I remember one thread which I can't find, which considered whether Hacker News counted as a site that should be disclosed. I also seem to remember a claim that having an account on a site with "Hacker" in the title was an automatic disqualification.
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 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.
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.
The missing part here is that on a student/work visa, you're entitled to remain in the country longer than your visa is valid for.
When I was living in the US, I was on an E-3 visa and my wife was on an F-1. My visa lasted for 2 years, however my I-94 (which permits me to remain in the US) lasted for 3. My wife's visa was for a single year but her I-94 was for the entire duration of her study.
What this means in practice is that if you travel internationally during the period in which you have a valid I-94 but no valid visa, you have to renew. However if you _don't_ travel and just stay in the US, you don't have to bother.
I can't imagine how this is anything but a bug. The US wants my wife to demonstrate intent to return home (e.g. by frequently visiting) but actively discourages her from doing so (by forcing a burdensome visa renewal each time).
Well, her demonstration of intent is all the more sincere if it requires undergoing some burdensome steps. The logic is there, so I’m not seeing that it’s a bug, although I don’t love it.
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.
As someone who went through the H1-B process and had my status threaten a number of times (downsizing), it was just a reality - if I lose my visa I go back home and maybe try again.
It never stopped me from major live decisions like buying a house.
Immigrating to a new country is taking the risk that you can’t stay. I accepted that when I immigrated.
The point i was responding to was fear of being arbitrarily rejected by a visa officer, which can happen. Or having your H1B petition denied for a job that would've had it approved the year before - as is happening pretty frequently this year.
No one would complain if H1B was a transparent and clear system (like a points-based immigration system). In reality its often arbitrary, with your visa status hanging on the political tides of the country, or how a visa/border officers day is going. That kind of unpredictability wasn't clear to me when I got the H1B and isn't any kind of well-defined risk you can accept before going down that path.
>Immigrating to a new country is taking the risk that you can’t stay. I accepted that when I immigrated.
But it doesn't need to be so tenuous.
Emigrating to the Netherlands seems like a friendly walk in the park compared to the capricious bullshit that immigrants to America are subjected to. I'm ashamed my country treats people like this.
If I lose my visa for downsizing where I am, I can leave and go back on tourist visa, find another job and redo the work visa in 2 weeks.
It's idiotic to make it hard for immigrants to get back on their feet, it's not like working immigrants cost money..., what cost money is to lose them to a competing country...
But in essence you're right anyway: immigration is a privilege, complaining about it is really unfair to a country that was never forced to take you in in the first place. The only thing we the immigrants and the host countries can do, is compete on entry condition, to bring the most high skilled, high asset immigrants.
Which is why you should always travel while your current stamping is valid. The renewal always has a window. This is what I did all the time. If your new visa is refused you still have time left on your old visa to come back and take care of your stuff in the US.
Well H1B is a terribly managed skilled migration. Countries like Australia and Canada do it well with their points system that is very fair and transparent.
H1B is based on a lottery. Which there are organized that openly abuse the system and the US gov doesn’t do much about it.
You either let people in or out. H1Bs are stuck in limbo for years with false hope. It’s a very sad way to live and it’s not good for the country either.
But US gov bends to corporations and H1Bs fucked up system helps them keep the wages low.
Is there any other country where the waiting time to go from a work visa to a permanent residency exceeds 15+ years for citizens of certain countries even after the petition is approved?
No, that doesn't make sense because you don't need the stamp. I have friends who have never left America after moving here and they're Indian and just never had their passport stamped with the visa. They receive H-1B approvals and just stay here, renewing the H-1B approval when needed.
You can absolutely renew your status in the US. It's just when you travel that you need to make sure you have it stamped to return.
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 American soil and get charged with that activity, which I assume is FAR worse than the punishment for lying on a Visa (if it isn't, somethings wrong). Can we not kick out a terrorist (found out after they entered) without this question?
It seems like the same goes for every single one of the above questions (except the first one, "Have you ever done drugs"). Every one of these questions is always going to be answered with a no, so doesn't that just create noise in the data?
I thought the idea was that if it's found out later that you are a member of a terrorist organization you can be kicked out, even if you haven't yet done anything explicitly illegal, because you lied on the Visa application.
It probably depends. I would think that an alien can be deported arbitrarily regardless of anything (having no absolute right to be in the country to begin with, can be rejected arbitrarily at passport control etc.), but usually in a court of law you can't be penalized for "being" something, only for doing or having done something.
From a legal standpoint that's problematic since the government would be imposing a punishment on acts committed outside its jurisdiction--possibly ex post facto as well.
But a lot of countries have laws which say that you can be prosecuted upon your return for doing anything outside of the country which is illegal inside the country.
Western countries generally only invoke extraterrestrial jurisdiction in matters concerning basic human rights. Laws criminalizing sex with minors oversea are arguably domestic implementation of international law. Sexual slavery is not a choice that sovereign states can make.
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 a stretch. You don't have to ask the question for someone to know that those activities would bar entry. I'd have to see pretty strong evidence to believe that a question like that is going to even give pause to people like that.
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.
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 a crime while in the US?" (I'm sure this is already on there) The above questions definitely fall under this. So I don't understand how these questions don't just become noise. I'd imagine noise in these forms leads to more mistakes too.
> 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?
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.
To prove that they lied on the form, wouldn't they have to legally prove that he is a terrorist and go through the same legal process which you said will be avoided?
I believe it is 1) different venue for trial (administrative vs a criminal case) and possibly 2) different standard of proof, especially for non permanent residents.
(Not a lawyer nor an immigration expert on US law, though.)
As per the previous comment, most of it comes from the way the laws were written. If immigration law says “members of a terrorist group can’t get citizenship”, then USCIS has to have a process for following it. In addition to background checks, they ask the question.
In terms of booting them out, the question makes it much easier. If they are a member of a terrorist group and they said “no”, well it’s an open and shut case of lying on an immigration application. If they didn’t ask the question, sure they could still boot them out, but it may be a prolonged process.
But doesn't proving that the person has lied also require additional efforts, and if that person will contest the desicion in court, can become a long process?
I would argue that proving somebody lied on an application would be easier than proving something like “this person is a danger to the US”. The 2nd is much subjective.
To prove that he lied on the application form, they would have to legally prove him as a terrorist. The legal process of proving someone is a terrorist would be same. So isn't it pointless?
It’s actually Department of State databases, specifically, CLASS (Consular Lookout and Support System) and the TIDE (Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment) systems that are used. There is also (as you mentioned,) an FBI fingerprint and name check that is completed, but that’s for domestic (US) criminal records and not specific to overseas terrorism.
RFC3514! So basically a “Please reject my visa application” check mark.
Even if you were willing to answer this honestly it can even become extremely hard to actually answer: what it is deemed a “terrorist” organisation? Maybe your home country would not consider some group as such but the US does? What about drug usage? It’s not even consistent across US states, let alone a different country.
To properly fill this you’d have to be a law expert in both US law, your home country’s, and probably international law too to resolve the impedance mismatch between both.
> I understand that you can add extra convictions for lying on these applications
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...
I'm not sure what the underlying legal theory is in defining terrorist groups, but maybe ex post facto applies here. If the defining of the group as terrorist is done by passing of a law then this is pretty open and shut. If it's done by executive order then I'm not sure. It might go to the supreme court.
Terrorist groups don’t have formal rosters the way sports teams do. It is sort of like “former intelligence officer”. It is definitely a strong argument (strengthened by time and distance separation, degree of clear separation or renunciation, etc) but it would almost certainly cause delays and substantial extra investigation, if nothing else.
