5 ms·

Ah, the "are you a terrorist" section of the U.S. visa application is hilarious. I was honestly laughing out loud at some of the questions, imagining a sincere

Ah, the "are you a terrorist" section of the U.S. visa application is hilarious. I was honestly laughing out loud at some of the questions, imagining a sincere terrorist having their plan foiled by their strict moral code which requires them to lay out in detail their plan to topple the government :)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ArnoVW 4y ago
I've always understood that those questions are just a legal construct to be able to get you out of the country in case of issues. No need to prosecute for expulsion if there were lies on the immigration form; it becomes just an administrative matter.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dilznoofus 4y ago
  I mean, yeah. It's like gun laws that prohibit having a joint whilst commit armed robbery or whatever - it's not actually trying to stop the behavior, merely empower the prosecutor after the fact. But, hey, there might be a true believer on the T-side! God says you're not supposed to lie, so it's a real Catch-22 - 'Render unto Caesar the evidence he deserves.'
  - notch656c 4y ago
    It's my understanding that same law about the joint still applies just for having an otherwise lawful firearm in the safe doing nothing. Disclaimer: not legal advice, for entertainment value only.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      You're correct. In fact, there doesn't need to be a joint at all - you become a prohibited person by virtue of being "an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance". Note that, since this is a federal law, it doesn't matter if it's legal on state level. There's already precedent that having a state medical marijuana card already makes one ineligible, and using as an ID when trying to purchase a firearm is grounds for automatic denial by the seller. Hawaii, which requires all firearms to be registered, went even further, proactively cross-referencing their gun registry with the medical marijuana one (https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/surrender-your-guns-police-tell-hawaiian-medical-marijuana-patients https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/surrender-your-guns-pol...). It's not really surprising that the law is so broad, given that it was written in 1968 when anti-drug craze was still ramping up. The reason why it doesn't get amended is, I think, because it manages to touch two third rails at once: Republicans don't want to be perceived as "soft on drugs" by their base, while Democrats are afraid of being seeing as not sufficiently aggressive wrt "gun violence". And so, here we are.
      - wkat4242 4y ago
        It's strange especially because marihuana makes people very docile and laid back. Probably not a bad state for someone handing a firearm. On the other hand for someone pumped up on coke it would be a big worry. Though I guess if the US had medical coke cards they would be banned as well :)
        notch656c 4y ago
        Cocaine is schedule II. You can get a script for it. So the thing you say not only exists, but such a person could hypothetically legally own guns unlike the pot user.
        wkat4242 4y ago
        WTF... So Marijuana with a widely accepted medical benefit is considered a more dangerous drug than coke which is much more addictive and makes (some) people total pumped up jerks? I really can't imagine that, it should be the other way around. This is what I don't understand about the US federal drug policy. Most countries define marijuana as a "soft drug". I wonder how this came to be.. It sounds a bit like a 'war on hippies' thing from the 70s still lingering around the law books or something.
- owlbite 4y ago
  My understanding was it also helped firmly establish federal wrongdoing rather than merely state.
rwky 4y ago
The UK visa application has the same questions pretty much identical. Also made me laugh!
- rospaya 4y ago
  The UK also had a question about communist party membership on their visa application. Funny thing is that the UK also has a communist party.
  - rwmj 4y ago
    The funniest thing is people now in government were members: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/01/why-johnsons-tories-fell-for-a-tiny-sect-of-libertarian-provocateurs-rcp https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/01/why-jo...
  - Cyberdog 4y ago
    The US has this question as well, but I've heard that it didn't eliminate people from China who were able to make a "I had to join the party to get a certain job" argument. I presume that as long as you don't voice actual support for the revolutionary aspects of the ideology, the migra won't care.
- grishka 4y ago
  Hm. I had multiple UK visas (but only visited once lol) and I don't remember that. Granted, all of those visas were applied for with assistance from the job I had at the time. The entry form was also much more boring.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  Kinda makes me wonder what happens if someone checks yes. How do they deal with that?
  - saagarjha 4y ago
    Probably deny you entry?
apricot 4y ago
I am reminded of the (probably apocryphal) story about a logician asking for a visa to enter the US for a conference. When he got to the question "Do you plan to overthrow the United States Government by force or violence?" he hesitated and then answered "violence".
- turminal 4y ago
  There's a true story about Kurt Gödel's citizenship application: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_Loophole#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_Loophole#Backgr...
  - thechao 4y ago
    > Other writers have speculated that Gödel may have had other parts of the Constitution in mind as well, including the possibility that a partisan ratchet effect, via lifetime Supreme Court appointments and selective application of the law, could permanently stack the Supreme Court with Justices of one political persuasion. This is mentioned in the article. It's a pretty standard way to overthrow democracies — it subverts the system, using the system.
    - idontpost 4y ago
      [dead]
- Jerrrry 4y ago
  That is still the last question asked on the eQuip, and it has been reworded, implying that yes, this likely did happen. And my delayed response likewise agitated the Mr 202 area code spec agent.
red-iron-pine 4y ago
It's mostly so that someone can't say "well you never asked!" -- okay fine we'll ask from now on. Additionally it creates a condition of jeopardy, because now you've made an official statement, and if it's false you're now potentially chargeable for perjury or making false official statements. So if you're a super-slick spy type and they can't pin something on you conclusively, but are sure you're up to something (in the same way they could only get Al Capone for tax evasion), then at least it gives them a pretext to take action and charge or deport you.
- euroderf 4y ago
  Yup. Thus the question about "have you committed war crimes". They added that one after having trouble deporting a one-time concentration camp guard.
bloak 4y ago
I heard about a company web site that had a tick box like that on their download page. Unfortunately they got it the wrong way round so you had to claim to be a terrorist (or intending to build a nuclear weapon: I forget exactly what it was) in order to download the software. The story is that the web site was broken like that for about six months but it didn't stop hundreds of thousands of downloads from taking place. I hope no poor bastard in the FBI was tasked with investigating every case.
vkou 4y ago
That one's not funny, the really funny one is the "Are you a communist/polyamorous degenerate" section.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ArnoVW 4y ago

