People I've spoken to seem more comfortable acting like this is part of the current administration's agenda, rather than an encroaching trend which has been gradually getting worse year upon year. For example this specific policy was added as an "optional" (not really) question on an entry form before the 2016 presidential elections (I know, I wrote a letter protesting it during public comment period). My point is: B…
Well, the US political structure was designed to make such things happen.
So "Nobody forced you to give Facebook all that data" will no longer be true. If you don't have your data on Facebook, and it doesn't match your government records, you'll be marked as Suspicious by the secret police.
Pretty sure we have that in place already now, based on the leaked XKeyscore rules we saw.
> While the Democratic administrations may have continued these kinds of policies (and I will challenge you on whether they as bad as the Republican ones) It is the same question, on a different immigration form. See this article from 2016: http://fortune.com/2016/12/23/us-customs-social-media/ The proposal (and public comment period) came much earlier in 2016. This wasn't the result of legislation, the executive bra…
The 2016 one was an optional request for people from 32 countries. The new version is to be required and for people from all countries. Going by the numbers from the article, that's a 2.4 orders of magnitude expansion. Are you really equating the two?
Isn't that an artifact of incrementalism? You do the thing on a small scale, and scale it over time. Its the trickle that turns into a stream which decides the path the river will eventually take. While a trickle isn't a river, we can surely agree that the Dem's from 08-16 did little and less to respect and bulwark the privacy of US citizens and the world at large.
People I've spoken to seem more comfortable acting like this is part of the current administration's agenda, rather than an encroaching trend which has been gradually getting worse year upon year. For example this specific policy was added as an "optional" (not really) question on an entry form before the 2016 presidential elections (I know, I wrote a letter protesting it during public comment period). My point is: B…
> Both Democrats and Republics have been complicit
Everyone is complicit in everything, but this action is being taken by Trump; he is responsible.
the effort to make the US even more unappealing to immigrants marches on...
Not just immigrants, but all visitors.
Nah, citizens of most first world countries don't need a visa to enter the US if they're visiting for less than 90 days. This includes western Europe, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Baltic countries, etc. You can just get on a plane and fly over.
One thing to know is that apparently the reason for having seemingly idiotic questions on immigration forms ("are you a terrorist?", "are you a nazi war criminal?") is not that the government is stupid but rather that they're there in order to be able to deport someone for answering the question incorrectly in the event that the government wants to deport them but lacks sufficient evidence to pursue a criminal case.…
Doesn't the 5th amendment make those questions impossible to answer? (If you plead the 5th on them, you're.. probably a terrorist...)
"Sir, we have reviewed your git commit history of the last 5 years and come to the conclusion that you would be gravely endangering the code quality of this country."
But if we deport 90% of our programmers, how will the banks continue to operate?
why are you specifically worried about banks? They shouldn't exist in the first place. Its 2018.
> My point is: Both Democrats and Republics have been complicit in allowing these kind of activities to continue. And the American public would sooner blame the other "side" in this political dog and pony show, than take responsibility for this being what America's fear based society has brought. Stop pushing this "both sides are the same" narrative. It's part of the damn problem. While the Democratic administrations…
Maybe it's a part of _your_ problem but I don't think it's a part of _the_ problem. What OP said is correct. Democrats continue to escalate and promote legislation that is deeply invasive.
This article and this discussion is about this action, not all the other actions that everyone has ever taken. It's a distraction, often an intentional one, to start talking about all the others.
> While the Democratic administrations may have continued these kinds of policies (and I will challenge you on whether they as bad as the Republican ones) It is the same question, on a different immigration form. See this article from 2016: http://fortune.com/2016/12/23/us-customs-social-media/ The proposal (and public comment period) came much earlier in 2016. This wasn't the result of legislation, the executive bra…
The 2016 one was an optional request for people from 32 countries. The new version is to be required and for people from all countries. Going by the numbers from the article, that's a 2.4 orders of magnitude expansion. Are you really equating the two?
Honestly that question itself is just trying to change the subject into a "who is worse A or B?" debate that I refuse to take part in. Both A and B are making the situation worse and neither A nor B are repealing this stuff. Debating who is making the situation worse faster is really besides the point.
