I don't think they've thought about how precise 100% compliance is literally impossible for those of us with catch-all email domains, unless we have a record of every email address at that domain we've ever given out or through which we've received unsolicited email.
(Yeah, I realize that in practice they will probably accept partial compliance in that scenario, and that it won't affect me as a US citizen. But it could certainly affect people I care about.)
It can be advantageous for the government to issue laws that citizens can't comply with. That way they can prove you lied because you haven't provided this one e-mail address that they were able to trace to you. Now you're a liar and they can hold that against you.
All true. This particular one has no impact on US citizens since we don't need US visas, but other overly demanding laws certainly can affect us, and even this one can affect non-citizens We care about (even ones we may count as family).
I think the US nonimmigrant visa application must usually be done online (some exceptions exist) using an interactive series of web forms. So your solution works if and only if they don't apply validation rules to that input field and throw an error.
I guess they may have some procedure to handle the case where technical limitations of the form prevent an accurate answer, but even if yes that's still a huge obstacle many applicants won't overcome.
(Yes, applicants with the technical savvy to catch-all domains are more likely to be able and willing to overcome that type of barrier. Other categories of people will have a harder time, like who are sure they've forgotten some email addresses but don't remember enough details to reconstruct that info. They'll have to say exactly that, if they can even find a place to provide that answer, and possibly get refused as a result.)
I think it’s a lot easier to be anonymous if you keep them, but never use them for anything real. I quit using Facebook two years ago, but I didn’t stop posting the occasional picture of some event I attended.
I simply uninstalled all their apps and deleted anything that I had ever posted which wasn’t completely irrelevant. I also deleted almost every picture of myself and prohibited people from ever tagging me.
This way I look like a normal boring guy who likes board games if you glance over my profile, but you couldn’t actually get anything to use against me.
It’s very Orwellian I guess, but it means I never have to explain why I’m not on social media.
Do you have any reason to believe that it hasn’t already come? You’re certainly a suspicious character in the eyes of some employers for non-tech (and occasionally tech) jobs.
“A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”
Immigrants are non-citizens are among the weakest members of American society (an outsize number of laws that impact them and zero capacity to participate in its political machinery)
That's not a satisfactory excuse or interpretation of the quote.
Let's say North Korea selected a few of the leading family and declared they are "members", under such circumstances would that quote imply that North Korea is the greatest nation, because all its "members" have near King-like status?
Or likewise, can a nation increase its greatness by declaring the weakest among them to be "non-members".
A non-citizen of decdes' residency, with family, business, social, community, and cultural interactions is not a member of the country[1]?
________________________________
Notes:
1. The US is technically not a nation-state, being a broad mix of numerous cultures. It is a state, or country, but not "nation". De facto of course, this is significantly modified.
Do you realize a massive amount of immigrants are actually US citizens and have exactly the same rights as born Americans? With the exception of running for President.
This will have a chilling effect on speech in this country, which is extremely sad. Academic and trade conferences would be best taken elsewhere. And job seekers? Prefer remote.
For me as an American, this is, I guess, fine now. I won't be affected right away. But I fully expect other countries to institute reciprocal policies.
Not a lawyer, so I can only speculate as a layperson
1) Sure, if you're a US Citizen, I don't think non-resident, non-citizens outside of the United States are entitled to any protections
2) That would be my opinion. Maybe a frequent¹ conference speaker¹ with outspoken political views² from a European country could mount a challenge that requiring social media profiles in order to enter the country amounts to a chilling effect and consequent prior restraint on speech in the United States
¹ - The conditions under which a person qualifies for the visa waiver program are complicated
² - I imagine a political dissident or someone equally outspoken who has used anonymous social media profiles to protect their livelihood would have the strongest case
Just to add a bit on this. The (U.S) Bill of Rights applies to any person on U.S. soil. (That is a common misconception apparently but like many modern constitutions it refers to persons and not citizens). There is the gray area surrounding around the periphery of the U.S. and borders (https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone)
(Essentially the U.S. government reasons that the area surrounding the border is U.S. soil for CBP, and not U.S. soil for anyone else.)
1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US soil.
That's the legal rationale for a lot of 'bad behavior' such as PRISM -- they can intercept undersea cable traffic to legally spy on foreigners, as foreigners lack constitutional rights. Nothing new there.
I think it's more complicated than that, with the constitutional protections from US government action being narrower outside the US border depending on the legal status of the person(s) in question and the context of the imposition on their rights.
So-called unlawful enemy combatants have limited rights and the Supreme Court has upheld all sorts of limitations on the rights of US citizens apprehended in a theater of war, but even foreign citizens have a constitutional right to habeas corpus when apprehended by the government on foreign soil (Boumediene v. Bush).
as in people have the right to free speech, not just citizens. in this man-made document for this nation, it says people are born with rights, and so that belief must extend to people outside the nation. they were born too.
> 1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US soil.
Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of saying something so easily refuted? Is this just to be inflammatory for the sake of it?
The suggestion that the US Bill of Rights only applies to citizens is so unbelievably toxic and contrary to the history of the country I am saddened to even read the words.
The Bill of Rights intentionally does not even include the word "citizen" and instead uses "people."
Kleindienst v. Mandel does not take a stance on the matter of the reach of the Bill of Rights to foreign nationals and was instead decided on different grounds.
The fact that the government can be compelled to allow US citizens to cross the border irrespective of any enumerated standards is orthogonal to the reach of the first amendment to non-citizens. These are entirely different legal matters, and the case you're linking to was decided entirely on the former and not the latter.
I have 0 expertise on my own country's law, let alone US law or some specific cases in your (?) country. But that's not what Wikipedia says:
"Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare."
It refers to multiple cases, not just the one you cherry picked. And it says the courts are divided, which implies that some judges did not agree with your narrative. Now I don't know it's about amendments or laws or some footnote or whatever you call it in legalese. The bottom line is (and that's what would matter to a foreigner), this doesn't sound like foreigners have the same level of free speech protections as citizens do at the border or within the country, and implies that they can be punished in one way or another for what they say. It won't matter to people who get deported or rejected entry whether they were rejected based on nth amendment or mth law, so your point is entirely irrelevant.
Now you can argue that this is probably the case in other nations, and it could well be. But I don't see other people here trying to portray it's all roses in their country.
Again, this isn't about whether some amendment or footnote extends to non-citizens, or some particular case. Those are just details, which won't matter if there's even just one piece of law or regulation (such as this new social media details requirement) that discriminates foreigners. So try to remember what this whole topic is about, and look at the bigger picture, from the perspective of a foreigner.
Edit You apparently prefer to double down on details which don't matter (for people who'll be negatively affected by such regulations), which is fine, but I don't really care enough to write another reply. Maybe if you travel abroad someday in the future, you can try asking how people who got their US visa application denied because of their social media postings "enjoyed" their rights.
Also, you're claiming in your reply that the Wikipedia page is wrong and implying the reference therein is unreliable, maybe you can fix it if you're sure there was no case in the history which makes it unclear, and cite a better reference?
"cherry picked"? I pointed you directly to the decision that SCOTUS rendered on this matter.
And I don't understand the point you're trying to make: even the dissent acknowledged that Mandel had no first amendment protections while outside the country - this has nothing to do with citizenship.
Literally nobody - not the majority nor either dissent, said anything whatsoever about citizenship being an issue here.
If a non-citizen were not subject to the enumerated standard test here (ie, if they were a permanent resident), they'd be in the exact same boat as a citizen.
This entire line of jurisprudence has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether the Bill of Rights extends to non-citizens (and to be absolutely clear: it does.).
> "Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare."
So let me get this straight - WikiPedia cites Eugene Volokh discussing a matter on which there has been no case or controversy and no court has rendered an opinion, and this is your basis to say that the unambiguous tradition, predating the founding, of rights being enjoyed by non-citizens within the United States is "unclear"? Please tell me that you can see how ridiculous this sounds.
> Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of saying something so easily refuted? Is this just to be inflammatory for the sake of it?
I imagine your reply came from a good place and you're genuinely trying to improve the knowledge out here, but I just want to take a moment to address something that comes up often: this tone is very combative and it makes it incredibly hard for someone to yield and turn to you. What is OP supposed to say to this? "Oh I guess you're right. Thanks for taking my pride and putting me down. I see your point now." -- this is not how people work.
Or, from another angle: you can usually tell a sarcastic question is off, if the honest answer is readily found, and defensible. In this case: OP said such things because they thought it was true. The point was to share information with someone else and contribute to a conversation.
If you think they're wrong, there's more productive ways of getting that point across than calling into question good faith.
For the record: I thought it as well, so there were at least two of us, out here ;) and now after Googling, and judicial rabbitholes far beyond my expertise I still can't tell whether it's limited geographically or also meant to apply world-wide, or how I was meant to know, to avoid getting told off for being toxic if I ever daresay something else about it...
But I also think that there is a palpable and strange injection into the zeitgeist a notion that non-citizens are less human - and it comes at the same time that a lot of racism and anti-immigrant ideology is reaching its way into public policy.
I'm finding myself with decreased patience for it than I might have for other falsehoods making their way through echo chambers.
after reading through your comments, I'm not convinced that I was spreading a falsehood. The fact that there are some legal policies on treatment of non-nationals is not the same thing as non-nationals being fully protected by constitutional rights. They are not. Other comments above have also said this. (I submitted simultaneously as someone who gave a better phrased answer but couldn't figure out how to delete my redundant comment).
> palpable and strange injection into the zeitgeist a notion that non-citizens are less human
I did not and would not ever suggest that non-citizens are less than human. I am puzzled and saddened that my words were taken that way. If anything, I was attempting to point out that the US policies have a problematic history of prioritizing its own citizens at the expense of human rights globally. That's a longer conversation, and this thread is one example.
In the time the constitution was framed, "well regulated" meant properly trained and not "subject to 30 million pages of government control and criminilization".
If you want to cherry pick certain parts of the second amendment - I can do that too: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Please stick with weapons available at time constitution was written of not very reliable ~3 shots per minute fire rate. Gunpowder cannons are also OK.
Law evolves along with technical progress and 2nd amendment is not exception.
