181–190 of 355 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess to kick people out who have terrorist ties even if they don’t commit any crimes while in the US?
That seems like the job for the NSA or CIA though. To flag these individuals.
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…
Well traveling through the Schengen area is like traveling between US states. You don't even need a passport once you're in. If you're traveling on a non-EU passport, I don't know if entering the EU is much better. IIRC flying through Frankfurt once the customs people rifled through my carry-on for no apparent reason.
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.
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…
> 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.
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…
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…
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…
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...
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try buying a firearm while on a tourist visa.
You missed "well regulated Militia" part of second amendment.
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".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.