5 ms·

Proposal to add optional social media account fields to US Customs arrival forms

189 points by antimora 10y ago

SuperPaintMan 10y ago
>It will be an optional data field to request social media identifiers to be used for vetting purposes, as well as applicant contact information. Collecting social media data will enhance the existing investigative process and provide DHS greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity and connections by providing an additional tool set which analysts and investigators may use to better analyze and investigate the case. >optional My question is: How is this at the #1 spot with 8 votes?
- jonnybgood 10y ago
  Yes, the title is misleading.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- vidarh 10y ago
  "Why did you not fill in this field Mr. Smith?" "Well, it's optional, I didn't think..." "So what do you have to hide, Mr. Smith? Did you perhaps think we will find something illegal?" When something is "optional" but it's there so that if provided the DHS can get visibility to "possible nefarious activity and connections", how likely is it that they will start seeing failure to provide it as a sign that you need to be investigated more closely? > My question is: How is this at the #1 spot with 8 votes? Because Asia is going to bed and it's early Sunday morning in Europe, and it was submitted a short while ago, and hence it has little competition that hasn't started "aging out".
  - jonnybgood 10y ago
    > how likely is it that they will start seeing failure to provide it as a sign that you need to be investigated more closely? The rationale that I've gathered from this is that they're going to investigate you anyways by trying to find your social media profiles, etc. This is a long process, so to make the process quicker you can opt-in your social media handles. In other words, it's already happening, but has a lot of inconveniences. Not saying this is right or wrong, but it's just from what I've gathered.
    - NhanH 10y ago
      That rationale is suspiciously close to "FB should just turned over all and any data of everyone to the US government". In certain cases with regard to the government, inconvenience is a feature, not a bug.
      - xg15 10y ago
        I disagree with that sentiment. As a citizen, I'd like the government to work on my behalf as efficiently as possible and to not work at all otherwise. So I think the real issue is that there is almost no control or transparency regarding what agencies like FBI or DHS do with the data. This should change. Once there is actual oversight (and no rubber-stamp court) I'll give them the permitted data as efficiently as possible. Going the other way - allowing them full and uncontrolled access provided they just jump through a few arbitrary hoops to get the data - seems to me would only muddy the waters and increase costs without providing any actual advantage to the citizens.
        NhanH 10y ago
        Control, transparency and check-and-balance are all inconveniences though. Having to ask a judge for warrant is definitely inconvenient, same as proving beyond reasonable doubt (instead of just, let's say probable doubt). I didn't say that inefficiency should be the goal for the government. However, for certain scenarios, that's the trade off we have to make. > Going the other way - allowing them full and uncontrolled access provided they just jump through a few arbitrary hoops to get the data Fortunately, most of the time those "hoops" involves a human in it, hopefully being able to stop bad things from happening. Again, there is no silver bullet, and shitty paper stamping process won't be helping either.
- madaxe_again 10y ago
  I take it you're not familiar with how "optional" works. You can optionally not fill it in. They can optionally deny you entry. My wife's grandfather was asked to volunteer for a construction project in siberia. He declined. They drafted him, then sent him anyway - and still called him a volunteer. That was optional too.
denzell 10y ago
Sure, they can have the accounts i don't use.
- vidarh 10y ago
  That'd presumably be more suspicious. Which makes me think that it'll end up leading to a lot of hassle for a lot of asocial people. E.g. my Facebook account only gets logged into 1-2 times a year. Would they believe it's my real one, or suspect I was doing what you're suggesting.
- unicornporn 10y ago
  "Looking at this account I can see that there's no content. Do you have other accounts that you use? Are you purposely misleading me Mr. Smith?"
  - zdkl 10y ago
    Step 2: In order to assist immigration procedures, social networks will now be required to verify the identity tied to the account you're registering. But telling the immigration official still is optional, since we already know who you are, what you buy and what por- uhm, websites, you like. (discretely fist-bumps Goomazbook) Welcome to this great nation!
vidarh 10y ago
It's gotten to the point where the authoritarian feel of US immigrations is actively deterring me from wanting to visit. I wonder if anyone has done any research on whether/how much this is measurably affecting the US economy.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- gnu8 10y ago
