arjie 2 days ago
When I filed my last DS-160 for my final H-1B renewal before I got my green card, I remember filling in my social media identifiers. In fact, a look at a 2019 document reveals that providing the identifiers has been required since at least back then[0]. Given that the identifiers must be offered, the intent must be that the posts should be read, so this is unsurprising[1].

I suppose one happy fact from this must be that USCIS has never had convenient access to dragnet surveillance. For if they did, they would simply have used the backdoor rather than ask you to make the profile public. For my part, I always assumed that the US Government knew everything I posted.

I'm sure that if they didn't like me for some reason, they'd find a Richelieu accusation to make from what I've written. One would imagine it is like that other self-evident thing in the First Amendment, "separation of church and state", that is also practiced where convenient and not otherwise. Unless born American (and perhaps now, also "to Americans born American") some degree of scepticism for the tenets of the American Civil Religion will serve anyone well.

0: https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Enhanced%20Vettin...

1: I'm sure someone could construct machinery where a blacklist is produced by one arm of the government with view to posts which is used by another arm that which has no post-access but I think that was unlikely when this was designed

ceejayoz 2 days ago
> I suppose one happy fact from this must be that USCIS has never had convenient access to dragnet surveillance. For if they did, they would simply have used the backdoor rather than ask you to make the profile public.

Not necessarily.

One of the very common tactics by federal investigators is asking a question they already know the answer to. That lets them know when you're lying, which can be a crime on its own!

duxup 16 hours ago
Filling out paperwork for a security clearance long ago had two questions about "have you ever been a member of a group dedicated to the overthrow of the us government, if yes explain". The next question was about being an officer in such a group.

I always enjoyed that question in that there was a two line explanation field :)

I assume that was similar in that it's there to catch a lie (possibly just after the fact / legal leverage) ... not really find anything out with that question at that moment.

ceejayoz 15 hours ago
One wonders what happens if you list the Republican Party as such a group on your disclosures.
arjie 2 days ago
That's a good point. And particularly in immigration (and I think I recall in this very form - the DS-160) which has such questions such as "Are you a communist?" and "Are you a terrorist or have you ever sympathized with them?" which are clearly intended for the purpose you describe: to catch you in a lie and prosecute you for that even if not for something else.

I suppose the analogous technique here is whether you delete content they've already recorded. Though it could be simpler, and they're just trying to cause an unforced error where someone fails to make a profile public, creating an avenue to reject them even if it were perfectly fine otherwise.

cafard 2 days ago
Am I a terrorist or have I ever sympathized with them? Does singing old IRA songs after a couple of pints of Guinness count? If so, it's well I'm not filling out a DS-160.
mikeyouse 2 days ago
They’re also going to ban you and all of your relatives from receiving a Visa if you’ve previously worked in content moderation, fact-checking, trust/safety. The most free speech hostile administration in modern history.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-orders...

arealaccount 2 days ago
How does this work if you don't have social media accounts?
jankyxenon 2 days ago
I think that almost definition implies you didn't post anything that disqualifies you. It's probably really easy to circumvent too if you're committed to (e.g., deactivate your account)
ceejayoz 2 days ago
"deactivate your account"

They thought of that. https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Enhanced%20Vettin...

> In the case of an applicant who has used any of the social media platforms listed on the visa application in the preceding five years, the associated social media identifier would be required on the visa application form.

commandlinefan 2 days ago
You don't even have to deactivate it, just say you don't have one.
ceejayoz 2 days ago
Congrats, you're off to jail now.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

0cf8612b2e1e 2 days ago
Not having a social media account sounds like something only a freedom hating terrorist would do.

/s

zingababba 16 hours ago
Then you need to make one. They are trying to funnel all of the terrorists onto facebook instead of signal. This is all 10d chess.
rose-knuckle17 2 days ago
Hopefully a consequence of that will be the rest of the world actively telling its people that america is probably a less healthy regime for them than countries like China and discouraging all recreational, educational and employment travel here, under any circumstances - including the desires and fetishes of unregulated capitalism.

