writes Bridges, "but I have learned that ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] operates in isolation and ignores the human rights that I have come to expect as an American."

Why, you might ask, was Alonso treated this way? Was she a suspected drug trafficker? Was she on a terrorist watch list?

Nope. The problem was a letter Bridges had written for Alonso to carry with her while travelling—a letter, ironically, that she thought could mitigate any difficulties Alonso might have with airport officials.

The letter explained that Alonso would be staying with Bridges and her family, it included Bridges' contact information, and it listed several of the places they would be visiting with Alonso while she was in the United States. Fatefully, it also mentioned that Bridges would be paying Alonso $100 a week to tutor her eight-year-old son in Spanish while she was staying with the family.

Since she would be getting paid by her host family, Alonso needed a different visa than the one she brought to Portland International.

While waiting for Alonso to clear customs at the airport, Bridges received a phone call from a U.S. customs official who said that her guest had the wrong visa and that the agent would "see what he could do."

That was the last Bridges was to hear of Alonso for the next 20 hours.

The customs agent never called her back, nor did anyone else from ICE. Alonso stopped replying to messages from Bridges or her family, though read receipts indicated that someone was viewing the frantic texts that Bridges was sending her.

The next morning Bridges visited the Customs office in Portland, where she was told that her guest had been moved to a holding facility. She wasn't told where. After she reached out to the Oregon ACLU's immigration hotline, Bridges learned that Alonso was being held in NORCOR.

Bridges spent $130 dollars contacting Alonso through her jail phone account over the next day. Then Alonso was taken back to the airport and deported to Spain.

Bridges is clearly incensed by how Alonso was treated, writing that "even if she had the wrong visa, was sending a 22-year-old college student to jail the only option? They could have released her to me for two days, to be returned to the airport for her return flight. They could have explained the situation to me or her family. They could have provided her with one free phone call. But they did not."

The ACLU of Oregon contends that the treatment Alonso received is part of a pattern of abuse at the NORCOR facility, which the ACLU describes as a "a cruel and inhumane place to be." In September, the civil liberties organization sent a letter to NORCOR administrators alleging numerous rights violations, including holding detainees in unhygienic conditions, interfering with their access to legal counsel, and denying visitation rights to family members.

ICE itself has come under fire for its tactics in the state. In January, Multnomah County commissioners criticized it for conducting immigration raids inside a county courthouse in downtown Portland. Last month plainclothes ICE agents caused a stir for detaining an American citizen and government employee as he attempted to leave another Portland courthouse while anti-deportation protests were occurring nearby.

The latest incident with Alonso will only worsen ICE's reputation in Oregon. It will almost certainly sour the view many foreigners have of United States as well. Many will no doubt wonder how a country that bills itself as a land of the freedom and opportunity can jail and deport a college student for daring to earn a little pocket money on her first, and likely last, trip to America.

Advertisement

NEXT: 14-Year Trend of Rising Opioid Deaths Reversed in Colorado After Marijuana Legalization

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Don’t wanna be a thug…

    1. Don’t tutor children like a thug.

    2. That and don’t think your letters hold any sway with government who deported this chick for getting the wrong visa.

      I just saw that there are millions of people who have overstayed their visas. I wonder when Reason will do an in-depth story like this one on the topic of over staying visas?

      Until then, carry on with the hysteria of deporting non-Americanswho don’t follow our laws or are just risky to let in.

  2. “I would have never believed that this could happen in the United States, let alone in Oregon,”

    What is the international stereotype of Oregon?

    1. My guess is the same as the national one? Oregon (specifically portland) is a bit of a progressive haven?

      1. Aren’t progressives the kind of people who would jail you for tutoring without a license?

        1. Only for the wrong kind of tutoring.

        2. And tutoring hate speech.

      2. “Haven?”

        I think you meant Dystopia.

    2. Crunchy hippies…. just like the stereotypes here?

    3. What is the international stereotype of Oregon?

      The actual international stereotype or the one proffered by an ill-informed OSU librarian?

