


US Mulls Policing Social Media of Would-Be Citizens (theregister.com) 73
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is proposing to expand mandatory social media screening, currently required only for new arrivals, to include all non-citizens already residing in the U.S. who apply for immigration benefits. The Register reports: Back in 2019, the Department of Homeland Security, which runs USCIS, decided anyone looking to enter the US on a work visa or similar had to hand over their social media handles to the authorities so that they could be looked over for wrongdoing and subversion. In fact, this goes back to 2014, at least, to one degree or another, and has been standard procedure for years for foreigners, particularly those coming in on a visa. [...]
On January 20 this year, President Trump signed an executive order calling for much tougher vetting of foreign aliens, and in response, USCIS has proposed rules saying those already in the country who are going through some process with the agency -- such as applying for permanent residency or citizenship -- will have their social media scanned for subversion. That means if you came to America before foreigners' internet presence was screened as it now is, and you're now seeking some kind of immigration benefit, at this rate you'll be subject to the same scanning as those entering the Land of the Free today. The proposed changes have a 60-day comment period for the public to suggest amendments. The last day to send them in is May 5.
On January 20 this year, President Trump signed an executive order calling for much tougher vetting of foreign aliens, and in response, USCIS has proposed rules saying those already in the country who are going through some process with the agency -- such as applying for permanent residency or citizenship -- will have their social media scanned for subversion. That means if you came to America before foreigners' internet presence was screened as it now is, and you're now seeking some kind of immigration benefit, at this rate you'll be subject to the same scanning as those entering the Land of the Free today. The proposed changes have a 60-day comment period for the public to suggest amendments. The last day to send them in is May 5.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you - tha'ts great.
Onion News better than the rest (Score:2)
Actually I'm just guessing that's a link to the recent Onion video about the swimsuit part of the naturalization process. Maybe your failure to describe the link is why your reply to AC wasn't modded Funny?
Your propagation of the semi-vacuous Subject did get me to look at AC's comment. Actually unusually substantive for an AC and this is a case where the AC might have a legitimate reason for anonymity. Maybe he's an applicant for American citizenship? If so, his sense of humor may be disqualifying these day
Re: (Score:1)
Mandatory comment (Score:2)
Thanks, Obama.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: Mandatory comment (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Mandatory comment (Score:1)
Tell me: who is the agressor in Ukraine invasion, comrade?
The USA?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is your *current* administration is screening out the decent folks who might have otherwise thought of immigrating for work or romance.
I'm fine, thanks, in my own country. You couldn't pay me to move to a dystopian bible-thumping, gun-nut, LGBTIQ+ persecuting, climate change denying, anti-science, latino-hating, counter-woke, redneck nationalist vassal state of Putin/Netanyahu that is the current USA.
'Dim bulbs' are the only ones grifty* enough to try.
Re: Screens out the morons (Score:1, Insightful)
You know some insanity like people should have the same opportunities regardless of skin color or gender.
Kinda the polar opposite of giving people special treatment or accusing them of unearned privilege based on superficial appearance or accident of birth. Can't have that.
Re: (Score:1)
unearned privilege
accident of birth
sometimes they're just so damn close
Re: Screens out the morons (Score:2)
The cardinal sin in a post-Enlightenment society is painting with a broad brush and ascribing to an individual the stereotypes of a group which he or she may superficially resemble. Thereby denying his or her individuality and human agency by asserting that group identity supersedes all else.
Doesn't matter if it takes the form of assuming a black man is automagically a n* or a white man is automagically Rich Uncle Pennybags. Same denial of individual humanity.
Re:Screens out the morons (Score:5, Interesting)
Posting pro Pride material will almost certainly be construed as "subversive material". Ditto for pro religious tolerance, pro immigration, pro Ukraine (or who ever the latest national victim of of authoritarianism is). There is already talk of opening up logging and oil drilling in what was protected lands, including National Parks. Any immigrant or resident who wants to protest that automatically becomes an enemy of the State.
The ultimate result being that resident aliens and immigrants won't have the same freedom of speech the rest of America has. At what point will you see that as America being in the wrong and stop shifting responsibility to the victims?
Re: (Score:2)
At what point will you see that as America being in the wrong and stop shifting responsibility to the victims?