I think the question about terrorists is in fact a hidden lottery that allows to win a free trip to Guantanamo with unlimited accomodation and catering.
>> Do you seek to engage in espionage ... while in the United States?
>> Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States?
Who are they hoping to catch with these questions? Honest spies and terrorists? Or maybe they hope to say in court:
“You committed a terrorist attack sir, but even worst is that you lied about it on the form!!”
All jokes aside I think these questions are designed for psychological effects to promote the messaging that US is in a never ending war on terror.
The questions are meant to add perjury to the indictment when they catch you for a real crime.
To verify my thesis i would see what are the effective conviction times between foreigners and citizens and expect the latter to get harsher convictions on this alone.
> member or representative of a terrorist organization
This is an ambigious question. For example, some groups are considered terrorists by one country and "legitimely elected government" by other. So the terrorist by opinion of country A can answer "No" without lying because in country B he is not considered a terrorist. So maybe they should add "from the point of view of the US government" to the question.
> 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 suppose this is could be an issue for graduate students, but I don't know of any foreign undergrads that don't go home at least once a year.
This is not unique to US. Almost all visa applications to any first world country are like this. It’s an excruciatingly painful process to fill out even a tourist visa form for crying out loud.
This social media requirement is as ridiculous and I won’t be surprised if other first world countries follow suit.
Thinking about it in network security terms, why shouldn't prospective new immigrants and/or visitors face higher scrutiny? It seems to me that they represent a higher threat to US citizens living in the US than random foreigners outside US borders, because of their "insider" status.
Also, once they are present inside the US, they can potentially avail themselves of rights given to US persons. Therefore, such privileges ought to be given selectively.
These aren't questions for prospective new immigrants. These are for visa holders. There are a good number of folks that must get a visa for a vacation, for example. These are questions for random foreigners!
In general, immigrants are less of a threat than a citizen, by the way.
This isn't even actual scrutiny either. These are stupid questions. If someone answers yes to being a terrorist, for example, congrats. You've barred someone stupid from entering the country. This is the same tactic used by "nigerian" scammers.
I'll add that some of these are completely outside of a person's control: Things your parents did. I can only imagine having a parent involved in human smuggling and then being barred from travel because of it.
>>This isn't even actual scrutiny either. These are stupid questions. If someone answers yes to being a terrorist, for example, congrats. You've barred someone stupid from entering the country. This is the same tactic used by "nigerian" scammers.
Weeeeeell. No, not entirely. If you think "terrorist" you probably think ISIS and Al-Queda. But someone could have been a member of the IRA 30 years ago, and should still technically answer "yes" to this question. In theory, that shouldn't bar them from entry(given that everything else is ok). But lying on this form and saying they have never been a member of a terrorist organisation would ban them for life from visiting US if they were ever found out. So this question is not as stupid as it seems.
> And don't get me started on the stupid fact that you cannot renew your US visa within the US
Ever been to Korea? Ever had a Chinese visa? How about India on a visa? If Indians want an easier time with US visas, then the Indian government should stop with their draconian visa process. Chinese and Korean work visas aren’t much better. Americans trying to get work visas for the EU also have a very difficult time as well. A DUI on your record years ago can mean an American can’t even visit Canada. Those complaining about the US visa process seemingly have limited experience with the rest of the world. You can get 5 year visas to the US; unheard of for Europe or many other countries.
I've had no issues living in Norway for the past 5 years and I'm not sure if I've ever been asked if I were a terrorist. I certainly haven't been asked for my social media information. Not only that, but I could visit Europe for 2 months without a visa. No paperwork, nothing. I had passport control in Copenhaven, but nothing whatsoever in Norway. In contrast, a Norwegian citizen must fill stuff out to have the same luxury in the US.
I'm pretty sure you can't simply "get" a 5 year visa without paperwork, fees, and other such things either. IT isn't that you can't get them in other countries, it is simply that they are called different things - usually something that alludes to being a resident (which is correct).
You don't go through passport control in Norway unless you are departing or arriving from a non-Schengen country. So flying between Copenhagen and Oslo, for example, doesn't involve passport control.
Work permits in Norway used to be 3 valid for 3 years at a time, but they've had to shorten this to 2 years due to EU requirements. If you get permanent residency you also have to renew it every two years by making an appointment and visiting the police station. Luckily they don't charge you for renewals of permanent residency, just the initial application.
As someone in America on the "highly-skilled migrant" visa/green card, I can guarantee you that even that is not straightforward here. It's exactly as stress-inducing and risky-feeling as every other US visa, just with a slightly higher chance of success if you fulfill enough criteria.
So even this is a noteworthy point of distinction between NL and here.
Sorry...where did I imply that anyone could get one? Most anyone who graduates and finds a job sure can; and from what I gather it's a far easier and less Kafkaesque process than in the US, too.
I was primarily responding to the point that 5 year visas are unheard of in Europe (which is plainly false).
I meet a lot of tourists on a daily basis, and I have not heard anyone say they want to visit the United States in a very long time.
I can't imagine how much worse it is for people that are forced to travel there for business.
If the United States is trying to isolate itself from the rest of the world it is definitely succeeding.
As a side note, I have not spoken to a tourist from the US on the island where I live in several months. However there is a literal flood of French, German, Chinese, Dutch, Singaporean, etc. Last night I had dinner with an Uzbek and Tanzanian couple.
> They only have 5-10 days vacation a year on average.
Your figures are off by a large margin (70% to 240%). The average American worker took 17 days of vacation time in 2017.
For paid vacation time - the more important item - it depends heavily on experience and company size.
"In 2017, the average worker with five years of experience at a company was given 15 days of paid vacation and the average worker with 20 years of experience was given 20 paid vacation days."
"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 76 percent of private industry workers ... After one year of employment, these workers were granted 10 days of paid vacation, on average."
That little holiday time still baffles me. I've taken 15 days off this year and we're barely nearing mid-summer. That's not including the 8 bank holidays we get. I've still got another 10 to use before the years end, not including days in lieu from working overtime, and this is only my first year of employment. I know that the US isn't great for workers rights, but regardless that's incredibly shocking to me.
If I was expected to work 50 weeks in a 52 week year I don't think I'd ever get a full-time career. I'd probably run off and become a surf bum selling loom bands on the beach.
> Americans immediately scramble for a new job out of fear of getting sick.
Or in fear of paying a tax penalty unless they buy some substandard marketplace plan (yes, I know the marketplace plans were sabotaged for political reasons in some cases, but that doesn't change the result)
Also add in that household income is (fairly) stagnant[0] but costs are increasing.
Anecdotally the only people I know that visit other countries either are: not from the US; come from a wealthy family; or have little money and that's just what they spend their money on. I know very few middle class people that visit other countries (outside of work related tasks). The excuse is always "I can't afford it." For me, that's my excuse. But that's not only money but time (which is correlated). I mean a round trip from my location to London is about $2.5k (similar cost for anywhere in Europe, Japan, or New Zealand). If I had a couple grand to drop on a vacation I'd do it. Though I'll say that I can get a round trip to Malaysia for under $2k, which is more reasonable (especially considering expenditures while there are less).
I believe that that graph is adjusted for Urban CPI so so increased costs would be taken into account. It's also a bit difficult to see the change in median household income due to the scale so here's the federal reserve's version where it is easier to see[1]. The increase in real median household income has been significant since the mid 80s. There are plenty of factors in play but I don't really think stagnant wages relative to other countries are to blame for fewer American tourists. Honestly, I just don't know many people in the U.S. who would think to vacation to Malaysia. The Caribbean is a lot closer and less expensive to travel to.
To be honest - that's sort of off the beaten path (speaking for a lot of Americans).
From the SE asian island-ish countries, I can think the ordering of "who goes where" would look something like this - Thailand, Bali, Vietnam, Phillippines, Malaysia - just based on country marketing + anecdotal conversations alone.
This is coming from someone who was nomad-ing around for 2 1/2 years too.
My flight from New York to KL cost less than my flight from Orlando to NY.
Most Malaysians also speak English very well, especially compared to the rest of SE Asia.
I have spoken to Americans back home who couldn't even point out Malaysia on a map, and even more who just write it off as a "Muslim country" despite it being secular and very diverse.
I would say it has less to do with accessibility, and more to do with Americans being skittish travelers who have been brainwashed into thinking that any country with a couple Muslims is a scary place.
I said it has to do with how the country presents itself. If you polled people going to Asia - you'd see a huge # of them would be going to Thailand or Bali (80/20) - likely due to them being portrayed in the media quite a bit. Indonesia is also significantly Muslim.
You seem to be looking for a fight where there isn't one. Maybe you should reconsider your assumptions about Americans.
I am Mexican American, its not an assumption when you lived in the country for most of your life.
I'm not looking for a fight, I am just genuinely interested in why Americans are an under represented group of travelers in the country where I currently live and work.
So far the majority of the replies that attempted to give a reason included the fact that it is a Muslim country, despite that being as true as America being a Christian country.
Mileage may vary I suppose, but I am in KL right now to see my doctor and have been staying at a friend's hostel for the past week in a very touristic area.
I have been socializing quite a bit and have not met a single American the entire week.
That seems like a likely explanation, although the island where I dive attracts very affluent tourists and there are effectively no Americans there either.
Were most of the people you met tourists or living in Malaysia?
I've been. Last time I thought I'd pop in from Singapore I found they'd discontinued the flights there which can't help with US tourists who don't want to schlep about with busses and boats.
I did not see a breakdown by age demographic in that report.
The overwhelming majority of the tourists I encounter fall into the Millennial bracket, and I don't think it is possible for them to be less enthusiastic about visiting the US.
Maybe that will change once they have kids who want to go see Harry Potter World in Orlando, but as it stands I think most of my customers would rather visit North Korea than the US.
> The overwhelming majority of the tourists I encounter fall into the Millennial bracket, and I don't think it is possible for them to be less enthusiastic about visiting the US
I’m a millennial with lots of international millennial friends. Nobody likes these measures. But getting into most countries is no walk in the park. As much as I hate to admit this, the pressure to end these policies will never come from tourists.
Most of the Europeans that come through have the financial means and strong enough passports to go pretty much anywhere they please. Same goes for most Japanese and Chinese.
My Arab customers however have the money, but getting a visa is a near impossibility.
If you have money and a clean background you can go anywhere you want (with some exceptions), regardless of your passport. There are companies you can contact who will handle the entire visa process for you.
> The overwhelming majority of the tourists I encounter fall into the Millennial bracket, and I don't think it is possible for them to be less enthusiastic about visiting the US.
You could say the same about American millenials. We aren't thrilled to be here either - if we all had dual citizenship with another first-world nation, I'd bet 70% of us would have left the country.
I doubt we've ever had an economy that was as strong (or at least, looked so good on paper), while people had such a negative opinion of what the future holds. Trump and the Senate Republicans (and their supporters) are destroying this nation.
I would think many of those visits are for business or seeing family. Plus the fact that many of the tourists come from countries in the Visa Waiver Program [1]. An ESTA is much less involved than a B1/B2 visa application.
I typically travel to places where I know someone — so given that most of the Malaysians I know have moved elsewhere (or are trying to) I'm less inclined to visit. The politics, health care, and to some extent personal safety and syariah law create some resistance too.
Politics - Malaysia has a healthier democracy than the United States and is currently undergoing massive anti corruption reforms.
Healthcare - I receive better and more affordable healthcare here than I ever did in the US. Visiting a DR costs $10 out of pocket and most medications are in the $5-$20 range. I recently underwent extensive hyperbaric therapy and it cost me less than $200. The same treatment in the US would have been near $10000. I also have insurance, but I am yet to actually need to dip into it.
Personal Safety - I feel safer wandering around KL at night than I ever did LA or SF. On the island where I live I don't even have a lock on my door.
Sharia Law - Malaysia is a secular society. In areas where Sharia law is in effect it only applies to Muslims, and even then it can be appealed in the courts. Malaysia is a very mixed society that has learned to respect all races and religions, wish I could say the same for the US.
Its sad because you are eliminating one of the travel gems of the world based on false assumptions.
Politics - Malaysia has a healthier democracy than the United States and is currently undergoing massive anti corruption reforms.
Which is great, but it wasn't that long ago that the opposition leader was thrown into jail on trumped up sodomy charges.
Healthcare
The cost of care is lower but so is the quality was what I've had a few Malaysian friends tell me.
Personal Safety - I feel safer wandering around KL at night than I ever did LA or SF. On the island where I live I don't even have a lock on my door.
Most places feel safer than San Francisco to me, that's not much of a challenge. The US State Dept listed a warning due to an increased risk of kidnapping, and they also list these gems:
- Taxi drivers in downtown Kuala Lumpur have perpetrated violent crimes against foreign tourists and local residents
- Criminals also target motorists stuck in traffic or stopped at a light with smash and grab robberies.
When I was planning a trip to Penang and KL a few years back the advice given was to have my friend pick me up instead of taking a taxi -- due to her concerns for my safety.
Malaysia is a very mixed society that has learned to respect all races and religions
Well that's patently false. How many non-Muslim Malays do you know? Hint: none because syariah law prevents them from leaving Islam and the so-called secular law cowtows to Islam. How about race based university admissions (and a variety of other codified race based privileges)?
"opposition leader was thrown into jail on trumped up sodomy charges."
He was pardoned in 2018 and the current ruling party won on a platform of removing this kind of corruption and is so far very well received.
"cost of care is lower but so is the quality was what I've had a few Malaysian friends tell me."
False. All the major cities in Malaysia have excellent hospitals, and there is nationwide availability to General practitioners who are more than qualified. I have had 2 elective surgeries in Malaysia and could not be happier with the results.
" I was planning a trip to Penang and KL a few years back the advice given was to have my friend pick me up instead of taking a taxi -- due to her concerns for my safety."
There is always Grab if you are that paranoid, but I have never heard of anyone having issues like this. Just the other day I hailed a cab and the driver told me it would actually be cheaper and easier for me to take the train to my destination and gave me instructions on how to get to the nearest station.
"Well that's patently false. How many non-Muslim Malays do you know? Hint: none because syariah law prevents them from leaving Islam and the so-called secular law cowtows to Islam. How about race based university admissions (and a variety of other codified race based privileges)?"
This one actually made my friends and I laugh when I read it out loud during our lunch. Malaysia is home to ethnic Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, and native groups. Just at my table there are three non Muslim Malay and two muslims.
I say this at risk of angering the mods, but you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
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 don't really hear how great the melting pot is anymore (I can only think of a few times in the last decade). Maybe it was just childhood naivety. But it also seems to me that it isn't just the US that is becoming isolationist. So I have to imagine that there's something, at least in western culture, that is changing.
Nativism is a reaction to the decline of the middle classes prospects.
Half of America is not doing well and has been overlooked. The better educated amongst us are blinded by their own progress and weren’t looking inward.
We will see more focus on nativist policies in our lifetime as automation continues to eat jobs.
Correct. A lot of people wanted an "outsider" and to "drain the swamp". In other words they don't feel represented by their elected officials, or treated fairly by the government, and they want things to change.
Despite this desire being co-opted and twisted by Trump's campaign and Fox News, the underlying feelings are valid for a lot of people across the USA.
The Democratic party should have realized this back during Obama's "Hope" campaign. A message of change, of saying "what's happening right now isn't right and we need to fix that", that message really resonates with a lot of people.
Of course, as Obama found out when he became president, "the swamp" has its own interests at heart. All that good energy and hope broke like a wave against that huge political cliff, and had far less impact than everyone needed.
If you ask a lot of people to articulate this sort of feeling, they'll have difficulty. Hence the easier to understand populist rhetoric coming from Trump. He steered that behemoth of public opinion towards xenophobia and other negative feelings. It's easier to blame the other than to look deeply at your own life.
The Democratic party has to understand this or Trump will easily win his second term. Back when Trump got the Republican nomination, I had a deeply unsettling gut feeling about the election. Trump was entertaining, Clinton was not. In the same way, Obama was entertaining, McCain was not. Bush was entertaining, Kerry was not. Gore was not. I unfortunately don't really see any entertaining people on the Democratic side.
As for the automation question, I think Trump, or his Republican successor, could pivot very easily to saying that robots are going to take Good Old-Fashioned American Jobs(tm) and a lot of people will follow that message.
> As for the automation question, I think Trump, or his Republican successor, could pivot very easily to saying that robots are going to take Good Old-Fashioned American Jobs(tm) and a lot of people will follow that message.
I think this is interesting, because there's a Democratic candidate, Andrew Yang, gaining popularity because of this (relatively, considering he's coming out of nowhere). Though taking it with a different attitude. But I think this kinda goes to show that the message resonates across party lines (like with what you said about Obama and Trump).
And he wasn't too concerned about bipartisanship when it came to passing the ACA only a year later, arguably the biggest bill of the decade. There were several forms of procedural hardball happening in the process of passing that. It was certainly passed narrowly and along party lines. And, partly because of the lack of bipartisan agreement, not all of it survived court challenges.
If it's true that Obama was genuinely optimistic and down on cynicism during his 2008 campaign, he must have wised up quickly. Otherwise, maybe people read some things into the "Hope" message that weren't actually there. He came from the Chicago school of politics, though, so I'm skeptical that the narrative of broken good energy really fits.
And I think this sort of thing feeds into the Trump narrative of a "swamp" that needs draining. Obama certainly didn't come up with Washington partisanship, but the hard landing after all the Hope posters probably increased cynicism on the whole and gave Trump a chance. Remember, he didn't exactly win his election by a landslide.
The ACA is already a result of a lot and even more compromise. It's even modeled after a Republican plan implemented in a red state. (In Mass. when governed by Mitt Romney, who at first vetoed it then took credit for it.)
And yet it received basically no bipartisan support in Congress. The Romney stuff is a talking point, not a reasonable way to pursue bipartisan progress on healthcare (which is still a mess).
It received just enough to pass, don't forget that. And also don't forget that nowadays it receives just enough support to stay on the books.
Also. Talking point or not, it pretty much showcases that policymaking today is not a deliberate good faith iterative process what it should be. It's just a front in the culture wars.
> It received just enough to pass, don't forget that.
Kind of. One version passed the House, another the Senate (), and a questionable reconciliation process created a unified bill.
My point is that I don't find the "Obama nobly lost to the Swamp" narrative all that convincing. He could have required, say, 10 republican senators agree before (unsuccessfully) overhauling one of the largest parts of the economy. That* failing is what losing to the Swamp might look like.
Maybe that wouldn't have worked, to be fair. But preemptively deciding to play hardball doesn't fit the "The Swamp was too swampy for Obama" narrative.
(*) Including a vote from Arlen Specter, who switched parties mid-term and a vote in exchange for the infamous "Cornhusker Kickback".
Thank you for an interesting reply, you've rebutted the image of Obama pretty well. I think that my own personal feeling about Obama are very much affected by the political and social climate that has appeared since Trump was elected.
I think I agree with you on all of this, especially the Chicago comment.
That must be newly introduced in the last few days, considering the comments and posts I still see presented here frequently. Nevertheless, I'll take it to heart and flag things that break it.
You might have a mistaken idea of how much we're able to process here. HN gets many more comments and submissions than we're able to look at. Moderation amounts to spot checking.
Yeah, for a lot of people it's more about trajectory than the numbers. Even going up doesn't necessarily mean anything with inflation. And it's very hard to find essentials like housing here if you don't have a lot of money. I'm not very educated on the details of all this, but something about using long term mortgages as investment vehicles seems to be screwing with the market.
I don't really understand why a low end house costs something like $100,000 but a top of the line phone costs $1,000. The education, infrastructure, and materials required to make a house are all generally speaking a lot easier to come by than all of what's required for a phone. I know you can factory build phones and you need labor for a house, but you can factory build most of what a home is made of, too, and it's not like there isn't a lot of labor involved in all kinds of parts of a phone's journey (design, marketing, manufacturing, transportation, sales). I guess most of it has to do with land being finite and all the parts that make up a house? But something about that argument doesn't sit quite right with me either. It's very weird that a basic shelter, which is something people have been building themselves for thousands of years without any of the sophisticated tools we have now, is 100x more expensive than buying one of the most sophisticated, hard to design and manufacture things yet devised by man. I know houses have heating, cooling, plumbing, electricity, etc and aren't as simple as they used to be, but the price difference still seems wonky.
For a while I fantasized about building an obscenely simple house and living like a monk to save money and see how minimal I could get. I've done some camping and feel like I'd be happy living in a tent with a YMCA membership. But that's really not an option. There's no where to put up a tent or even a very modest little shack without paying tens of thousands of dollars for a strip of land to put it on, and you're never going to find much other than apartment buildings close to most of the places the work is. So even without the social stigma of living in a tent, you can't really do it.
I'm not saying life for the average person in Africa is better, and I generally agree with the sentiment that most Americans under-appreciate all the comforts of modern life.
But what's frustrating about the whole thing is there's not really a way to opt-out, and the entry price here for "being a normal part of society" seems to require most middle or lower class people to go into debt. It's a wonky, unnatural set up.
It sounds to me as though the setup only appears wonky and unnatural to us because it's an equilibrium of various needs and interests that clash against one another.
Yeah, I think that’s part of it. I understand that a lot more people want a place to live than want the newest phones, that no one wants to live next to bad neighbors, that people like having guests and competing for status, that land close to major cities is finite, etc... but it still seems weird that people are charging more money than what people actually have. If you took loans out of the equation, part of me thinks houses would start reflecting people’s actual needs and means better and would drop significantly in price. Eventually I think they would provide people with a sense of security rather than obligation since you’d have to buy them outright, and eventually that security would result in more creative/entrepreneurial activity. But maybe I’m just severely undervaluing all the work required to build a basic house/overestimating how much the process of building them could be streamlined so as to avoid loans.
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 American people treats foreigners once inside, since they're generally welcoming and open. It's more of an structural/institutional problem.
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.
It's really different. Going to the US with a Latin American passport gives me a lot of anxiety. In Europe, I'm always asking myself "is this all?". It's a much better experience.
I'm not certain but I think German airports will rifle through everyone if they don't have lots of visitors. That was my experience two times flying there.
I had a security guy that checked for drugs telling me "This is Germany, why don't you speak German!" when I told him if he could explain what he wants me to do in English. (put down my bag on the table and show my phone so they can check it for chemicals)
Yep, this happened. In Airport. International Berlin airport.
I didn't say anything because I did not wanted to be detained for longer and miss my connection flight. But WTF.
My anecdotal experience is similar. Entering the US on a US passport is a breeze. Entering the EU on a US passport felt very hostile. I would imagine it's the same everywhere - it is the most fundamental job of a government to secure its own borders and maintain its own power.
I have found entering the US after visiting the EU (Schengen, technically) to be more hostile.
The EU person typically looks at me for a second or two and then stamps. Maybe they ask me how long I'm staying, I say "a week" or whatever, and they stamp.
The US people (EWR or JFK, maybe it varies) have an attitude that suggests that they think someone who visited Switzerland or Denmark is likely to be coming back from a vacation training with ISIS. They also really can't decide if my girlfriend is supposed to come to the booth with me, all of the rules suggest no since we are not a family, but then they tend to get upset after they ask me if I was traveling alone and I say no.
Interestingly enough, I travelled to the San Diego two years ago and I was expecting a round of “premium questioning” because I had a (long expired) multi-entry visa for Syria in my (now expired) passport (I was in Damascus in late 2009), but the guy didn’t care at all, just asked what the purpose of my US visit was, spent a few minutes looking at my passport and checking his computer and then he welcomed me and sent me on my way. It was all rather painless and everyone was relatively friendly.
That isn't too surprising, is it? That would be true for almost every democratic country.
As an EU citizen, I found entering China less scary than the USA. The Chinese officers were almost painfully polite and matter of fact, whereas the TSA officers were borderline rude and threatening. I'd really lover to go for holidays in the USA again, but not anytime soon. Since I don't have a FB, Twitter or IG acc't, I'd probably be denied anyways.
You need a visa for each country in the EU if you are from China since they don’t have a visa agreement with the EU. I know this because my friend was dealing with it this year because of SIGMOD.
I don't think it is spoiled. Definitely better than here in North America, but is isn't spoiled to be afforded basic human rights of not being treated like cargo when crossing an imaginary line.
This is a ridiculous argument. There is a huge demand for people to immigrate to the US and it has every right to screen people looking for visa’s however it wants.
This is a ridiculous argument. First, in theory any sovereign country can do whatever it wants, but it definitely shouldn't. Second, the comment is about simply visiting (or god forbid having a connecting flight in) the US, not applying for visas (which certainly deserve more thorough handling). Third, the richest and most powerful nation on Earth should be setting a high standard for humane treatment of all people, especially when that same country espouses such beliefs as freedom and human rights.
It is definitely not friendly because social network is a place to communicate with friends or family and you don't want a customs officer putting their nose there.
All the idea of countries do is perpetuate inequality and allow for the sovereignty excuse for the abuse of their own people. Sovereignty is a tool of oppression. It codifies in law an Us and Them instead of We. Yay, I won the geographic lottery and was born to a rich country. We better enforce that at an imaginary line on the ground with weapons.
The problem starts when the powerful countries mess up the lives of people outside their borders, all the while complaining that those people shouldn't be allowed to come here.
I know I'm a single data-point but I had a much easier time getting a US visa and entering the US borders (and so did my mother) than getting into Europe. One time in Paris, the police were in the airplane exit (even before you cross the gate) and stopping people based solely on color of their skin. (they did miss a few because of their bias and did stop a Belgium national).
You might think Europe is cool because you are inside Europe. But Europe is as hostile as it can get. The US is an order of magnitude better in the immigration department. Europe happens to get a lot of immigrants because of land proximity.
According to recent UN reports, the United States is one of the countries with the most amount of resident immigrants [0]. In fact, according to their report, a whole 20% of immigrants (defined as people living somewhere they weren't born) call the US their home.
Another problem with your argument is that the relationship between more thorough screening of immigration applicants and a country's "level of isolationism" is lacking evidence. Perhaps a country's capabilities in screening applicants is simply correlated to how many people are trying to immigrate there? Just a hypothesis based on the data linked above.
But if I may counter your anecdote with my own: I am an immigrant in the US (Bay Area) and so are all my friends. Actually I think I interact with less than a handful of Americans regularly, everyone else is Mexican, Chinese, Slovenian, Indian, Ukranian, etc. I'm happy to have had the opportunity to find a home and work here, and I think so are they.
> So I have to imagine that there's something, at least in western culture, that is changing.
Inequality, wage stagnation, slowing growth, things like that. When life gets tough, us vs them rhetoric and isolationism starts going up.
It’s pretty predictable when you look at history. First the economy has a few bumps, then the lower classes start clamoring for reform, then the various isms start taking hold of politics as people vote for anyone who promises them a better life.
Post ww2 up to the early 2000’s was a period of unprecedented growth in most of the west as we caught up to pre-war status (think 1910’s, not 1930’s). That growth has tapped out and we are now on a more natural growth trajectory.
But compared to what was before, organic growth looks slow and scary.
The US grants permanent residency to roughly a million people a year already. In the past we accepted anyone who would come because so few people were willing to come. Now too many people want to come, so the selection process has to become more rigorous.
I don't want to sound nativist, but there are hard limits on how many people a country can accept at once, especially one with an increasingly small pool of jobs to fill.
It's possible to want more diversity, to believe the infusion of immigrants makes America great (or just better) and also believe we need to tightly regulate who is able to enter the country.
But the change described in the article is, in fact, compatible with the view that we should hive more immigrants and more diversity while at the same time screening immigrants more thoroughly to eliminate specific undesirable elements.
Yes and no. I don't think it is black and white. While I'd say that there are isolationist aspects it isn't like how China has been (probably deserved considering the British). There's definitely a scale. We clearly aren't North Korea, which is what people think of when they think of an isolationist country. But I also can't think of a country that isn't at least a little isolationist.
So I wouldn't say that isolationism runs deep. It is definitely there, I would definitely say that it is a escarpment but that doesn't mean it is the Grand Canyon or the Marianas Trench.
I wouldn't really call a country that is stereotyped as meddling in the affairs of everyone else strictly (key word) isolationist. Seems like the opposite stereotype of the Hermit Kingdom.
This was stupid when it was just potential employers expecting this information, and it’s even stupider here.
Let’s see how many bad reasons for this I can come up with in 30 seconds:
1. Social media may be popular but it is not universal (I still know people without a Facebook profile for instance). Thus, while the government should expect that someone may truthfully answer “I don’t have social media accounts”, I’ll bet money that anyone actually giving that answer on their visa application is screwed.
2. Huge numbers of social media profiles are completely FAKE. Combined with #1 above, if you don’t actually use a particular site but it seems like you do, you are again screwed.
3. Some people have extremely common names and legitimately do not want their pictures posted. Therefore, it is likely there are hundreds of real accounts with your name, many even in your city, that are not you. If the government is trying to determine if you “lied” about having an account, how many of these are they going to accuse you of owning? Or are they just going to conclude, based on the stuff being posted by those people, that your application should be denied?
4. The government does not run these sites, corporations do (and ultimately, random employees made some rules for running them). Suppose #2 above occurs, and someone is posting insane stuff as “you”; great, now your entire damned visa application is in danger, and some random set of rules made up by an employee at Facebook or Twitter is going to decide your fate. Can you get the profile taken down? Ask Facebook. Can you “prove” the profile is not you? Follow random rules from Facebook. And so on.
5. Not everything I do is on social media. And if I were to set up a secret club or criminal enterprise, do you think I’d be writing about it on Twitter and Facebook?!?!? What will exist on social media for a lot of people is an endless firehose of crap, which will mostly give the government way too much information to sift through. It will be a huge waste of time.
In other words, this policy can definitely hurt legitimate applicants and is not likely to add any useful information when screening applicants that “should” be denied.
>if I were to set up a secret club or criminal enterprise, do you think I’d be writing about it on Twitter and Facebook
You'd be surprised… :D
>In other words, this policy can definitely hurt legitimate applicants and is not likely to add any useful information when screening applicants that “should” be denied.
Exactly, I think that's the point. "Give me six lines written by an honest man and I will find something in them which will hang him." (~Card. Richelieu) All that extra content from social media will give decisionmakers plenty of latitude to justify whatever decision they already wanted.
Its not just privacy nuts that are avoiding facebook. Average people may have deleted their account because it is known that using social media has negative effects on your mental health. You could just have a dummy facebook account with no data on it and just say you don't use it because you quit facebook for mental well being.
This will have a chilling effect on speech in this country, which is extremely sad. Academic and trade conferences would be best taken elsewhere. And job seekers? Prefer remote.
For me as an American, this is, I guess, fine now. I won't be affected right away. But I fully expect other countries to institute reciprocal policies.
Not a lawyer, so I can only speculate as a layperson
1) Sure, if you're a US Citizen, I don't think non-resident, non-citizens outside of the United States are entitled to any protections
2) That would be my opinion. Maybe a frequent¹ conference speaker¹ with outspoken political views² from a European country could mount a challenge that requiring social media profiles in order to enter the country amounts to a chilling effect and consequent prior restraint on speech in the United States
¹ - The conditions under which a person qualifies for the visa waiver program are complicated
² - I imagine a political dissident or someone equally outspoken who has used anonymous social media profiles to protect their livelihood would have the strongest case
Just to add a bit on this. The (U.S) Bill of Rights applies to any person on U.S. soil. (That is a common misconception apparently but like many modern constitutions it refers to persons and not citizens). There is the gray area surrounding around the periphery of the U.S. and borders (https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone)
(Essentially the U.S. government reasons that the area surrounding the border is U.S. soil for CBP, and not U.S. soil for anyone else.)
The first amendment comes afterward, but I have to admit I have no idea if there's any case law that it's unconstitutional to deny a visa on the basis of the applicant's viewpoints.
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 Bill of Rights intentionally does not even include the word "citizen" and instead uses "people."
> 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?
I imagine your reply came from a good place and you're genuinely trying to improve the knowledge out here, but I just want to take a moment to address something that comes up often: this tone is very combative and it makes it incredibly hard for someone to yield and turn to you. What is OP supposed to say to this? "Oh I guess you're right. Thanks for taking my pride and putting me down. I see your point now." -- this is not how people work.
Or, from another angle: you can usually tell a sarcastic question is off, if the honest answer is readily found, and defensible. In this case: OP said such things because they thought it was true. The point was to share information with someone else and contribute to a conversation.
If you think they're wrong, there's more productive ways of getting that point across than calling into question good faith.
For the record: I thought it as well, so there were at least two of us, out here ;) and now after Googling, and judicial rabbitholes far beyond my expertise I still can't tell whether it's limited geographically or also meant to apply world-wide, or how I was meant to know, to avoid getting told off for being toxic if I ever daresay something else about it...
But I also think that there is a palpable and strange injection into the zeitgeist a notion that non-citizens are less human - and it comes at the same time that a lot of racism and anti-immigrant ideology is reaching its way into public policy.
I'm finding myself with decreased patience for it than I might have for other falsehoods making their way through echo chambers.
after reading through your comments, I'm not convinced that I was spreading a falsehood. The fact that there are some legal policies on treatment of non-nationals is not the same thing as non-nationals being fully protected by constitutional rights. They are not. Other comments above have also said this. (I submitted simultaneously as someone who gave a better phrased answer but couldn't figure out how to delete my redundant comment).
> 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.
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 linking to was decided entirely on the former and not the latter.
I have 0 expertise on my own country's law, let alone US law or some specific cases in your (?) country. But that's not what Wikipedia says:
"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?
"cherry picked"? I pointed you directly to the decision that SCOTUS rendered on this matter.
And I don't understand the point you're trying to make: even the dissent acknowledged that Mandel had no first amendment protections while outside the country - this has nothing to do with citizenship.
Literally nobody - not the majority nor either dissent, said anything whatsoever about citizenship being an issue here.
If a non-citizen were not subject to the enumerated standard test here (ie, if they were a permanent resident), they'd be in the exact same boat as a citizen.
This entire line of jurisprudence has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether the Bill of Rights extends to non-citizens (and to be absolutely clear: it does.).
> "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."
So let me get this straight - WikiPedia cites Eugene Volokh discussing a matter on which there has been no case or controversy and no court has rendered an opinion, and this is your basis to say that the unambiguous tradition, predating the founding, of rights being enjoyed by non-citizens within the United States is "unclear"? Please tell me that you can see how ridiculous this sounds.
I think it's more complicated than that, with the constitutional protections from US government action being narrower outside the US border depending on the legal status of the person(s) in question and the context of the imposition on their rights.
So-called unlawful enemy combatants have limited rights and the Supreme Court has upheld all sorts of limitations on the rights of US citizens apprehended in a theater of war, but even foreign citizens have a constitutional right to habeas corpus when apprehended by the government on foreign soil (Boumediene v. Bush).
People in the United States on tourist visas are not prohibited from bearing arms (in fact gun ranges are major tourist destinations in some parts of the country). Purchasing arms is subject to a higher legal standard, but is also not wholesale prohibited, just subject to a few extra rules. For example, a tourist who acquires a hunting license in any state can purchase a firearm.
...and in any case, this is not a citizen/non-citizen issue, as GP claims - lawful permanent residents have the same 2nd amendment rights as citizens.
Well yes, but that is a privilege that the country bestows upon you as a token of good will and faith - not a natural right under the constituion; and I would not expect it either. Should I be allowed the affordances of the 1st amendment while on American soil to advocate for the fall of the American republic? I would be deported very swiftly.
In the time the constitution was framed, "well regulated" meant properly trained and not "subject to 30 million pages of government control and criminilization".
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".
Please stick with weapons available at time constitution was written of not very reliable ~3 shots per minute fire rate. Gunpowder cannons are also OK.
Law evolves along with technical progress and 2nd amendment is not exception.
When you write your reply on parchment with elderberry ink, seal it with wax, and have it delivered by pony express we can have a discussion on the limitations you are proposing on the first amendment with your long debunked argument.
Also there were repeating rifles, cartridge based rifles, and citizens owned artillery pieces and war ships in the era in which the Constitution was written.
You should read Heller - Justice Scalia wrote a great deal about your argument and why it is absurd.
There were entire areas unknown in 1789 - incorporating them is basically writing law again (see example below). Reliable fully automatic weapons that can do up to 1000rpm belong to same category.
"The 1934 act designated broadcasters as speakers — thus granting them First Amendment rights — but the broadcast media were also treated as possessing a somewhat lesser claim to First Amendment protections than the print media. The Supreme Court’s decision in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969) upheld the principle that the scarcity of frequencies put broadcasters under public obligations to present multiple viewpoints, which therefore served as limits on their First Amendment rights."
Civilians owned cannon, artillery pieces and warships in the revolutionary war time frame.
A machine gun is nothing compared to a strategic asset. If we want to go back to that model, which is what you argue for, I'm getting a Davy Crockett for my front yard, an Iowa class BB for my dock, and a squadron of F22s and F35s.
The framers wanted the people to have access to the same weapons the government did - to allow the people to have a very real check over the overreach of said government.
Benjamin Franklin was an inventor - if you think when they wrote the second amendment they didn't think "gee, maybe guns will shoot faster someday" then I don't know what to tell you.
as in people have the right to free speech, not just citizens. in this man-made document for this nation, it says people are born with rights, and so that belief must extend to people outside the nation. they were born too.
> Doesn't the First Amendment restrict the US government from curtailing free expression and free association anyplace, not just within US borders?
Just within the Borders. Borders (border crossings), worldwide, have extra-national areas that are neither country for practical reasons (like keeping each other's soldiers out of casual range), where rights are not enforced. The US doesn't enforce rights, in an area where it has no authority.
"Chilling effect" is a recent idiom, which is subjective. The US judicial system makes a determination on what is or isn't a restriction.
My take is that this is another background-investigation tool. So what? People casually (and stupidly) aggregate a large amount of their own personal information in one place and then act surprised when a country wants to check it before allowing you to cross the border (eg Canada's restriction on US drunk drivers). I don't understand the outrage of what amounts to more paperwork.
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.
That's hardly equivalent at all, but okay. Asking for more stringent visa requirements that does not apply to US citizens is not even close to denying train passes to dissenting citizens.
oh, make no mistake the US /already/ screened this stuff. My now-wife had all her social media pages printed out and waiting for her on an entry to the US in the Obama years. Difference is now they can ban you for lying...
Since you have actual first-hand knowledge of border officials doing social media questioning, could you tell us more about this? What did they ask her? What prompted them to print out the social media pages? Which social media sites? What country was she coming from? How long did they question her?
Not sure why they had them printed out - could have been to review them, could have been for intimidation.
IIRC they asked her why she had changed her FB location to the American city she would stay in for the next 3 months, asked a bunch of questions about past posts in the US talking about helping build our home, buy decorations, etc (all as proof she was intent on overstaying her visa, which was vaguely ridiculous as we had applied for a fiance visa at that point, so she was pretty clearly intending on living here, but we were also pretty clearly intending on going through the legal visa process)
Also asked a bunch of questions about some posts she had made seeking design clients in the US as proof she was working here illegally (even though she owned her own design business and paid taxes on it in Europe, obviously are allowed to take on US clients, but they were sketched out that she was soliciting US clients while in the US)
They questioned her for about an hour with no access to phone/lawyer/etc and gave her the option of immediately voluntarily leaving the US. At the end of the process they told her that it would be the last time she could enter the US on an ESTA and next time it would have to be on the fiance visa, they also told her verbally she had to leave within 14 days, but they still stamped her for a 3 month entry as per regular ESTA guidelines.
--
It was mostly a bunch of silliness about work/residency/intent to work without a work permit/intent to stay in the US without a visa even though all things were aboveboard. The most concerning to me remains that her facebook at the time was not in any legal name, certainly not the name the passenger manifest, but she was still obviously tracked down
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".
This is the isolationist attitude that people have a problem with.
We don't "owe" anything to anyone, but this not the behavior of the greatest country in the world.
> We don't "owe" anything to anyone, but this not the behavior of the greatest country in the world.
I didn't say the US shouldn't let people in or be respectful of foreigners - I was just stating the fact that they do not have any legal obligation to do so. Of course they do it because it is good for the country - but if they stop, who is going to make them change their mind? It's up to the American people to decide what they want for their country at any given time - the rest of the world has no power to make them do otherwise - as does any other country and I wouldn't want to force any country to take people they don't want to either.
> It's up to the American people to decide what they want for their country at any given time - the rest of the world has no power to make them do otherwise - as does any other country and I wouldn't want to force any country to take people they don't want to either.
A country with many allies is much more powerful than a country with none. This is a lesson that is taught before children enter school (play nicely with others), I don't know how this became an American attitude and I find it very disappointing and worrisome.
You often hear statistics like the US fund 25% of NATO, or something similar. I don't see how this is a bad thing, this means we have 4 times as much power than if we were not in NATO, because we supply the most we have the most control over the group, and because we play nicely with others and listen to the needs of other countries who have similar morals as we do.
You are the only one talking about a legal obligation, the article and everyone else is just talking about how this is not the behavior the world and US citizens would not like to see coming out of America the melting pot.
This is terrible for the us. It's just another invasive thing and other countries will now use this opportunity to spy on me in return. It's idiotic. Your comment sets up a pointless argument in that of course no country is required to admit anyone, but reasonable policies invite good reciprocal treatment.
You say that like countries already don't take opportunities to spy on foreigners.
> Your comment sets up a pointless argument in that of course no country is required to admit anyone, but reasonable policies invite good reciprocal treatment.
All I said was that the US has no obligation to do anything for outsiders. I didn't say they shouldn't and obviously they do - just don't expect some kind of natural right to be accorded to you if you aren't a citizen of their country.
“A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”
Immigrants are non-citizens are among the weakest members of American society (an outsize number of laws that impact them and zero capacity to participate in its political machinery)
Do you realize a massive amount of immigrants are actually US citizens and have exactly the same rights as born Americans? With the exception of running for President.
That's not a satisfactory excuse or interpretation of the quote.
Let's say North Korea selected a few of the leading family and declared they are "members", under such circumstances would that quote imply that North Korea is the greatest nation, because all its "members" have near King-like status?
Or likewise, can a nation increase its greatness by declaring the weakest among them to be "non-members".
A non-citizen of decdes' residency, with family, business, social, community, and cultural interactions is not a member of the country[1]?
________________________________
Notes:
1. The US is technically not a nation-state, being a broad mix of numerous cultures. It is a state, or country, but not "nation". De facto of course, this is significantly modified.
I travelled to the US recently for the first time in 20 years or so. I had to apply for a Visa waiver (ESTA) and from memory they had a social media section that was flagged as "optional". I'm not big on social media and decided that my rarely used accounts would be of no use or interest to anyone. If I remember correctly though I did put my Github account on there (unless my memory is playing vicious tricks on me, yes Github was listed). Call me crazy but I decided that if the US government was interested in my C++ chess code, great!
I did gird my loins for a horribly unwelcoming experience at the airport (semi off topic but widely discussed here). At JFK it was actually super nice, but we were first off the plane and there was no queue to hit. We did take a side trip to Canada and had to enter the US again at O'Hare and that was a different story entirely. Seemingly a million planes arriving at once. Even miserable looking and bemused cabin crew queuing from here to eternity. When we finally got to the head of the queue(s) the over-worked, under manned staff were perfunctory but non unpleasant. I haven't seen anything as disorganised and shambolic in arrivals at a European airport ever, but maybe I've just been lucky.
I’m here in the US via ESTA (sixth time in ten years maybe? More?). Three month road trip. I have active social accounts (not without a political slant) and didn’t list them. Didn’t seem to be a factor when I came through (with wife and kids), nor previous trips.
Colleague with minimal social profile but travelling by himself copped a three hour pressure-grilling last year. They were most concerned with the idea that he’d try to work and overstay.
It might be difficult to provide the truthful answers. For example, I don't remember all of my current phone numbers, let alone those that I might have used in the past. Also, I don't remember all the names of fake SNS accounts I created, and don't remember throwaway email account names.
Also, US three-letter agencies already have access to Google, Twitter, Facebook and have all necessary information, as Snowden has said, so I guess it makes no sense to provide it again.
Maybe they just are trying to build a cause to be able to deport anyone from the country or reject entry. In this case it would be better to pass a law that allows to do it.
Also this is a good reminder that you better not post too much details about yourself in social networks, otherwise it can be used against you. And Hackernews is not considered a social network, right?
They explained that pretty clearly. The US insists that you are entering their country if your route of travel passes through US territory. So sensible routes to lots of other countries that don't themselves have obnoxious rules are off limits if you don't want the US nosing thorough everything.
If your social network accounts are public, the NSA can already see them, it doesn't matter if you explicitly give them your username.
If your accounts are not public, giving them your username won't really do anything.
I'm still not sure I see the problem? "Oh no, I'm traveling through the US and now they know that I have a social network account!" ?? They already knew that if you were actually a person of interest.
But the TSA and whatever other relevant departments don't have access to the NSA databases (or don't publicly show it, same thing from my POV).
I perceive that I might be denied entry to the US because someone shares a photo of me doing something the US doesn't like .. Then my trip to Canada gets cancelled, and I get to say "yes" when asked by every other country "have you ever been denied entry".
Meanwhile I must also provide biometrics.
And it is a federal form. The theoretical risk is high (although actual risk is low if you are a normal person).
I don't think they've thought about how precise 100% compliance is literally impossible for those of us with catch-all email domains, unless we have a record of every email address at that domain we've ever given out or through which we've received unsolicited email.
(Yeah, I realize that in practice they will probably accept partial compliance in that scenario, and that it won't affect me as a US citizen. But it could certainly affect people I care about.)
It can be advantageous for the government to issue laws that citizens can't comply with. That way they can prove you lied because you haven't provided this one e-mail address that they were able to trace to you. Now you're a liar and they can hold that against you.
All true. This particular one has no impact on US citizens since we don't need US visas, but other overly demanding laws certainly can affect us, and even this one can affect non-citizens We care about (even ones we may count as family).
I think the US nonimmigrant visa application must usually be done online (some exceptions exist) using an interactive series of web forms. So your solution works if and only if they don't apply validation rules to that input field and throw an error.
I guess they may have some procedure to handle the case where technical limitations of the form prevent an accurate answer, but even if yes that's still a huge obstacle many applicants won't overcome.
(Yes, applicants with the technical savvy to catch-all domains are more likely to be able and willing to overcome that type of barrier. Other categories of people will have a harder time, like who are sure they've forgotten some email addresses but don't remember enough details to reconstruct that info. They'll have to say exactly that, if they can even find a place to provide that answer, and possibly get refused as a result.)
This is an unintended consequence of social media. It is the same as it was centuries ago. If you’re known to criticize someone else, and it gets back to them, of course there will be ramifications.
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with this comment. I’m just stating fact.
This is just nuts. I have several social media accounts and in many of them I have said not so nice things about various governments across the world, including the American government. Wonder how that will be treated.
ESTA is an application for permission to travel to the US by air carrier or cruise ship to apply for admission under the Visa Waiver Program. As the word Waiver suggests, that permission is not a visa.
People of VWP nationalities can apply for true US visas, but for short-term tourist or business visits there's usually no reason for them to bother unless they've been individually denied VWP eligibility or they want one of the few extra procedural rights which come from the visa and not through the VWP.
All of which is to say, maybe they're only asking this horrible new question of true visa applicants and not VWP applicants.
I’d wager VWP visitors outnumber Visa applicants by a wide margin. Assuming they actually intend to perform even a cursory check of each social media account they’ll get bogged down for hours by trying to prove someone lying about not having a certain account.
As an aside: someone posted a screenshot of the form showing one of the named sites was MySpace but doesn’t include Telegram (and you can use Telegram without a username too). Anyway - I hope someone comes to their senses (perhaps an ACLU lawsuit re: should people be forced to disclose membership of sites like Grindr?) and they remove the stupid question.
My guess (pure speculation) is that they won't manually check most social media accounts indicated on the form, but will automatically check the provided info against (and add the provided info to) some intelligence community database. Then they'd manually check any cases where security concerns are flagged by that database or otherwise.
Do you have any reason to believe that it hasn’t already come? You’re certainly a suspicious character in the eyes of some employers for non-tech (and occasionally tech) jobs.
I think it’s a lot easier to be anonymous if you keep them, but never use them for anything real. I quit using Facebook two years ago, but I didn’t stop posting the occasional picture of some event I attended.
I simply uninstalled all their apps and deleted anything that I had ever posted which wasn’t completely irrelevant. I also deleted almost every picture of myself and prohibited people from ever tagging me.
This way I look like a normal boring guy who likes board games if you glance over my profile, but you couldn’t actually get anything to use against me.
It’s very Orwellian I guess, but it means I never have to explain why I’m not on social media.
So what prevents me from leaving the requested fields empty or even put wrong account names on it? What if I lie about my phone number? Will they call me to check wether it rings in my pocket? Will they write me an email to check wether I recieve it?
Presumably something at the bottom you sign that says the information above is true to the best of your knowledge under penalty of perjury. Willing to risk 5 years in prison for lying?
What if I close my social media accounts just before applying, I'm telling the truth when I leave them empty right? I don't think the government thought this through.
They corroborate your story with the data the NSA has stored and then permanently ban you from the USA for life for lying because Facebook was forced to give them your IP which is tied to the Gmail account Google was forced to disclose information about where your flight booking information was received.
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, though, lives will be destroyed as the ground shifts underneath them. Especially troubling is the possibility that previously-legal activities could be punished well into the future if not outright prosecuted.
> Tomorrow it could be US citizens trying to get passports, driver licenses, or collect social security/medicare benefits.
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.
One of the reasons immigration laws ask so many questions is to set up an easy way to deport unwanted people without the tedious bother of an actual trial.
This seems like a goldmine. Forgot an email? Didn't turn over your account details on pornhub? Had a single-use throwaway account you can't remember the password for? Congratulations, you qualify for easy eviction.
Everyone knows that the real danger of all this tracking and social media is that governments will start stealing the data and using it against people, or else by censoring things/manipulation.
This is how it starts in-earnest, rather than half heartedly. See China for a demo of the future
Exactly, also what about E-Mail accounts from the 90s of which I hardly remember the spelling? What about usenet? Oh, and I must guarantee that everything is correct.
If this applies also for the visitor visa, this is really not good news.
I don't care that they ask about why I visit, about the person I visit, what is my relationship to that and more personal questions. But it's starting to get a bit too much.
Perhaps it would help is US Gov explicitly mentions that they are looking for and specially what are the red flags that they consider in applicant social media accounts.
I wonder if there is any sort of oversight of the process to ensure that the determination made as to whether to approve or deny is not arbitrary.
While I will grudgingly hand over my social media details, and I have no fear of being linked to terrorism or calls for violence or anything of the sort, I am worried that my anti-Trump posts (I'm an avid follower of American politics despite not being American) and other posts condemning Republican party politics will hurt my chances. Again, I've never called for any violence against the man, but have indeed called him a moron more than a few occasions.
Please do not take HN threads into nationalistic or political flamewar. Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines and following them when posting here? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
TBF, Turkey is cheaper for many people both in terms of transportation costs and the value you get for your money. I doubt it’s a coincidence rnce that the lira has been dropping so much in value (30% last year) that international shopping tours were organized Turkey is also trying to position itself as a transport hub so I’ve noticed a lot more people staying in the country for 1-3 days to see a few of the sights.
Going to the US is too expensive for many who aren’y in neighboring countries. It’s also hard to get around.
Your reply was fine until you edited in that "woke" nonsense to try to make yourself sound clever.
It might just be that YOY growth without a rolling average is always going swing wildly when a country has a lot of negative news cycles in a year and then goes relatively quiet.
The US has been looking pretty bad, pretty consistently, for a long time now.
I don't care about sounding clever mate, especially not to internet strangers. The more obvious answer to me is the wealth of the globe has increased YoY as well, mainly thanks to capitalism, so America isn't the primary destination for opportunity anymore, which is a good thing.
It's interesting how the US implements a policy, and is rightfully scorned for it. Meanwhile Europe continues to do similar things, yet Europe implements similar policies, and no one cares. Politics as usual I guess.
That's not what I'm getting at, I'm not debating Europe vs "Europe". It's when a Europe area country does something, everyone seems to give them a pass. When the US does something similar, it's viewed with a different perspective.