When you write your reply on parchment with elderberry ink, seal it with wax, and have it delivered by pony express we can have a discussion on the limitations you are proposing on the first amendment with your long debunked argument.
Also there were repeating rifles, cartridge based rifles, and citizens owned artillery pieces and war ships in the era in which the Constitution was written.
You should read Heller - Justice Scalia wrote a great deal about your argument and why it is absurd.
There were entire areas unknown in 1789 - incorporating them is basically writing law again (see example below). Reliable fully automatic weapons that can do up to 1000rpm belong to same category.
"The 1934 act designated broadcasters as speakers — thus granting them First Amendment rights — but the broadcast media were also treated as possessing a somewhat lesser claim to First Amendment protections than the print media. The Supreme Court’s decision in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969) upheld the principle that the scarcity of frequencies put broadcasters under public obligations to present multiple viewpoints, which therefore served as limits on their First Amendment rights."
Civilians owned cannon, artillery pieces and warships in the revolutionary war time frame.
A machine gun is nothing compared to a strategic asset. If we want to go back to that model, which is what you argue for, I'm getting a Davy Crockett for my front yard, an Iowa class BB for my dock, and a squadron of F22s and F35s.
The framers wanted the people to have access to the same weapons the government did - to allow the people to have a very real check over the overreach of said government.
Benjamin Franklin was an inventor - if you think when they wrote the second amendment they didn't think "gee, maybe guns will shoot faster someday" then I don't know what to tell you.
People in the United States on tourist visas are not prohibited from bearing arms (in fact gun ranges are major tourist destinations in some parts of the country). Purchasing arms is subject to a higher legal standard, but is also not wholesale prohibited, just subject to a few extra rules. For example, a tourist who acquires a hunting license in any state can purchase a firearm.
...and in any case, this is not a citizen/non-citizen issue, as GP claims - lawful permanent residents have the same 2nd amendment rights as citizens.
Well yes, but that is a privilege that the country bestows upon you as a token of good will and faith - not a natural right under the constituion; and I would not expect it either. Should I be allowed the affordances of the 1st amendment while on American soil to advocate for the fall of the American republic? I would be deported very swiftly.
> Doesn't the First Amendment restrict the US government from curtailing free expression and free association anyplace, not just within US borders?
Just within the Borders. Borders (border crossings), worldwide, have extra-national areas that are neither country for practical reasons (like keeping each other's soldiers out of casual range), where rights are not enforced. The US doesn't enforce rights, in an area where it has no authority.
"Chilling effect" is a recent idiom, which is subjective. The US judicial system makes a determination on what is or isn't a restriction.
My take is that this is another background-investigation tool. So what? People casually (and stupidly) aggregate a large amount of their own personal information in one place and then act surprised when a country wants to check it before allowing you to cross the border (eg Canada's restriction on US drunk drivers). I don't understand the outrage of what amounts to more paperwork.
The first amendment comes afterward, but I have to admit I have no idea if there's any case law that it's unconstitutional to deny a visa on the basis of the applicant's viewpoints.
ESTA is an application for permission to travel to the US by air carrier or cruise ship to apply for admission under the Visa Waiver Program. As the word Waiver suggests, that permission is not a visa.
People of VWP nationalities can apply for true US visas, but for short-term tourist or business visits there's usually no reason for them to bother unless they've been individually denied VWP eligibility or they want one of the few extra procedural rights which come from the visa and not through the VWP.
All of which is to say, maybe they're only asking this horrible new question of true visa applicants and not VWP applicants.
I’d wager VWP visitors outnumber Visa applicants by a wide margin. Assuming they actually intend to perform even a cursory check of each social media account they’ll get bogged down for hours by trying to prove someone lying about not having a certain account.
As an aside: someone posted a screenshot of the form showing one of the named sites was MySpace but doesn’t include Telegram (and you can use Telegram without a username too). Anyway - I hope someone comes to their senses (perhaps an ACLU lawsuit re: should people be forced to disclose membership of sites like Grindr?) and they remove the stupid question.
My guess (pure speculation) is that they won't manually check most social media accounts indicated on the form, but will automatically check the provided info against (and add the provided info to) some intelligence community database. Then they'd manually check any cases where security concerns are flagged by that database or otherwise.
I meet a lot of tourists on a daily basis, and I have not heard anyone say they want to visit the United States in a very long time.
I can't imagine how much worse it is for people that are forced to travel there for business.
If the United States is trying to isolate itself from the rest of the world it is definitely succeeding.
As a side note, I have not spoken to a tourist from the US on the island where I live in several months. However there is a literal flood of French, German, Chinese, Dutch, Singaporean, etc. Last night I had dinner with an Uzbek and Tanzanian couple.
I did not see a breakdown by age demographic in that report.
The overwhelming majority of the tourists I encounter fall into the Millennial bracket, and I don't think it is possible for them to be less enthusiastic about visiting the US.
Maybe that will change once they have kids who want to go see Harry Potter World in Orlando, but as it stands I think most of my customers would rather visit North Korea than the US.
> The overwhelming majority of the tourists I encounter fall into the Millennial bracket, and I don't think it is possible for them to be less enthusiastic about visiting the US
I’m a millennial with lots of international millennial friends. Nobody likes these measures. But getting into most countries is no walk in the park. As much as I hate to admit this, the pressure to end these policies will never come from tourists.
Most of the Europeans that come through have the financial means and strong enough passports to go pretty much anywhere they please. Same goes for most Japanese and Chinese.
My Arab customers however have the money, but getting a visa is a near impossibility.
If you have money and a clean background you can go anywhere you want (with some exceptions), regardless of your passport. There are companies you can contact who will handle the entire visa process for you.
> The overwhelming majority of the tourists I encounter fall into the Millennial bracket, and I don't think it is possible for them to be less enthusiastic about visiting the US.
You could say the same about American millenials. We aren't thrilled to be here either - if we all had dual citizenship with another first-world nation, I'd bet 70% of us would have left the country.
I doubt we've ever had an economy that was as strong (or at least, looked so good on paper), while people had such a negative opinion of what the future holds. Trump and the Senate Republicans (and their supporters) are destroying this nation.
I would think many of those visits are for business or seeing family. Plus the fact that many of the tourists come from countries in the Visa Waiver Program [1]. An ESTA is much less involved than a B1/B2 visa application.
To be honest - that's sort of off the beaten path (speaking for a lot of Americans).
From the SE asian island-ish countries, I can think the ordering of "who goes where" would look something like this - Thailand, Bali, Vietnam, Phillippines, Malaysia - just based on country marketing + anecdotal conversations alone.
This is coming from someone who was nomad-ing around for 2 1/2 years too.
My flight from New York to KL cost less than my flight from Orlando to NY.
Most Malaysians also speak English very well, especially compared to the rest of SE Asia.
I have spoken to Americans back home who couldn't even point out Malaysia on a map, and even more who just write it off as a "Muslim country" despite it being secular and very diverse.
I would say it has less to do with accessibility, and more to do with Americans being skittish travelers who have been brainwashed into thinking that any country with a couple Muslims is a scary place.
I said it has to do with how the country presents itself. If you polled people going to Asia - you'd see a huge # of them would be going to Thailand or Bali (80/20) - likely due to them being portrayed in the media quite a bit. Indonesia is also significantly Muslim.
You seem to be looking for a fight where there isn't one. Maybe you should reconsider your assumptions about Americans.
I am Mexican American, its not an assumption when you lived in the country for most of your life.
I'm not looking for a fight, I am just genuinely interested in why Americans are an under represented group of travelers in the country where I currently live and work.
So far the majority of the replies that attempted to give a reason included the fact that it is a Muslim country, despite that being as true as America being a Christian country.
I've been. Last time I thought I'd pop in from Singapore I found they'd discontinued the flights there which can't help with US tourists who don't want to schlep about with busses and boats.
Mileage may vary I suppose, but I am in KL right now to see my doctor and have been staying at a friend's hostel for the past week in a very touristic area.
I have been socializing quite a bit and have not met a single American the entire week.
That seems like a likely explanation, although the island where I dive attracts very affluent tourists and there are effectively no Americans there either.
Were most of the people you met tourists or living in Malaysia?
> Americans immediately scramble for a new job out of fear of getting sick.
Or in fear of paying a tax penalty unless they buy some substandard marketplace plan (yes, I know the marketplace plans were sabotaged for political reasons in some cases, but that doesn't change the result)
Also add in that household income is (fairly) stagnant[0] but costs are increasing.
Anecdotally the only people I know that visit other countries either are: not from the US; come from a wealthy family; or have little money and that's just what they spend their money on. I know very few middle class people that visit other countries (outside of work related tasks). The excuse is always "I can't afford it." For me, that's my excuse. But that's not only money but time (which is correlated). I mean a round trip from my location to London is about $2.5k (similar cost for anywhere in Europe, Japan, or New Zealand). If I had a couple grand to drop on a vacation I'd do it. Though I'll say that I can get a round trip to Malaysia for under $2k, which is more reasonable (especially considering expenditures while there are less).
I believe that that graph is adjusted for Urban CPI so so increased costs would be taken into account. It's also a bit difficult to see the change in median household income due to the scale so here's the federal reserve's version where it is easier to see[1]. The increase in real median household income has been significant since the mid 80s. There are plenty of factors in play but I don't really think stagnant wages relative to other countries are to blame for fewer American tourists. Honestly, I just don't know many people in the U.S. who would think to vacation to Malaysia. The Caribbean is a lot closer and less expensive to travel to.
I typically travel to places where I know someone — so given that most of the Malaysians I know have moved elsewhere (or are trying to) I'm less inclined to visit. The politics, health care, and to some extent personal safety and syariah law create some resistance too.
Politics - Malaysia has a healthier democracy than the United States and is currently undergoing massive anti corruption reforms.
Healthcare - I receive better and more affordable healthcare here than I ever did in the US. Visiting a DR costs $10 out of pocket and most medications are in the $5-$20 range. I recently underwent extensive hyperbaric therapy and it cost me less than $200. The same treatment in the US would have been near $10000. I also have insurance, but I am yet to actually need to dip into it.
Personal Safety - I feel safer wandering around KL at night than I ever did LA or SF. On the island where I live I don't even have a lock on my door.
Sharia Law - Malaysia is a secular society. In areas where Sharia law is in effect it only applies to Muslims, and even then it can be appealed in the courts. Malaysia is a very mixed society that has learned to respect all races and religions, wish I could say the same for the US.
Its sad because you are eliminating one of the travel gems of the world based on false assumptions.
Politics - Malaysia has a healthier democracy than the United States and is currently undergoing massive anti corruption reforms.
Which is great, but it wasn't that long ago that the opposition leader was thrown into jail on trumped up sodomy charges.
Healthcare
The cost of care is lower but so is the quality was what I've had a few Malaysian friends tell me.
Personal Safety - I feel safer wandering around KL at night than I ever did LA or SF. On the island where I live I don't even have a lock on my door.
Most places feel safer than San Francisco to me, that's not much of a challenge. The US State Dept listed a warning due to an increased risk of kidnapping, and they also list these gems:
- Taxi drivers in downtown Kuala Lumpur have perpetrated violent crimes against foreign tourists and local residents
- Criminals also target motorists stuck in traffic or stopped at a light with smash and grab robberies.
When I was planning a trip to Penang and KL a few years back the advice given was to have my friend pick me up instead of taking a taxi -- due to her concerns for my safety.
Malaysia is a very mixed society that has learned to respect all races and religions
Well that's patently false. How many non-Muslim Malays do you know? Hint: none because syariah law prevents them from leaving Islam and the so-called secular law cowtows to Islam. How about race based university admissions (and a variety of other codified race based privileges)?
"opposition leader was thrown into jail on trumped up sodomy charges."
He was pardoned in 2018 and the current ruling party won on a platform of removing this kind of corruption and is so far very well received.
"cost of care is lower but so is the quality was what I've had a few Malaysian friends tell me."
False. All the major cities in Malaysia have excellent hospitals, and there is nationwide availability to General practitioners who are more than qualified. I have had 2 elective surgeries in Malaysia and could not be happier with the results.
" I was planning a trip to Penang and KL a few years back the advice given was to have my friend pick me up instead of taking a taxi -- due to her concerns for my safety."
There is always Grab if you are that paranoid, but I have never heard of anyone having issues like this. Just the other day I hailed a cab and the driver told me it would actually be cheaper and easier for me to take the train to my destination and gave me instructions on how to get to the nearest station.
"Well that's patently false. How many non-Muslim Malays do you know? Hint: none because syariah law prevents them from leaving Islam and the so-called secular law cowtows to Islam. How about race based university admissions (and a variety of other codified race based privileges)?"
This one actually made my friends and I laugh when I read it out loud during our lunch. Malaysia is home to ethnic Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, and native groups. Just at my table there are three non Muslim Malay and two muslims.
I say this at risk of angering the mods, but you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
> They only have 5-10 days vacation a year on average.
Your figures are off by a large margin (70% to 240%). The average American worker took 17 days of vacation time in 2017.
For paid vacation time - the more important item - it depends heavily on experience and company size.
"In 2017, the average worker with five years of experience at a company was given 15 days of paid vacation and the average worker with 20 years of experience was given 20 paid vacation days."
"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 76 percent of private industry workers ... After one year of employment, these workers were granted 10 days of paid vacation, on average."
That little holiday time still baffles me. I've taken 15 days off this year and we're barely nearing mid-summer. That's not including the 8 bank holidays we get. I've still got another 10 to use before the years end, not including days in lieu from working overtime, and this is only my first year of employment. I know that the US isn't great for workers rights, but regardless that's incredibly shocking to me.
If I was expected to work 50 weeks in a 52 week year I don't think I'd ever get a full-time career. I'd probably run off and become a surf bum selling loom bands on the beach.
This is an unintended consequence of social media. It is the same as it was centuries ago. If you’re known to criticize someone else, and it gets back to them, of course there will be ramifications.
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with this comment. I’m just stating fact.
I remember one thread which I can't find, which considered whether Hacker News counted as a site that should be disclosed. I also seem to remember a claim that having an account on a site with "Hacker" in the title was an automatic disqualification.
Everyone knows that the real danger of all this tracking and social media is that governments will start stealing the data and using it against people, or else by censoring things/manipulation.
This is how it starts in-earnest, rather than half heartedly. See China for a demo of the future
If enough heretics have your name in their social network, your visa will be denied. Requiring social media on visa applications is like enforcing everyone to use Truecaller (don't use it!).
This feels like the start of a U.S. social credit system.
oh, make no mistake the US /already/ screened this stuff. My now-wife had all her social media pages printed out and waiting for her on an entry to the US in the Obama years. Difference is now they can ban you for lying...
Since you have actual first-hand knowledge of border officials doing social media questioning, could you tell us more about this? What did they ask her? What prompted them to print out the social media pages? Which social media sites? What country was she coming from? How long did they question her?
Not sure why they had them printed out - could have been to review them, could have been for intimidation.
IIRC they asked her why she had changed her FB location to the American city she would stay in for the next 3 months, asked a bunch of questions about past posts in the US talking about helping build our home, buy decorations, etc (all as proof she was intent on overstaying her visa, which was vaguely ridiculous as we had applied for a fiance visa at that point, so she was pretty clearly intending on living here, but we were also pretty clearly intending on going through the legal visa process)
Also asked a bunch of questions about some posts she had made seeking design clients in the US as proof she was working here illegally (even though she owned her own design business and paid taxes on it in Europe, obviously are allowed to take on US clients, but they were sketched out that she was soliciting US clients while in the US)
They questioned her for about an hour with no access to phone/lawyer/etc and gave her the option of immediately voluntarily leaving the US. At the end of the process they told her that it would be the last time she could enter the US on an ESTA and next time it would have to be on the fiance visa, they also told her verbally she had to leave within 14 days, but they still stamped her for a 3 month entry as per regular ESTA guidelines.
--
It was mostly a bunch of silliness about work/residency/intent to work without a work permit/intent to stay in the US without a visa even though all things were aboveboard. The most concerning to me remains that her facebook at the time was not in any legal name, certainly not the name the passenger manifest, but she was still obviously tracked down
This is not a social credit system. The US has zero obligation to let anyone into the country and can deny a visa for no reason at all if they choose.
This isn't even close to the same thing as the Chinese government banning their own citizens from using Chinese services and infrastructure because of "bad social behavior".
This is the isolationist attitude that people have a problem with.
We don't "owe" anything to anyone, but this not the behavior of the greatest country in the world.
> We don't "owe" anything to anyone, but this not the behavior of the greatest country in the world.
I didn't say the US shouldn't let people in or be respectful of foreigners - I was just stating the fact that they do not have any legal obligation to do so. Of course they do it because it is good for the country - but if they stop, who is going to make them change their mind? It's up to the American people to decide what they want for their country at any given time - the rest of the world has no power to make them do otherwise - as does any other country and I wouldn't want to force any country to take people they don't want to either.
> It's up to the American people to decide what they want for their country at any given time - the rest of the world has no power to make them do otherwise - as does any other country and I wouldn't want to force any country to take people they don't want to either.
A country with many allies is much more powerful than a country with none. This is a lesson that is taught before children enter school (play nicely with others), I don't know how this became an American attitude and I find it very disappointing and worrisome.
You often hear statistics like the US fund 25% of NATO, or something similar. I don't see how this is a bad thing, this means we have 4 times as much power than if we were not in NATO, because we supply the most we have the most control over the group, and because we play nicely with others and listen to the needs of other countries who have similar morals as we do.
You are the only one talking about a legal obligation, the article and everyone else is just talking about how this is not the behavior the world and US citizens would not like to see coming out of America the melting pot.
This is terrible for the us. It's just another invasive thing and other countries will now use this opportunity to spy on me in return. It's idiotic. Your comment sets up a pointless argument in that of course no country is required to admit anyone, but reasonable policies invite good reciprocal treatment.
You say that like countries already don't take opportunities to spy on foreigners.
> Your comment sets up a pointless argument in that of course no country is required to admit anyone, but reasonable policies invite good reciprocal treatment.
All I said was that the US has no obligation to do anything for outsiders. I didn't say they shouldn't and obviously they do - just don't expect some kind of natural right to be accorded to you if you aren't a citizen of their country.
That's hardly equivalent at all, but okay. Asking for more stringent visa requirements that does not apply to US citizens is not even close to denying train passes to dissenting citizens.
Very discouraging to see this, especially because the overreach appears to have no limit. Today it's visa applications. Tomorrow it could be US citizens trying to get passports, driver licenses, or collect social security/medicare benefits.
On the other hand, a growing awareness of the many dangers posed by poor digital hygiene could ultimately lead to greater interest in privacy tools and practices. Along the road, though, lives will be destroyed as the ground shifts underneath them. Especially troubling is the possibility that previously-legal activities could be punished well into the future if not outright prosecuted.
> Tomorrow it could be US citizens trying to get passports, driver licenses, or collect social security/medicare benefits.
Not really, since jurisprudence gives the executive a very wide latitude in deciding which foreigners to grant the privilege of entering the US. Much wider than it would give if it were a question of citizens applying for documents that they’re entitled to.
One of the reasons immigration laws ask so many questions is to set up an easy way to deport unwanted people without the tedious bother of an actual trial.
This seems like a goldmine. Forgot an email? Didn't turn over your account details on pornhub? Had a single-use throwaway account you can't remember the password for? Congratulations, you qualify for easy eviction.
Which is funny and shows that none of this virtue signaling matters because Turkey still has an unacknowledged genocide on their record and a militaristic leader with dictator-like aspirations who throws stages coups to enhance his favorability. I imagine many still desire to come to the USA (amongst the most are Indians) and they just aren't advertising it as loudly because it doesn't earn you any woke cred on the twitters.
Your reply was fine until you edited in that "woke" nonsense to try to make yourself sound clever.
It might just be that YOY growth without a rolling average is always going swing wildly when a country has a lot of negative news cycles in a year and then goes relatively quiet.
The US has been looking pretty bad, pretty consistently, for a long time now.
