71–80 of 355 posts
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16810312
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/22/14066082/us-customs-bord...
[2] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/01/us-now-ca...
Very discouraging to see this, especially because the overreach appears to have no limit. Today it's visa applications. Tomorrow it could be US citizens trying to get passports, driver licenses, or collect social security/medicare benefits. On the other hand, a growing awareness of the many dangers posed by poor digital hygiene could ultimately lead to greater interest in privacy tools and practices. Along the road,…
Not really, since jurisprudence gives the executive a very wide latitude in deciding which foreigners to grant the privilege of entering the US. Much wider than it would give if it were a question of citizens applying for documents that they’re entitled to.
If enough heretics have your name in their social network, your visa will be denied. Requiring social media on visa applications is like enforcing everyone to use Truecaller (don't use it!). This feels like the start of a U.S. social credit system.
This is not a social credit system. The US has zero obligation to let anyone into the country and can deny a visa for no reason at all if they choose. This isn't even close to the same thing as the Chinese government banning their own citizens from using Chinese services and infrastructure because of "bad social behavior".
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 substances?
>> Are you coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or unlawful commercialized vice or have you been engaged in prostitution or procuring prostitutes within the past 10 years?
>> Have you ever been involved in, or do you seek to engage in, money laundering?
>> Have you ever committed or conspired to commit a human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States?
>> Are you the spouse, son, or daughter of an individual who has committed or conspired to commit a human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States and have you within the last five years, knowingly benefited from the trafficking activities?
>> Have you knowingly aided, abetted, assisted or colluded with an individual who has committed or conspired to commit a severe human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States?
>> Do you seek to engage in espionage, sabotage, export control violations, or any other illegal activity while in the United States?
>> Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?
>> Have you ever or do you intend to provide financial assistance or other support to terrorists or terrorist organizations?
>> Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?
>> Have you ever ordered, incited, committed, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide?
>> Have you ever committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in torture?
>> Have you committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in extrajudicial killings, political killings, or other acts of violence?
>> Have you ever engaged in the recruitment or the use of the child soldiers?
>> Have you, while serving as a government official, been responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom?
>> Have you ever been directly involved in the establishment or enforcement of the population controls forcing a woman to undergo an abortion against her free choice or a man or a woman to undergo sterilization against his or her free will?
>> Have you ever been directly involved in the coercive transplantation of human organs or bodily tissue?
And now, this.
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.
I hope someone eventually realizes visa applicants are people too.
If enough heretics have your name in their social network, your visa will be denied. Requiring social media on visa applications is like enforcing everyone to use Truecaller (don't use it!). This feels like the start of a U.S. social credit system.
This is not a social credit system. The US has zero obligation to let anyone into the country and can deny a visa for no reason at all if they choose. This isn't even close to the same thing as the Chinese government banning their own citizens from using Chinese services and infrastructure because of "bad social behavior".
I'm a bit confused, hasn't this been happening for years already? [0] [1] [2] [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16810312 [1] https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/22/14066082/us-customs-bord... [2] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/01/us-now-ca...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should check this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
Kleindienst v. Mandel does not take a stance on the matter of the reach of the Bill of Rights to foreign nationals and was instead decided on different grounds. The fact that the government can be compelled to allow US citizens to cross the border irrespective of any enumerated standards is orthogonal to the reach of the first amendment to non-citizens. These are entirely different legal matters, and the case you're…
"Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare."
It refers to multiple cases, not just the one you cherry picked. And it says the courts are divided, which implies that some judges did not agree with your narrative. Now I don't know it's about amendments or laws or some footnote or whatever you call it in legalese. The bottom line is (and that's what would matter to a foreigner), this doesn't sound like foreigners have the same level of free speech protections as citizens do at the border or within the country, and implies that they can be punished in one way or another for what they say. It won't matter to people who get deported or rejected entry whether they were rejected based on nth amendment or mth law, so your point is entirely irrelevant.
Now you can argue that this is probably the case in other nations, and it could well be. But I don't see other people here trying to portray it's all roses in their country.
Again, this isn't about whether some amendment or footnote extends to non-citizens, or some particular case. Those are just details, which won't matter if there's even just one piece of law or regulation (such as this new social media details requirement) that discriminates foreigners. So try to remember what this whole topic is about, and look at the bigger picture, from the perspective of a foreigner.
Edit You apparently prefer to double down on details which don't matter (for people who'll be negatively affected by such regulations), which is fine, but I don't really care enough to write another reply. Maybe if you travel abroad someday in the future, you can try asking how people who got their US visa application denied because of their social media postings "enjoyed" their rights.
Also, you're claiming in your reply that the Wikipedia page is wrong and implying the reference therein is unreliable, maybe you can fix it if you're sure there was no case in the history which makes it unclear, and cite a better reference?
If enough heretics have your name in their social network, your visa will be denied. Requiring social media on visa applications is like enforcing everyone to use Truecaller (don't use it!). This feels like the start of a U.S. social credit system.