  3. Fatefully, it also mentioned that Bridges would be paying Alonso $100 a week to tutor her eight-year-old son in Spanish while she was staying with the family.

    Pro tip, when traveling internationally, proudly announcing money will change hands while in-country can sometimes raise the eyebrows of customs officials.

    1. Yeah, was going to say that while this isn’t a great story, it’s the same in other countries. When customs asks if you’re doing work, you answer no if you don’t have a work visa.

    2. More specifically, handing over a piece of paper announcing that you’ve just committed visa fraud will get you in trouble

      1. She stole that teaching job from a decent hardworking American.

    3. I learned when traveling to Canada, that if asked if you are traveling for pleasure or business, to NEVER answer “business”.

  4. Since she would be getting paid by her host family, Alonso needed a different visa than the one she brought to Portland International.

    Only in a country run by libtard pierogies would a lawbreaking scumbag like this be released to her own country instead of pushed against a wall and summarily executed.

      1. America doesn’t need anymore Polacks with their Polish speaking and their wierd Polish food.

      2. America doesn’t need anymore Polacks with their Polish speaking and their wierd Polish food.

  5. Don’t volunteer information that you are not asked for when dealing with any kind of law enforcement official.

    1. This is the unfortunate lesson that Bridges has probably learned.

    2. “What is the purpose of your visit?”

      “Drugs. Lots of drugs. Also some fuckin’. Do you have trannies in your country?”

    3. Which of course pisses them off, and there’s no guarantee they’ll follow the letter of the constitution or be held accountable if they don’t.

      1. Could you please stick with either HazelMeade or Tony or Hail Rataxes. Your socking is tiresome.

        1. Mark obviously hasn’t seen any of the epic fights I have gotten into with Tony. Rookie mistake.

          1. Just pick one Tony, I know you talk to yourself already.

          1. *psst* I don’t think he knows who Tulpa is.

            1. No, I don’t. I do know you’re Tony. And that incoherent loon Hail Rataxes who has been harassing me.

              1. Weird that you know so much of the history of the site and its personalities but don’t know who Tulpa is.

                1. I don’t know what history you’re talking about. I saw you were socking immediately.

                  What’s not weird is how you immediately showed up to harass me for outing you for socking.

                  1. Yeah, you totally weren’t talking about how Tony had no credibility and constantly wasted his time on this site as if you were aware of that history. That’s definitely not here on this very page.

                    1. I”ve been here two weeks. Check. I’ll wait.

                      How long do you think that not so monumental coclusion takes, when other people say it all the time?

                    2. So hours later, THAT was your evidence? I knew some stuff anyone could get from a few days observation?

                      Damn Tony, you are one dumb motherfucker.

      2. there’s no guarantee they’ll follow the letter of the constitution

        Actually there’s a guarantee that they won’t.

  6. Fatefully, it also mentioned that Bridges would be paying Alonso $100 a week to tutor her eight-year-old son in Spanish while she was staying with the family.

    Don’t EVER offer “helpful” information. EVER.

    1. Thugs encountering the innocent and naive, it never ends wells.

  7. Sounds like the librarian set the kid up, giving her a letter t show the customs people saying “she plans to work on a tourist visa.”

    1. Note to her lawyers: Set the kid up *accidentally.* Thank you.

      1. With extreme carelessness – – – –

  8. Look, either it’s constitutional to impose these restrictions on tourists, or it’s not.

    If it’s constitutional, then the work ban needs to be enforced.

    1. Since she hadn’t actually worked yet, they could have warned her not to and let her go.

      Not every law has to be enforced to the maximum degree all the time. This was someone who was going to help out for a little pocket money. Should the IRS go after every kid who mows lawns or has a lemonade stand, or anyone who doesn’t report their winnings from a poker game for tax evasion? Those are constitutional laws as well.

      1. Should the IRS go after every kid who mows lawns or has a lemonade stand, or anyone who doesn’t report their winnings from a poker game for tax evasion? Those are constitutional laws as well.