I don't care about sounding clever mate, especially not to internet strangers. The more obvious answer to me is the wealth of the globe has increased YoY as well, mainly thanks to capitalism, so America isn't the primary destination for opportunity anymore, which is a good thing.
TBF, Turkey is cheaper for many people both in terms of transportation costs and the value you get for your money. I doubt it’s a coincidence rnce that the lira has been dropping so much in value (30% last year) that international shopping tours were organized Turkey is also trying to position itself as a transport hub so I’ve noticed a lot more people staying in the country for 1-3 days to see a few of the sights.
Going to the US is too expensive for many who aren’y in neighboring countries. It’s also hard to get around.
Please do not take HN threads into nationalistic or political flamewar. Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines and following them when posting here? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
As any US Visa applicant can attest to, the DS-160 is already some of the most annoying form you have to fill - in fact for most people it's less pleasurable than doing 1040.
In addition to asking for details of every school you went to, every job you had, every country you've been to, they ask you questions like this:
>> Have you ever violated, or engaged in a conspiracy to violate, any law relating to controlled substances?
>> Are you coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or unlawful commercialized vice or have you been engaged in prostitution or procuring prostitutes within the past 10 years?
>> Have you ever been involved in, or do you seek to engage in, money laundering?
>> Have you ever committed or conspired to commit a human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States?
>> Are you the spouse, son, or daughter of an individual who has committed or conspired to commit a human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States and have you within the last five years, knowingly benefited from the trafficking activities?
>> Have you knowingly aided, abetted, assisted or colluded with an individual who has committed or conspired to commit a severe human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States?
>> Do you seek to engage in espionage, sabotage, export control violations, or any other illegal activity while in the United States?
>> Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?
>> Have you ever or do you intend to provide financial assistance or other support to terrorists or terrorist organizations?
>> Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?
>> Have you ever ordered, incited, committed, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide?
>> Have you ever committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in torture?
>> Have you committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in extrajudicial killings, political killings, or other acts of violence?
>> Have you ever engaged in the recruitment or the use of the child soldiers?
>> Have you, while serving as a government official, been responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom?
>> Have you ever been directly involved in the establishment or enforcement of the population controls forcing a woman to undergo an abortion against her free choice or a man or a woman to undergo sterilization against his or her free will?
>> Have you ever been directly involved in the coercive transplantation of human organs or bodily tissue?
And now, this.
And don't get me started on the stupid fact that you cannot renew your US visa within the US, and in the end people on student/work visas have to take the pointless trip to Canada/Mexico just to get a new visa.
I hope someone eventually realizes visa applicants are people too.
Can some lawyer explain why these questions are necessary? I understand that you can add extra convictions for lying on these applications, but all the above questions are quite damning themselves. Like
>> Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?
Assuming you are: you answer yes and you get denied a visa (duh). Answer no and the gov doesn't know, what happens? You commit terrorist activities on American soil and get charged with that activity, which I assume is FAR worse than the punishment for lying on a Visa (if it isn't, somethings wrong). Can we not kick out a terrorist (found out after they entered) without this question?
It seems like the same goes for every single one of the above questions (except the first one, "Have you ever done drugs"). Every one of these questions is always going to be answered with a no, so doesn't that just create noise in the data?
A lot of those are because there are specific laws barring people who have done those things from entry. Ideally, having those questions on the form (and the obvious implication that a "yes" entry means a denial of visa) educates the applicant not to continue applying, or if the offense is something which could be resolved, to prepare documentation for that.
I'm sorry, but what terrorist is going to say "Damn, they check for terrorists? I guess I won't apply." I don't think you even need the context of America's presence in the Middle East to figure out that terrorism is illegal. It isn't like it is only illegal in America. Same for things like human trafficking.
I can see that with the "have you ever done drugs" question, but terrorism or human trafficking? That's quite a stretch. You don't have to ask the question for someone to know that those activities would bar entry. I'd have to see pretty strong evidence to believe that a question like that is going to even give pause to people like that.
But that circles back to my original question. How does the gov not have the power to boot you out (or jail) just from committing the terrorist act in itself? OR even just from finding out that said person has terrorist ties? I don't buy the answer of needing the question to boot someone out. You can already boot them out for committing crimes. And I'm sure there's a question along the lines "Do you intend to commit a crime while in the US?" (I'm sure this is already on there) The above questions definitely fall under this. So I don't understand how these questions don't just become noise. I'd imagine noise in these forms leads to more mistakes too.
As per the previous comment, most of it comes from the way the laws were written. If immigration law says “members of a terrorist group can’t get citizenship”, then USCIS has to have a process for following it. In addition to background checks, they ask the question.
In terms of booting them out, the question makes it much easier. If they are a member of a terrorist group and they said “no”, well it’s an open and shut case of lying on an immigration application. If they didn’t ask the question, sure they could still boot them out, but it may be a prolonged process.
But doesn't proving that the person has lied also require additional efforts, and if that person will contest the desicion in court, can become a long process?
I would argue that proving somebody lied on an application would be easier than proving something like “this person is a danger to the US”. The 2nd is much subjective.
To prove that he lied on the application form, they would have to legally prove him as a terrorist. The legal process of proving someone is a terrorist would be same. So isn't it pointless?
It’s actually Department of State databases, specifically, CLASS (Consular Lookout and Support System) and the TIDE (Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment) systems that are used. There is also (as you mentioned,) an FBI fingerprint and name check that is completed, but that’s for domestic (US) criminal records and not specific to overseas terrorism.
> But that circles back to my original question. How does the gov not have the power to boot you out (or jail) just from committing the terrorist act in itself?
Because they have to prove it in court. And the defendant can ask for a lawyers. And then both the cost, and the level of proof required is a lot higher. Will the US have enough time and resources to go to the originating country and inspect all the evidence, check the archives and so on? Probably not for every case.
The alternative they just need to prove they lied on a form and they signed and acknowledged that lying on it means getting kicked out. That's a simple and shut case most of the time.
To prove that they lied on the form, wouldn't they have to legally prove that he is a terrorist and go through the same legal process which you said will be avoided?
I believe it is 1) different venue for trial (administrative vs a criminal case) and possibly 2) different standard of proof, especially for non permanent residents.
(Not a lawyer nor an immigration expert on US law, though.)
Of course not. They would lie. And then the US government can then kick them for fraudulently obtaining their citizenship. That's a lot easier and simpler than having to convict them on terrorism charges. So the US government, is doing this assuming they will lie.
I thought the idea was that if it's found out later that you are a member of a terrorist organization you can be kicked out, even if you haven't yet done anything explicitly illegal, because you lied on the Visa application.
It probably depends. I would think that an alien can be deported arbitrarily regardless of anything (having no absolute right to be in the country to begin with, can be rejected arbitrarily at passport control etc.), but usually in a court of law you can't be penalized for "being" something, only for doing or having done something.
From a legal standpoint that's problematic since the government would be imposing a punishment on acts committed outside its jurisdiction--possibly ex post facto as well.
But a lot of countries have laws which say that you can be prosecuted upon your return for doing anything outside of the country which is illegal inside the country.
Western countries generally only invoke extraterrestrial jurisdiction in matters concerning basic human rights. Laws criminalizing sex with minors oversea are arguably domestic implementation of international law. Sexual slavery is not a choice that sovereign states can make.
> I understand that you can add extra convictions for lying on these applications
You simply get kicked out pretty much immediately if they find out you lied. It can mean also the revocation of citizenship as it is now considered obtained fraudulently. That all can be done rather "easily" since it's procedural, without a long legal battle involved.
Now all kinds of "funny" things can happen there. Say someone belongs to an organization which was created and sponsored by the CIA and was not a terrorist organization 10 years ago. A new administration comes in, and the "friendly freedom fighters" are now the "evil baby killing terrorists". What should happen then? Can the government go back and kick out all the members they might have taken in? Technically they lied and they are now a part of the terrorist organization...
Terrorist groups don’t have formal rosters the way sports teams do. It is sort of like “former intelligence officer”. It is definitely a strong argument (strengthened by time and distance separation, degree of clear separation or renunciation, etc) but it would almost certainly cause delays and substantial extra investigation, if nothing else.
I'm not sure what the underlying legal theory is in defining terrorist groups, but maybe ex post facto applies here. If the defining of the group as terrorist is done by passing of a law then this is pretty open and shut. If it's done by executive order then I'm not sure. It might go to the supreme court.
I think the question about terrorists is in fact a hidden lottery that allows to win a free trip to Guantanamo with unlimited accomodation and catering.
RFC3514! So basically a “Please reject my visa application” check mark.
Even if you were willing to answer this honestly it can even become extremely hard to actually answer: what it is deemed a “terrorist” organisation? Maybe your home country would not consider some group as such but the US does? What about drug usage? It’s not even consistent across US states, let alone a different country.
To properly fill this you’d have to be a law expert in both US law, your home country’s, and probably international law too to resolve the impedance mismatch between both.
And don't get me started on the stupid fact that you cannot renew your US visa within the US, and in the end people on student/work visas have to take the pointless trip to Canada/Mexico just to get a new visa.
That’s a feature, not a bug. You don’t have to kick people out if they can’t renew, you just don’t let them back in.
This is a big fear for many h1bs (atleast those who I know). What if they travel to India, and then the visa officer decides just like that to deny. What will happen to their stuff in US, their apartment, car etc? These people have done nothing wrong and have all the paperwork, still have that (irrational) fear.
As someone who went through the H1-B process and had my status threaten a number of times (downsizing), it was just a reality - if I lose my visa I go back home and maybe try again.
It never stopped me from major live decisions like buying a house.
Immigrating to a new country is taking the risk that you can’t stay. I accepted that when I immigrated.
The point i was responding to was fear of being arbitrarily rejected by a visa officer, which can happen. Or having your H1B petition denied for a job that would've had it approved the year before - as is happening pretty frequently this year.
No one would complain if H1B was a transparent and clear system (like a points-based immigration system). In reality its often arbitrary, with your visa status hanging on the political tides of the country, or how a visa/border officers day is going. That kind of unpredictability wasn't clear to me when I got the H1B and isn't any kind of well-defined risk you can accept before going down that path.
>Immigrating to a new country is taking the risk that you can’t stay. I accepted that when I immigrated.
