3 ms·

I literally could not fill this out without perjuring myself. They say you need to list even unknown/closed/deleted accounts for the last five years. I don't kn

I literally could not fill this out without perjuring myself. They say you need to list even unknown/closed/deleted accounts for the last five years. I don't know them all. This either feels like an out of touch attempt by an older generation who doesn't understand social media (only uses Facebook, etc), or a huge honey trap tricking people into inadvertently "lying" to the USG. They can then use these mistakes to then revoke anyone's status after the fact at a whim (inc. for political reasons). It reminds me of the pre-ACA health insurance forms, they were designed as huge "gotchas" so they could revoke as needed ("undisclosed pre-existing conditions"). This has that exact same feeling. Also I wonder if a low/no social media presence will be held against you? I'm assuming it will.

batbomb 7y ago
For my fiancée, she deleted her facebook a long time ago, and she never paid attention to the username. We just made a best attempt at guessing the “user name”
- dehrmann 7y ago
  Facebook didn't always have vanity names (and I'm not sure if you get them by default), so there's always an out. I do feel a little for my relatives because I've claimed my last name on a decent number of platforms.
astronautjones 7y ago
> a huge honey trap to get people to even unintentionally "lie" so the USG can revoke anyone who enters the country's status at any time for any reason (super dangerous). of course, this is inarguably the case. they are also attempting to change the deportation rules for temporary residents to where you have to prove you haven't left the country in two years (which they can always claim is not proved to their level of acceptability). dark times.
- morpheuskafka 7y ago
  That's even more ridiculous given the level of surveillance on the outbound side they have these days. There's no way someone could leave the country and then re-enter without CBP knowing.
  - qaq 7y ago
    ? you can just walk to mexico in San Diego there is no control on US side.
    - novok 7y ago
      Mexico probably talks to the usa in that case
    - morpheuskafka 7y ago
      There are cameras and ALPR readers. And there is data sharing with the Mexican federal police as well.
  - mycall 7y ago
    Submarines?
nerdponx 7y ago
This seems like the immigration equivalent of literacy tests and voter ID laws.
rhizome 7y ago
This either feels like an out of touch attempt by an older generation who doesn't understand social media (only uses Facebook, etc), or a huge honey trap tricking people into inadvertently "lying" to the USG. When we look at world history, how often do you see governments and their agencies pining for a connection to the people they serve, vs. ascribing to themselves the power to arbitrarily enforce life-ruining rules?
gruez 7y ago
>a huge honey trap tricking people into inadvertently "lying" to the USG. They can then use these mistakes to then revoke anyone's status after the fact at a whim (inc. for political reasons). Doesn't the USG have to prove that you were lying in court? Or can they cite that your information is incorrect and immediately deport you?
- Someone1234 7y ago
  An immigration court isn't a real court. It is an executive "court" with appointed judges (essentially employees) and no judicial oversight. If you think of the three branches of government, immigration proceedings are squarely under the executive, the same branch trying to deport people.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Not true. Immigration determinations are appealable, with certain limitations, to the circuit courts of appeal.
    - Someone1234 7y ago
      How does that make what I said "not true?" What I said is a well established fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Office_for_Immigration_Review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Office_for_Immigrati... You can, under limited circumstances, appeal your case to a real court, but the primary court that most people being deported deal with is in the executive branch meaning the executive branch conducts a full deportation from inception to execution in almost all cases.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        You stated there was “no judicial oversight.” The possibility of appeal to an Article III court is “judicial oversight.”
- rayiner 7y ago
  The standard require both willfulness and materiality. Forgetting to list an account wouldn’t count. Deliberately omitting an account that, had it been timely revealed, wouldn’t likely have changed the decision also won’t count.
mindslight 7y ago
Erm, it's always possible to fill something out without perjuring yourself - simply put "multiple/unknown" in the username box. Now what they do based on that answer is another matter. But as you point out, not having a presence can count against you too, if it is a statistical outlier. It'll be interesting if this helps push people towards using non-corporate social media. If you're only publishing stuff to your friends, there is nothing to check without the corporate backdoor.
sgjohnson 7y ago
>I literally could not fill this out without perjuring myself. Same. Thankfully both countries that I'm a national of are in ESTA program. On ESTA forms Social Media is an optional field.
- sgjohnson 7y ago
  Actually, 18 USC § 1621 > (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; If you don't remember the handles, they have to prove that you didn't believe that you made a true declaration. Maybe putting a note of "Various other accounts on various platforms I cannot recall the usernames of" would address that? Not a lawyer. That statute conveniently lets you forget things, just not blatantly lie. Had a twitter account a year ago that you forgot about? You could forget about it. Tweeted on it yesterday? Not so much. It's an impossible case to prove, as the bar for perjury if not under oath is much higher. They have to prove that you didn't believe the stated information to be true.

