US backpedals as Hyundai factory ICE raid enrages South Korea(theregister.com)
theregister.com
US backpedals as Hyundai factory ICE raid enrages South Korea
https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/16/us_hyundai_immigration/
29 comments
If there is a tacit admission of such a thing, it's not in the quote you provided.
> This was not a immigration operation where agents went into the premises, rounded up folks, and put them on buses
This quote implies that there are immigration operations where people do these things, and that this particular instance is not an example of that type of operation.
This quote implies that there are immigration operations where people do these things, and that this particular instance is not an example of that type of operation.
Exactly.
BigCo is angry the .gov thugs showed up unannounced and dragged their dicks all over everything like they're the goddamn DEA seizing the entire contents of an autobody shop because one of the techs was involved in drug running shit.
The .gov thugs respond "we didn't abuse you like some little fish, we akshually built a case" as if that justfies it.
Everyone should be enraged by both sides here because both sides statements are clearly predicated on the assumption that what they do is perfectly ok.
BigCo shouldn't be getting away with "it looks good if you squint and my lawyer will tell you why" sketchy compliance stuff that the little guy can't. And the .gov should be treating the little guy with the same respect that they would a BigCo who can pay a big law firm to get their stuff in order.
BigCo is angry the .gov thugs showed up unannounced and dragged their dicks all over everything like they're the goddamn DEA seizing the entire contents of an autobody shop because one of the techs was involved in drug running shit.
The .gov thugs respond "we didn't abuse you like some little fish, we akshually built a case" as if that justfies it.
Everyone should be enraged by both sides here because both sides statements are clearly predicated on the assumption that what they do is perfectly ok.
BigCo shouldn't be getting away with "it looks good if you squint and my lawyer will tell you why" sketchy compliance stuff that the little guy can't. And the .gov should be treating the little guy with the same respect that they would a BigCo who can pay a big law firm to get their stuff in order.
Who else can bust BigCo's balls if not big .gov? A tension between these two entities is the best outcome. It's when they collude that the little guys get screwed.
Did they break the law or not? That should be the focus of the discussion, rather than political posturing.
Well it's American immigration law, so who knows, really depends person by person. Like I legitimately think there isn't an objective answer to that question, it's a patchwork of laws and forms and guidelines that overlap and are interpreted by different people. Two different border agents can have completely different opinions on whether your work trip can be counted under a B1/B2 visa or not, and then USCIS (not CBP, border agents, but the immigration services agency, a completely different department) could have a different idea.
I've traveled to many countries on visas, and once for work. It's made very clear if you are allowed to work or not.
Of course they broke the law, it's pretty much impossible not to. It's a popular assertion that the average citizen unknowingly commits three felonies per day. And that's people who aren't interacting with the highly complex immigration system. I'm sure most forgot to dot an i or cross a t on their form or something.
The idea that the average person in America commits even one felony a day is so ridiculous it falls flat on its face after being spoken. How can you even say something like that without feeling embarrassed for believing it?
Read the book. It's not about "lying on this form is a felony" and "posessing X much coke" type stuff. It's more about the ambiguity of the law and enforcement discretion than anything else. Think like Martha Steward "well you said X to us and despite believing it in good faith at the time we can prove that on day Y you were informed of Z therefore lied to us, therefore we can prosecute this as a felony if we so choose" type of fact patterns.
Accessing a single website with adblock installed is, in and of itself, potentially thousands of CFAA violations if enforced to the letter.
Is this legal advise?
I bet it'll come down to some sort of specific verbiage within the law that could be interpreted either way depending on who's lawyers you listen to.
That's how these sort of BigCo regulatory compliance things almost always go.
That's how these sort of BigCo regulatory compliance things almost always go.
> Did they break the law or not?
The point is everyone may have broken the law. Hyundai. These individuals. And the ICE agents acting outside the colour of law.
The point is everyone may have broken the law. Hyundai. These individuals. And the ICE agents acting outside the colour of law.
Book 'em, Danno.