But it doesn't need to be so tenuous.
Emigrating to the Netherlands seems like a friendly walk in the park compared to the capricious bullshit that immigrants to America are subjected to. I'm ashamed my country treats people like this.
If I lose my visa for downsizing where I am, I can leave and go back on tourist visa, find another job and redo the work visa in 2 weeks.
It's idiotic to make it hard for immigrants to get back on their feet, it's not like working immigrants cost money..., what cost money is to lose them to a competing country...
But in essence you're right anyway: immigration is a privilege, complaining about it is really unfair to a country that was never forced to take you in in the first place. The only thing we the immigrants and the host countries can do, is compete on entry condition, to bring the most high skilled, high asset immigrants.
As said above it is a feature. They make the process happen outside the US so that if you are refused you are already outside.
And I will not accept sad stories from H1Bs that are by far the most privileged group of Indians that decided to move to the US mainly to make a crazy amount of money. Everyone knows the rules of the game when they decide to apply for a visa to the US.
Well H1B is a terribly managed skilled migration. Countries like Australia and Canada do it well with their points system that is very fair and transparent.
H1B is based on a lottery. Which there are organized that openly abuse the system and the US gov doesn’t do much about it.
You either let people in or out. H1Bs are stuck in limbo for years with false hope. It’s a very sad way to live and it’s not good for the country either.
But US gov bends to corporations and H1Bs fucked up system helps them keep the wages low.
Is there any other country where the waiting time to go from a work visa to a permanent residency exceeds 15+ years for citizens of certain countries even after the petition is approved?
Which is why you should always travel while your current stamping is valid. The renewal always has a window. This is what I did all the time. If your new visa is refused you still have time left on your old visa to come back and take care of your stuff in the US.
The missing part here is that on a student/work visa, you're entitled to remain in the country longer than your visa is valid for.
When I was living in the US, I was on an E-3 visa and my wife was on an F-1. My visa lasted for 2 years, however my I-94 (which permits me to remain in the US) lasted for 3. My wife's visa was for a single year but her I-94 was for the entire duration of her study.
What this means in practice is that if you travel internationally during the period in which you have a valid I-94 but no valid visa, you have to renew. However if you _don't_ travel and just stay in the US, you don't have to bother.
I can't imagine how this is anything but a bug. The US wants my wife to demonstrate intent to return home (e.g. by frequently visiting) but actively discourages her from doing so (by forcing a burdensome visa renewal each time).
Well, her demonstration of intent is all the more sincere if it requires undergoing some burdensome steps. The logic is there, so I’m not seeing that it’s a bug, although I don’t love it.
No, that doesn't make sense because you don't need the stamp. I have friends who have never left America after moving here and they're Indian and just never had their passport stamped with the visa. They receive H-1B approvals and just stay here, renewing the H-1B approval when needed.
You can absolutely renew your status in the US. It's just when you travel that you need to make sure you have it stamped to return.
> And don't get me started on the stupid fact that you cannot renew your US visa within the US
Ever been to Korea? Ever had a Chinese visa? How about India on a visa? If Indians want an easier time with US visas, then the Indian government should stop with their draconian visa process. Chinese and Korean work visas aren’t much better. Americans trying to get work visas for the EU also have a very difficult time as well. A DUI on your record years ago can mean an American can’t even visit Canada. Those complaining about the US visa process seemingly have limited experience with the rest of the world. You can get 5 year visas to the US; unheard of for Europe or many other countries.
Sorry...where did I imply that anyone could get one? Most anyone who graduates and finds a job sure can; and from what I gather it's a far easier and less Kafkaesque process than in the US, too.
I was primarily responding to the point that 5 year visas are unheard of in Europe (which is plainly false).
As someone in America on the "highly-skilled migrant" visa/green card, I can guarantee you that even that is not straightforward here. It's exactly as stress-inducing and risky-feeling as every other US visa, just with a slightly higher chance of success if you fulfill enough criteria.
So even this is a noteworthy point of distinction between NL and here.
I've had no issues living in Norway for the past 5 years and I'm not sure if I've ever been asked if I were a terrorist. I certainly haven't been asked for my social media information. Not only that, but I could visit Europe for 2 months without a visa. No paperwork, nothing. I had passport control in Copenhaven, but nothing whatsoever in Norway. In contrast, a Norwegian citizen must fill stuff out to have the same luxury in the US.
I'm pretty sure you can't simply "get" a 5 year visa without paperwork, fees, and other such things either. IT isn't that you can't get them in other countries, it is simply that they are called different things - usually something that alludes to being a resident (which is correct).
You don't go through passport control in Norway unless you are departing or arriving from a non-Schengen country. So flying between Copenhagen and Oslo, for example, doesn't involve passport control.
Work permits in Norway used to be 3 valid for 3 years at a time, but they've had to shorten this to 2 years due to EU requirements. If you get permanent residency you also have to renew it every two years by making an appointment and visiting the police station. Luckily they don't charge you for renewals of permanent residency, just the initial application.
> member or representative of a terrorist organization
This is an ambigious question. For example, some groups are considered terrorists by one country and "legitimely elected government" by other. So the terrorist by opinion of country A can answer "No" without lying because in country B he is not considered a terrorist. So maybe they should add "from the point of view of the US government" to the question.
>> Do you seek to engage in espionage ... while in the United States?
>> Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States?
Who are they hoping to catch with these questions? Honest spies and terrorists? Or maybe they hope to say in court:
“You committed a terrorist attack sir, but even worst is that you lied about it on the form!!”
All jokes aside I think these questions are designed for psychological effects to promote the messaging that US is in a never ending war on terror.
The questions are meant to add perjury to the indictment when they catch you for a real crime.
To verify my thesis i would see what are the effective conviction times between foreigners and citizens and expect the latter to get harsher convictions on this alone.
Thinking about it in network security terms, why shouldn't prospective new immigrants and/or visitors face higher scrutiny? It seems to me that they represent a higher threat to US citizens living in the US than random foreigners outside US borders, because of their "insider" status.
Also, once they are present inside the US, they can potentially avail themselves of rights given to US persons. Therefore, such privileges ought to be given selectively.
These aren't questions for prospective new immigrants. These are for visa holders. There are a good number of folks that must get a visa for a vacation, for example. These are questions for random foreigners!
In general, immigrants are less of a threat than a citizen, by the way.
This isn't even actual scrutiny either. These are stupid questions. If someone answers yes to being a terrorist, for example, congrats. You've barred someone stupid from entering the country. This is the same tactic used by "nigerian" scammers.
I'll add that some of these are completely outside of a person's control: Things your parents did. I can only imagine having a parent involved in human smuggling and then being barred from travel because of it.
>>This isn't even actual scrutiny either. These are stupid questions. If someone answers yes to being a terrorist, for example, congrats. You've barred someone stupid from entering the country. This is the same tactic used by "nigerian" scammers.
Weeeeeell. No, not entirely. If you think "terrorist" you probably think ISIS and Al-Queda. But someone could have been a member of the IRA 30 years ago, and should still technically answer "yes" to this question. In theory, that shouldn't bar them from entry(given that everything else is ok). But lying on this form and saying they have never been a member of a terrorist organisation would ban them for life from visiting US if they were ever found out. So this question is not as stupid as it seems.
> And don't get me started on the stupid fact that you cannot renew your US visa within the US, and in the end people on student/work visas have to take the pointless trip to Canada/Mexico just to get a new visa.
I suppose this is could be an issue for graduate students, but I don't know of any foreign undergrads that don't go home at least once a year.
This is not unique to US. Almost all visa applications to any first world country are like this. It’s an excruciatingly painful process to fill out even a tourist visa form for crying out loud.
This social media requirement is as ridiculous and I won’t be surprised if other first world countries follow suit.
354 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 144 ms ] threadWhen proposed last year, authorities estimated the proposal would affect 14.7 million people annually." [0]
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48486672
(Yeah, I realize that in practice they will probably accept partial compliance in that scenario, and that it won't affect me as a US citizen. But it could certainly affect people I care about.)
I guess they may have some procedure to handle the case where technical limitations of the form prevent an accurate answer, but even if yes that's still a huge obstacle many applicants won't overcome.
(Yes, applicants with the technical savvy to catch-all domains are more likely to be able and willing to overcome that type of barrier. Other categories of people will have a harder time, like who are sure they've forgotten some email addresses but don't remember enough details to reconstruct that info. They'll have to say exactly that, if they can even find a place to provide that answer, and possibly get refused as a result.)
It wouldn't surprise me that if in 10 years we all will need to have a minimal social presence to do routine things like travel.
I simply uninstalled all their apps and deleted anything that I had ever posted which wasn’t completely irrelevant. I also deleted almost every picture of myself and prohibited people from ever tagging me.
This way I look like a normal boring guy who likes board games if you glance over my profile, but you couldn’t actually get anything to use against me.
It’s very Orwellian I guess, but it means I never have to explain why I’m not on social media.
Immigrants are non-citizens are among the weakest members of American society (an outsize number of laws that impact them and zero capacity to participate in its political machinery)
Let's say North Korea selected a few of the leading family and declared they are "members", under such circumstances would that quote imply that North Korea is the greatest nation, because all its "members" have near King-like status?
Or likewise, can a nation increase its greatness by declaring the weakest among them to be "non-members".
________________________________
Notes:
1. The US is technically not a nation-state, being a broad mix of numerous cultures. It is a state, or country, but not "nation". De facto of course, this is significantly modified.
For me as an American, this is, I guess, fine now. I won't be affected right away. But I fully expect other countries to institute reciprocal policies.
2) Isn't anything that results in a "chilling effect" tantamount to restriction?
I expect this will have a chilling effect abroad, among people who travel to the US, more than within the US.
1) Sure, if you're a US Citizen, I don't think non-resident, non-citizens outside of the United States are entitled to any protections
2) That would be my opinion. Maybe a frequent¹ conference speaker¹ with outspoken political views² from a European country could mount a challenge that requiring social media profiles in order to enter the country amounts to a chilling effect and consequent prior restraint on speech in the United States
¹ - The conditions under which a person qualifies for the visa waiver program are complicated
² - I imagine a political dissident or someone equally outspoken who has used anonymous social media profiles to protect their livelihood would have the strongest case
That's the legal rationale for a lot of 'bad behavior' such as PRISM -- they can intercept undersea cable traffic to legally spy on foreigners, as foreigners lack constitutional rights. Nothing new there.
