161–170 of 439 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These people are calling their ideological opponents cuckolds and yet I'm the one creating sexist divisions?
which people?
Pretty absurd that they're asking for all of this and: > [...] In addition to their social media histories, visa applicants will be asked for five years of previously used telephone numbers, email addresses, international travel and deportation status, as well as whether any family members have been involved in terrorist activities. I know a number of people going through, or have been through, the US visa process an…
A more hidden effect of this is the chilling effect of this on what would-be immigrants post on social media. E.g. should I remove a photo from the Women's March because it was seen by some as a protest against the current administration?
You might think you're not a racist, but in the UK, racism law extends to criticizing Islam or even questioning aspects of it. So you better not be an outspoken atheist either.
[1] https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-zealand-visas/apply-for-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Visa applications are a far broader class than people going through the naturalization process, and, while there may be an argument that the naturalization process is excessively invasive, an application for citizenship does justify more depth of scrutiny than a visa application.
Really? I think the opposite. The first gate should be the hardest to he through, especially if you get a visa that is a guaranteed path to citizenship like an H1B (H1B to Green Card to Citizen).
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.…
This is such a stupid explanation. Do people really think the government is going to go "You're a terrorist, but we can't deport you for that. But look here, you checked this form wrong.."
It’s also easier to arrest someone on suspicion of falsifying customs forms and hold indefinitely than to do so on “terrorism” charges.
So this does indeed give law enforcement a lot of leeway than not having it is.
So, to answer your question, yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Wait a second, are you sure this logic really works? Assuming the goal is to do "what's best", then making the situation worse slower is surely better than doing so faster.
What if you don't have any social media accounts? Are they just going to assume anyone who says they don't is lying or trying to hide something? Seems like a dumb policy to require details on a purely voluntary activity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't the 5th amendment make those questions impossible to answer? (If you plead the 5th on them, you're.. probably a terrorist...)
I think the government's position may be that travelers do have a right under the fifth amendment to decline to answer these questions if they believe that answering could create a risk of criminal prosecution, but that the government can still use that refusal to answer against the traveler (for example, denying a visa or denying entry to the country), because the government contends that immigration procedures are…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The constitution protect non citizens too?
Yes, kind of. Probably not in the context of immigration scissors stone paper games though.
In theory, but historically speaking not really: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?r...
But then again, it doesn't seem to work very well for US citizens these days either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a stupid explanation. Do people really think the government is going to go "You're a terrorist, but we can't deport you for that. But look here, you checked this form wrong.."
It’s much easier to develop evidence for checking a box wrong than convicting a crime. It’s also easier to arrest someone on suspicion of falsifying customs forms and hold indefinitely than to do so on “terrorism” charges. So this does indeed give law enforcement a lot of leeway than not having it is. So, to answer your question, yes.