I've always understood that those questions are just a legal construct to be able to get you out of the country in case of issues. No need to prosecute for expulsion if there were lies on the immigration form; it becomes just an administrative matter.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dilznoofus 4y ago
I mean, yeah. It's like gun laws that prohibit having a joint whilst commit armed robbery or whatever - it's not actually trying to stop the behavior, merely empower the prosecutor after the fact. But, hey, there might be a true believer on the T-side! God says you're not supposed to lie, so it's a real Catch-22 - 'Render unto Caesar the evidence he deserves.'
- notch656c 4y ago
  It's my understanding that same law about the joint still applies just for having an otherwise lawful firearm in the safe doing nothing. Disclaimer: not legal advice, for entertainment value only.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    You're correct. In fact, there doesn't need to be a joint at all - you become a prohibited person by virtue of being "an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance". Note that, since this is a federal law, it doesn't matter if it's legal on state level. There's already precedent that having a state medical marijuana card already makes one ineligible, and using as an ID when trying to purchase a firearm is grounds for automatic denial by the seller. Hawaii, which requires all firearms to be registered, went even further, proactively cross-referencing their gun registry with the medical marijuana one (https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/surrender-your-guns-police-tell-hawaiian-medical-marijuana-patients https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/surrender-your-guns-pol...). It's not really surprising that the law is so broad, given that it was written in 1968 when anti-drug craze was still ramping up. The reason why it doesn't get amended is, I think, because it manages to touch two third rails at once: Republicans don't want to be perceived as "soft on drugs" by their base, while Democrats are afraid of being seeing as not sufficiently aggressive wrt "gun violence". And so, here we are.
    - wkat4242 4y ago
      It's strange especially because marihuana makes people very docile and laid back. Probably not a bad state for someone handing a firearm. On the other hand for someone pumped up on coke it would be a big worry. Though I guess if the US had medical coke cards they would be banned as well :)
      - notch656c 4y ago
        Cocaine is schedule II. You can get a script for it. So the thing you say not only exists, but such a person could hypothetically legally own guns unlike the pot user.
        wkat4242 4y ago
        WTF... So Marijuana with a widely accepted medical benefit is considered a more dangerous drug than coke which is much more addictive and makes (some) people total pumped up jerks? I really can't imagine that, it should be the other way around. This is what I don't understand about the US federal drug policy. Most countries define marijuana as a "soft drug". I wonder how this came to be.. It sounds a bit like a 'war on hippies' thing from the 70s still lingering around the law books or something.
owlbite 4y ago
My understanding was it also helped firmly establish federal wrongdoing rather than merely state.

