My opinion is probably not but this is ultimately a political conversation.
The article is extremely light on details but fact he doesn't have a Green Card/Lawful Permanent Resident yet would indicate that at some point of his time in United States, he was illegally present, probably for a while.
Sure, he's on path, MAYBE (that's up to immigration courts), to legal status but he's not quite there yet and it's one of those "Are we going to forgive past transgressions?"
> Sure, he's on path, MAYBE (that's up to immigration courts), to legal status but he's not quite there yet and it's one of those "Are we going to forgive past transgressions?"
For a productive member of society? Absolutely, bring him in and let him stay.
There are absolutely some immigrants who should be deported for violent crimes and likewise, but they are a tiny minority of immigrants. So when you set quotas far above that, they start rounding up productive members of society to fill the quotas and ignoring the violent criminals because it’s easier to arrest parents and children.
I know of no other country that locks people up while they process immigration appeals. That's crazy.
Other countries will either summarily deport you and make you resolve your status from outside the country, or let you stay while you appeal and deport you when your appeals are exhausted. Both are sane things to do, this is not.
The US has a very strong belief in punishing people. It helps them create an "out group" to shun. For those people, the worse the conditions of your jail are, the better. It's some sort of a relic of the specific religious background common in the USA, and it's disgusting.
Other parts of the world believe in human dignity and helping people fix the things that are broken in their lives. Look up Norwegian prisons...
> The article is extremely light on details but fact he doesn't have a Green Card/Lawful Permanent Resident yet would indicate that at some point of his time in United States, he was illegally present, probably for a while.
That is absolutely false. I know many people who have lived legally in the USA for many many years with valid visas and have intentionally never pursued a green card. Two people come to mind including one who has over 20 years the US on valid visas -- she intentionally never pursued the green card despite both (a) being married to an American and (b) being legally able to get the green card.
Some of them are now pursuing green cards only because of federal government's immigration enforcement not only going after illegal immigrants or criminals but clearly and intentionally pursing immigrants in general -- even those who are legal and without any criminal history.
From my understanding on this issue, spouses of US citizens are handed a green card after paperwork is shuffled, there is no pursuing it.
When discussing this with friends, multiple spouses have pulled out green cards and only newly weds had anything else but green card. She showed her passport with some form attached to it.
>From my understanding on this issue, spouses of US citizens are handed a green card after paperwork is shuffled, there is no pursuing it.
This is incorrect. You do need to pursue it. Just because your friends did pursue it once they were able to, doesn't mean it is automatic. One needs to decide if they want to get their green card or not once they are married to a US citizen.
I emphasize that I'm not defending the Trump regime, but do you know this friend well enough to be confident that she would tell you if her visa situation didn't check out? It would be extremely hard to stay in the US for 20 uninterrupted years on valid visas without permanent residency. O-1s are theoretically indefinite but require yearly renewal, and all of the other common visas I know of have maximum durations below 10 years.
Yes, I am 100% certain of what I said. These individuals have had valid visas in the US and been here for 10-20 years and intentionally have never become green card holders.
One was on a student visa for undergrad and then a student visa for masters for 6 years total (4 for undergrad and 2 for masters), then on a G4 diplomatic visa while working at the World Bank for 5 years, then back to a student visa for 5 years pursuing a PhD, then back to a G4 Diplomatic visa for 6 years while working at the World Bank. This person married an American about 10 years ago and still never pursued a green card out of choice.
Another was on a G4 diplomatic visa while working at the IDB for 3 years, then a student visa for 5 years while pursuing a PhD, then a visa while working at the Federal Reserve for a number of years (not sure of which, but either H1B or J1), and then on a G4 diplomatic visa while working at the IMF.
Of course, these are not your typical situations for the average immigrant. Admittedly, I live in a bit of a bubble surrounded by economists in Washington DC from the World Bank, IMF, IDB, etc who are mostly on G4 diplomatic visas.
My point is it is still possible and one shouldn't presume.
Having dealt with US Immigration law, if you are legally present for 20 years, it's extremely difficult not to transition to GC/Citizenship since work visas in United States generally have a limit and any immigration lawyer would have been clear "Either move to GC or you are going home."
Also, despite all the US screaming about "They took our jobs" with immigrants, the US doesn't really hand out work visas all that much and don't really hand it out to blue collar labors at all.
There is a possibility that he's been on legal visa entire time but I'd give extremely good odds that he wasn't. The fact his immigration lawyer doesn't mention it is very telling.
