When I filed my last DS-160 for my final H-1B renewal before I got my green card, I remember filling in my social media identifiers. In fact, a look at a 2019 document reveals that providing the identifiers has been required since at least back then[0]. Given that the identifiers must be offered, the intent must be that the posts should be read, so this is unsurprising[1].
I suppose one happy fact from this must be that USCIS has never had convenient access to dragnet surveillance. For if they did, they would simply have used the backdoor rather than ask you to make the profile public. For my part, I always assumed that the US Government knew everything I posted.
I'm sure that if they didn't like me for some reason, they'd find a Richelieu accusation to make from what I've written. One would imagine it is like that other self-evident thing in the First Amendment, "separation of church and state", that is also practiced where convenient and not otherwise. Unless born American (and perhaps now, also "to Americans born American") some degree of scepticism for the tenets of the American Civil Religion will serve anyone well.
1: I'm sure someone could construct machinery where a blacklist is produced by one arm of the government with view to posts which is used by another arm that which has no post-access but I think that was unlikely when this was designed
> I suppose one happy fact from this must be that USCIS has never had convenient access to dragnet surveillance. For if they did, they would simply have used the backdoor rather than ask you to make the profile public.
Not necessarily.
One of the very common tactics by federal investigators is asking a question they already know the answer to. That lets them know when you're lying, which can be a crime on its own!
Filling out paperwork for a security clearance long ago had two questions about "have you ever been a member of a group dedicated to the overthrow of the us government, if yes explain". The next question was about being an officer in such a group.
I always enjoyed that question in that there was a two line explanation field :)
I assume that was similar in that it's there to catch a lie (possibly just after the fact / legal leverage) ... not really find anything out with that question at that moment.
That's a good point. And particularly in immigration (and I think I recall in this very form - the DS-160) which has such questions such as "Are you a communist?" and "Are you a terrorist or have you ever sympathized with them?" which are clearly intended for the purpose you describe: to catch you in a lie and prosecute you for that even if not for something else.
I suppose the analogous technique here is whether you delete content they've already recorded. Though it could be simpler, and they're just trying to cause an unforced error where someone fails to make a profile public, creating an avenue to reject them even if it were perfectly fine otherwise.
They’re also going to ban you and all of your relatives from receiving a Visa if you’ve previously worked in content moderation, fact-checking, trust/safety. The most free speech hostile administration in modern history.
I think that almost definition implies you didn't post anything that disqualifies you. It's probably really easy to circumvent too if you're committed to (e.g., deactivate your account)
> In the case of an
applicant who has used any of the social media platforms listed on the visa application in the
preceding five years, the associated social media identifier would be required on the visa
application form.
A country may vet entrants according to any criteria it chooses, just like I may enforce any limits I wish unto who may enter my house. If the criteria are too egregious for the gain the applicants might get by being in that country, the talented immigrants who have options may go elsewhere and the country may need relax the criteria to recapture the market for bright minds.
> A country may vet entrants according to any criteria it chooses…
Sure. But said country may have set rules for itself, like the First Amendment, that limit what's permissible beyond what international law and sovereignty alone permit.
(To extend the house analogy, you may not actually be able to "enforce any limits I wish unto who may enter my house". It is, for example, generally unlawful for you to evict your minor child. If you rent out a room, that tenant has rights you can't violate, too. You can't keep out a cop with a valid warrant, either.)
I don't think anyone would argue with that - the problem here is that the requirements are being changed thru a process that involves no public or congressional input.
The other issue is that the vetting will likely not just look for terroristic or other 'illegal' social media content - it will look for whatever the administration decides to look for - again without oversight.
This is a silly comment. The legality isn't really in question. It's whether or not it's a good idea. And citizens of a country will debate whether it's a good idea or not. If we citizens decide it's a bad idea, we'll vote out the government currently in power.
Countries have that right, and people have the right to criticize them for their policies and agitate to change them. This is a concept known as “politics”.
Hopefully a consequence of that will be the rest of the world actively telling its people that america is probably a less healthy regime for them than countries like China and discouraging all recreational, educational and employment travel here, under any circumstances - including the desires and fetishes of unregulated capitalism.
We are currently test driving the arbitrary execution of anyone without due process to see if THAT finally wakes up the population. But it wont.
