4 ms·

This isn't to catch terrorism. Though they'll probably get a few idiot "extremists", this will mostly stop people coming in under false pretenses. It's bizarre

This isn't to catch terrorism. Though they'll probably get a few idiot "extremists", this will mostly stop people coming in under false pretenses. It's bizarre how people don't think ahead to their border crossing and are willing to admit they are going to live with their SO, or work as a nanny -- while under a tourism visa. It'll be very effective at this. Most people aren't going to establish a plausible social media profile after they figure out they're going to the US to live/work/whatever. "Real" spies and terrorists and whatever can obviously afford to setup enough cover. (Though there is the case of a spy getting discovered because she used her real frequent flier number while traveling under aliases.) At best, this might put a chilling effect on Facebook and other things like that, which is probably a net win for humanity.

knz 10y ago
Living with your SO under a tourism visa isn't a crime as long as you leave before your visa expires... And is it the role of CPB to prevent under the table employment? Surely there are better ways to address that issue if it's a concern. Building walls and inspecting social media seems like a political smoke screen for avoiding more effective enforcement measures - requiring farmers/factories/roofing companies to prove their labour is legally allowed to work in the US etc. Or we could acknowledge the reality of immigration (we need workers if we can't afford to pay Americans an adequate wage to pick fields etc).
- jacquesm 10y ago
  As if it is only illegals that are being paid under the table.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    It's not about being _paid_ under the table, it's about entering the country with intent to violate your entry conditions (working without a visa). CBP doesn't have much to say about legal workers not, say, filing taxes.
- iak8god 10y ago
  > Living with your SO under a tourism visa isn't a crime as long as you leave before your visa expires... No, but it is left entirely up to the agent interviewing you for entry to decide whether he thinks you're likely to leave later when your visa is expiring.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  Right, but many times, especially if you're coming from a "worse" country, the agent is not going to believe you're going to return. So people lie about it, and thus get caught out. Yes, it is the role of CBP to make sure you're coming under the right visa. It's no different than making sure you're not coming to stay while on a temporary visa. No whether or not this is important or just silly politics is a different question. Same to the question of is this ethical/right/whatever. But there's zero doubt that this will enable CBP to be more effective. So arguments against it should focus on "yeah, this makes their job easier, but at what cost?" instead of pretending there's zero upside.
  - jensvdh 10y ago
    So you're saying as someone from a "good" European country (Nordic) I basically have to not worry about any of this?
    - MichaelGG 10y ago
      You have a lot less to prove to CBP than someone coming from a broken country. Your incentives to stay in the US are drastically less than someone from, say Mexico. Other countries do the same thing. A US citizen gets a warm welcome into Mexico. A Guatemalan gets hassled. There's still random bad luck - as a Canadian I've been theatened deportation for not cancelling my green card despite not using it or living in the US. I've been detained because a CBP agent decided a trade show was work and I wasn't eligible for a B1. (His first words were "you're going miss your flight, I'll make sure of it".) But most of the time they wave me right by.
ramy_d 10y ago
genuine question then: why do this on citizens then? what are they expecting to gain? are they just casting a wide net to catch dumb extremists?
- Zak 10y ago
  A lot of metadata-oriented mass surveillance centers around who is talking to whom. If someone is identified as potentially relevant, for example, for being involved in publishing leaks, spies might be very interested in filling in as much information as possible about that person's contacts and communication methods.
pkituu 10y ago
You're right that this is not (primarily) about catching suspected criminals or people affiliated with terrorist organizations. I wouldn't be surprised if they had an internal profiling tool that they run similar to https://applymagicsauce.com/ https://applymagicsauce.com/. Kind of similar to what Cambridge Analytica (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-hel...) uses to target political campaigns. You know, the Cambridge Analytica whose board of trustees includes Steve Bannon. So the question to be asking is why does the US government want a psychological profile of every traveller passing through the border?
dave_sullivan 10y ago
> "Real" spies and terrorists and whatever can obviously afford to setup enough cover. > It's bizarre how people don't think ahead to their border crossing and are willing to admit they are going to live with their SO, or work as a nanny -- while under a tourism visa. So we're not catching "real" spies and terrorists; we're catching nannies trying to get paid under the table; do you think maybe we've got bigger fish to fry? This is a bad precedent, and what are we gaining? Nothing.
- 67726e 10y ago
  Rule of Law.
  - voxic11 10y ago
    Sounds more like rule by law.
    - 67726e 10y ago
      Sounds like no nation wants undocumented labor because it is very problematic.
  - andrewflnr 10y ago
    It's so obvious as to hardly bear mentioning, but you can use this to excuse any violation of rights if you want. Sometimes "rule of law" just isn't worth it.
    - 67726e 10y ago
      Sure, but you've offered no argument regarding this particular situation.
- crpatino 10y ago
  The people that voted for Trump get to gain a bunch of thankless, low-pay jobs that will no longer be allocated to illegal aliens. There might be bigger fishes to fry, but given that they never get invited when salmon is on the menu, they are happy to see the sardine cans comming in. And if they cannot or will not take the nanny jobs for themselves, at least they get to mock the uppity mothers that voted for Hillary and now are forced to dump their careers to take care of their own children.