        Two things on that.

        The IRS will definitely go after anything and anyone it can if there’s a dollar of taxes to be extracted. So yes, if a kid mowing lawns is found to be out of compliance, the IRS will mercilessly bring the hammer down.

        As far as constitutionality goes… it’s been convincingly argued that there’s nothing constitutional about the IRS.

        1. If they earn over $600.00, do not receive a 1099, or do not report the earnings, you betcha they will come after you. And the scofflaw who paid over $600.00 to one individual and did not file a 1099 as required by law.

        2. I’m responding to the claim that because the law exists, it must be enforced to the fullest. I bet that almost everyone has some income that they should report, but doesn’t. So laws are going unenforced. Does Lily also believe that the tax laws need to be enforced in all cases.

          1. True enough Zeb, although one of the many and acknowledged failures of a central government is a one-size fits all punishment for it’s crimes. This is such a case, I fear, since you wouldn’t want a ‘stern warning’ for group A but you might for this other group B. It’s tough to make such a differentiation in law, even while an individual might be able to recognize such a thing with reasonable accuracy in the micro.

      2. I’d argue yes, not because I agree with the law, but because I think that ruthless enforcement of a BS law can be a good way to turn people against it.

        Cops being total jackholes about kids’ lemonade stands have led to changes in the law.

        1. Thank god for sacrificial lambs.

        2. “I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.”
          — U. S. Grant

          1. They’ve been stringently executing laws against foreign nationals having jobs for several decades now, and for some reason foreign nationals haven’t voted to repeal them.

            1. “They’ve been stringently executing laws against foreign nationals having jobs for several decades now”

              Have they now?

      3. Cities routinely shut down lemonade stands.

        They did warn her and let her go. It just took a couple days..

        1. I didn’t ask if they did, I asked if they should.

    2. Better law would have drawn the line at a negligible amount of commercial activity, rather than anything greater than zero. $100 a week would have slid under the “negligible” line.

      But better law would require better lawmakers.

  9. “Fatefully, it also mentioned that Bridges would be paying Alonso $100 a week to tutor her eight-year-old son in Spanish while she was staying with the family.

    Since she would be getting paid by her host family, Alonso needed a different visa than the one she brought to Portland International.”

    Is the complaint that immigration laws should be changed, that there shouldn’t be any immigration laws, that congress setting the rules for immigration is unconstitutional?

    No, it’s that the conditions in the detainment facility are so bad as to be unconstitutional, which has nothing to do with why she was detained. If she were being detained as a drug trafficker or terrorist, the conditions in that detainment facility would have been the same anyway–so why bring up why she was detained? It’s irrelevant.

    1. The complaint is that paperwork errors aren’t a good reason to be locking people up and deporting them. This could have been solved by explaining to her (and her sponsor) that paid work is not allowed under visa, offering to let her apply for the correct visa if she wanted to work, and then letting her go on her way.

      1. I’m honestly not sure how that works. I travel internationally quite regularly. Canada seems to be a particularly prickly country when you enter for work. While I haven’t received the hairy eyeball every single time, the procedure seems to be that once they discover you’re entering for ‘business/work’, you get hustled into a different customs line and then you’re subjected to a more intense scrutiny as to the nature of your work. There’s something about the Canadians being very sensitive to the fact that dirty foreigners may be invading their shores to do work that red-blooded, poutine-loving Canadians could do themselves. Anyhoo, the point being that if I found myself being told that I couldn’t enter, I’m not sure if I just shrugged and said, “Well, ok then, I’m just here as a tourist now” would get me through the gates.

        I’m pretty sure I’d be on a plane home.

        I’m guessing ICE has no procedure for discovering someone is here for work, then after a stern talking-to, they let them in anyway with a friendly warning, and pinky-promise to not do the work they claimed they were there for.

        1. “I am here to meet with my Canadian colleagues.”

          They warned me against doing anything that might be perceived as “work.” I assured them that I would never consider such a thing. Even in the US.