  It has zero measurable impact because anyone who counts will make sure their social media profile is either sterile or doesn't exist. Only an idiot would be a member of ISIS or Al Queda on Facebook.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    I wonder if not filling in anything won't be counted against the person, with the justification that they have less info to make an evaluation.
    - briandear 10y ago
      Not really. Basically a social profile can help clear a person but a lack of one wouldn't condemn a person. There's precedent in the Single Scope Background check process for Top Secret clearances: a lack of data just means more weight will be given to other factors. You aren't punished for a lack of data. This is common when people might not yet have a credit history. However, this policy is entirely dumb because social media profiles will be created specifically for travelers to be 'clean.'
      - tribby 10y ago
        I agree this is a likely practical outcome, but the datapoint itself is troubling; I can just as easily imagine a binary interpretation of social/antisocial.
      - type0 10y ago
jonnybgood 10y ago
The proposed change is optional, not required. The title is misleading.
- adamnemecek 10y ago
  Odds are they are just testing the waters.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  So, are you saying they aren't using the information for anything? Why are they asking for it then? Or are you saying that it's optional, but supplying the information might have benefits, so, it's optional only in the sense that entering the US is optional?
  - jonnybgood 10y ago
    You could just read it. I'm only repeating what it states.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
      You are familiar with the concept of a lie?
- vacri 10y ago
  From the same people who brought you the question: are you currently a terrorist or involved in genocide? They're not exactly the sharpest pencils in the box. Interestingly, if you're a Nazi death camp survivor, you have to answer 'yes' to that question: "Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were you involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?" Awesome, really. Either force those poor souls to lie, or force them to be questioned on that horror from their past...
dotandimet 10y ago
If asked to fill in details of online presence, I think that an lmgtfy link would be justified.
jackjeff 10y ago
Most people probably don't have the skills to answer that question. Heck. Without going online I can't even remember my Facebook ID.
- codecamper 10y ago
  Good point! Actually finding someone on FB has always been very difficult!
- type0 10y ago
  That's okay. Probably you will just be able to provide your fb login credentials, it's easy-peazy. (turn on your sarcasm detection mechanism if you are reading this)
pbreit 10y ago
"It will be an optional data field to request social media identifiers"
electic 10y ago
This is a very expensive change for not a lot of value. Truly nefarious folks will put in a fake handle to instill confidence during background checks. The only folks who'll pay are law abiding people via their loss of privacy....and well: > Form: Estimated Annual Cost to Public: $26,325,300. > Website: Estimated Annual Cost to the Public: $265,020,000. What a waste.
- jonnybgood 10y ago
  > The only folks who'll pay are law abiding citizens via their loss of privacy. This is not for citizens, only aliens.
  - NhanH 10y ago
    The only folks who'll pay are law abiding human via their loss of privacy. Better for you?
    - jonnybgood 10y ago
      I'm only repeating what it states. The forms that this affects are not for US citizens. So, US citizens are not losing any privacy.
      - NhanH 10y ago
        And I'm not even mentioning "US" in my statement. It's merely one that describe an effect of the proposal. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Edit: actually, yes it does affect US citizen. Do you know who is likely to have connections on social networks with US citizens? Non-US citizens coming or leaving the US. Kind of shocking to think about huh.
        jonnybgood 10y ago
        The person I was replying to was referring to citizens. I wasn't making a judgment, only repeating the facts of the proposal.
dmichulke 10y ago
The usual way to handle these scary "features" is to keep them optional only until the next terrorist attack. This reduces public backlash while you can still start implementing it.
20andup 10y ago
Big brother for aliens
NhanH 10y ago
> "Current Actions: This submission is being made to extend the expiration date with a change to the information collected as a result of adding a question about social media to ESTA and to Form I-94W, as described in the Abstract section of this document. There are no changes to the burden hours or to the information collected on Form I-94, or the I-94 Web site." I can't quite understand what it mean to "extend the expiration date ...". Shouldn't it be "extend the collection process" or something similar ?
antimora 10y ago
Here is a link to "Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Arrival and Departure Record: (Forms I-94 and I-94W)" https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=commentDueDate&po=0&D=USCBP-2007-0102 https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=... Which was originally submitted by quickben
paganel 10y ago
So is it ok if I provide my pornhub account?
dlitz 10y ago
It'll be great precedent for when Iran, China, Russia, etc. want to do the same thing.
- angry_octet 10y ago
  When you get a Chinese visa you will be reviewed for, e.g., Falun Gong activity.
smegel 10y ago
So not having Facebook is now officially suspicious?
- type0 10y ago
  Welcome to reality. It has been for quite some time.
- tunap 10y ago
  Fecebook kicked me off for being too old. I could probably find my MySpace profile riddled with mis-information and my only true friend, Tom, floating around somewhere(on a dark market site[0]). I hope this would help default my identity from 'guilty until proven otherwise' to 'not-a-terrorist' status. [0] https://www.wired.com/2016/05/hack-brief-old-myspace-account-just-came-back-haunt/ https://www.wired.com/2016/05/hack-brief-old-myspace-account...
codecamper 10y ago
I still need to file back taxes & so don't feel like reading yet another document from the government. Can someone summarize what this says? Will people who don't use social media have to go to the back room for a full cavity search?
- draaglom 10y ago
  The relevant section: DHS proposes to add the following question to ESTA and to Form I-94W: “Please enter information associated with your online presence—Provider/Platform—Social media identifier.” It will be an optional data field to request social media identifiers to be used for vetting purposes, as well as applicant contact information. Collecting social media data will enhance the existing investigative process and provide DHS greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity and connections by providing an additional tool set which analysts and investigators may use to better analyze and investigate the case.
  - ak39 10y ago
    Nefarious? The irony is staggering.
  - codecamper 10y ago
    That's pretty crazy. The only way they could deal with that much data would be some sort of agreement between the US & Facebook for information sharing. Time to create another social media network.
forgottenacc56 10y ago
What's left? Government demands complete access to every aspect of your life in every way. No, wait, that's what they already have.
- 20andup 10y ago
  It is getting to the point that I am seriously contemplating of deleting all my social media presence. I got nothing to hide, but I also don't want any stranger snooping in my privacy.
agumonkey 10y ago
At which point will they order you to fill that social media platform with actual events so they know it's really you ?
heisenbit 10y ago
Facebook and Twitter are obviously social media platforms. But what else is to counted there? Gmail? Path? Github? Hacker News? Wikipedia? What about my professional society ids? And what about medical social platforms? Does anyone understand where the line is?
viraptor 10y ago
Something to keep in mind: social networking sites have been already checked, even without explicitly listing the ids/links. From 2012: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/31/british-tourists-tweets-get-them-denied-entry-to-the-u-s/ http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/31/british-tourists-tweets-... Devil's advocate - are they already checking everyone and this just actually saves them the time?
type0 10y ago
Will any of you provide your HN account information?
moron4hire 10y ago
I think this is a good thing. Most people are very stupid about their online behavior. Or rather, they try to pretend they are someone else "IRL", because in real life they know people are looking but online they think they are anonymous. This has been demonstrated several times that this is where social media harassment comes from. Anyone who is an asshole online is an asshole in person, they just know better to hide it when people can see their face. We should be working to make it clear to people that--just because you have a cat photo for an avatar--doesn't mean you are off the hook for acting like a decent human being. We print out home address on official forums, why not online addresses? Make that presence "real".
sime2009 10y ago
Wouldn't it be just as effective and faster for everyone to add a simple yes/no question to the form like: "The primary purpose of this trip is terrorism? Yes [] No []" Then the DHS can do their work and there is no further loss of privacy for visitors.
- Ressuder 10y ago
  You're joking, but the Visa application does ask this already: "Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?”
  - dTal 10y ago
    "Why yes, as a matter of fact the wife and I were planning to do a spot of mass shooting on our way through, we're really after the full experience you know... say, is there a problem?"
suryacom 10y ago
Such a waste of USCIS time. This should have come from AILA (Immigration Lawyers); who has vested interest keeping USCIS busy on all wrong priorities.

189 points by antimora 10y ago

>It will be an optional data field to request social media identifiers to be used for vetting purposes, as well as applicant contact information. Collecting social media data will enhance the existing investigative process and provide DHS greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity and connections by providing an additional tool set which analysts and investigators may use to better analyze and investigate the case. >optional My question is: How is this at the #1 spot with 8 votes?

jonnybgood 10y ago
Yes, the title is misleading.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
vidarh 10y ago
"Why did you not fill in this field Mr. Smith?" "Well, it's optional, I didn't think..." "So what do you have to hide, Mr. Smith? Did you perhaps think we will find something illegal?" When something is "optional" but it's there so that if provided the DHS can get visibility to "possible nefarious activity and connections", how likely is it that they will start seeing failure to provide it as a sign that you need to be investigated more closely? > My question is: How is this at the #1 spot with 8 votes? Because Asia is going to bed and it's early Sunday morning in Europe, and it was submitted a short while ago, and hence it has little competition that hasn't started "aging out".
- jonnybgood 10y ago
  > how likely is it that they will start seeing failure to provide it as a sign that you need to be investigated more closely? The rationale that I've gathered from this is that they're going to investigate you anyways by trying to find your social media profiles, etc. This is a long process, so to make the process quicker you can opt-in your social media handles. In other words, it's already happening, but has a lot of inconveniences. Not saying this is right or wrong, but it's just from what I've gathered.
  - NhanH 10y ago
    That rationale is suspiciously close to "FB should just turned over all and any data of everyone to the US government". In certain cases with regard to the government, inconvenience is a feature, not a bug.
    - xg15 10y ago
      I disagree with that sentiment. As a citizen, I'd like the government to work on my behalf as efficiently as possible and to not work at all otherwise. So I think the real issue is that there is almost no control or transparency regarding what agencies like FBI or DHS do with the data. This should change. Once there is actual oversight (and no rubber-stamp court) I'll give them the permitted data as efficiently as possible. Going the other way - allowing them full and uncontrolled access provided they just jump through a few arbitrary hoops to get the data - seems to me would only muddy the waters and increase costs without providing any actual advantage to the citizens.
      - NhanH 10y ago
        Control, transparency and check-and-balance are all inconveniences though. Having to ask a judge for warrant is definitely inconvenient, same as proving beyond reasonable doubt (instead of just, let's say probable doubt). I didn't say that inefficiency should be the goal for the government. However, for certain scenarios, that's the trade off we have to make. > Going the other way - allowing them full and uncontrolled access provided they just jump through a few arbitrary hoops to get the data Fortunately, most of the time those "hoops" involves a human in it, hopefully being able to stop bad things from happening. Again, there is no silver bullet, and shitty paper stamping process won't be helping either.
madaxe_again 10y ago
I take it you're not familiar with how "optional" works. You can optionally not fill it in. They can optionally deny you entry. My wife's grandfather was asked to volunteer for a construction project in siberia. He declined. They drafted him, then sent him anyway - and still called him a volunteer. That was optional too.

denzell 10y ago

Sure, they can have the accounts i don't use.

vidarh 10y ago
That'd presumably be more suspicious. Which makes me think that it'll end up leading to a lot of hassle for a lot of asocial people. E.g. my Facebook account only gets logged into 1-2 times a year. Would they believe it's my real one, or suspect I was doing what you're suggesting.
unicornporn 10y ago
"Looking at this account I can see that there's no content. Do you have other accounts that you use? Are you purposely misleading me Mr. Smith?"
- zdkl 10y ago
  Step 2: In order to assist immigration procedures, social networks will now be required to verify the identity tied to the account you're registering. But telling the immigration official still is optional, since we already know who you are, what you buy and what por- uhm, websites, you like. (discretely fist-bumps Goomazbook) Welcome to this great nation!

vidarh 10y ago

It's gotten to the point where the authoritarian feel of US immigrations is actively deterring me from wanting to visit. I wonder if anyone has done any research on whether/how much this is measurably affecting the US economy.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gnu8 10y ago
It has zero measurable impact because anyone who counts will make sure their social media profile is either sterile or doesn't exist. Only an idiot would be a member of ISIS or Al Queda on Facebook.
- icebraining 10y ago
  I wonder if not filling in anything won't be counted against the person, with the justification that they have less info to make an evaluation.
  - briandear 10y ago
    Not really. Basically a social profile can help clear a person but a lack of one wouldn't condemn a person. There's precedent in the Single Scope Background check process for Top Secret clearances: a lack of data just means more weight will be given to other factors. You aren't punished for a lack of data. This is common when people might not yet have a credit history. However, this policy is entirely dumb because social media profiles will be created specifically for travelers to be 'clean.'
    - tribby 10y ago
      I agree this is a likely practical outcome, but the datapoint itself is troubling; I can just as easily imagine a binary interpretation of social/antisocial.
    - type0 10y ago

jonnybgood 10y ago

The proposed change is optional, not required. The title is misleading.

adamnemecek 10y ago
Odds are they are just testing the waters.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
So, are you saying they aren't using the information for anything? Why are they asking for it then? Or are you saying that it's optional, but supplying the information might have benefits, so, it's optional only in the sense that entering the US is optional?
- jonnybgood 10y ago
  You could just read it. I'm only repeating what it states.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
    You are familiar with the concept of a lie?
vacri 10y ago
From the same people who brought you the question: are you currently a terrorist or involved in genocide? They're not exactly the sharpest pencils in the box. Interestingly, if you're a Nazi death camp survivor, you have to answer 'yes' to that question: "Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were you involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?" Awesome, really. Either force those poor souls to lie, or force them to be questioned on that horror from their past...

dotandimet 10y ago

If asked to fill in details of online presence, I think that an lmgtfy link would be justified.

jackjeff 10y ago

Most people probably don't have the skills to answer that question. Heck. Without going online I can't even remember my Facebook ID.

codecamper 10y ago
Good point! Actually finding someone on FB has always been very difficult!
type0 10y ago
That's okay. Probably you will just be able to provide your fb login credentials, it's easy-peazy. (turn on your sarcasm detection mechanism if you are reading this)

pbreit 10y ago

"It will be an optional data field to request social media identifiers"

electic 10y ago

This is a very expensive change for not a lot of value. Truly nefarious folks will put in a fake handle to instill confidence during background checks. The only folks who'll pay are law abiding people via their loss of privacy....and well: > Form: Estimated Annual Cost to Public: $26,325,300. > Website: Estimated Annual Cost to the Public: $265,020,000. What a waste.

jonnybgood 10y ago
> The only folks who'll pay are law abiding citizens via their loss of privacy. This is not for citizens, only aliens.
- NhanH 10y ago
  The only folks who'll pay are law abiding human via their loss of privacy. Better for you?
  - jonnybgood 10y ago
    I'm only repeating what it states. The forms that this affects are not for US citizens. So, US citizens are not losing any privacy.
    - NhanH 10y ago
      And I'm not even mentioning "US" in my statement. It's merely one that describe an effect of the proposal. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Edit: actually, yes it does affect US citizen. Do you know who is likely to have connections on social networks with US citizens? Non-US citizens coming or leaving the US. Kind of shocking to think about huh.
      - jonnybgood 10y ago
        The person I was replying to was referring to citizens. I wasn't making a judgment, only repeating the facts of the proposal.

dmichulke 10y ago

The usual way to handle these scary "features" is to keep them optional only until the next terrorist attack. This reduces public backlash while you can still start implementing it.

20andup 10y ago

Big brother for aliens

NhanH 10y ago

> "Current Actions: This submission is being made to extend the expiration date with a change to the information collected as a result of adding a question about social media to ESTA and to Form I-94W, as described in the Abstract section of this document. There are no changes to the burden hours or to the information collected on Form I-94, or the I-94 Web site." I can't quite understand what it mean to "extend the expiration date ...". Shouldn't it be "extend the collection process" or something similar ?

antimora 10y ago

Here is a link to "Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Arrival and Departure Record: (Forms I-94 and I-94W)" https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=commentDueDate&po=0&D=USCBP-2007-0102 https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=... Which was originally submitted by quickben

paganel 10y ago

So is it ok if I provide my pornhub account?

dlitz 10y ago

It'll be great precedent for when Iran, China, Russia, etc. want to do the same thing.

angry_octet 10y ago
When you get a Chinese visa you will be reviewed for, e.g., Falun Gong activity.

smegel 10y ago

So not having Facebook is now officially suspicious?

type0 10y ago
Welcome to reality. It has been for quite some time.
tunap 10y ago
Fecebook kicked me off for being too old. I could probably find my MySpace profile riddled with mis-information and my only true friend, Tom, floating around somewhere(on a dark market site[0]). I hope this would help default my identity from 'guilty until proven otherwise' to 'not-a-terrorist' status. [0] https://www.wired.com/2016/05/hack-brief-old-myspace-account-just-came-back-haunt/ https://www.wired.com/2016/05/hack-brief-old-myspace-account...

codecamper 10y ago

I still need to file back taxes & so don't feel like reading yet another document from the government. Can someone summarize what this says? Will people who don't use social media have to go to the back room for a full cavity search?

draaglom 10y ago
The relevant section: DHS proposes to add the following question to ESTA and to Form I-94W: “Please enter information associated with your online presence—Provider/Platform—Social media identifier.” It will be an optional data field to request social media identifiers to be used for vetting purposes, as well as applicant contact information. Collecting social media data will enhance the existing investigative process and provide DHS greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity and connections by providing an additional tool set which analysts and investigators may use to better analyze and investigate the case.
- ak39 10y ago
  Nefarious? The irony is staggering.
- codecamper 10y ago
  That's pretty crazy. The only way they could deal with that much data would be some sort of agreement between the US & Facebook for information sharing. Time to create another social media network.

forgottenacc56 10y ago

What's left? Government demands complete access to every aspect of your life in every way. No, wait, that's what they already have.

20andup 10y ago
It is getting to the point that I am seriously contemplating of deleting all my social media presence. I got nothing to hide, but I also don't want any stranger snooping in my privacy.

agumonkey 10y ago

At which point will they order you to fill that social media platform with actual events so they know it's really you ?

heisenbit 10y ago

Facebook and Twitter are obviously social media platforms. But what else is to counted there? Gmail? Path? Github? Hacker News? Wikipedia? What about my professional society ids? And what about medical social platforms? Does anyone understand where the line is?

viraptor 10y ago

Something to keep in mind: social networking sites have been already checked, even without explicitly listing the ids/links. From 2012: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/31/british-tourists-tweets-get-them-denied-entry-to-the-u-s/ http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/31/british-tourists-tweets-... Devil's advocate - are they already checking everyone and this just actually saves them the time?

type0 10y ago

Will any of you provide your HN account information?

moron4hire 10y ago

I think this is a good thing. Most people are very stupid about their online behavior. Or rather, they try to pretend they are someone else "IRL", because in real life they know people are looking but online they think they are anonymous. This has been demonstrated several times that this is where social media harassment comes from. Anyone who is an asshole online is an asshole in person, they just know better to hide it when people can see their face. We should be working to make it clear to people that--just because you have a cat photo for an avatar--doesn't mean you are off the hook for acting like a decent human being. We print out home address on official forums, why not online addresses? Make that presence "real".

sime2009 10y ago

Wouldn't it be just as effective and faster for everyone to add a simple yes/no question to the form like: "The primary purpose of this trip is terrorism? Yes [] No []" Then the DHS can do their work and there is no further loss of privacy for visitors.

Ressuder 10y ago
You're joking, but the Visa application does ask this already: "Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?”
- dTal 10y ago
  "Why yes, as a matter of fact the wife and I were planning to do a spot of mass shooting on our way through, we're really after the full experience you know... say, is there a problem?"

suryacom 10y ago

Such a waste of USCIS time. This should have come from AILA (Immigration Lawyers); who has vested interest keeping USCIS busy on all wrong priorities.