knz 10y ago

Living with your SO under a tourism visa isn't a crime as long as you leave before your visa expires... And is it the role of CPB to prevent under the table employment? Surely there are better ways to address that issue if it's a concern. Building walls and inspecting social media seems like a political smoke screen for avoiding more effective enforcement measures - requiring farmers/factories/roofing companies to prove their labour is legally allowed to work in the US etc. Or we could acknowledge the reality of immigration (we need workers if we can't afford to pay Americans an adequate wage to pick fields etc).

jacquesm 10y ago
As if it is only illegals that are being paid under the table.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  It's not about being _paid_ under the table, it's about entering the country with intent to violate your entry conditions (working without a visa). CBP doesn't have much to say about legal workers not, say, filing taxes.
iak8god 10y ago
> Living with your SO under a tourism visa isn't a crime as long as you leave before your visa expires... No, but it is left entirely up to the agent interviewing you for entry to decide whether he thinks you're likely to leave later when your visa is expiring.
MichaelGG 10y ago
Right, but many times, especially if you're coming from a "worse" country, the agent is not going to believe you're going to return. So people lie about it, and thus get caught out. Yes, it is the role of CBP to make sure you're coming under the right visa. It's no different than making sure you're not coming to stay while on a temporary visa. No whether or not this is important or just silly politics is a different question. Same to the question of is this ethical/right/whatever. But there's zero doubt that this will enable CBP to be more effective. So arguments against it should focus on "yeah, this makes their job easier, but at what cost?" instead of pretending there's zero upside.
- jensvdh 10y ago
  So you're saying as someone from a "good" European country (Nordic) I basically have to not worry about any of this?
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    You have a lot less to prove to CBP than someone coming from a broken country. Your incentives to stay in the US are drastically less than someone from, say Mexico. Other countries do the same thing. A US citizen gets a warm welcome into Mexico. A Guatemalan gets hassled. There's still random bad luck - as a Canadian I've been theatened deportation for not cancelling my green card despite not using it or living in the US. I've been detained because a CBP agent decided a trade show was work and I wasn't eligible for a B1. (His first words were "you're going miss your flight, I'll make sure of it".) But most of the time they wave me right by.

ramy_d 10y ago

genuine question then: why do this on citizens then? what are they expecting to gain? are they just casting a wide net to catch dumb extremists?

Zak 10y ago
A lot of metadata-oriented mass surveillance centers around who is talking to whom. If someone is identified as potentially relevant, for example, for being involved in publishing leaks, spies might be very interested in filling in as much information as possible about that person's contacts and communication methods.

pkituu 10y ago

You're right that this is not (primarily) about catching suspected criminals or people affiliated with terrorist organizations. I wouldn't be surprised if they had an internal profiling tool that they run similar to https://applymagicsauce.com/ https://applymagicsauce.com/. Kind of similar to what Cambridge Analytica (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-hel...) uses to target political campaigns. You know, the Cambridge Analytica whose board of trustees includes Steve Bannon. So the question to be asking is why does the US government want a psychological profile of every traveller passing through the border?

dave_sullivan 10y ago

> "Real" spies and terrorists and whatever can obviously afford to setup enough cover. > It's bizarre how people don't think ahead to their border crossing and are willing to admit they are going to live with their SO, or work as a nanny -- while under a tourism visa. So we're not catching "real" spies and terrorists; we're catching nannies trying to get paid under the table; do you think maybe we've got bigger fish to fry? This is a bad precedent, and what are we gaining? Nothing.

67726e 10y ago
Rule of Law.
- voxic11 10y ago
  Sounds more like rule by law.
  - 67726e 10y ago
    Sounds like no nation wants undocumented labor because it is very problematic.
- andrewflnr 10y ago
  It's so obvious as to hardly bear mentioning, but you can use this to excuse any violation of rights if you want. Sometimes "rule of law" just isn't worth it.
  - 67726e 10y ago
    Sure, but you've offered no argument regarding this particular situation.
crpatino 10y ago
The people that voted for Trump get to gain a bunch of thankless, low-pay jobs that will no longer be allocated to illegal aliens. There might be bigger fishes to fry, but given that they never get invited when salmon is on the menu, they are happy to see the sardine cans comming in. And if they cannot or will not take the nanny jobs for themselves, at least they get to mock the uppity mothers that voted for Hillary and now are forced to dump their careers to take care of their own children.