The 'beauty' of fascistic uneven enforcement is the law doesn't matter anymore, everything is in bad faith and corrupt and they can punish their enemies and reward their sycophants at their whim.
> That should be the focus of the discussion, rather than political posturing.
Counterpoint: the policy of how we treat foreign workers is a policy discussion. Even if it's legal to round them up and deny them due process, it (a) shouldn't be and (b) is going to overall hurt our economy and make America a less desirable place to do business.
Counterpoint: the policy of how we treat foreign workers is a policy discussion. Even if it's legal to round them up and deny them due process, it (a) shouldn't be and (b) is going to overall hurt our economy and make America a less desirable place to do business.
Has someone reputable reported/shown they've been denied due process? Here's a lawyer talking about his clients, which doesn't sound like they've been denied it:
https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/sep/10/south-korea-w...
You (or I) may not like the law or policy, but that should be a separate discussion. We have rules; they should be followed. If they are bad they should be changed.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/sep/10/south-korea-w...
You (or I) may not like the law or policy, but that should be a separate discussion. We have rules; they should be followed. If they are bad they should be changed.
Treatment of people after they break the law is important to our system of liberty. "Well they broke the law so anything goes" is a nightmare.
Were they brutalized in some fashion? Lining up and walking to a detention room or bus is standard. What you’d get at the airport, for example. Cuffs common when outside. I’ve experienced it myself. It’s neither here nor there as long as you get your day in court.
(I understand some jarheads or managers might want to make a show of it, and probably should be reprimanded if so.)
But the process is the process and an acceptable compromise. I get the feeling everyone passing judgment here has little info on the situation on the ground—news soundbites are not enough.
(I understand some jarheads or managers might want to make a show of it, and probably should be reprimanded if so.)
But the process is the process and an acceptable compromise. I get the feeling everyone passing judgment here has little info on the situation on the ground—news soundbites are not enough.
There have already been articles written about their experience, not news soundbites.
Even if there was some technical immigration violation here its not like any of the people involved were some sort of flight risk or criminal masterminds.
They could have simply notified the company and the people about a potential problem with their visas/paperwork and asked them to provide documentation otherwise or if their visas were expired/improper to return to Korea and apply for a new visa.
They could have simply notified the company and the people about a potential problem with their visas/paperwork and asked them to provide documentation otherwise or if their visas were expired/improper to return to Korea and apply for a new visa.
I think it makes sense since this was a techincal violation where they improperly used the Visa Waiver Program instead of applying for B-1 visas. They almost certainly would have received as employees of a South Korean chaebol—highly reputable, well-documented employers that consular officers typically view as strong B-1 cases for short-term business travel. South Koreans vigorously compete to work at these corporations and while 1 or 2 migth have been denied. It’s highly doubtful that a US consular officer would view them as a flight risk.
> I think it makes sense since this was a technical violation where they improperly used the Visa Waiver Program
Has even this been established? It sounds like the question is whether their work falls outside of the business allowed under that program, and the terminology doesn’t appear to be well-defined enough to say.
Has even this been established? It sounds like the question is whether their work falls outside of the business allowed under that program, and the terminology doesn’t appear to be well-defined enough to say.
This September 4 raid happened 12 days ago. It has been in the news daily. It has its own Wikipedia article. But I haven't found any source that would clearly tell whether the workers had valid and legal work visas or not and/or if they in their situation would have needed such.
“This was not a immigration operation where agents went into the premises, rounded up folks, and put them on buses. This has been a multi-month criminal investigation where we have developed evidence and conducted interviews, gathered documents and presented that evidence to the court in order to obtain a judicial search warrant.”
I like that when justifying the raid, the agent in charge of the raid tacitly admitted they do regularly just burst onto a premise and round up people for buses.
It's worth pointing out that the people behind this raid are not recently appointed hacks - and that this was not at the direct mandate of the current administration. What is actually happening here is the entire agency is staffed with attack dogs who act without impunity or shame. And the only difference is that they feel emboldened to act, and whoever was in charge of oversight to hold them back is no longer there.