I find it odd that people seem to sincerely not understand how much grey area there is regarding some of these issues. I'm pretty sure at least once in our careers most people have traveled internationally for business, but been told to say it's "personal". These cases could all potentially be violating visa laws, but most people don't think of themselves as "illegal immigrants" in these scenarios.

In this case the issue seem to be a debate around specifically what types of work these people were permitted to perform on their visas, with the union arguing, in their self-interest, that the work they were doing did not qualify.

Back in 2016 when people were asking whether maybe Melania was working illegally when she first arrived, (yeah, remember when "Maybe his wife did something which may have been illegal" counted as news?) I pointed out to friends that roughly the same time she entered the US so did I, and I didn't have any real paperwork at all, in fact I turned up with a photocopy of somebody else's Amex to check in at my hotel.

If teenage me had been dragged aside and asked to prove I'm legal to work I have nothing. Where am I staying? Well I have a hotel reservation. OK, and how are you paying? Well here's a photocopy of my English boss' Amex that'll work right?

Everything was fine of course, as far as I know it was entirely legal, I was the foreign employee of a huge US firm, temporarily in the country to train people, by the time I left I had my own Amex and the hotel was paid with that, I was waved through both borders, no problem. But I had no proof of any sort, if you had wanted to detain me and insist you need documentation I had none. Maybe my bosses could have cleared it up? I just assumed it would be fine, and it was.

In 2025 I wouldn't recommend travelling to the US. A friend went, rich white guy with his very normal family, no doubt nothing seemed weird for them but if he'd asked me whether it's a good idea I'd say "No".

> I'm pretty sure at least once in our careers most people have traveled internationally for business, but been told to say it's "personal".

This seems less likely, because most places have some form of 'business' visa that's about as easy to get as a personal travel visa (the US's one is under the visa waiver program where available, say). The catch is that the definition of 'business' tends to be restrictive and unclear.

> I'm pretty sure at least once in our careers most people have traveled internationally for business, but been told to say it's "personal". These cases could all potentially be violating visa laws

I've never done this, despite having worked abroad on a few occasions. When my visa ran out and I had to apply out of the country, I went home and applied and a few months later went back.

This is my understanding of the situation too from watching some news shows. During Biden's term, there was a need\interest in getting this factory running quickly. There wasn't a proper visa defined within our legal code. The US gov encouraged them to come with personal or tourist visas in order to expedite the process of getting the factory up and running. It seems like this understanding didn't quite transfer from Biden to Trump's administration and the deportation happened.

I find it odd that you would expect the average HNer to understand complexities of international visas in the United States? This site is a bunch of young software engineers with some other interesting professions in the mix?

People have an emotional need to believe that the law is clear-cut and full of bright lines, because a) it makes it easier to say things like "they deserved it" to anyone who ended up on the wrong side of it and b) because it's scary to think that you can do everything "correctly" and end up in trouble anyway.

They literally don't believe you when you explain that this is false of the law in general, and especially false of immigration law, which is deliberately designed to have tons of ambiguity and discretion in it, to enable selective enforcement and keep guest workers afraid and exploitable in their ambiguous status.