        2. She wasn’t entering “for work.” She was entering to stay with a host family and travel around the US. The $100 a week thing was side-gig, not the point of the trip. And that’s why it’s pretty clear why she’d have made this mistake. Most people thinking about traveling abroad for work would think that means taking a job a normal company, not tutoring a kid for a couple hours for a private family.

          1. ICE doesn’t care about that distinction, and nor does any other country.

            No one, well almost no one believes she had intent to defraud anyone. It was an innocent mistake, but it’s an innocent mistake that everyone traveling internationally should be keenly aware of. I’m not kidding, if you tell customs officials that money will change hands while in country, you’re working. They don’t weigh the business to pleasure ratio, you’re done, you’re there on business. I don’t support the rules or advocate for them, I’m just telling you how it is. You can ignore these realities at your own risk.

            1. I realize that’s the rule. It’s also the rule that they can steal your cash from you if you’re carrying a lot of it. The existence of these rules doesn’t excuse the thuggish behavior.

      2. You say paperwork error, I say fraud.

        Both the host and the guest knew they were engaging in a business enterprise, and knew or should have know the proper way to enter the country under those conditions.

        There is a reason you cannot apply for a visa after you are already here. The visa vetting process is designed to assure the country that incoming workers are of good repute, able to perform the work they are coming to do, and oh by the way, not taking jobs from Americans.

        1. Oh, bullshit. They were going to give her some pocket money for helping out while she stayed there. Seems like an honest mistake (and something that tons of people do with no repercussions).

          1. It was an honest mistake. And it met with honest consequences.

            1. But she hadn’t done anything yet. Why not just tell her that she can’t work on a tourist visa and ask her to agree not to do any work? It’s not like there aren’t thousands of other people coming on tourist visas to work who are smart enough not to tell anyone.

              1. She admitted to violating immigration law by working on a tourist visa.

                No sympathy from me. She was deported in two days. Give your sob stories somewhere else.

                1. No sympathy from me.

                  Of course, not.

                2. She admitted to violating immigration law by working on a tourist visa.

                  No, she didn’t. She hadn’t done any work or gotten paid yet.

        2. Someone would have to show intent for this to be fraud. There’s zero evidence this was fraud.

          1. In fact, the exact opposite as they discussed it openly at the checkpoint.

          2. That’s why no one was actually prosecuted.

            1. But there was 48 hours of detention, which is clearly a form of punishment.

              1. It’s what happens when ICE is not allowed to instantly deport people. They need to be held somewhere.

                She was deported in 48 hours and not housed in a jail. Boo hoo.

        3. Yes, because its very common for people engaged in fraud to provide letters to government agents explaining their frauds. That’s a completely plausible interpretation of the situation.

        4. Actually, you CAN apply for a visa after you are already here. it’s called “Adjustment of Status”.

          1. Then why did you claim in the other thread there wasn’t any such path?

            1. You’re not gonna give me an answer to why you made one claim in one thread, and a second completely opposite claim in another are you Tony?

            2. You aren’t allowed to apply for adjustment of status if you are not currently on a legal visa.

              1. So you were lying. Just say it.

              2. And your last statement is also a lie. You are in fact, always allowed to apply. Legal status is one consderation, but not the final one.

                Please stop lying, or get more educated.

                1. Incorrect. Most illegal immigrants cannot apply to adjust status – there are certain exceptions and waivers, but those are hard to get, and those provision in the law expired in 2001.
                  In general, illegal immigrants must leave the country and wait 3-10 years before applying for ANY legal visa, depending on the length of time they were in the US illegally.

                  1. Correct, and this is to encourage people to follow the process instead of cheating, saying ‘my bad’ when they’re caught, and then immediately getting back in line.

                    1. “Correct”

                      No it isn’t.

                    2. http://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/a…..ant-status

                      “A waiver is available to applicants who can prove that denial of the immigrant visa would cause extreme hardship to a qualifying U.S. relative. ”

                      Flat wrong. Sorry bout it for you.