In general, they won’t because they lack the mental faculties to process basic information. In America, we love parting fools from their money as it’s a national pastime and ethos. Through wan ability at birth, then punishing any critical thinking, atrophy sets into the anecdotal talking points forming their world view as fragments that can’t simultaneously be true. In this state one is helpless to rationally act in self interest as the grasp on reality is tenuous at best. They have b
Re: (Score:2)
Movements that accept a decent percentage of unhinged criminals should be at risk of being suppressed.
MAGA. January 6th, 2021. Pot ... Kettle.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never, repeat *never* seen paedophilia be accepted, let alone "nurtured" as you claim. NAMBLA and the like tried to become part of the LGBTQ2S+ movement back in the 60s and 70s and it was rejected at almost every turn. Even today, every time the LGBTQ2S+ movement re-surges in public awareness, the pedo crowd try to atta
Re: (Score:2)
Are we there yet (Score:5, Interesting)
The biggest red flag would probably be no presence on social media
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest red flag would probably be no presence on social media
That’s almost as bad as not having a brain chip installed.
Re: Are we there yet (Score:2)
They will decide you're either lying, or are some Ted Kaczynski type. Both good excuses to put you in a camp of some sort in their eyes.
Re:Are we there yet (Score:5, Interesting)
Most immigrants coming to the US are economic immigrants from the third or developing world. Even in this day and age it's not crazy for them to not have a social media account.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I thought the same until I learned that even the immigrants coming over in those giant caravans of migrants were carrying $800+ smartphones. Thats sort of how/why this policy got its start about 10years ago. It defies all logic that someone claiming to be seeking a life free of extreme poverty would have a device worth more than 6mo labor in some countries. But I guess if you want to get approved there are certain hoops you have to jump through. Some employers will demand social media account names to scree
Re: (Score:2)
$800+ smart phones? I'm sure there are a very small number that do but I'd want to see some sort of citation before I'll believe that is in any way common. No offense meant.
I know many have cheapo smart phones that they can do social media with but even then I wonder how wide speed that is, particularly in light of the fact that we have been giving smart phones in large numbers to immigrants to help with their processing https://www.google.com/url?sa=... [google.com] . Those people will not have any social media profil
Re: (Score:2)
I think we need to see some proper data on this before we believe it too much. I doubt there are many with a genuinely-purchased-for-$800-phone, but hey, maybe there are...?
Having a smart phone? Yes - absolutely. But you can buy a smart phone (new) for like $100, and hooky back-street deals will likely see one for $10 or less. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few stolen iphones and maybe even phones that look like iphones but are actually a crappy alcatel inside or something.
So as I say, is there any proper
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
800$ here is not 800$ there. Lots of stuff is more expensive in the US and Canada than elsewhere.
Re: Are we there yet (Score:1)
You would think so, but you'd be wrong. Social media is HUGE in the developing world, especially for anyone under 60-70. It's how they get all of their news; everyone has a phone, and even if there is not cell service most villages with electricity have a Wi-Fi access point and EVERYONE WhatsApp to text and make calls and post in local groups.
You know how you "recycle" your phone when you get a new one? Most of them go to South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia
Re: (Score:3)
I must be on a few watchlists then. Aside from /. I keep a very low profile. I wouldn’t necessarily call this social media.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm born her, yet I'm doomed! (Score:2)
Oh, dear.
I've been here for decades, ever since I was conceived, as were all of my parents and grandparents, and most of my great-grandparents.
Yet I have no social media presence.
I tried it for a week or two, and it was maddening.
All kinds of flashing adds, generic messages from the zuckertwit, and accounts of high school friends breakfast plates.
Oh, not to mention the random thoughts passing through strangers low performance brains . . .
Seems inefficient (Score:1)
Why would a true "subversive" want citizenship?
So they can serve on a jury?
Re: (Score:1)
To kill people. Or spy.
Re:Seems inefficient (Score:4, Funny)
Or eat the cats an dogs?
Guessing the scrutiny will included keyword searches for pet recipes.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, get serious for a moment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
These men were here legally. And they weren't here to eat cats or dogs. What the fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, some/all of them were here on visas but it still relates to the discussion at hand. People seeking citizenship could have the same motives.