batbomb 7y ago

For my fiancée, she deleted her facebook a long time ago, and she never paid attention to the username. We just made a best attempt at guessing the “user name”

dehrmann 7y ago
Facebook didn't always have vanity names (and I'm not sure if you get them by default), so there's always an out. I do feel a little for my relatives because I've claimed my last name on a decent number of platforms.

astronautjones 7y ago

> a huge honey trap to get people to even unintentionally "lie" so the USG can revoke anyone who enters the country's status at any time for any reason (super dangerous). of course, this is inarguably the case. they are also attempting to change the deportation rules for temporary residents to where you have to prove you haven't left the country in two years (which they can always claim is not proved to their level of acceptability). dark times.

morpheuskafka 7y ago
That's even more ridiculous given the level of surveillance on the outbound side they have these days. There's no way someone could leave the country and then re-enter without CBP knowing.
- qaq 7y ago
  ? you can just walk to mexico in San Diego there is no control on US side.
  - novok 7y ago
    Mexico probably talks to the usa in that case
  - morpheuskafka 7y ago
    There are cameras and ALPR readers. And there is data sharing with the Mexican federal police as well.
- mycall 7y ago
  Submarines?

nerdponx 7y ago

This seems like the immigration equivalent of literacy tests and voter ID laws.

rhizome 7y ago

This either feels like an out of touch attempt by an older generation who doesn't understand social media (only uses Facebook, etc), or a huge honey trap tricking people into inadvertently "lying" to the USG. When we look at world history, how often do you see governments and their agencies pining for a connection to the people they serve, vs. ascribing to themselves the power to arbitrarily enforce life-ruining rules?

gruez 7y ago

>a huge honey trap tricking people into inadvertently "lying" to the USG. They can then use these mistakes to then revoke anyone's status after the fact at a whim (inc. for political reasons). Doesn't the USG have to prove that you were lying in court? Or can they cite that your information is incorrect and immediately deport you?

Someone1234 7y ago
An immigration court isn't a real court. It is an executive "court" with appointed judges (essentially employees) and no judicial oversight. If you think of the three branches of government, immigration proceedings are squarely under the executive, the same branch trying to deport people.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Not true. Immigration determinations are appealable, with certain limitations, to the circuit courts of appeal.
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    How does that make what I said "not true?" What I said is a well established fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Office_for_Immigration_Review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Office_for_Immigrati... You can, under limited circumstances, appeal your case to a real court, but the primary court that most people being deported deal with is in the executive branch meaning the executive branch conducts a full deportation from inception to execution in almost all cases.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      You stated there was “no judicial oversight.” The possibility of appeal to an Article III court is “judicial oversight.”
rayiner 7y ago
The standard require both willfulness and materiality. Forgetting to list an account wouldn’t count. Deliberately omitting an account that, had it been timely revealed, wouldn’t likely have changed the decision also won’t count.

mindslight 7y ago

Erm, it's always possible to fill something out without perjuring yourself - simply put "multiple/unknown" in the username box. Now what they do based on that answer is another matter. But as you point out, not having a presence can count against you too, if it is a statistical outlier. It'll be interesting if this helps push people towards using non-corporate social media. If you're only publishing stuff to your friends, there is nothing to check without the corporate backdoor.

sgjohnson 7y ago

>I literally could not fill this out without perjuring myself. Same. Thankfully both countries that I'm a national of are in ESTA program. On ESTA forms Social Media is an optional field.

sgjohnson 7y ago
Actually, 18 USC § 1621 > (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; If you don't remember the handles, they have to prove that you didn't believe that you made a true declaration. Maybe putting a note of "Various other accounts on various platforms I cannot recall the usernames of" would address that? Not a lawyer. That statute conveniently lets you forget things, just not blatantly lie. Had a twitter account a year ago that you forgot about? You could forget about it. Tweeted on it yesterday? Not so much. It's an impossible case to prove, as the bar for perjury if not under oath is much higher. They have to prove that you didn't believe the stated information to be true.