We are currently test driving the arbitrary execution of anyone without due process to see if THAT finally wakes up the population. But it wont.

JKCalhoun 2 days ago
Hosted some Japanese study-abroad students over Thanksgiving (they often have no where to go over break). A few times when I suggested an activity they asked if it was "safe". Like taking an Amtrak train. Seeing the "Walk of Stars" in Los Angeles.

It was sad to realize that they viewed the U.S. as so dangerous. But I can say for certain that I feel I could walk around Tokyo at night and not have a worry in the world. From time to time I am embarrassed by the U.S.

commandlinefan 2 days ago
FWIW, this isn't new. I was an exchange student in Osaka in the early 90's and a girl in my class got picked for an exchange program in Canada and she said she was relieved she didn't have to worry about being shot.
cafard 2 days ago
My stepmother taught in eastern Africa at the beginning of the 1960s. When she was getting ready to return to the US, her students collectively expressed their concern at her returning to such a dangerous place.
zeroCalories 2 days ago
Don't know if you've been paying attention, but that's the intention. Many in the U.S are willing to sacrifice the country's GPD to inflict cruelty upon others and preserve "heritage Americans".
JuniperMesos 2 days ago
Yeah, I would rather just abolish the H1-B visa altogether. If someone can, legitimately or otherwise, put together a clean social media presence to get legal residency in country, this still doesn't guarantee that their natural born citizen children won't try to work against the interests of heritage Americans using whatever tools are available a generation from now.
arunabha 16 hours ago
> heritage Americans

I'm curious as to how you'd define a 'heritage' American.

JuniperMesos 14 hours ago
No ties to a foreign country within living memory.
BigTTYGothGF 10 hours ago
When my dad remarried, my stepmother was a citizen of a different country, does that retroactively make me no longer a "heritage American"? If they had had kids, would my hypothetical half-sibling be a "heritage American"? If the answer is "no", would it change anything if I told you they would have been (like me) descended from a long line of US citizens going back to the 1790s?

Or actually now that I think about it, my mom, who as a child knew her great-grandma, a Norwegian immigrant, wouldn't count as a "heritage American".

JuniperMesos 7 hours ago
> When my dad remarried, my stepmother was a citizen of a different country, does that retroactively make me no longer a "heritage American"? If they had had kids, would my hypothetical half-sibling be a "heritage American"?

No, because of the ties to a foreign country through your stepmother.

> Or actually now that I think about it, my mom, who as a child knew her great-grandma, a Norwegian immigrant, wouldn't count as a "heritage American".

No, although if it's only one great-grandmother among 8 I'm not super worried about your mom being more loyal to Norway than the US. Also realistically Norway today has many of the same issues with culturally-foreign immigrants that the US does, so maybe that wouldn't amount to all that much in the unlikely case that your mom did strongly identify with Norwegian cultural norms.

ceejayoz 13 hours ago
What counts as a tie?

The current President is married to a foreign citizen. Does that count?

newfriend 2 days ago
The US is more than simply an "economic zone".

It's not cruel to want to keep your country from changing irreversibly. Foreigners don't have a right to immigrate. Americans are allowed to decide who they want to let in.

zeroCalories 2 days ago
It's not what you want, it's what you're willing to do that's cruel and disgusting, newfriend
newfriend 2 days ago
Being more strict about immigration law is not "cruel and disgusting".
expedition32 2 days ago
Shanghai is a very exciting city and the Chinese actually WANT European visitors. Would recommend.
Aerbil313 9 hours ago
I don’t use traditional social media, at all?

With how things are going, I’m starting to wonder whether I should make some accounts just to pass the normalcy test.