Wont make much difference (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The Right hasn't been complaining about the immigrants who don't commit crimes, but those who do. For them, the fact that the majority of them don't commit crimes isn't relevant. What is relevant is that crime could be prevented through screening.
If you believe immigrants should be exempt from background checks because of their low criminality, would you exempt gun buyers as well? After all, gun owners are some of the most law-abiding citizens around. Even so, the RIght would think it insane to remov
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Won't make much of a difference" if we take for granted that their social media will be assessed in good faith for unlawful activity. Want to place bets that someone doesn't get rejected because they tweeted "Trump is a jerk and I think he should be in jail"?
Re: (Score:3)
Most immigrants are a) fleeing from a very grim situation, b) paid a LOT of money to get here, or c) physically risked their lives and basically ran a triathlon to make it here. The last thing theyre gonna do is utterly blow it by picking up a criminal record or talking sh&t. The vast majority of immigrants keep their heads down and are VERY law abiding. Crime rates among immigrants are much lower than citizens. Despite what you hear on right wing media.
You're being a bit cagey and loose with the term "immigrant" there. This covers everything from business owners to border crossers to student visa overstays to anyone else.
And yes, it's entirely reasonable for USCIS to do due diligence before giving someone the privilege of permanent residency, and certainly before becoming a US Citizen. If they came in in 2013 or 2017 and post heavily in support of Hamas on Twitter and Facebook, there's no particular reason the US *has* to provide them citizenship. And, in
Re: (Score:2)
If they came in in 2013 or 2017 and post heavily in support of Hamas on Twitter and Facebook, there's no particular reason the US *has* to provide them citizenship.
None of them are doing that. The person who has "posted" most heavily in support of Hamas is Netanyahu. He made sure they got foreign funding in the "post" so that he would have an excuse for genocide [wikipedia.org]. What is it with you cucks who refuse to believe dictators when they describe their own evil deeds?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe you MAGAts should tell the truth about your real agenda.
For those of you with any interest in the truth; illegal immigrants are merely their first step. There's a little-known and seldom-used thing called denaturalization [google.com] that they are planning to use in a purge of fully-legal and documented immigrants as well. And dear leader and his minions, supplicants, supporters, and enablers have been announcing their plans for years.
So yeah, RobinH, you and yours can fuck right off with your "BuT We'Re oN
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Neither US party favours illegal immigrants coming in, the problem is what to do once they've been there a while.
Consider someone who has been in the US for more than 10 years, has been steadily employed, broke no laws, is popular in the community, and is in a long term relationship with an American and has two children with them.
Is that the person you want to kick out?
In fact, that describes my Uncle's situation almost perfectly. He married an American, had two children who were US citizens, and a career i
Re: (Score:2)
Nice straw man you have there.
Citation needed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> blow it by picking up a criminal record
They might - as you describe, they have nothing. If someone's offering you a solution to whatever problem you have, but all you have to do is <something illegal>, sometimes you're going to do it, or else watch your child starve to death or whatever desperate situation you find yourself in.
Some days I think the best way to get better immigrants is to offer them a clean, safe way in. You know, form an orderly queue and we'll get to you as quickly as we can. At
Re: (Score:2)
Subversion (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm, subversion is in the eye of the beholder. I would think many Americans would consider storming the Capitol on January 6 to be an act of subversion and accordingly any social media praising that event would likewise be support for subversion. Of course, the current administration doesn't see it that way, so subversion and crime are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Unfortunately, the current administration views subversion and efficiency differently than many Americans, instead seeing those concepts as means to punish adversaries, critics, and "undesirables." Xi Jinping used the term "corruption" in his fight to purge his competitors and perceived enemies and to solidify his power. Trump is doing the same thing, but with different terms.
Comment as seen on elREG (Score:2)
And let the hunger games begin! (Score:1)
As opposed to ... (Score:1)
... the policing of actual citizens on social media, which was rampant and open 3-5 years ago.
(And, of course, the UK's policing of theirs now.)
Would Donald be allowed in? (Score:1)
If there were a review of Donald's social media postings rife with unhinged nonsense would he be allowed into the country?
For people who are noobs regarding immigration (Score:2)