rwky 4y ago

The UK visa application has the same questions pretty much identical. Also made me laugh!

rospaya 4y ago
The UK also had a question about communist party membership on their visa application. Funny thing is that the UK also has a communist party.
- rwmj 4y ago
  The funniest thing is people now in government were members: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/01/why-johnsons-tories-fell-for-a-tiny-sect-of-libertarian-provocateurs-rcp https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/01/why-jo...
- Cyberdog 4y ago
  The US has this question as well, but I've heard that it didn't eliminate people from China who were able to make a "I had to join the party to get a certain job" argument. I presume that as long as you don't voice actual support for the revolutionary aspects of the ideology, the migra won't care.
grishka 4y ago
Hm. I had multiple UK visas (but only visited once lol) and I don't remember that. Granted, all of those visas were applied for with assistance from the job I had at the time. The entry form was also much more boring.
Aeolun 4y ago
Kinda makes me wonder what happens if someone checks yes. How do they deal with that?
- saagarjha 4y ago
  Probably deny you entry?

apricot 4y ago

I am reminded of the (probably apocryphal) story about a logician asking for a visa to enter the US for a conference. When he got to the question "Do you plan to overthrow the United States Government by force or violence?" he hesitated and then answered "violence".

turminal 4y ago
There's a true story about Kurt Gödel's citizenship application: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_Loophole#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_Loophole#Backgr...
- thechao 4y ago
  > Other writers have speculated that Gödel may have had other parts of the Constitution in mind as well, including the possibility that a partisan ratchet effect, via lifetime Supreme Court appointments and selective application of the law, could permanently stack the Supreme Court with Justices of one political persuasion. This is mentioned in the article. It's a pretty standard way to overthrow democracies — it subverts the system, using the system.
  - idontpost 4y ago
    [dead]
Jerrrry 4y ago
That is still the last question asked on the eQuip, and it has been reworded, implying that yes, this likely did happen. And my delayed response likewise agitated the Mr 202 area code spec agent.

red-iron-pine 4y ago

It's mostly so that someone can't say "well you never asked!" -- okay fine we'll ask from now on. Additionally it creates a condition of jeopardy, because now you've made an official statement, and if it's false you're now potentially chargeable for perjury or making false official statements. So if you're a super-slick spy type and they can't pin something on you conclusively, but are sure you're up to something (in the same way they could only get Al Capone for tax evasion), then at least it gives them a pretext to take action and charge or deport you.

euroderf 4y ago
Yup. Thus the question about "have you committed war crimes". They added that one after having trouble deporting a one-time concentration camp guard.

bloak 4y ago

I heard about a company web site that had a tick box like that on their download page. Unfortunately they got it the wrong way round so you had to claim to be a terrorist (or intending to build a nuclear weapon: I forget exactly what it was) in order to download the software. The story is that the web site was broken like that for about six months but it didn't stop hundreds of thousands of downloads from taking place. I hope no poor bastard in the FBI was tasked with investigating every case.

vkou 4y ago

That one's not funny, the really funny one is the "Are you a communist/polyamorous degenerate" section.