You have posed a reasonable question with good intentions. A simple Google search reveals:
>U.S. authorities said some of the detained Korean workers had illegally crossed the U.S. border, while others entered legally but had expired visas or entered on visa waivers that prohibited them from working.
From PBS, a source with a well known editorial stance against the current administration.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/south-korean-workers-retu...
>Like many of the Koreans who were working there, advocates and lawyers representing the non-Korean workers caught up in the raid say that some who were detained had legal authorization to work in the United States.
LA Times, similar
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-09-14/famili...
With any of these contentious partisan issues it is important to be wary of cherry picking. Typically events are selectively reported to fit a given partisan agenda.
It would be extreme to believe that entire groups are being arbitrarily detained and deported. Similarly, it isn't unreasonable to expect mistakes to be made. The reasonable thing to do with extreme claims such as the ones made in this thread is to do a simple Google search before engaging in partisan flames. It has become almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion here on any topic which may tangentially involve Trump.
> "illegally crossed the U.S. border"
What, precisely, does this mean? I don't think it means "crossed from Mexico or arrived on a small boat". I think it might actually mean "at the border interview, they said the purpose of their visit to the facility was 'business meetings' rather than 'work'", and the legality hinges on the precise knife edge of the W word.
It would be really, really useful to clarify exactly what the rules are for someone entering the US under a visa waiver for business purposes are, because I don't want to see my co-workers thrown in a gulag.
Thanks for your comment and sources. I've found similar information already. What I was really looking for was, say, an in-depth legal analysis of B1 visas and visa waivers.
But as far as I can tell now, there's not any really clear definition of what counts as work under those visa (waivers), and the ambiguity was tolerated by all parties. So, in effect, the only reasoning is (like always) "this is illegal because we say so".
Thanks again for the info.
It's almost impossible because one side goes into a tizzy when Trump's name is mentioned, then the other side or just people in the middle like you have to calmly layout their argument with evidence.
There is one side that makes it impossible. Let's not confuse that.
Agreed. That's what makes it so inane.
I don't generally favor Trump's policies or the opposition's. Yet it is impossible to have a discussion here without providing explicit disclaimers. Even with those disclaimers, we're constantly brigaded with red-herrings, non-sequiturs and ridiculous claims tilting at what is incorrectly perceived as Trump support.
It is difficult to even criticize Trump's policies, unless the criticism is one of the curated forms prescribed by the outrage-o-sphere.
> It is difficult to even criticize Trump's policies
Are you serious?