So-called unlawful enemy combatants have limited rights and the Supreme Court has upheld all sorts of limitations on the rights of US citizens apprehended in a theater of war, but even foreign citizens have a constitutional right to habeas corpus when apprehended by the government on foreign soil (Boumediene v. Bush).
Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of saying something so easily refuted? Is this just to be inflammatory for the sake of it?
The suggestion that the US Bill of Rights only applies to citizens is so unbelievably toxic and contrary to the history of the country I am saddened to even read the words.
The Bill of Rights intentionally does not even include the word "citizen" and instead uses "people."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
The fact that the government can be compelled to allow US citizens to cross the border irrespective of any enumerated standards is orthogonal to the reach of the first amendment to non-citizens. These are entirely different legal matters, and the case you're linking to was decided entirely on the former and not the latter.
"Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare."
It refers to multiple cases, not just the one you cherry picked. And it says the courts are divided, which implies that some judges did not agree with your narrative. Now I don't know it's about amendments or laws or some footnote or whatever you call it in legalese. The bottom line is (and that's what would matter to a foreigner), this doesn't sound like foreigners have the same level of free speech protections as citizens do at the border or within the country, and implies that they can be punished in one way or another for what they say. It won't matter to people who get deported or rejected entry whether they were rejected based on nth amendment or mth law, so your point is entirely irrelevant.
Now you can argue that this is probably the case in other nations, and it could well be. But I don't see other people here trying to portray it's all roses in their country.
Again, this isn't about whether some amendment or footnote extends to non-citizens, or some particular case. Those are just details, which won't matter if there's even just one piece of law or regulation (such as this new social media details requirement) that discriminates foreigners. So try to remember what this whole topic is about, and look at the bigger picture, from the perspective of a foreigner.
Edit You apparently prefer to double down on details which don't matter (for people who'll be negatively affected by such regulations), which is fine, but I don't really care enough to write another reply. Maybe if you travel abroad someday in the future, you can try asking how people who got their US visa application denied because of their social media postings "enjoyed" their rights.
Also, you're claiming in your reply that the Wikipedia page is wrong and implying the reference therein is unreliable, maybe you can fix it if you're sure there was no case in the history which makes it unclear, and cite a better reference?
And I don't understand the point you're trying to make: even the dissent acknowledged that Mandel had no first amendment protections while outside the country - this has nothing to do with citizenship.
Literally nobody - not the majority nor either dissent, said anything whatsoever about citizenship being an issue here.
If a non-citizen were not subject to the enumerated standard test here (ie, if they were a permanent resident), they'd be in the exact same boat as a citizen.
This entire line of jurisprudence has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether the Bill of Rights extends to non-citizens (and to be absolutely clear: it does.).
> "Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare."
So let me get this straight - WikiPedia cites Eugene Volokh discussing a matter on which there has been no case or controversy and no court has rendered an opinion, and this is your basis to say that the unambiguous tradition, predating the founding, of rights being enjoyed by non-citizens within the United States is "unclear"? Please tell me that you can see how ridiculous this sounds.
I imagine your reply came from a good place and you're genuinely trying to improve the knowledge out here, but I just want to take a moment to address something that comes up often: this tone is very combative and it makes it incredibly hard for someone to yield and turn to you. What is OP supposed to say to this? "Oh I guess you're right. Thanks for taking my pride and putting me down. I see your point now." -- this is not how people work.
Or, from another angle: you can usually tell a sarcastic question is off, if the honest answer is readily found, and defensible. In this case: OP said such things because they thought it was true. The point was to share information with someone else and contribute to a conversation.
If you think they're wrong, there's more productive ways of getting that point across than calling into question good faith.
For the record: I thought it as well, so there were at least two of us, out here ;) and now after Googling, and judicial rabbitholes far beyond my expertise I still can't tell whether it's limited geographically or also meant to apply world-wide, or how I was meant to know, to avoid getting told off for being toxic if I ever daresay something else about it...
The one thing I appreciated about HN is the signal to noise ratio. Plenty of comments are actually insightful, but the one in question is just noise.
But I also think that there is a palpable and strange injection into the zeitgeist a notion that non-citizens are less human - and it comes at the same time that a lot of racism and anti-immigrant ideology is reaching its way into public policy.
I'm finding myself with decreased patience for it than I might have for other falsehoods making their way through echo chambers.
But yeah, that's probably my bad.
> palpable and strange injection into the zeitgeist a notion that non-citizens are less human
I did not and would not ever suggest that non-citizens are less than human. I am puzzled and saddened that my words were taken that way. If anything, I was attempting to point out that the US policies have a problematic history of prioritizing its own citizens at the expense of human rights globally. That's a longer conversation, and this thread is one example.
If you want to cherry pick certain parts of the second amendment - I can do that too: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Law evolves along with technical progress and 2nd amendment is not exception.
Also there were repeating rifles, cartridge based rifles, and citizens owned artillery pieces and war ships in the era in which the Constitution was written.
You should read Heller - Justice Scalia wrote a great deal about your argument and why it is absurd.
[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/constant-evolution-first-...
But not to the point of banning speech.
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1044/communications...
"The 1934 act designated broadcasters as speakers — thus granting them First Amendment rights — but the broadcast media were also treated as possessing a somewhat lesser claim to First Amendment protections than the print media. The Supreme Court’s decision in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969) upheld the principle that the scarcity of frequencies put broadcasters under public obligations to present multiple viewpoints, which therefore served as limits on their First Amendment rights."
A machine gun is nothing compared to a strategic asset. If we want to go back to that model, which is what you argue for, I'm getting a Davy Crockett for my front yard, an Iowa class BB for my dock, and a squadron of F22s and F35s.
Who cares about an M16 at that point.
You're arguing something that simply isn't so.
Benjamin Franklin was an inventor - if you think when they wrote the second amendment they didn't think "gee, maybe guns will shoot faster someday" then I don't know what to tell you.
...and in any case, this is not a citizen/non-citizen issue, as GP claims - lawful permanent residents have the same 2nd amendment rights as citizens.
Just within the Borders. Borders (border crossings), worldwide, have extra-national areas that are neither country for practical reasons (like keeping each other's soldiers out of casual range), where rights are not enforced. The US doesn't enforce rights, in an area where it has no authority.
"Chilling effect" is a recent idiom, which is subjective. The US judicial system makes a determination on what is or isn't a restriction.
My take is that this is another background-investigation tool. So what? People casually (and stupidly) aggregate a large amount of their own personal information in one place and then act surprised when a country wants to check it before allowing you to cross the border (eg Canada's restriction on US drunk drivers). I don't understand the outrage of what amounts to more paperwork.
People of VWP nationalities can apply for true US visas, but for short-term tourist or business visits there's usually no reason for them to bother unless they've been individually denied VWP eligibility or they want one of the few extra procedural rights which come from the visa and not through the VWP.
All of which is to say, maybe they're only asking this horrible new question of true visa applicants and not VWP applicants.
As an aside: someone posted a screenshot of the form showing one of the named sites was MySpace but doesn’t include Telegram (and you can use Telegram without a username too). Anyway - I hope someone comes to their senses (perhaps an ACLU lawsuit re: should people be forced to disclose membership of sites like Grindr?) and they remove the stupid question.
I can't imagine how much worse it is for people that are forced to travel there for business.
If the United States is trying to isolate itself from the rest of the world it is definitely succeeding.
As a side note, I have not spoken to a tourist from the US on the island where I live in several months. However there is a literal flood of French, German, Chinese, Dutch, Singaporean, etc. Last night I had dinner with an Uzbek and Tanzanian couple.
Where are you guys?
US had the 3rd largest number of tourists in the world in 2017 (after France and Spain). [1]
Though YOY is trending down in Trump years.
[1] https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284419876
The overwhelming majority of the tourists I encounter fall into the Millennial bracket, and I don't think it is possible for them to be less enthusiastic about visiting the US.
Maybe that will change once they have kids who want to go see Harry Potter World in Orlando, but as it stands I think most of my customers would rather visit North Korea than the US.
I’m a millennial with lots of international millennial friends. Nobody likes these measures. But getting into most countries is no walk in the park. As much as I hate to admit this, the pressure to end these policies will never come from tourists.
Most of the Europeans that come through have the financial means and strong enough passports to go pretty much anywhere they please. Same goes for most Japanese and Chinese.
My Arab customers however have the money, but getting a visa is a near impossibility.
Chinese passport is one of the worst in the world as far as travel goes. [1][2]
[1] https://www.passportindex.org/byRank.php
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Chinese_...
You could say the same about American millenials. We aren't thrilled to be here either - if we all had dual citizenship with another first-world nation, I'd bet 70% of us would have left the country.
I doubt we've ever had an economy that was as strong (or at least, looked so good on paper), while people had such a negative opinion of what the future holds. Trump and the Senate Republicans (and their supporters) are destroying this nation.
America has been on a bad path for decades, I left long before Trump was even in the picture.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_the_United_States#V...
From the SE asian island-ish countries, I can think the ordering of "who goes where" would look something like this - Thailand, Bali, Vietnam, Phillippines, Malaysia - just based on country marketing + anecdotal conversations alone.
This is coming from someone who was nomad-ing around for 2 1/2 years too.
Most Malaysians also speak English very well, especially compared to the rest of SE Asia.
I have spoken to Americans back home who couldn't even point out Malaysia on a map, and even more who just write it off as a "Muslim country" despite it being secular and very diverse.
I would say it has less to do with accessibility, and more to do with Americans being skittish travelers who have been brainwashed into thinking that any country with a couple Muslims is a scary place.
I said it has to do with how the country presents itself. If you polled people going to Asia - you'd see a huge # of them would be going to Thailand or Bali (80/20) - likely due to them being portrayed in the media quite a bit. Indonesia is also significantly Muslim.
You seem to be looking for a fight where there isn't one. Maybe you should reconsider your assumptions about Americans.
I'm not looking for a fight, I am just genuinely interested in why Americans are an under represented group of travelers in the country where I currently live and work.
So far the majority of the replies that attempted to give a reason included the fact that it is a Muslim country, despite that being as true as America being a Christian country.
The big resort on the island (Berjaya) wanted to build a bigger airport a few years ago and the locals flat out said no.
Tioman is entirely owned by the local population and they have the first and last say on what gets developed there.
So far they are doing a great job, Tioman has the only growing reef in Malaysia and is seeing a lot of rare wildlife returning year after year.
The bus from Singapore takes a few hours, and the ferry about the same. We get more than enough tourist who are willing to make the trip.
I have been socializing quite a bit and have not met a single American the entire week.
Were most of the people you met tourists or living in Malaysia?
That and how health care is tied to employment.
When Europeans change jobs they tend to go on vacation for a while, Americans immediately scramble for a new job out of fear of getting sick.
Or in fear of paying a tax penalty unless they buy some substandard marketplace plan (yes, I know the marketplace plans were sabotaged for political reasons in some cases, but that doesn't change the result)
https://www.healthcare.gov/fees/fee-for-not-being-covered/
Of course this is new, so fears in recent history were definitely real.
Anecdotally the only people I know that visit other countries either are: not from the US; come from a wealthy family; or have little money and that's just what they spend their money on. I know very few middle class people that visit other countries (outside of work related tasks). The excuse is always "I can't afford it." For me, that's my excuse. But that's not only money but time (which is correlated). I mean a round trip from my location to London is about $2.5k (similar cost for anywhere in Europe, Japan, or New Zealand). If I had a couple grand to drop on a vacation I'd do it. Though I'll say that I can get a round trip to Malaysia for under $2k, which is more reasonable (especially considering expenditures while there are less).
[0] https://www.advisorperspectives.com/images/content_image/dat...
[1]https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
My flight from NY to KL a few months ago was cheaper than my flight from Orlando to NY.
The cost of living here is significantly less than the US. I would conservatively say 50%.
I typically travel to places where I know someone — so given that most of the Malaysians I know have moved elsewhere (or are trying to) I'm less inclined to visit. The politics, health care, and to some extent personal safety and syariah law create some resistance too.
Healthcare - I receive better and more affordable healthcare here than I ever did in the US. Visiting a DR costs $10 out of pocket and most medications are in the $5-$20 range. I recently underwent extensive hyperbaric therapy and it cost me less than $200. The same treatment in the US would have been near $10000. I also have insurance, but I am yet to actually need to dip into it.
Personal Safety - I feel safer wandering around KL at night than I ever did LA or SF. On the island where I live I don't even have a lock on my door.
Sharia Law - Malaysia is a secular society. In areas where Sharia law is in effect it only applies to Muslims, and even then it can be appealed in the courts. Malaysia is a very mixed society that has learned to respect all races and religions, wish I could say the same for the US.
Its sad because you are eliminating one of the travel gems of the world based on false assumptions.
Which is great, but it wasn't that long ago that the opposition leader was thrown into jail on trumped up sodomy charges.
Healthcare
The cost of care is lower but so is the quality was what I've had a few Malaysian friends tell me.
Personal Safety - I feel safer wandering around KL at night than I ever did LA or SF. On the island where I live I don't even have a lock on my door.
Most places feel safer than San Francisco to me, that's not much of a challenge. The US State Dept listed a warning due to an increased risk of kidnapping, and they also list these gems:
- Taxi drivers in downtown Kuala Lumpur have perpetrated violent crimes against foreign tourists and local residents
- Criminals also target motorists stuck in traffic or stopped at a light with smash and grab robberies.
When I was planning a trip to Penang and KL a few years back the advice given was to have my friend pick me up instead of taking a taxi -- due to her concerns for my safety.
Malaysia is a very mixed society that has learned to respect all races and religions
Well that's patently false. How many non-Muslim Malays do you know? Hint: none because syariah law prevents them from leaving Islam and the so-called secular law cowtows to Islam. How about race based university admissions (and a variety of other codified race based privileges)?
He was pardoned in 2018 and the current ruling party won on a platform of removing this kind of corruption and is so far very well received.
"cost of care is lower but so is the quality was what I've had a few Malaysian friends tell me."
False. All the major cities in Malaysia have excellent hospitals, and there is nationwide availability to General practitioners who are more than qualified. I have had 2 elective surgeries in Malaysia and could not be happier with the results.
" I was planning a trip to Penang and KL a few years back the advice given was to have my friend pick me up instead of taking a taxi -- due to her concerns for my safety."
There is always Grab if you are that paranoid, but I have never heard of anyone having issues like this. Just the other day I hailed a cab and the driver told me it would actually be cheaper and easier for me to take the train to my destination and gave me instructions on how to get to the nearest station.
"Well that's patently false. How many non-Muslim Malays do you know? Hint: none because syariah law prevents them from leaving Islam and the so-called secular law cowtows to Islam. How about race based university admissions (and a variety of other codified race based privileges)?"
This one actually made my friends and I laugh when I read it out loud during our lunch. Malaysia is home to ethnic Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, and native groups. Just at my table there are three non Muslim Malay and two muslims.
I say this at risk of angering the mods, but you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
It was such a big issue for me that it motivated me to leave the SV tech community and the US altogether. I don't see myself ever living there again.
edit: added sarcasm tags
Your figures are off by a large margin (70% to 240%). The average American worker took 17 days of vacation time in 2017.
For paid vacation time - the more important item - it depends heavily on experience and company size.
"In 2017, the average worker with five years of experience at a company was given 15 days of paid vacation and the average worker with 20 years of experience was given 20 paid vacation days."
"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 76 percent of private industry workers ... After one year of employment, these workers were granted 10 days of paid vacation, on average."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/heres-how-many-paid-vacation...
If I was expected to work 50 weeks in a 52 week year I don't think I'd ever get a full-time career. I'd probably run off and become a surf bum selling loom bands on the beach.
You just summarized my career path after working as a software engineer for 10 years in SV.
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with this comment. I’m just stating fact.
I remember one thread which I can't find, which considered whether Hacker News counted as a site that should be disclosed. I also seem to remember a claim that having an account on a site with "Hacker" in the title was an automatic disqualification.
Hmm, this is the one I was thinking of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17635403
and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20071287
This is how it starts in-earnest, rather than half heartedly. See China for a demo of the future
This feels like the start of a U.S. social credit system.
Most developed countries already screen social media when processing visa applications.
Not sure why they had them printed out - could have been to review them, could have been for intimidation.
IIRC they asked her why she had changed her FB location to the American city she would stay in for the next 3 months, asked a bunch of questions about past posts in the US talking about helping build our home, buy decorations, etc (all as proof she was intent on overstaying her visa, which was vaguely ridiculous as we had applied for a fiance visa at that point, so she was pretty clearly intending on living here, but we were also pretty clearly intending on going through the legal visa process)
Also asked a bunch of questions about some posts she had made seeking design clients in the US as proof she was working here illegally (even though she owned her own design business and paid taxes on it in Europe, obviously are allowed to take on US clients, but they were sketched out that she was soliciting US clients while in the US)
They questioned her for about an hour with no access to phone/lawyer/etc and gave her the option of immediately voluntarily leaving the US. At the end of the process they told her that it would be the last time she could enter the US on an ESTA and next time it would have to be on the fiance visa, they also told her verbally she had to leave within 14 days, but they still stamped her for a 3 month entry as per regular ESTA guidelines.
--
It was mostly a bunch of silliness about work/residency/intent to work without a work permit/intent to stay in the US without a visa even though all things were aboveboard. The most concerning to me remains that her facebook at the time was not in any legal name, certainly not the name the passenger manifest, but she was still obviously tracked down
This isn't even close to the same thing as the Chinese government banning their own citizens from using Chinese services and infrastructure because of "bad social behavior".
I didn't say the US shouldn't let people in or be respectful of foreigners - I was just stating the fact that they do not have any legal obligation to do so. Of course they do it because it is good for the country - but if they stop, who is going to make them change their mind? It's up to the American people to decide what they want for their country at any given time - the rest of the world has no power to make them do otherwise - as does any other country and I wouldn't want to force any country to take people they don't want to either.
A country with many allies is much more powerful than a country with none. This is a lesson that is taught before children enter school (play nicely with others), I don't know how this became an American attitude and I find it very disappointing and worrisome.
You often hear statistics like the US fund 25% of NATO, or something similar. I don't see how this is a bad thing, this means we have 4 times as much power than if we were not in NATO, because we supply the most we have the most control over the group, and because we play nicely with others and listen to the needs of other countries who have similar morals as we do.
You are the only one talking about a legal obligation, the article and everyone else is just talking about how this is not the behavior the world and US citizens would not like to see coming out of America the melting pot.
> Your comment sets up a pointless argument in that of course no country is required to admit anyone, but reasonable policies invite good reciprocal treatment.
All I said was that the US has no obligation to do anything for outsiders. I didn't say they shouldn't and obviously they do - just don't expect some kind of natural right to be accorded to you if you aren't a citizen of their country.
On the other hand, a growing awareness of the many dangers posed by poor digital hygiene could ultimately lead to greater interest in privacy tools and practices. Along the road, though, lives will be destroyed as the ground shifts underneath them. Especially troubling is the possibility that previously-legal activities could be punished well into the future if not outright prosecuted.
Not really, since jurisprudence gives the executive a very wide latitude in deciding which foreigners to grant the privilege of entering the US. Much wider than it would give if it were a question of citizens applying for documents that they’re entitled to.
https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-la...
This seems like a goldmine. Forgot an email? Didn't turn over your account details on pornhub? Had a single-use throwaway account you can't remember the password for? Congratulations, you qualify for easy eviction.
It might just be that YOY growth without a rolling average is always going swing wildly when a country has a lot of negative news cycles in a year and then goes relatively quiet.
The US has been looking pretty bad, pretty consistently, for a long time now.
Going to the US is too expensive for many who aren’y in neighboring countries. It’s also hard to get around.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20078978 and marked it off-topic.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16810312
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/22/14066082/us-customs-bord...
[2] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/01/us-now-ca...
In addition to asking for details of every school you went to, every job you had, every country you've been to, they ask you questions like this:
>> Have you ever violated, or engaged in a conspiracy to violate, any law relating to controlled substances?
>> Are you coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or unlawful commercialized vice or have you been engaged in prostitution or procuring prostitutes within the past 10 years?
>> Have you ever been involved in, or do you seek to engage in, money laundering?
>> Have you ever committed or conspired to commit a human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States?
>> Are you the spouse, son, or daughter of an individual who has committed or conspired to commit a human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States and have you within the last five years, knowingly benefited from the trafficking activities?
>> Have you knowingly aided, abetted, assisted or colluded with an individual who has committed or conspired to commit a severe human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States?
>> Do you seek to engage in espionage, sabotage, export control violations, or any other illegal activity while in the United States?
>> Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?
>> Have you ever or do you intend to provide financial assistance or other support to terrorists or terrorist organizations?
>> Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?
>> Have you ever ordered, incited, committed, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide?
>> Have you ever committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in torture?
>> Have you committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in extrajudicial killings, political killings, or other acts of violence?
>> Have you ever engaged in the recruitment or the use of the child soldiers?
>> Have you, while serving as a government official, been responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom?
>> Have you ever been directly involved in the establishment or enforcement of the population controls forcing a woman to undergo an abortion against her free choice or a man or a woman to undergo sterilization against his or her free will?
>> Have you ever been directly involved in the coercive transplantation of human organs or bodily tissue?
And now, this.
And don't get me started on the stupid fact that you cannot renew your US visa within the US, and in the end people on student/work visas have to take the pointless trip to Canada/Mexico just to get a new visa.
I hope someone eventually realizes visa applicants are people too.
>> Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?
Assuming you are: you answer yes and you get denied a visa (duh). Answer no and the gov doesn't know, what happens? You commit terrorist activities on American soil and get charged with that activity, which I assume is FAR worse than the punishment for lying on a Visa (if it isn't, somethings wrong). Can we not kick out a terrorist (found out after they entered) without this question?
It seems like the same goes for every single one of the above questions (except the first one, "Have you ever done drugs"). Every one of these questions is always going to be answered with a no, so doesn't that just create noise in the data?
I can see that with the "have you ever done drugs" question, but terrorism or human trafficking? That's quite a stretch. You don't have to ask the question for someone to know that those activities would bar entry. I'd have to see pretty strong evidence to believe that a question like that is going to even give pause to people like that.
Of course no one will answer yes, but if the govt finds out later you did commit a terrorist act, they have the power to boot you out.
In terms of booting them out, the question makes it much easier. If they are a member of a terrorist group and they said “no”, well it’s an open and shut case of lying on an immigration application. If they didn’t ask the question, sure they could still boot them out, but it may be a prolonged process.
Because they have to prove it in court. And the defendant can ask for a lawyers. And then both the cost, and the level of proof required is a lot higher. Will the US have enough time and resources to go to the originating country and inspect all the evidence, check the archives and so on? Probably not for every case.
The alternative they just need to prove they lied on a form and they signed and acknowledged that lying on it means getting kicked out. That's a simple and shut case most of the time.
It seems pointless.
(Not a lawyer nor an immigration expert on US law, though.)
Wouldn't the terrorist act do the trick?
And don't we mostly imprison people forever when they do those?
Of course not. They would lie. And then the US government can then kick them for fraudulently obtaining their citizenship. That's a lot easier and simpler than having to convict them on terrorism charges. So the US government, is doing this assuming they will lie.
You simply get kicked out pretty much immediately if they find out you lied. It can mean also the revocation of citizenship as it is now considered obtained fraudulently. That all can be done rather "easily" since it's procedural, without a long legal battle involved.
Now all kinds of "funny" things can happen there. Say someone belongs to an organization which was created and sponsored by the CIA and was not a terrorist organization 10 years ago. A new administration comes in, and the "friendly freedom fighters" are now the "evil baby killing terrorists". What should happen then? Can the government go back and kick out all the members they might have taken in? Technically they lied and they are now a part of the terrorist organization...
If you played for a team, you were a member of that team.
If 10 years after you leave, that team goes on to win the championship, you are not and were never part of a "championship team."
Even if you were willing to answer this honestly it can even become extremely hard to actually answer: what it is deemed a “terrorist” organisation? Maybe your home country would not consider some group as such but the US does? What about drug usage? It’s not even consistent across US states, let alone a different country.
To properly fill this you’d have to be a law expert in both US law, your home country’s, and probably international law too to resolve the impedance mismatch between both.
That’s a feature, not a bug. You don’t have to kick people out if they can’t renew, you just don’t let them back in.
As someone who went through the H1-B process and had my status threaten a number of times (downsizing), it was just a reality - if I lose my visa I go back home and maybe try again.
It never stopped me from major live decisions like buying a house.
Immigrating to a new country is taking the risk that you can’t stay. I accepted that when I immigrated.
No one would complain if H1B was a transparent and clear system (like a points-based immigration system). In reality its often arbitrary, with your visa status hanging on the political tides of the country, or how a visa/border officers day is going. That kind of unpredictability wasn't clear to me when I got the H1B and isn't any kind of well-defined risk you can accept before going down that path.
But it doesn't need to be so tenuous.
Emigrating to the Netherlands seems like a friendly walk in the park compared to the capricious bullshit that immigrants to America are subjected to. I'm ashamed my country treats people like this.
It's idiotic to make it hard for immigrants to get back on their feet, it's not like working immigrants cost money..., what cost money is to lose them to a competing country...
But in essence you're right anyway: immigration is a privilege, complaining about it is really unfair to a country that was never forced to take you in in the first place. The only thing we the immigrants and the host countries can do, is compete on entry condition, to bring the most high skilled, high asset immigrants.
And I will not accept sad stories from H1Bs that are by far the most privileged group of Indians that decided to move to the US mainly to make a crazy amount of money. Everyone knows the rules of the game when they decide to apply for a visa to the US.
H1B is based on a lottery. Which there are organized that openly abuse the system and the US gov doesn’t do much about it.
You either let people in or out. H1Bs are stuck in limbo for years with false hope. It’s a very sad way to live and it’s not good for the country either.
But US gov bends to corporations and H1Bs fucked up system helps them keep the wages low.
So there’s that.
Most countries have a graduated immigration system - you start with a work visa, you try and get permanent residence, then try for citizenship.
The US isn’t alone in this except for maybe the fact that the demand to immigrate to the US far outstrips the limits.
When I was living in the US, I was on an E-3 visa and my wife was on an F-1. My visa lasted for 2 years, however my I-94 (which permits me to remain in the US) lasted for 3. My wife's visa was for a single year but her I-94 was for the entire duration of her study.
What this means in practice is that if you travel internationally during the period in which you have a valid I-94 but no valid visa, you have to renew. However if you _don't_ travel and just stay in the US, you don't have to bother.
I can't imagine how this is anything but a bug. The US wants my wife to demonstrate intent to return home (e.g. by frequently visiting) but actively discourages her from doing so (by forcing a burdensome visa renewal each time).
You can absolutely renew your status in the US. It's just when you travel that you need to make sure you have it stamped to return.
Ever been to Korea? Ever had a Chinese visa? How about India on a visa? If Indians want an easier time with US visas, then the Indian government should stop with their draconian visa process. Chinese and Korean work visas aren’t much better. Americans trying to get work visas for the EU also have a very difficult time as well. A DUI on your record years ago can mean an American can’t even visit Canada. Those complaining about the US visa process seemingly have limited experience with the rest of the world. You can get 5 year visas to the US; unheard of for Europe or many other countries.
That's not everybody.
That's not most people.
I was primarily responding to the point that 5 year visas are unheard of in Europe (which is plainly false).
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.
It was "relatively straight forward" because you are a highly-skilled migrant.
So even this is a noteworthy point of distinction between NL and here.
I'm pretty sure you can't simply "get" a 5 year visa without paperwork, fees, and other such things either. IT isn't that you can't get them in other countries, it is simply that they are called different things - usually something that alludes to being a resident (which is correct).
Work permits in Norway used to be 3 valid for 3 years at a time, but they've had to shorten this to 2 years due to EU requirements. If you get permanent residency you also have to renew it every two years by making an appointment and visiting the police station. Luckily they don't charge you for renewals of permanent residency, just the initial application.
Not any more.
> member or representative of a terrorist organization
This is an ambigious question. For example, some groups are considered terrorists by one country and "legitimely elected government" by other. So the terrorist by opinion of country A can answer "No" without lying because in country B he is not considered a terrorist. So maybe they should add "from the point of view of the US government" to the question.
>> Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States?
Who are they hoping to catch with these questions? Honest spies and terrorists? Or maybe they hope to say in court: “You committed a terrorist attack sir, but even worst is that you lied about it on the form!!”
All jokes aside I think these questions are designed for psychological effects to promote the messaging that US is in a never ending war on terror.
To verify my thesis i would see what are the effective conviction times between foreigners and citizens and expect the latter to get harsher convictions on this alone.
In general, immigrants are less of a threat than a citizen, by the way.
This isn't even actual scrutiny either. These are stupid questions. If someone answers yes to being a terrorist, for example, congrats. You've barred someone stupid from entering the country. This is the same tactic used by "nigerian" scammers.
I'll add that some of these are completely outside of a person's control: Things your parents did. I can only imagine having a parent involved in human smuggling and then being barred from travel because of it.
Weeeeeell. No, not entirely. If you think "terrorist" you probably think ISIS and Al-Queda. But someone could have been a member of the IRA 30 years ago, and should still technically answer "yes" to this question. In theory, that shouldn't bar them from entry(given that everything else is ok). But lying on this form and saying they have never been a member of a terrorist organisation would ban them for life from visiting US if they were ever found out. So this question is not as stupid as it seems.
I suppose this is could be an issue for graduate students, but I don't know of any foreign undergrads that don't go home at least once a year.
This social media requirement is as ridiculous and I won’t be surprised if other first world countries follow suit.
Of course those people don't need a visa; the US has no problem with terrorism, torture, or extrajudicial killings as long as it's home grown.