I’m in college and I don’t have a single friend who doesn’t actively use Instagram.

dmitrygr 2 days ago
A country may vet entrants according to any criteria it chooses, just like I may enforce any limits I wish unto who may enter my house. If the criteria are too egregious for the gain the applicants might get by being in that country, the talented immigrants who have options may go elsewhere and the country may need relax the criteria to recapture the market for bright minds.
ceejayoz 2 days ago
> A country may vet entrants according to any criteria it chooses…

Sure. But said country may have set rules for itself, like the First Amendment, that limit what's permissible beyond what international law and sovereignty alone permit.

(To extend the house analogy, you may not actually be able to "enforce any limits I wish unto who may enter my house". It is, for example, generally unlawful for you to evict your minor child. If you rent out a room, that tenant has rights you can't violate, too. You can't keep out a cop with a valid warrant, either.)

tshaddox 2 days ago
> But said country may have set rules for itself, like the First Amendment

Probably better to think of these as rules that the ruled people have for their rulers.

medler 2 days ago
No, we have no rulers but ourselves.
bdavisx 2 days ago
I don't think anyone would argue with that - the problem here is that the requirements are being changed thru a process that involves no public or congressional input.

The other issue is that the vetting will likely not just look for terroristic or other 'illegal' social media content - it will look for whatever the administration decides to look for - again without oversight.

danielmarkbruce 2 days ago
We can't require public or congressional input on everything. As such, we need to elect a competent administration.
nielsbot 2 days ago
- When you say “a country” this vetting may not in fact be what the majority of citizens want.

- I suspect there is racism and xenophobia behind this

- What kind of weak-ass people cannot tolerate dissenting opinions from visitors?

newfriend 2 days ago
The People elected the current executive to represent them.

You are free to suspect anything you want - that doesn't make it true.

Americans are tired of their country being abused.

nielsbot 12 hours ago
> The People elected the current executive to represent them.

Not all the people and the policies being put in place were not what was promised.

> Americans are tired of their country being abused.

Which Americans do you mean specifically? And which abuse? That's not specific enough.

newfriend 9 hours ago
> Not all the people

Meaningless. You are implying that unless someone is elected with 100% of votes, they do not represent the People?

> policies being put in place were not what was promised.

Again meaningless. Did Trump make promises specifically to not increase stringency of immigration law? He was elected to make decisions on behalf of the electorate.

> Which Americans do you mean specifically? And which abuse? That's not specific enough.

The Americans who elected the current President. Abuse by by companies and individuals defrauding American workers and taxpayers, while the government does nothing to combat it. The abuse by the government allowing millions of immigrants per year to the detriment of Americans (speaking of "not what was promised", the 1965 INA).

I will take even this pittance at this point.

danielmarkbruce 2 days ago
This is a silly comment. The legality isn't really in question. It's whether or not it's a good idea. And citizens of a country will debate whether it's a good idea or not. If we citizens decide it's a bad idea, we'll vote out the government currently in power.
csb6 2 days ago
Countries have that right, and people have the right to criticize them for their policies and agitate to change them. This is a concept known as “politics”.
expedition32 2 days ago
Honestly I never expect to visit NYC ever again unless they secede. It is on the same list as Pyongyang and Moscow lol.
mindslight 2 days ago
Since they are going to treat the Constitution like a piece of toilet paper, couldn't they at least have the decency to stick it to Trump's shoe so that perhaps one of the people that have to clean up him will get bored and start reading it? signed, an actual American that still believes in individual Liberty.
sporkxrocket 16 hours ago
> Support for unlawful antisemitic violence or harassment

Yet another example of the US being controlled by Zionist interests. They’ve already expanded the definition of “antisemitism” to include saying Israel has no right to exist.

This is ostensively positioned at keeping out foreign influence but the irony is it is 100% foreign influence.

ceejayoz 13 hours ago
> They’ve already expanded the definition of “antisemitism” to include saying Israel has no right to exist.

They've gone quite a bit further than that.

"Israel shouldn't indiscriminately bomb civilian children", for example.