US demands social media details from visa applicants • Hacker News Board

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#121

Post by eftychis » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 12:11 AM UTC

AaronFriel wrote: post #15

human20190310 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Doesn't the First Amendment restrict the US government from curtailing free expression and free association anyplace, not just within US borders? 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.

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 chill…

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.)

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#122

Post by nothrabannosir » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 12:16 AM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #27

mushufasa wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 B…

> 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...

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#123

Post by godelski » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 12:17 AM UTC

rdl wrote: post #114

godelski wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#124

Post by refurb » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 12:18 AM UTC

godzillabrennus wrote: post #104

godelski wrote: post #80

This seems isolationist. Why would we want to isolate ourselves? For a country that was founded upon immigrants, that extremely benefited (and continues to) from diversity of thought and ideas, why would we want to stop that? I'm just under 30 and I still remember growing up how I was told that a major part of what made America great was the melting pot. In academia and at labs I've seen this be a huge benefit. But I…

Nativism is a reaction to the decline of the middle classes prospects. Half of America is not doing well and has been overlooked. The better educated amongst us are blinded by their own progress and weren’t looking inward. We will see more focus on nativist policies in our lifetime as automation continues to eat jobs.

Yet the middle class in the US is far wealthier than most countries’ middle class.

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#125

Post by refurb » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 12:20 AM UTC

beached_whale wrote: post #96

torben-friis wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think expanding it to Western culture is projecting a bit. Here in Europe, almost everyone I talk to considers the US a borderline hostile place to visit, let alone emigrate to... It's true that in part we're a bit spoiled by the ease of movement inside the EU, but the general experience of entering the US (including airport security) is unwelcoming to the point of being humiliating - very different to the way the…

I don't think it is spoiled. Definitely better than here in North America, but is isn't spoiled to be afforded basic human rights of not being treated like cargo when crossing an imaginary line.

This is a ridiculous argument. There is a huge demand for people to immigrate to the US and it has every right to screen people looking for visa’s however it wants.

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#126

Post by refurb » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 12:22 AM UTC

nothrabannosir wrote: post #122

jMyles wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 B…

> 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…

Sorry, having good intentions means nothing when you’re spreading falsehoods that could easily be checked with a quick google search.

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.

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#127

Post by sgjohnson » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 12:24 AM UTC

archey1 wrote: post #65

dudul wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The constitution applies to anybody living on US soil.

Try buying a firearm while on a tourist visa.

Get a hunting licence and you can do that.

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#128

Post by joelrunyon » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 12:24 AM UTC

diveanon wrote: post #45

joelrunyon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What island are you on?

A Malaysian island in the South China Sea.

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.

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#129

Post by refurb » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 12:25 AM UTC

HeavenFox wrote: post #74

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 su…

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.

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#130

Post by refurb » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 12:26 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #123

rdl wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Those just cover the gov’ts ass.

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.