Hosted some Japanese study-abroad students over Thanksgiving (they often have no where to go over break). A few times when I suggested an activity they asked if it was "safe". Like taking an Amtrak train. Seeing the "Walk of Stars" in Los Angeles.
It was sad to realize that they viewed the U.S. as so dangerous. But I can say for certain that I feel I could walk around Tokyo at night and not have a worry in the world. From time to time I am embarrassed by the U.S.
FWIW, this isn't new. I was an exchange student in Osaka in the early 90's and a girl in my class got picked for an exchange program in Canada and she said she was relieved she didn't have to worry about being shot.
Don't know if you've been paying attention, but that's the intention. Many in the U.S are willing to sacrifice the country's GPD to inflict cruelty upon others and preserve "heritage Americans".
Yeah, I would rather just abolish the H1-B visa altogether. If someone can, legitimately or otherwise, put together a clean social media presence to get legal residency in country, this still doesn't guarantee that their natural born citizen children won't try to work against the interests of heritage Americans using whatever tools are available a generation from now.
It's not cruel to want to keep your country from changing irreversibly. Foreigners don't have a right to immigrate. Americans are allowed to decide who they want to let in.
Readit News
I suppose one happy fact from this must be that USCIS has never had convenient access to dragnet surveillance. For if they did, they would simply have used the backdoor rather than ask you to make the profile public. For my part, I always assumed that the US Government knew everything I posted.
I'm sure that if they didn't like me for some reason, they'd find a Richelieu accusation to make from what I've written. One would imagine it is like that other self-evident thing in the First Amendment, "separation of church and state", that is also practiced where convenient and not otherwise. Unless born American (and perhaps now, also "to Americans born American") some degree of scepticism for the tenets of the American Civil Religion will serve anyone well.
0: https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Enhanced%20Vettin...
1: I'm sure someone could construct machinery where a blacklist is produced by one arm of the government with view to posts which is used by another arm that which has no post-access but I think that was unlikely when this was designed
Not necessarily.
One of the very common tactics by federal investigators is asking a question they already know the answer to. That lets them know when you're lying, which can be a crime on its own!
I always enjoyed that question in that there was a two line explanation field :)
I assume that was similar in that it's there to catch a lie (possibly just after the fact / legal leverage) ... not really find anything out with that question at that moment.
I suppose the analogous technique here is whether you delete content they've already recorded. Though it could be simpler, and they're just trying to cause an unforced error where someone fails to make a profile public, creating an avenue to reject them even if it were perfectly fine otherwise.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-orders...
Dead Comment
They thought of that. https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Enhanced%20Vettin...
> In the case of an applicant who has used any of the social media platforms listed on the visa application in the preceding five years, the associated social media identifier would be required on the visa application form.
/s
Sure. But said country may have set rules for itself, like the First Amendment, that limit what's permissible beyond what international law and sovereignty alone permit.
(To extend the house analogy, you may not actually be able to "enforce any limits I wish unto who may enter my house". It is, for example, generally unlawful for you to evict your minor child. If you rent out a room, that tenant has rights you can't violate, too. You can't keep out a cop with a valid warrant, either.)
Probably better to think of these as rules that the ruled people have for their rulers.
The other issue is that the vetting will likely not just look for terroristic or other 'illegal' social media content - it will look for whatever the administration decides to look for - again without oversight.
- I suspect there is racism and xenophobia behind this
- What kind of weak-ass people cannot tolerate dissenting opinions from visitors?
You are free to suspect anything you want - that doesn't make it true.
Americans are tired of their country being abused.
Dead Comment
With how things are going, I’m starting to wonder whether I should make some accounts just to pass the normalcy test.
I’m in college and I don’t have a single friend who doesn’t actively use Instagram.
We are currently test driving the arbitrary execution of anyone without due process to see if THAT finally wakes up the population. But it wont.
It was sad to realize that they viewed the U.S. as so dangerous. But I can say for certain that I feel I could walk around Tokyo at night and not have a worry in the world. From time to time I am embarrassed by the U.S.
It's not cruel to want to keep your country from changing irreversibly. Foreigners don't have a right to immigrate. Americans are allowed to decide who they want to let in.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment