The US Border Patrol Is Checking Detainees' Facebook Profiles (cnet.com) 502
An anonymous reader quotes CNET:
Border patrol agents are checking the Facebook accounts of people who are being held in limbo for approval to enter the U.S., according to a Saturday tweet by immigration lawyer Mana Yegani that was spotted by The Independent... Yegani, who is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told CNET that checking phones has been reported by other lawyers as part of the vetting process. "[G]oing through passengers phones from the seven banned countries happens when the individual is interrogated (put under extreme vetting)," Yegani said.
Yegani told The Independent that she and other lawyers have been fielding calls from people who are already cleared to live in America, but are getting stuck at the border regardless. "These are people that are coming in legally. They have jobs here and they have vehicles here," Yegani said in the report.
The EFF warns that "Fourth Amendment protection is not as strong at the border as it is in your home or office. This means that law enforcement can inspect your computer or electronic equipment, even if they have no reason to suspect there is anything illegal on it. An international airport, even if many miles from the actual border, is considered the functional equivalent of a border."
Yegani told The Independent that she and other lawyers have been fielding calls from people who are already cleared to live in America, but are getting stuck at the border regardless. "These are people that are coming in legally. They have jobs here and they have vehicles here," Yegani said in the report.
The EFF warns that "Fourth Amendment protection is not as strong at the border as it is in your home or office. This means that law enforcement can inspect your computer or electronic equipment, even if they have no reason to suspect there is anything illegal on it. An international airport, even if many miles from the actual border, is considered the functional equivalent of a border."
Brave new world (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly matters, somebody else will share it for you, and not enough people care to effectively prevent it. Hell, nobody cares that he is defying the court order to release them.
Re:Brave new world (Score:5, Insightful)
I avoided this personal data breach and self-incrimination faux pas by just not having a Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram account. And somehow my life doesn't seem to have suffered...
Re:Brave new world (Score:4, Funny)
But how do you know what your friends had for breakfast or see the latest picture of their cat and comment "Ohh... Soo... Cute"? Do you mail postcards back and forth to keep up to date?
Re:Brave new world (Score:5, Funny)
But how do you know what your friends had for breakfast or see the latest picture of their cat and comment "Ohh... Soo... Cute"? Do you mail postcards back and forth to keep up to date?
I just log in to the cameras I've secreted throughout their homes.
Re:Brave new world (Score:5, Funny)
They can figure out your views from posting on sites like this, or do you not use the internet at all ?
I never use the internet at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As if I needed more reason not to share my personal life with the world (and TSA)
CNN was reporting that refusal to provide your social media details could be considered grounds for refusal to admit the person into the country.
I imagine that not having "social media accounts" would be seen as equivalent to refusal to provide them by the G-drone doing the verifying. It probably would not occur to most people in this day and age that there may be people without accounts on Facebook or Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
As if I needed more reason not to share my personal life with the world (and TSA)
CNN was reporting that refusal to provide your social media details could be considered grounds for refusal to admit the person into the country.
I imagine that not having "social media accounts" would be seen as equivalent to refusal to provide them by the G-drone doing the verifying. It probably would not occur to most people in this day and age that there may be people without accounts on Facebook or Twitter.
But this only applies to people from those seven "evil" countries. It's institutionalized profiling, nothing more.
Re: Brave new world (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I take it you're talking about the holocaust ? In which case... you're an idiot ? Those Jews WERE the immigrants. They were the victims of Christians who did not treat them as their religion demands. It all began with painting them in the public as terrorist and criminals and planning a mass deportation. Trump's immigration executive order last week included a demand that - every week - the DOJ must publish a list of crimes committed by immigrants. It doesn't specify if that should be convictions or just ar
Re:Brave new world (Score:5, Informative)
You mean George Orwell's 1984. That was about a totalitarian society with widespread surveillance.
Brave New World (by Aldous Huxley) was about a bio-engineered caste society. Individuality was discouraged, but the main theme was not surveillance.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Brave new world (Score:5, Insightful)
A social media account can be used to help you establish that you are harmless; if you don't have one, you simply go back into the "unknown" category.
Re: (Score:3)
A social media account can be used to help you establish that you are harmless; if you don't have one, you simply go back into the "unknown" category.
If how authorities view polygraph results is any indicator then your assessment is wrong. Failing a polygraph test is seen as a strong indicator of guilt (even thou its scientific basis are so shaky they are not even admissible in court) while passing one is seen as a good indicator that you cheated somehow. The authorities can easily decide your "harmless" social media account is something doctored up to fool them
Re: (Score:3)
Correct. Admission of non-citizens into the US is a judgment call. A doctored-looking social media account may be even worse than no social media account at all. I'm not sure why you consider that a problem.
The traditional way of dealing with visas is to require solid, credible foreign government records (including police reports) and simply refuse admission to anybody who can't provide those. That means no admission from politically unstable countries at all and no admissions from countries whose governments we don't trust. Would you prefer that? Or would you prefer that US immigration officials give people more options for establishing that they might be admissible after all?
Perhaps I was not clear enough. My point is that if you are someone that rarely uses social-media or a professional that keeps it very sanitized authorities might just make the judgment call that it is a doctored account. I was just point out to the OP that a social-media presence is not necessarily in your favor
Re: Brave new world (Score:5, Funny)
Rumors are the inquiry into facebook isnt the only thing they are doing. They are also attempting tobdetermine loyalty by asking what detainees think of the president.
So if they answer anything other than "he's an idiot", toss them out, as they are untruthful and should not be trusted.
Vetting (Score:5, Interesting)
Are the agents also permitted to provide alternative facts when they don't find what they are looking for under this administration?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
alternative facts
The politically correct term is parallel construction [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Parallel construction vs alternative facts. (Score:3)
Parallel construction :
You're grey hat hacker.
You burst into the mail of someone who happens to be a criminal and who plans to rob a bank.
You would like to have the police know it (so they can prevent the robbing),
but you cannot admit that you got the information by hacking into mail servers (that would be illegal, give you trouble, and not necessarily be receivable as proof).
So instead you manage to invent a different reason for the police to "happen to be there by chance" (ask a friend working at the poli
Re: (Score:3)
Trump is what he said he was (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is doing exactly what he said he would. He promised this during the campaign. Many on the right said there was hope Trump would do the right thing and, despite criticizing him, cast their votes for him. Trump is keeping his campaign promises and doing so with rapid pace. Many Republicans in Congress sharply criticized him, but most have fallen in line. Even McCain, Graham, and Sasse (who's criticism was incredibly weak) have yet to do anything substantive. Trump gets to appoint a Supreme Court Justice to support his executive actions because last Congress' Senate didn't do their jobs. This is what the far right wanted and they've justified it with alternative facts, which is a euphemism for outright lies and fake news. So many on the right said Trump didn't support their values. So many Christians said Trump's positions were contrary to their beliefs. They voted for him because he called himself a Republican and claimed to be pro-life. So many religious leaders backed Trump on the principles of the GOP platform, but now aren't happy that he kept his promises. Meanwhile, much of the far right continues to live in their own alternate reality with alternative facts and fake news. And this is how tyranny escalates. Trump told all of you he was a tyrant, but too many of you ignored him. And now he has four years (because the Senate will likely stay under Republican control after the 2018 election) to do as much damage as he can, with a handpicked Supreme Court Justice to help prevent his policies from being struck down as unconstitutional.
Re: Trump is what he said he was (Score:2, Insightful)
Laugh. Reality is countries who letting these refugees in are finding out the hard way how incompatible the cultures are, and some people are paying for it with their lives. Trump is absolutely doing the right thing. Taking care of number one. Many libtards don't agree, but I wonder how they feel about the possibility of being blown up, raped, or ran over in their own country?
Re: Trump is what he said he was (Score:5, Informative)
The residents of the countries on that list have performed 0 terror attacks on US soil since 1975. And the source for this is not some 'libtard' site bit the conservative as Cato institute: [cato.org]
Meanwhile, Saudi-arabia is the largest propagator of Wahabbism [huffingtonpost.com] which is both the state religion of the kingdom and also at the core of ISIS ideology. Saudis are also largely behind the funding of ISIS. 15 of the 911 attackers were Saudi nationals, 2 were from United Arab Emirates, 1 was Lebanese, and one was from Egypt, But is Saudi-Arabia on the list? Nope. And neither are Egypt or Lebanon. They're still considered your 'allies'. In fact Saudis themselves seem 'very optimistic about Trump.' [businessinsider.com]
So he's planning to combat radical Islam by maintaining military and financial support to its largest state sponsor in the world, while banning a list of countries that have done the US zero harm comparatively? So what, exactly is this 'fixing' outside playing right into the hands of your enemies by allowing them to trump up the rhetoric of 'holy war' and senseless persecution of muslims in an attempt to radicalize the american muslim population?
Nothing. You're being played like a cheap fiddle. The ISIS commanders are laughing their beards off and Sun Tzu is rolling in his grave because of such utter strategic incompetence.
Re: Trump is what he said he was (Score:4, Informative)
Many people from these countries have been vetted before and so far it's worked, that is, there's no history of peole coming in from these regions committing acts of terror in the US. Obviousuly the vetting is hard and takes time, but that's not a good reason for an across the board ban, as opbviously cases exist in which vetting can (and has) be successfully done.
They're a totalitarian theocracy. They have a 'functioning government' in the same sense North-Korea has a 'functioning government'.
No, I don't think banning entire countries is a good strategy to begin with. I support giving refuge to anyone fleeing the totalitarian government of SA just as I support giving refuge to those fleeing isis. My point was an is that Saudis are the primary source of monetary and ideological suport for ISIS. They share a good deal of values, as SA is also a strict islamic theocracy.
If the goal is to combat radical islam, then doing so without putting pressure on the Saudi government to stop aiding extremists groups and funneling them money is a useless effort.
Also, trusting the Saudi officials is also not likely a safe strategy. The declassified 28 pages [theguardian.com] of the 911 report make it seem pretty likely that Saudi intelligence is lackluster at best, and in league with the hijackers at worst.
Obviously the official conclusion of the FBI is still that SA was not complicit in the attacks, because admitting that while continuing to hold them as a military ally would be impossible.
Whatever the case is, either the Saudi officials are so incompetent in their monitoring and record collecting that they missed their own former ambassador wiring money to an extremist. Or they did not miss that and simply let it slip. Anyway, in this light, were I american I would be heavily skeptical of any 'vetting' or other such intel provided by Saudi officials and their 'working' government, which shares more of its core values with ISIS than it does with western democracies.
It's impossible to simultaneously say that ISIS is evil but there's nothing wrong with Saudi-Arabia, and this is the key cognitive dissonance that american politicians, officials and the public will have to face if you want to address the issue of militant Islam without seeming totally clueless.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, according to the numbers, I'm still more likely to die at the hands of my fellow Europeans than by a Muslim immigrant.The RAF, ETA, and IRA blew up a shitload more people for a longer time than flash-in-the-pan ISIS/Al Quaeda. Rapists are not more likely to be immigrants. In fact, they usually are some the victim already knows. And being run over? When the immigrants are a minority, statistics still say I have to fear my fellow white men.
Tl;dr: Shut the fuck up, Nazi.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Trump is what he said he was (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Trump is what he said he was (Score:5, Funny)
"Extreme vetting" means something else entirely.
Re: Trump is what he said he was (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is only fixing problems that exist in the fake news and alternative facts that the far right believes. Refugees are already subject to intense screening and the numbers show that they're no significant threat to Americans. Illegal immigration actually declined under Obama and most of the border cities are actually quite safe. The problems that Trump is fixing are problems that don't exist. Denying lawful residents the right to enter the United States and treating them like criminals at borders and airports isn't keeping America safe. The greatest threat is presented by our own citizens who radicalize here, something that Trump has no clue how to address, because it isn't addressed with walls and Muslim bans.
Re: (Score:3)
Denying lawful residents the right to enter the United States and treating them like criminals at borders and airports isn't keeping America safe.
No but it is a highly polarizing issue. Political genius. Divide and conquer. It's time for the enemies of America to stand up out of the crowd and make themselves known. So they can be head-shotted.
Re: Trump is what he said he was (Score:5, Informative)
The political genius was that they knew that this was going to cause very public chaos and likely be initially ruled contrary to the constitution. So at the same time all this was going on, while the public and media were suitably distracted; and after speaking with his good friend Mr Putin; Trump has kicked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence off the National Security Council and installed Steve Bannon in their place.
I hope you're all watching what happens next very carefully, because tomorrow does not always follow the same as today.
Re: Trump is what he said he was (Score:5, Interesting)
... Trump has kicked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence off the National Security Council and installed Steve Bannon in their place.
That's because Trump Administration Defends Bannon’s Role on Security Council [nytimes.com]:
“Well, he is a former naval officer,” Mr. Spicer said of Mr. Bannon on ABC’s “This Week.” “He’s got a tremendous understanding of the world and the geopolitical landscape that we have now.”
And I sure that vast experience from his 7 years in the Navy from the late 1970s to early 1980s [wikipedia.org]:
Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy for seven years in the late 1970s and early 1980s, serving on the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Pacific Fleet and stateside as a special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.
Makes him *way* more valuable than the, "four-star general who heads the Joint Chiefs, Joseph F. Dunford Jr., who rose through the Marine Corps and served in Iraq and Afghanistan." who was on the NSC. (from the NY Times article above) /sarcasm
At least with Trump, this will be a HUGE shit-show, the biggest, best shit-show ...
Re: Trump is what he said he was (Score:5, Informative)
Since you can't seem to make an argument w/o resorting to name calling...
Obama didn't demote the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence. In addition, previous to her appointment as National Security Advisor, Rice, among other things:
Steve Bannon worked at Goldman-Sachs, produced a few movies and ran a right-wing newspaper.
The two don't exactly compare.
Re: Trump is what he said he was (Score:3, Informative)
Only six Republican Senate seats are up in 2018, four of which are considered safe. Even if the other two flipped, Republicans would still control the Senate because of Pence. It's more likely at this time for Republicans to actually gain seats, even if Trump continues to be a disaster.
Although you're right that Americans don't use the power of the ballot box enough, the 2018 election is such that it's virtually guaranteed for Republicans not to lose the Senate. The House is so locked up by gerrymandering t
Re: (Score:3)
This is all the voters' fault. They reelected 97% of congress and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
That's because MY Congresscritter is teh aw3some, but those other assholes suck.
Re: (Score:3)
More likely it is because what she was alleged to have done in the first place was determined to not be worth attempting to prosecute her over because, according to the feds, the evidence that incriminated her was tenuous, and unfortunately largely circumstantial. That doesn't mean she wasn't guilty, only that the evidence was seen as unlikely sufficient to merit prosecution. And if it didn't merit prosecution, why should it merit a pardon?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you don't believe in the essential principle of justice n the USA:innocent until proven guilty
Because that shitface (Comey, who should himself be under indictment) could change his mind and prosecute.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I do.... I wasn't suggesting that she was guilty either.... and by "guilty", I mean that to suggest that something wrong was done, not whether or not a court had made such a decision.
While a court decision is indeed one connotation of the word "guilty", there are others.
Reverse engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.
As opposed to simply pointing to the fact that the seven countries in question are (as identified by the Obama administration hotbeds of violent jihaddi output? As opposed to simply observing the fact that hundreds of people have died in the last couple of years at the hands of immigrants from those areas who have deliberately entered the countries where they murdered people ... to murder them? And that many of those killers and their support circles were lumped in with a huge flow of refugees?
Re:Reverse engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
Not a single American was killed on U.S. soil by citizens from any of those countries between 1975 and 2015, according to statistics tallied by the conservative-leaning Cato Institute.
However, the same set of statistics show that nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by citizens from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt in the same time period - with the bulk of those killed being victims of the 9/11 attacks. Yet, people from those three countries are still welcome to apply for U.S. visas and travel permits.
In a striking parallel, Trump’s sprawling business empire — which he has refused to rescind ownership of — holds multi-million dollar licensing and development deals in all of those countries, raising potential conflict of interest concerns and alarming questions over what actually went into the decision process behind Friday’s executive order.
So please, use statistics and data to explain how Egypt, UAE and Saudi Arabia managed to escape that ban, other than having strong ties to Trump's bottom line.
Re:Reverse engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the same set of statistics show that nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by citizens from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt in the same time period - with the bulk of those killed being victims of the 9/11 attacks. Yet, people from those three countries are still welcome to apply for U.S. visas and travel permits.
Yep. And it's funny how they never mention that the second-worst terrorist attack on US soil was done by a white, American-born fanatic named Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people (including 19 of whom were children under the age of six) when he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
But that wasn't terrorism, oh no, that was ummm, a "disgruntled lone wolf", yeah, that's the ticket.
Re:Reverse engineering (Score:4, Informative)
not mentioned because not relevant. Timmy was not a member of any international terrorist organization. He was a lone wolf. you have no point
Re: (Score:3)
And while Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and Michael Fortier weren't directly associated with any specific group, they clearly had at least ideological ties to a number of the more extremist anti-government groups, so in that respect they resemble a number of the recent Muslim extremist attacks in the US and Canada. So I'd say being a lone wolf attacker doesn't necessarily mean there are not links of at least some kind. The recent group of lone wolves really aren't that different than McVeigh and his co-con
Re: (Score:3)
Timothy McVeigh was actually called a Terrorist in the Main Stream Media and by Federal Government employees and officials. I do recall that quite clearly. How old are you? Not to know?
I think by "wasn't terrorism" is more along the lines of history being rewritten. Just because something used to be considered true is no longer relevant to the modern political climate.
Re: (Score:3)
Not a single American was killed on U.S. soil by citizens from any of those countries between 1975 and 2015, according to statistics tallied by the conservative-leaning Cato Institute.
However, the same set of statistics show that nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by citizens from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt in the same time period - with the bulk of those killed being victims of the 9/11 attacks. Yet, people from those three countries are still welcome to apply for U.S. visas and travel permits.
In a striking parallel, Trump’s sprawling business empire — which he has refused to rescind ownership of — holds multi-million dollar licensing and development deals in all of those countries, raising potential conflict of interest concerns and alarming questions over what actually went into the decision process behind Friday’s executive order.
References for information in your post: Who Hasn’t Trump Banned? People From Places Where He’s Done Business [nytimes.com]
Re:Reverse engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.
As opposed to simply pointing to the fact that the seven countries in question are (as identified by the Obama administration hotbeds of violent jihaddi output?
A bill signed by Obama to avoid a government shutdown [wikipedia.org]. Hardly an example of Obama actively pushing restrictions on those 7 countries.
As opposed to simply observing the fact that hundreds of people have died in the last couple of years at the hands of immigrants from those areas who have deliberately entered the countries where they murdered people ... to murder them?
I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
And I'm pretty sure that makes two of us.
Re: Reverse engineering (Score:3)
I think you're confusing those nations for Saudi Arabia who, despite supplying most of the 9/11 terrorists, would be politically inconvenient to treat as harshly. Same goes for Pakistan.
Once you exclude nations that actually produce the majority of attackers of the US as the criteria for the ban, what are you left with?
Hmm. Looks mostly like nations that are sending huddled masses the US doesn't want got targeted plus a couple of others for political vendettas.
Classy.
Re:Reverse engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
As opposed to simply pointing to the fact that the seven countries in question are (as identified by the Obama administration hotbeds of violent jihaddi output?
Sorry, but the election is over and you don't get to point the finger at Obama when Trump does all his daffy shit. He could have made his own list. Remember, he "knows more than all the Generals", he said so himself.
It's odd, isn't it, that not one of the countries where Trump has business interests made it on to the list, including Saudi Arabia where almost all of the 9/11 hijackers came from?
I'm sure that's just a funny coincidence, kind of like how Trump now wants to drop all sanctions against Russia for no apparent reason, and without asking for anything in return.
Re: (Score:3)
It's odd, isn't it, that not one of the countries where Trump has business interests made it on to the list, including Saudi Arabia where almost all of the 9/11 hijackers came from?
The narrative you're insinuating doesn't fit the facts. Here they are:
The claim "Trump's immigration moratorium is targeted at majority-Muslim countries" -- this claim is 21% accurate [i.e. basically false].
The claim "Trump's moratorium is targeted at Iran, plus those countries with civil unrest and poor-functioning central government" -- this claim is 98% accurate (only exception is Afghanistan)
Your claim "Trump's moratorium is targeted at majority-Muslim countries save for those where he has business inte
Re:Reverse engineering (Score:5, Informative)
Regardless: the point of looking at Obama's signing off on a half-year ban in 2011 is simply to show how hilariously hypocritical the shrieking left is as they react to things like this.
Obama stopped processing applications for refugee status. Trump has banned people who had already been granted visas and even green-card holders (i.e., residents of the U.S.), though apparently they've backed off a bit on the latter today after the huge backlash.
but a national shortage of fainting couches the moment the same thing is ordered for a much shorter period of time now. Love the hypocrisy, and love how transparently it's on display. That's the best.
Let's put this in different terms, shall we? If Obama were running a business, the equivalent of his actions would be to cease accepting new applications for jobs. If Trump were running a business, the equivalent would be to lay off people you had already said were hired, and to lock out of their homes longer-term employees who had relocated to join your company when they tried to return from vacation.
If you can't tell the difference between the severity of those actions, I don't know what to say.
Re: (Score:2)
And how many people have been killed in this country by terrorists from any of those countries compared to countries not on the list? Oh, wait, it's zero, compared to people from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, UAE, Kyrgystan and Lebanon, or for that matter, those born here in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Hundreds of people out of a population over over 300 million.
And most importantly not in your backyard.
Re: (Score:2)
Statistically speaking in almost no one's back yards. You'd spend your days more profitably worrying about whether you'll choke to death.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.
The cynic in me says that border control agents are as confused by the order as everyone else [cnn.com].
They were told legal residents were not included in the ban, then they were included, then a judge blocked deportation, now while everyone is stuck waiting around they might as well try to do some "extreme vetting".
Better get started on that replacement... (Score:2, Interesting)
Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.
Funny thing about that...
Trumps actual order has an exception [cnn.com] for immigrants who are already in transit, viz section (e): "[...] when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States."
So holding people up at US airports just some ICE pricks trying to make a false narrative to paint Trump in a bad light.
And other than Syria, which was specifically referenced in the order, Trump is using Obama's li
Re:Better get started on that replacement... (Score:5, Informative)
Those countries NEVER had visa waivers.
The change was that if you, as a citizen of a visa waiver country (eg Australia), has been to Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya or Yemen on or after March 1 2011 you would no longer qualify for the visa waiver program. You would still be able to visit, you just need to get a visa first. And given that those countries don't have a huge western tourist trade that doesn't seem like a massive impost. What's more is it isn't targetting the people of that country, its people who are citizens of somewhere else that went there.
Re:Better get started on that replacement... (Score:5, Informative)
Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.
Funny thing about that...
Trumps actual order has an exception [cnn.com] for immigrants who are already in transit, viz section (e): "[...] when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States."
So holding people up at US airports just some ICE pricks trying to make a false narrative to paint Trump in a bad light.
I'd say you hadn't read the article you linked to, but since you quote it, and seem capable of English comprehension, I can only assume you are deliberately trying to mispresent the case. The "ICE pricks" are doing exactly what Trump has decreed. You conveniently left out the start of the section, which includes as the beginning...the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis...[including] when the person is already in transit...
So those 'ICE pricks' have no discretion. BOTH Secretaries of State AND Homeland Security must apply that "in transit exemption". AND they can't even do it by a class or group - they have to give approval for each individual. Before they can enter.
AND this exception only applied to refugees. Not to tourists or people visiting their families.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need to "justify the ban". Trump ran on this and he has the authority to do it.
Moreover, it's not a "ban" anyway; he is delaying visas by 90 days for people from seven countries of concern, countries incidentally chosen by Obama, not Trump.
Re:Reverse engineering (Score:4, Informative)
People with green cards are subjected to additional scrutiny, but can enter if they pass those checks. People with visas are delayed for 90 days until new vetting procedures are in place.
Green card holders and visa holders have always gotten screwed by the US immigration system, under Democrats and Republicans alike. I've been stuck outside the US for days due to visa processing delays; friends were stuck for months. American voters don't give a f*ck, and any sane immigrant recognizes that American voters aren't obligated to give a f*ck.
This is only a "big deal" because the American left thinks they can turn it into a political issue, and they will pay attention to this for only as long as it serves their anti-Trump agenda, then they'll go right back to their own form of anti-immigrant rhetoric. It's pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually have 'ecodefense-a-field-guide-to-monkeywrenching.pdf' on the SD card of my phone.
Being "cleared" doesn't mean you are authorized (Score:5, Interesting)
The Visa Waiver Program was improved in 2015.
"Nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited exceptions for travel for diplomatic or military purposes in the service of a VWP country)."
Just because it has been ignored by our previous administration, doesn't make entry lawful. It's far past time for enforcement agencies to follow legal mandates. Right or wrong, law is legislated. Instructing agencies not to follow laws created by legislature by defunding or other political means circumvents mandates created by legislature.
We are a democracy. If the law doesn't fit what the majority of the citizens want, change it. Effecting change without legislature is just wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you'd paid attention in civics class you'd know we're a Republic, so -- no, we're not a democracy. We're a confederation of states.
WTF? (Score:2)
At least try to stay on topic when repeating talking points, because what you said makes no sense. The Obama administration recommended banning immigration from the 7 countries Trump just did, but President Obama ignored the recommendation. President Obama was quite frankly out of touch with reality, claiming that there were no terrorist attacks during his administration and that importing tens of thousands of refugees had no risk. The first has to ignore the Boston Marathon, Ft. Hood, San Bernadino, Orl
SCOTUS ruled , limited rights at the border (Score:5, Informative)
Aliens of any type have NEARLY ZERO rights at the border. Consular nonreviewability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] US Citizens have a reduced set of rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Well, yes. As they should. (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently we've forgotten the folks (San Bernardino, etc) who had "clear evidence of ISIS sympathies" on their Facebook profiles and other public social media that we then asked why hadn't been caught when they were entering the country.
As the SCOTUS has repeatedly stated, aliens have no Right of Entry to the US, and non-citizens have reduced guarantees (and certainly reduced privileges). Even a US citizen may be searched on entry if anything unusual is suspected, and is legally obligated to declare possessions in a way that basically happens nowhere else domestically (except agricultural goods going into California).
This is a Good Thing. How is this not a Good Thing? That's what customs/border inspection is supposed to be doing.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Like any power, it's a good thing when used sensibly, but becomes a bad thing if used in an overly-broad fashion. I think to some extent even the White House sees that, which is why Priebus backed down on Green Card holders. Yes, it will stop Syrian refugees from coming in, so I suppose that's a campaign promise kept, though the nature of Trump's rhetoric during the campaign suggested a much broader Muslim entry ban, so it seems odd that countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, country
Re: (Score:3)
For visas, the question isn't only whether a country has produced terrorists, but how easy background checks are for people from that country.
But don't let rational arguments get in the way of your politics, which are obviously paranoid, irration
Re:Well, yes. As they should. (Score:5, Insightful)
This. Does anyone seriously advocate that someone who posts something like "Death to America!" and has images of ISIS flags all over their Facebook page NOT be stopped at the border?? That's some pretty basic vetting, right there.
If I posted "Death to the Queen!" on my Facebook page, should I be pissed if the UK then denied my travel visa? If anyone thinks this is wrong, I'd like some of what you're smoking.
Re:Well, yes. As they should. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the real question is - when I post "Donald Trump is a bigoted tyrant" what should happen to me at the boarder.
Let's not forget - We aren't even 2 weeks into the Trump presidency, and he is already using his power to intimidate and stifle free speech..
To say nothing of his cruel bigotry and inhumanity towards legal visa holders, and green card holders.
2 people were told to sign away their green cards without an attorney present on Trump's unconstitutional orders.
This idiocy and bigotry will backfire, but Donald Trump is intent on silencing dissent on Facebook via bigoted actions at our Airports.
Donald Trump is a national disgrace, and his supporters (along with non-voters) should be ashamed of themselves.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Donald Trump is a national disgrace, and his supporters (along with non-voters) should be ashamed of themselves.
Agreed.
This is what his inbred, goober-filled voter base wanted, and now they have it. They wanted mindless, knee-jerk responses to complex problems and a Mussolini-style tough guy who will never admit he's wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Give it a try; poor spelling might be a reason for excluding you.
And that's different from Obama... how? Or from what Hillary was threatening us with?
Ge
Re: (Score:2)
Why was this down voted?
You don't even have to be at a border crossing zone, with reduced rights. Everyone, including the government, is allowed to view your public persona. When you post to Twitter, it is not a secret.
Re:Well, yes. As they should. (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently we've forgotten the folks (San Bernardino, etc) who had "clear evidence of ISIS sympathies" on their Facebook profiles and other public social media that we then asked why hadn't been caught when they were entering the country.
The San Bernadino shooters were from Pakistan. They had travelled to Saudi Arabia years before the attach.
Neither of these countries is on Trump's list of seven. How are these new rules supposed to stop people like the San Bernadino shooters?
While we're on the subject, do you know how many people from Trump's list of seven countries are responsible for terror-related deaths of Americans since 1975? Zero. Zip. Nada. But Saudi Arabia was the point of origin for the 9/11 attackers. And other terror-related deaths in America have been due to people from Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. Those three countries are not on the list. But they do have business connections to Trump (hotels, etc.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I like how you keep repeating this as "Trump's list of seven"...
It's Obama's list of seven. See: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/01/29/news-bulletin-the-list-of-muslim-nations-in-trumps-socalled-muslim-ban-are-ones-obama-choose-n2278021 [townhall.com]
Re:Well, yes. As they should. (Score:5, Informative)
I like how you keep repeating this as "Trump's list of seven"...
It's Obama's list of seven. See: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/01/29/news-bulletin-the-list-of-muslim-nations-in-trumps-socalled-muslim-ban-are-ones-obama-choose-n2278021 [townhall.com]
Well Trump owns it now. He went much further than Obama and a Republican-dominated Congress did (albeit with Democrat support.) Trump is not just restricting visas granted to people from these countries. He's banning them from entering.
You still haven't addressed how Trump's action would have stopped the San Bernadino shooters. Which it wouldn't. The list is a convenient one for Trump. He can use its prior existence as political cover, appear to be tough on Muslims entering the country, and not piss off his friends in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates.
Re: (Score:2)
do you know how many people from Trump's list of seven countries are responsible for terror-related deaths of Americans since 1975? Zero. Zip. Nada.
This is false. Christopher Stevens was killed by Libyan terrorists in Benghazi in 2012.
Re: (Score:3)
Barring Libyans from entering the US surely would have prevented attacks in Benghazi!
Re: (Score:2)
While that may well be true, there is a massive amount of doublethink involved at the borders. These unfortunates are deprived of constitutional rights because they haven't entered the US, yet, lots of US laws do apply to them. Do US customs wait until someone has passed immigration before pulling them up on on (frequently minor) violations of import law
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
While checking their phones is disturbing, facebook is public folks. That shits posted straight there and it sure as hell isn't the posters anymore when it hits faceboooks servers.
We can whine all we want about lack of privacy, but not after willingly abdicating it...
Facebook is evil for many reasons, this is one...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Public in the sense that anybody who isn't a completely naive idiot is when it comes to Facebooks 'privacy setting.'
Did you just show up on the Internet yesterday??
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is evil for many reasons, this is one...
How does Facebook making your public posts public ... make them evil? If, as in the case of the San Bernadino terrorists, the killers' social media output is full of lots of signs that they are murderous jihaddis, how is it somehow evil of Facebook to display they stuff the users put there because they want it to be seen?
Not following your thinking, here. Is a laser printer evil if you use it to print out your "I'm going to kill you, you heathen!" letter?
Good story choice (Score:3)
Border Security (Score:2)
Watch Border Security.
This is standard operating procedure for everyone goign through the border in Canada, Australia, and America. They will look thorough your texts, your emails, your social media. It's quite funny when after waiting for a few minutes for the security screening to be completed, the security guards go up to the smuck and ask him about the pictures of drugs he took 5 years ago, and the text message he sent 20 minutes ago saying he was looking forwards to getting "toasted" after the plane la
Re: (Score:3)
If this is the "standard operating procedure for everyone" why in my 50+ trips across the borders of Canada, Australia and the United States have I never had my texts, emails or social media examined? In fact I've never had that experience at the border of any country.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the larger private detective agencies who did background check work soon saw the value in vast amounts of social media that could be collected.
Data that was public for hours, set on "private" for vast numbers of friends of friends or later removed could have all been seen and collected as uploaded.
The US is working very hard on its nat
Add: For at least 2 years now (Score:5, Interesting)
I know people have been asked to volunteer Facebook and other social network information upon entry into the US, this has been the case for at least 2 if not 4 years and started under the Obama administration. Even Twitter held back their outrage about the DHS using their information for border controls until AFTER it was clear that Trump had won but even that story is now several months old.
All these 'new things' including the stopping of people at the border from certain nations has been done and legislated under the Obama administration, to quote another user here on Slashdot when Obama seized public lands from use by Indians and other members of the public: "Obama is just implementing what was legislated before, these orders are just telling particular agencies how they should implement the legislation".
Well, at least now you know why such laws should never be allowed, most of you here on Slashdot didn't care or realize the gravity of the issues when Obama, Bush or Clinton signed off on these exact laws. Next up: how Trump uses the DMCA, Patriot Act, NAFTA, TPP etc. to do whatever the fuck he wants - and you (the American public) gave it to them because you either didn't feel safe, didn't care or didn't believe that someone could rise up that would abuse those legislations. Too late now.
Vetting will look into any data (Score:3)
The good news is biometrics will remove a lot of the past issues with people moving around with papers that are shared, limited, lost or fake.
Some people enter a third nation and have been granted total new legal travel documents in a third nation with no vetting.
Other nations sell citizenship with few questions asked.
As for social media, a nation can ask for that during an interview. Entering any nation can see a lot of questions, searches, work details and even digital data requests.
Some nations ask for bank details to see if a person can even afford to support their stay, if they have been a criminal, health questions. At entry into another nation that is all fine and normal practice globally.
The other great aspect about the social media question is the deception aspect.
If a person shows their social media and is in support of groups banned in the USA that can be discovered and entry revoked.
If a person hides their social media accounts when asked directly on entry to the USA and such accounts are then found later, that can revoke documents.
The very aspect of hiding such details when asked is a great way to cancel papers.
Thats why the USA had that list of very classic questions surrounding a persons role in persecution, wars, party membership.
If a person tries to hide some of their social media accounts and its later discovered they did not tell the truth, entry can be revoked.
Any social media questions on entry to the USA are just a natural extension of this policy to find if a person has links to groups or individuals of interest to the USA and then tries to hide such connections.
Other nations will ask for all and any passwords and then read/search emails, social media during an interview on entry.
A green card, other issued travel documents or citizenship is not some diplomatic immunity like protection from questions, searches or now social media requests.
Anyone (Score:2)
In this day and age is using his/her real identity on Facebook is a fool, and this is yet another proof in the time of Donald the unfailable.
All hail Mein Furher (Score:2)
All hail Mein Furher Trump. I can hardly wait to see the reports on his concentration camps, errr, I mean "temporary involuntary visitor centers".
Re: (Score:3)
That says more about you and people you call friends than about the situation in Germany.
Matter of fact, the most vocal opponents of Syrian refugees are people from East German villages, the ones with a profound lack of foreigners. I bet your friend has never seen a refugee in first place, but is scared just in case. This attitude is, unfortunately, pretty typical for East Germans. I know - I used to liv
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Strawman. Haven't seen anyone, much less some imaginary group you refer to as "the left", who has suggested bringing "anyone and everyone" into the United States.
Would you mind quantifying the risk we face from terrorism in the United States so we can see how serious the "concerns of the people" should be taken?
I think the CDC publishes a list of causes of death. Give me an idea what sort of risk we face, is it like the risk of being eaten by an alligator or the risk of getting pancreatic cancer?
Re: (Score:2)
Strawman. Haven't seen anyone, much less some imaginary group you refer to as "the left", who has suggested bringing "anyone and everyone" into the United States.
You're being deliberately disingenuous.
The political left has been extremely supportive of nearly every refugee and illegal immigrant group in the United States, on the local level going so far as to declare "sanctuary cities" where they refuse to aid in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws.
Where the political right has called for limits on immigration, principally from Mexico and central America, the left absolutely has used the cudgel of racism to defend illegal immigration.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to begin the breakdown of fake news here: elected politicians actually do deliver on the majority of their promises (66.7% of such promises in the U.S.). That 83% of Americans believe otherwise is simply one of their many mass delusions.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/ [fivethirtyeight.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You have a reading comprehension problem if that's all you saw in the above comment.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think you're just being disingenuous, though.
Re: (Score:2)
"Think of it less as a Muslim ban, and more as an American invitation. If you support America and will put America first, you will be welcome."
Empty words, unless one clearly defines them.