3 ms·

The headline here does not really seem to reflect the content of the article: >The State Department said earlier the tighter vetting would apply to visa applic

by blhack 9y ago

The headline here does not really seem to reflect the content of the article: >The State Department said earlier the tighter vetting would apply to visa applicants "who have been determined to warrant additional scrutiny in connection with terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities." This sounds like it authorizes them to ask for social media handles (usernames) for up to 5 years into the past. This doesn't mean everybody coming into the country has to turn over all of their social media logins and passwords. Still ridiculous.

reustle 9y ago
> in connection with terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities > Still ridiculous. I mean, at what level does it becomes not ridiculous to have deeper vetting?
- Veratyr 9y ago
  Disclaimer: I'm an Australian in the US on a work visa. I'd consider it "not ridiculous" if the vetting was limited to ensuring: - That my visa application is valid: If I'm coming to work, I'm doing it for a real job and I really do have all the necessary qualifications and my travel plans match my intent. - That I'm likely to leave the US. I think it's fine to ask whether I have ties to my home country or to the US and whether I've broken the terms of another visa. - That I'm not already a criminal. It'd be fine to be asked for a police report. I consider the following ridiculous: - Anything related to potential future terrorism. If I wanted to enter the US to kill people, why on earth would I get a visa when I could just cross the border illegally or use a fake passport? - Compelling disclosure of any information a citizen could deny a police officer who lacked a warrant. Then again, I understand that the US considers visas to be a privilege and I respect its choice to deny them to whoever it wishes. If it decides I'm not good enough, I'm more than happy to take my economic output elsewhere (and I will if they ever ask for details regarding my online presence).
  - graeme 9y ago
    The 9/11 attackers lived in the US on student visas. Some did pilot training in the US. I believe most of the recent European terrorists have been legally in those countries (and for that matter, the domestic right wing terrorists in the US, and the historical left wing terrorists in Europe) I'm not sure how many terrorist attacks are done by fugitives. Some stuff is easier to arrange when you have legal status. Also, cross which border illegally? The Canadian? People who need a visa to enter the US probably need one to enter Canada too.
    - tajen 9y ago
      Most of the European terrorists were even born locally. I really don't get why getting our Fb accounts is so important, given they already have it (or should, if NSA/CIA did the job they were assigned to).

by blhack 9y ago

reustle 9y ago

> in connection with terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities > Still ridiculous. I mean, at what level does it becomes not ridiculous to have deeper vetting?

Veratyr 9y ago
Disclaimer: I'm an Australian in the US on a work visa. I'd consider it "not ridiculous" if the vetting was limited to ensuring: - That my visa application is valid: If I'm coming to work, I'm doing it for a real job and I really do have all the necessary qualifications and my travel plans match my intent. - That I'm likely to leave the US. I think it's fine to ask whether I have ties to my home country or to the US and whether I've broken the terms of another visa. - That I'm not already a criminal. It'd be fine to be asked for a police report. I consider the following ridiculous: - Anything related to potential future terrorism. If I wanted to enter the US to kill people, why on earth would I get a visa when I could just cross the border illegally or use a fake passport? - Compelling disclosure of any information a citizen could deny a police officer who lacked a warrant. Then again, I understand that the US considers visas to be a privilege and I respect its choice to deny them to whoever it wishes. If it decides I'm not good enough, I'm more than happy to take my economic output elsewhere (and I will if they ever ask for details regarding my online presence).
- graeme 9y ago
  The 9/11 attackers lived in the US on student visas. Some did pilot training in the US. I believe most of the recent European terrorists have been legally in those countries (and for that matter, the domestic right wing terrorists in the US, and the historical left wing terrorists in Europe) I'm not sure how many terrorist attacks are done by fugitives. Some stuff is easier to arrange when you have legal status. Also, cross which border illegally? The Canadian? People who need a visa to enter the US probably need one to enter Canada too.
  - tajen 9y ago
    Most of the European terrorists were even born locally. I really don't get why getting our Fb accounts is so important, given they already have it (or should, if NSA/CIA did the job they were assigned to).