Huh, the headline is very misleading but the article says this:
> Culleton entered the US in 2009 on a visa waiver programme and overstayed the 90 day-limit
> Culleton said that when he was arrested he was carrying a Massachusetts driving licence and a valid work permit issued as part of an application for a green card that he initiated in April 2025
That's about 15 years of illegal stay according to "the facts in the article".
If someones potential illegal presence justifies ICE to massively overstep any legal due process and break laws, then by definition you are ok if somehow Democrates took over the DHS when they got in power, and used the premise of anti-domestic terrorism to illegally detain any person associated with MAGA for any reason and let them starve/die in prison.
No but is ICE 100% breaking the law or just norms? Immigration law is such a mess and key reason we are here. For past 30 years, a lot of immigration "law" has been Executive Branch keeping a broken system going by just going with vibes. Now we have Executive Branch deciding to 100% change the vibes and system is coming apart in real time.
Reading over court filings, there is collision between two laws. First one is, "Those who marry US Citizens can get Green Card regardless of previous US Immigration violations."
Second one is, VWP admits have no rights. If US decides to deport you, out you go with no further discussion.
Biggest takeaway of Trump immigration actions is Congress has fucked up so bad letting system get to this point.
Being useful can often be a curse without strong boundaries - in work and relationships, I personally have ended up becoming overly extracted... Which later seems to lead on to resentment and in the worst case, contempt.
This piece always brings me to tears. I was lucky enough to meet Part, have a brief conversation and shake his hand after a performance in Hamburg… A moment I will never forget.
The internet is cables and other hardware, and protocols, none of which is going anywhere. The Web, an internet application, seems to be dying, and certainly newsgroups and other internet applications have also died, but the internet itself isn't dead or dying. In fact, it's growing as the global rollout of broadband continues and the unconnected get connected.
the protocols are going if they are not enforced by a google. google was the "US" that gave you the post-WW2 "peace" on the web. The big players only follow "your" standards when it suits them.
consider mobile apps on android and apple. they are an example of internet without browser. you only get widely used standard browsers if big money sees a moneymaking point in having them.
This is all part of the continuing trend toward luxury - brands are abandoning the middle class and below, focusing on higher margins and lower volume - brands make more money, engage with easier buyers and have to work less. I don’t know how all this works in the end but it does seem to be a real trend.
It’s a nice list, but honestly, none of these improvements are really life changing (except the reduction in crime that has been noticeable and good). Things otherwise got a bit nicer and a bit cheaper and a bit faster - but life would have been just fine without these improvements.
After smoking in bars was banned, my brother and I noted how run-down and dreary the places we hung out looked. We just hadn't been able to see it before through the haze.
I always hated the smoke and the way your hair and clothes would still reek of it the next morning. Now, on the rare occasions I catch a whiff of cigarette smoke, it's nostalgic and almost smells good.
Many of us still love going to pubs. So much better not waking up reeking of second hand smoke. I went skiing in Austria a few years back and some of the places still allow smoking inside. I couldn't handle it, I can't believe I ever did.
> none of these improvements are really life changing
They don't really cover it, but one literally life changing one has been medicine; a lot of things that were a death sentence (and often a very nasty, slow, painful one) in the 90s are now quite treatable. Particularly cancers, but also there've been big improvements in cardiac treatment, and the treatment of certain diseases (particularly HIV).
Sadly, true. Those who work on the industry will never rebel, the pay is too good and the nerdy excitement of being able to solve very interesting problems is too addictive. Our greatest minds are wasted in the finance sectors and big tech.
Did the same voyage in a similarly sized boat, solo. Departed Berkeley then out under the bridge to half moon bay, then off the deep end for Honolulu. Took a bit longer than expected and was nearly hit by a passing vessel, but smooth sailing otherwise!
I'd like to know more about the near-miss. Was it close to either port or was it during the open-ocean portion of the voyage?
The "Loose Ends" section of Teplow's write-up mentions that he didn't bring along a radar detector. Then or now, would a radar detector significantly increase a solo sailor's situational awareness?
It was with a freighter, China to Panama bound - no one on watch - about a quarter of the way across to Hawaii. My boat was so small it was mostly invisible to radar - I spotted it on the horizon, but it appeared to be on a parallel course so I wasn't too worried - I went back to sleep and was woken by engines. After crash gybing out of the way, I radioed the vessel many times, with no response. Out of paranoia I then did the rest of the leg with a strobe on - my next encounter was a vessel that had stopped because it thought I was in distress...
I had an old i5 Mac mini laying about I wanted to use desktop Linux on the other day. The last time I tried, was about 20 years ago. I note nothing has changed since.
reply