I applied for an Indian visa a couple months ago. The page gave me 100 characters to list countries I'd visited in the previous few years. If I used 2 letter abbreviations and skipped the commas I could have just about done it. As it stands I started at NZ and moved west. Ran out of space just before listing Pakistan. Oh well.
Isn't it difficult to genuinely experience another part of the world (gaining understanding, experience, etc) without either speaking the language or hiring an expensive guide?
They are saying most know some level of English. As for the guide, they actually live for months whenever they go, make some friends and see what's there to see.
That's nobody's business. Maybe s/he likes to travel. Especially if you're in EU where there are practically no borders west of Russia, you can visit dozens of countries without sweat.
It's quite simple, I work for a multinational company with offices in about 100 counties. Add 20 or so countries in Europe which are easy enough to visit for a weekend break and 50 is quite a small number. Most people I know have visited at least 10 counties in the last 10 years, and many have visited 20+, just for tourist purposes
I was a Canadian Permanent Resident and now a Canadian citizen and I needed to provide the last five years travel history more than a few times. I knew this and I kept a Google Sheet with the info from the moment I landed in Canada. Turned out that was not enough: the citizenship application required the list of countries visited in the last five years even before landing in Canada. Doh! I could scrape it together, though because I applied at like 4.5 years in. But 15 years? That is pretty near impossible to put together.
I think I have done about 200-250 international trips (using like 600-800 flight segments) during the past 15 years. And I have worked with people who travel 5x more...
Ya, do they want exact dates? F*ck if I know. I have trouble remember what dates I'm in the states when asked on my tax return, or when I was in California when asked on my state tax return.
I could try to figure it out via my passport stamps, I guess, at least for those countries that actually still stamp.
I asked HN about changing my handle which I made long back, they said something similar to "we dont have the technical expertise to change it". If an HN moderator is reading this. Well its for you.
If I didn't live here already I don't think I would ever travel to the US unless I absolutely couldn't avoid it. I am already really nervous that I have to give them my laptop or phone with passwords so they can poke around my E-mails.
Hi there Mr. Consular Officer deciding my visa application in 2021:
If your president is still Donald Trump: "Your president is a shallow idiot, a spineless cretin, a psychopathic narcissist, a sorry excuse for an inferiority complex, a caricature of what a 10-year-old would consider "manliness"–in short: a human bogey. His election reflects rather poorly on your country, and I hope it serves as a catalyst for positive change. Even though I think your leader is terribly dangerous, I only wish to visit the US to see a friend or attend a conference, won't make any trouble legal or otherwise, and leave on the date indicated on my visa application. If you still wish to deny me, please do so and ease the burden of making this decision myself"
(if not: "Good Job! Now click "approve" and move along. You're really handsome today!")
The most horrifying part of this for me is that (as someone who doesn't want to be part of the Facebook grind)... this actually compels me to sign up for Facebook for business visa reasons.
So in a way this policy nudges me to patronize the business of particular named corporations.
People won't include the social media accounts they don't want to call attention to.
Net effect:
Not safer as a whole, but we'll see how deep the social network surveillance actually goes and how good the pseudo-anonymous attribution algorithms really are.
People won't include the social media accounts they don't want to call attention to.
Which is extremely risky. Depending on your profile they may find you with a simple search and having lied on your visa application or to an immigration officer will get you barred to visit the US for years.
> The Trump administration has rolled out a new questionnaire for U.S. visa applicants worldwide that asks for social media handles for the last five years and biographical information going back 15 years.
Including social media handles is quite different than what the title implies with "accounts"
> Respondents: Immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applicants who have been determined to warrant additional scrutiny in connection with terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities.
Gee look, media leaving out key information in order to get a rise out of people and more clicks. This in a nutshell is why I try to avoid following US politics these days (I guess my bad for clicking on it this time heh).
Very interesting how Reuters doesn't mention this only affects 0.5% of people who apply and whose regular information is deemed to warrant further investigation. Doesn't sound as sensationalistic when you leave that little detail out.
The story covered the key point, which is that the way visas are granted has been changed to be even more arbitrary and have higher potential for abuse than before.
From everything I've seen so far, the only people who are going to get the "additional scrutiny" are Muslims, starting with the ones from the countries listed in the travel ban. The administration added the "national security" language in order to protect themselves in court, but it reads the same as any other instance of government abuse throughout American history. The people in the group being targeted will be required to jump over increasingly higher hurdles (like 15 years of biographical history) while everyone else gets to just step around it.
The headline here does not really seem to reflect the content of the article:
>The State Department said earlier the tighter vetting would apply to visa applicants "who have been determined to warrant additional scrutiny in connection with terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities."
This sounds like it authorizes them to ask for social media handles (usernames) for up to 5 years into the past.
This doesn't mean everybody coming into the country has to turn over all of their social media logins and passwords.
Disclaimer: I'm an Australian in the US on a work visa.
I'd consider it "not ridiculous" if the vetting was limited to ensuring:
- That my visa application is valid: If I'm coming to work, I'm doing it for a real job and I really do have all the necessary qualifications and my travel plans match my intent.
- That I'm likely to leave the US. I think it's fine to ask whether I have ties to my home country or to the US and whether I've broken the terms of another visa.
- That I'm not already a criminal. It'd be fine to be asked for a police report.