                  2. “Most illegal immigrants cannot apply to adjust status ”

                    This is factually wrong. Again, because you are lying.

                    They CAN always apply, and legal status is only ONE consideration.

          2. “Already here”. Does that mean after you’ve successfully navigated customs and been in country? Because by ICE’s standards, she wasn’t “Already here”. I’m no expert, but I’m doubtful you can apply for an adjustment of status while waiting in line at customs.

            Here’s how I’m guessing that works.

            You enter as tourist. While you’re in country, someone offers you a job, you apply for adjustment of status which probably takes time. I’m guessing days or weeks. During that time, you can’t work. If your adjustment of status is denied, then you can’t take the job etc.

            1. Yeah, I just read the us immigration adjustment of status page, and that’s not something that occurs while you wait in line.

              1. Yeah, it usually takes like 4-6 months or something.

                1. Because ICE is busy tracking down the millions of scammers who overstayed their visas, DREAMERS, and other illegals who are violating US law.

                  If we had most non-Americans following our laws and not trying to scam their way into America and then ICE was being super slow with visa paperwork, then I would say that ICE needs a fire lit under their ass.

                  BTW, who do you think pays for the deportation flight? US taxpayers, I suspect for most cases. Some non-Americans probably have their return flight tkt changed to cover the deportation but clearly their is a cost to taxpayers.

                  1. and other illegals who are violating US law

                    Unlike you. You never violate any laws. Nope.

                  2. It’s not ICE that processes visas, it’s USCIS.
                    It takes 4-6 months because that’s just what the processing backlog at USCIS is.

      3. The complaint is that paperwork errors aren’t a good reason to be locking people up and deporting them.

        That is not a paperwork error. It was probably completely innocent, but she signed up for a tourist visa while intending to work. I’m not sure how prominent the “you may not work” notification is, and an EU citizen might well be surprised by that rule when crossing the border.

        1. And because this was discovered at the checkpoint it seems very reasonable to at most deny them entry. Putting them in confinement without ability to find outside help is well beyond reasonable response.

        2. From the above discussion, it sounds like Spanish citizens don’t have to apply for any visa if they’re coming for tourism, so it’s quite likely she never saw a form that said “you may not work.” And even if she did, it would be pretty reasonable for a foreigner to think that getting a $100 a week to do some spanish tutoring for a family isn’t the kind of employment that would trigger a work visa requirement.

          1. I agree with your assessment, but personally, if at any point during my trip I was going to recieve a nickel in return for services rendered no matter how inconsequential, I’m either reporting it/getting it cleared before I travel, or I’m lying about it upon entry if its small enough to keep concealed.

            1. I would have done things differently too. But none of this excuses ICE’s bad behavior.

    2. What an odd complaint. It would be a pretty weird kind of news story if it gave no details about the context.

      “Girl detained at airport by ICE. It sucked.” Not much of an article.

      1. Devil’s in the details.

        “Speaker asked to leave” also doesn’t give much of an article for the Free Speech protests we’ve been seeing.

    3. Re: Ken Shultz,

      Is the complaint that immigration laws should be changed[?]

      The complaint is that the immigration system is irrational and that laws are irrelevant. ICE officers have AMPLE discretion when it comes to granting permits or judging cases.

      Nation Of Lawz? indeed.

      1. Doesn’t sound like the laws are the problem bud.

      2. I would suspect ICE officers have zero discretion.
        Issuing visas is a state department function.
        Judging cases is a department of justice function.

    4. The point is to build sympathy.

      No one cares if terrorists are mistreated.

  10. This story doesn’t make sense. Spain is part of the visa waiver program. Why were they expecting trouble at the boarder where they would pre-preemptively write a note with a list of activities? If she had a passport you don’t need to say anything, they stamp it and that’s it.

    1. Visa waiver is for tourists only.

      Nation Of Lawz?!!!

      Build Da Wall!

      1. Oh sorry, I didn’t know you were doing a character.

    2. Why were they expecting trouble at the boarder where they would pre-preemptively write a note with a list of activities?

      Trump. Also, I know lots of librarians who are absolute morons.

      If she had a passport you don’t need to say anything, they stamp it and that’s it.

      Business or pleasure?

      1. LOL. Hadn’t figured on the angle of this being a self fulfilling prophecy.

        Academics of all levels are hyper silly about TRUMP.

        She was here for “pleasure.” The tutoring was incidental. She could have honestly checked “tourist” and been on her way with no second glance.

        LOL.

    3. If she had a passport you don’t need to say anything, they stamp it and that’s it.

      Every country I travel to makes you fill out a customs form, and one of the questions is if you’re there for pleasure or business. Regardless, once she shoved the letter in their face which essentially said that she was there [partially] for work, the jig was up.

  11. Many will no doubt wonder how a country that bills itself as a land of the freedom and opportunity can jail and deport a college student for daring to earn a little pocket money on her first, and likely last, trip to America.

    Nation Of Laws?!!!!

    Making America Grating Again, bitches!

    Of course her B1/B2 visa doesn’t give her permission from Leviathan to earn money in the US because “The American Worker?”. She would be required to enter the country with a more appropriate (and more expensive) visa but, you must know, a person who had a work visa issued to him or her cannot later request a B1/B2 tourism visa after the first one expires, for a very long time. So is damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

    1. non-Yankee go home!

      Payback is a bitch.

      1. My home is down the Mason-Dixon line, you Yankee!

    2. You have correctly identified American labor law as a major stumbling block to wide open borders. I expect you will now advocate for Americans to vote for lower wages for themselves and the dissolution of all welfare as we Libertarians generally recommend?

      Wait…I think I just saw a problem with your plan…

      I don’t necessarily disagree, but I do think expecting such a change is basically wishin’ on a dream.

      1. Re: BYODB,

        You have correctly identified American labor law as a major stumbling block to wide open borders.

        I indentified the arbitrary nature of immigration “law” which purports to protect “American Workers?” from competition even when the immigrant is not competing.

        I expect you will now advocate for Americans to vote for lower wages for themselves

        Wage level is a function of the productivity of labor and not voting.

        1. Wage level is a function of the productivity of labor and not voting.

          Man, if only…

        2. Minimum wage level is not a function of the productivity of labor, and it was expressly created to hinder the ability of low-skill and even mid-skilled immigrant labor to find jobs. (Well, that and to keep Black Americans unemployed.)

          Additionally, are you just pretending that the ‘fight for $15’ movement didn’t steer one of our two major candidates for President of the United States to agree that she would raise said minimum wage to $15 an hour, absolutely divorced from productivity? I won’t comment on the likelihood of her actually following through on that, but it instantly vaporizes your case here.

          Citizens vote, and as such they are at least theoretically represented by politicians (regardless of how you feel about the true mechanics there) but as non-citizens who do not get to vote they don’t really get a say here, rather they get a say at home assuming they come from a nation that even nominally recognizes those rights.

          So, you’ll need to convince the entirety of American citizens to actively vote for lower wages for themselves to even theoretically get a simpler immigration system. Good luck with that, but it does show why at the baseline level your types generally go for amnesty. It means you don’t need to explain how your preferred policy works, because it’s functionally a non-policy.

          As a sort of Libertarian I can agree with some of your goals, but the path you go down leads to more Kings.

          1. Furthermore, how do you figure that this woman’s labor was not in competition with domestic American labor? Is immigrant labor magic?

            1. Because they were creating a job to help this one person. It was charity. The son will now go untutored for the summer.

              1. The son will now go untutored for the summer.

                Not that I firmly believe one way or the other in this regard but this is fallacious. The son won’t simply cease to exist. He’ll likely join a local soccer club or his Mom will buy him $600 worth of electronics to play games on watch Youtube fail videos “teach him to code”.

              2. No, a real american will be hired to do the tutoring. Wages will be paid and reported, taxes will be due and paid.

                1. Oh, yeah, because as we all know, Real Americans always file all required 1099s for informal employees paid in cash.

              3. I’m sure he’ll happily still get some ‘tutoring!’

              4. If it was charity it shouldn’t be reliant upon her performing service as a prerequisite. That’s not charity, it’s a job. Six weeks of Spanish tutoring, I would wager, could go a lot higher than $600 if you had to pay a licensed American tutor.

                I would agree it’s seriously messed up, but Americans do love their labor protections. You’d be hard pressed to find a politician that honestly wants to roll them back in any way, shape, or form.

                1. You don’t need a license to work as a tutor. And libertarians are against occupational licensing in all of it’s many forms.

                  1. Call it what you will, but there are plenty of certificates for every level of everything and tutor is no exception.

                    You mistake the argument though, again, in that I’m simply pointing out that you seem unwilling to address the root causes of immigration limitations that exist predominantly because of generous social welfare promises to U.S. citizens.

                    Interestingly enough, it appears the Progressives and the Democrats are attempting to finance American welfare on the backs of immigrant labor who are exempt from their own preferred policies. This is one of the many, many reasons you must equate the libertarian position with the Republican position. It’s because you need to stand on bodies to make yourselves seem even halfway moral.

                    Or, in a nutshell, if you don’t have a compass it’s really no wonder you’re so lost.

                    1. Also, I should add the Republicans appear to be more than willing to attempt that gambit as well, in that they are attempting to finance promises to American citizens on the backs of foreign labor just as much as the other parties. It seems to be the consensus plan, in fact.

          2. As a sort of Libertarian I can agree with some of your goals, but the path you go down leads to more Kings.

            This was my second thought as well, I generally agree in the abstract that there should be open borders but when he writes crap like that it only convinces me that, at best, he’s only right in the abstract. He’s either completely out of touch or a useful idiot.

          3. This is just an argument for why “democracy” sucks.
            People shouldn’t be allowed to vote to protect themselves from competition.

            1. Which is why the United States isn’t a Democracy, but rather a Constitutional Republic, but you start to understand the complexity of the issue and why standing on Mexican illegal immigrants is just emoting about the end results of a plethora of shitty policy, yes?

        3. “Wage level is a function of the productivity of labor and not voting.”

          Absent distortions…

          Which has been true… when?

        4. even when the immigrant is not competing

          Even when it’s not an immigrant, but a tourist.


  12. I would have never believed that this could happen in the United States, let alone in Oregon,” writes Bridges, “but I have learned that ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] operates in isolation and ignores the human rights that I have come to expect as an American.”

    Notably, her human rights (I’m assuming they mean natural rights…) were not really infringed upon beyond her ability to hire foreign nationals at below market wages for tutoring.

    Somehow, though, I don’t see Bridges making the argument that the American minimum wage is too high. It’s a classic case of they want their cake, and they want to eat it too.

    This is one individual who now realizes why businesses hire lawyers to submit VISA applications and write letters to the government? Maybe not, since they think the ACLU has any standing whatsoever to do anything about this case. I’d say virtually any smart lawyer would have just submitted the correct VISA application to correct the issue or advised her not to pay the tutor.

    1. The ACLU’s complaint seems to be primarily about her treatment, not the reasons for her detainment.

      1. I’ll admit I’m particularly interested in the ‘denied medical care’ bit, since I’m curious what medical care this woman might have needed over the course of a two day stay. Was she roughed up? Tried to make a medical excuse to get out of the holding area? No one seems to have clarified that bit.

        1. I’ll admit I’m particularly interested in the ‘denied medical care’ bit,

          She’s Spanish, healthcare is a universal human right. Everywhere she goes in America she’s denied medical care.

          Seriously, though, if ICE roughed her up, put the agent or agents heads on a pike.

    2. Re: BYODB,

      Notably, her human rights (I’m assuming they mean natural rights…) were not really infringed upon beyond her ability to hire [sic] foreign nationals at below market wages for tutoring.

