11–20 of 91 posts
You need to share your social media accounts details for past 5 years. You are not sharing info and they discover your info, you may be tagged for not telling truth and maybe subject to visa rejection.
The retrospective nature of this seems most problematic: the question is being introduced now but applies to the past 5 years, including to pseudonymous accounts such as Reddit. And whatever service isn't on there now that you feel safe using could be on there tomorrow, just as retrospectively. That means that services which the user may have considered as platforms for anonymous free speech are being now retrospecti…
Foreigners do not have a right to free speech. It is a grave weakness in the American constitution that the rights of foreign nationals have not been declared or compared to the actual nationals. On this particular regard the Argentina constitution really upended the American one with its preamble declaring: this constitution is made to protect the liberties [...] of all those who wish to live in Argentinian soil.
Nope, everyone does https://takecareblog.com/blog/the-first-amendment-belongs-on...
The retrospective nature of this seems most problematic: the question is being introduced now but applies to the past 5 years, including to pseudonymous accounts such as Reddit. And whatever service isn't on there now that you feel safe using could be on there tomorrow, just as retrospectively. That means that services which the user may have considered as platforms for anonymous free speech are being now retrospecti…
Foreigners do not have a right to free speech. It is a grave weakness in the American constitution that the rights of foreign nationals have not been declared or compared to the actual nationals. On this particular regard the Argentina constitution really upended the American one with its preamble declaring: this constitution is made to protect the liberties [...] of all those who wish to live in Argentinian soil.
I do wonder if those rights would apply to those foreigners who apply for a US visa while physically in the US (or who are there during the relevant processing stage). Possibly yes because of their location at the time, but possibly not since the visa is not finally adjudicated until the foreigner leaves the US for a visa interview.
The retrospective nature of this seems most problematic: the question is being introduced now but applies to the past 5 years, including to pseudonymous accounts such as Reddit. And whatever service isn't on there now that you feel safe using could be on there tomorrow, just as retrospectively. That means that services which the user may have considered as platforms for anonymous free speech are being now retrospecti…
Foreigners do not have a right to free speech. It is a grave weakness in the American constitution that the rights of foreign nationals have not been declared or compared to the actual nationals. On this particular regard the Argentina constitution really upended the American one with its preamble declaring: this constitution is made to protect the liberties [...] of all those who wish to live in Argentinian soil.
I’m not sure if any more recent decisions or legislation has changed this, but according to this essay from 2015 [0], you’re probably wrong.
[0] https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=19...
The retrospective nature of this seems most problematic: the question is being introduced now but applies to the past 5 years, including to pseudonymous accounts such as Reddit. And whatever service isn't on there now that you feel safe using could be on there tomorrow, just as retrospectively. That means that services which the user may have considered as platforms for anonymous free speech are being now retrospecti…
Foreigners do not have a right to free speech. It is a grave weakness in the American constitution that the rights of foreign nationals have not been declared or compared to the actual nationals. On this particular regard the Argentina constitution really upended the American one with its preamble declaring: this constitution is made to protect the liberties [...] of all those who wish to live in Argentinian soil.
This isn't really true. From wikipedia[1]:
>> The government may not criminally punish immigrants based on speech that would be protected if said by a citizen.
Non-citizens can be denied entry to the U.S. based on things they've said that, if said by a citizen/permanent resident, would be "protected" speech under the first amendment. (Which is why the government looking at someone's social media history before deciding whether or not to issue a visa is troubling.)
There's also some grey-area with respect to people on short-term visas and undocumented immigrants because a non-citizen/non-permanent resident doesn't have any permanent "right" to be/remain in the country.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Foreigners do not have a right to free speech. It is a grave weakness in the American constitution that the rights of foreign nationals have not been declared or compared to the actual nationals. On this particular regard the Argentina constitution really upended the American one with its preamble declaring: this constitution is made to protect the liberties [...] of all those who wish to live in Argentinian soil.
> Foreigners do not have a right to free speech. Nope, everyone does https://takecareblog.com/blog/the-first-amendment-belongs-on...
It's definitely true, however, that foreigners in the US have that right, as do US citizens abroad with respect to US government actions where the US government knows or should know that they're a US citizen.
I’ve probably created at least 50 reddit throwaways in the past 5 years...the platform encourages it. No way I’d be able to remember them all, and I’m sure lots of other people are in the same boat.
I've done this as long as online accounts have been a thing, even as far back as early IRC days.
I honestly wouldn't have a clue what half the accounts I used last year were, let alone going back further than that.
This either feels like an out of touch attempt by an older generation who doesn't understand social media (only uses Facebook, etc), or a huge honey trap tricking people into inadvertently "lying" to the USG. They can then use these mistakes to then revoke anyone's status after the fact at a whim (inc. for political reasons).
It reminds me of the pre-ACA health insurance forms, they were designed as huge "gotchas" so they could revoke as needed ("undisclosed pre-existing conditions"). This has that exact same feeling.
Also I wonder if a low/no social media presence will be held against you? I'm assuming it will.