I consider the following ridiculous:
- Anything related to potential future terrorism. If I wanted to enter the US to kill people, why on earth would I get a visa when I could just cross the border illegally or use a fake passport?
- Compelling disclosure of any information a citizen could deny a police officer who lacked a warrant.
Then again, I understand that the US considers visas to be a privilege and I respect its choice to deny them to whoever it wishes. If it decides I'm not good enough, I'm more than happy to take my economic output elsewhere (and I will if they ever ask for details regarding my online presence).
The 9/11 attackers lived in the US on student visas. Some did pilot training in the US. I believe most of the recent European terrorists have been legally in those countries (and for that matter, the domestic right wing terrorists in the US, and the historical left wing terrorists in Europe)
I'm not sure how many terrorist attacks are done by fugitives. Some stuff is easier to arrange when you have legal status.
Also, cross which border illegally? The Canadian? People who need a visa to enter the US probably need one to enter Canada too.
I've already had to provide my social media account names (although not access to those accounts) at the US border as a foreigner trying to enter the country. This was about one year ago.
This seems pretty reasonable... It's not like you are giving them your passwords or anything, your just telling them your public online name, which they could probably find by googling you anyways.
55 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 120 ms ] threadThey often wonder why so many people don't visit any other countries, to see how other people live, gain understanding, experience and love.
What the hell you think passport stamps are for.
I know jokes aren't allowed on HN, but this is great :)
I could try to figure it out via my passport stamps, I guess, at least for those countries that actually still stamp.
If your president is still Donald Trump: "Your president is a shallow idiot, a spineless cretin, a psychopathic narcissist, a sorry excuse for an inferiority complex, a caricature of what a 10-year-old would consider "manliness"–in short: a human bogey. His election reflects rather poorly on your country, and I hope it serves as a catalyst for positive change. Even though I think your leader is terribly dangerous, I only wish to visit the US to see a friend or attend a conference, won't make any trouble legal or otherwise, and leave on the date indicated on my visa application. If you still wish to deny me, please do so and ease the burden of making this decision myself"
(if not: "Good Job! Now click "approve" and move along. You're really handsome today!")
So in a way this policy nudges me to patronize the business of particular named corporations.
Watch while China reciprocates and see how much US business travelers like that.
Also, does email count as social media?
Net effect: Not safer as a whole, but we'll see how deep the social network surveillance actually goes and how good the pseudo-anonymous attribution algorithms really are.
And that's your best case scenario.
Ergo, the second part of my comment about how well those "hidden" accounts can be uncovered.
Not just students and scientists - it will discourage everyone from coming to the United States, as if it wasn't unappealing already.
Tourists will go elsewhere. It's good for tourism in other countries.
Important to remember though that these Trump decisions are the will of the people - democracy in action.
I wouldn't say his decisions are the will of the people but rather the result of the political system in action.
> The Trump administration has rolled out a new questionnaire for U.S. visa applicants worldwide that asks for social media handles for the last five years and biographical information going back 15 years.
Including social media handles is quite different than what the title implies with "accounts"
Edit: Yay the post title was fixed!
> Respondents: Immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applicants who have been determined to warrant additional scrutiny in connection with terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities.
Very interesting how Reuters doesn't mention this only affects 0.5% of people who apply and whose regular information is deemed to warrant further investigation. Doesn't sound as sensationalistic when you leave that little detail out.
From everything I've seen so far, the only people who are going to get the "additional scrutiny" are Muslims, starting with the ones from the countries listed in the travel ban. The administration added the "national security" language in order to protect themselves in court, but it reads the same as any other instance of government abuse throughout American history. The people in the group being targeted will be required to jump over increasingly higher hurdles (like 15 years of biographical history) while everyone else gets to just step around it.
>The State Department said earlier the tighter vetting would apply to visa applicants "who have been determined to warrant additional scrutiny in connection with terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities."
This sounds like it authorizes them to ask for social media handles (usernames) for up to 5 years into the past.
This doesn't mean everybody coming into the country has to turn over all of their social media logins and passwords.
Still ridiculous.
> Still ridiculous.
I mean, at what level does it becomes not ridiculous to have deeper vetting?
I'd consider it "not ridiculous" if the vetting was limited to ensuring:
- That my visa application is valid: If I'm coming to work, I'm doing it for a real job and I really do have all the necessary qualifications and my travel plans match my intent.
- That I'm likely to leave the US. I think it's fine to ask whether I have ties to my home country or to the US and whether I've broken the terms of another visa.
- That I'm not already a criminal. It'd be fine to be asked for a police report.
I consider the following ridiculous:
- Anything related to potential future terrorism. If I wanted to enter the US to kill people, why on earth would I get a visa when I could just cross the border illegally or use a fake passport?
- Compelling disclosure of any information a citizen could deny a police officer who lacked a warrant.
Then again, I understand that the US considers visas to be a privilege and I respect its choice to deny them to whoever it wishes. If it decides I'm not good enough, I'm more than happy to take my economic output elsewhere (and I will if they ever ask for details regarding my online presence).
I'm not sure how many terrorist attacks are done by fugitives. Some stuff is easier to arrange when you have legal status.
Also, cross which border illegally? The Canadian? People who need a visa to enter the US probably need one to enter Canada too.
I really don't get why getting our Fb accounts is so important, given they already have it (or should, if NSA/CIA did the job they were assigned to).