      Whose rights were infringed upon by Leviathan were those of the girl from Spain, not her sponsor’s.

      Besides this, it is sweet to hear you defend “market wage rates” from nefarious undercutters. Is as if we’re witnessing a baby bird taking its first plunge into the abyss….

      1. The irony of someone coming here from Spain then bitching about our immigration policy is pretty rich, especially right now given what’s going on in Spain.

        In this scenario the only legal right this Spanish woman had was to be sent home, and I would argue that the turnaround time was actually too slow which seems to be about the type of argument the ACLU is making as well.

        1. I’m fine with that. I would still think that’s a little too intense an application of visa laws, but taking her from the checkpoint to jail and detaining her for two days is what makes it offensive.

          1. I like a small regulatory fine here. Why make the cost of enforcement so obscene.

            1. Fines are legalized bribery in my view, so no I would not agree.

    3. What’s your definition of market rate beyond what someone is willing to do the job for?

      1. I’m using the minimum wage as the market rate as it is functionally the price floor of what you’re allowed to pay in the United States. Without more information regarding this persons expected hours to compare their pay rate, this is as good of an assumption as any other.

        The question here is does an American employer have the right to ignore the minimum wage when hiring, but we already know the answer. They do not.

        This is black market labor, as ridiculous as that sounds. It’s not immigration law that’s the problem, although it can be said to be a part of the problem, it’s that immigrants are used to get around protectionist labor policy in America and no one at all is talking about getting rid of that beyond certain small groups like Libertarians, and we’re not even consistent on that point either.

        Why do we expect a black market to go away when the policies that create the black market are quite definitely here to stay? Oh, right, the honest people talk about never-ending amnesty as if that’s the cure. It’s not, but at least they’re honest.

    4. I’d say virtually any smart lawyer would have just submitted the correct VISA application to correct the issue or advised her not to pay the tutor.

      Smart lawyer? From these forums, you could stumble over half-a-dozen IANAL-types who could give you the correct advice for free in an hour or two.

      Gotta love a librarian that can’t do basic research.

  13. PROGRESSIVE MOMENT

  14. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER talk to cops!

    1. This is something that white bread Oregonians probably haven’t come into contact with, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

      I’m whiter than white, mostly because of my Irish heritage, but I’ll tell you one thing being poor taught me: don’t trust the police. It’s not a race thing, it’s a ‘can you buy your way clear of the infraction’ type thing. If you can’t, the answer is almost always jail.

      That’s right, American law codified bribery into our justice system.

    2. When you cross the border you will talk to the cops or you’ll be on a plane back to your country of origin.

  15. Thank God the job of a spanish tutoring Trump Voter in West Virginia was protected from this unfair competition! /sarc

    1. Please make some fucking sense.

  16. Importing cheap labor from other countries, even Spain, hurts wages of Americans.

    I realize some people see that as a plus, but it just means Americans will rely more on welfare

  17. Sounds like the TSA in Los Angeles. Couple years back a brand new female Korean Pop group called Oh My Girl was arriving in the US for promotional activities and tour events to see the US.

    Mind you this was a group of 8 girls (ages 17 – 20) on their first trip to America and their managers had never traveled to the US with a group prior to this trip. Some mistakes were made in their paperwork. During the period of time of their processing, the TSA did an inspection of their luggage and discovered that the girls had their dance outfits – uniforms that look like schoolgirl uniforms and others that looked like something Tinkerbell would wear (these are very common costumes for Kpop groups as you can see on YouTube).

    Looking at the paperwork errors and the outfits – the TSA decided that their managers were a couple guys trying to smuggle in Korean prostitutes and locked them up in a holding room for 15 hours before deporting them on the next flight back to Korea. As far as I know – they are still banned from entering the US.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isUudT58Xfk

    1. Anyone who bans K-Pop women are monsters.

  18. Another lesson that should be learned from this experience is, Don’t Volunteer information to the government Unnecessarily!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.