Uncle Sam mulls policing social media of all would-be citizens The US government's Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) is considering monitoring not just the social media posts of non-citizens coming into the country, but also all those already in America going through an immigration or citizenship process. Back in 2019, the Department of Homeland Security, which runs USCIS, …
There's all the money they've saved on midget air traffic controllers...
Actually, I can't remember how much money or whether it was saved or wasted or whether it involved employing dwarves or sacking them. But it was a big number and it was dwarves - so that's a win! Chainsaw!
Y'all remember when Oracle got whacked for over-licensing the state of California to a ridiculous extent?
Wonder if there are some unnecessary licenses for it in the Feds? Esp. comparing the price of one WinZip to one Oracle.
No, let's wake up here. Ellison is best buds with this lot. Nothing to see, citizen, move along now.
@ecofeco
"And just exactly what spare resources do they have for this?"
They discovered the US didnt have the resources to deal with Bidens open border policy. Better late than never to enforce the immigration rules on the many that have entered already while also stemming the flow.
Had the border been enforced in the first place this wouldnt even be an issue.
I'm joking, but this guy knows more about my country than I do*. Just a little fascinated that he's this insistent on being in the U.S.'s business when all the potbanging by his thought leaders was "rule makers not takers" etc.
(* = Not hard, if you're educated outside of it).
From the link under
> boot out pro-Hamas foreign students
>> "We found literally zero visa revocations during the Biden administration," the official said, "... which suggests a blind eye attitude toward law enforcement."
Because, of course, all these Vile Foreigners MUST be Plotting Against America And American Values, why else would they even *bother* to try to enter the US in the first place?
why else would they even *bother* to try to enter the US in the first place?
I think the quip about "sole purpose of visit" has been attributed to Oscar Wilde, Peter Ustinov, Michael Foot, W S Gilbert, and Gilbert Harding, though none of them seems to have brought America to its knees.
It's their (USA) perogative. Anyone who thinks it's wrong to stop 'unknown' (or unvetted) strangers in is welcome to leave their front door open. Go on, money where the mouth is. People are only in favour of unvetted entry because they think it doesn't affect them, it does and for a few it affects them very badly. Stop copying the ridiculous attitude of the media who do not care about you, do not want anything good for you and in fact want to impose authoritarian controls because they think that will benefit them and they will not have to comply because they are better than you (big mistake). Think through the logic of what is being proposed / done and ignore if it came from Trump, Musk or Mad Maddow.
Hypocrisy is inherent to this MAGA bollocks. You don't want authoritarian controls but you will monitor the social media of people for bad opinions. Um, that is authoritarian control. Duh.
It would be funny if you weren't taking this seriously, but apparently you have a brain yet this is how you use it.
Think more, talk less, read from different sources, cos atm you don't understand any of the stuff you are talking about.
@AC
"Hypocrisy is inherent to this MAGA bollocks. You don't want authoritarian controls but you will monitor the social media of people for bad opinions. Um, that is authoritarian control. Duh."
As stated in the article- "In fact, this goes back to 2014, at least, to one degree or another, and has been standard procedure for years for foreigners, particularly those coming in on a visa.". So under Obama this authoritarian advancement was made.
As the original AC said- "ignore if it came from Trump, Musk or Mad Maddow.". If you hold the same opinion against it from Obama as under Trump that is an understandable position. I hope you are consistent but I noticed you ranted on MAGA which makes me assume you dont.
Also as stated in the article: On January 20 this year, President Trump signed an executive order calling for much tougher vetting of foreign aliens
Doesn't matter that Obama did it first. That was bad enough. Trump is doing it now. He could (yeah, right) have stopped it. He chose to go all-in. That just makes them both authoritarian hypocrites.
None of that changes the point about MAGA hypocrisy, i.e. demanding freedoms and less government intervention while simultaneously supporting crackdowns on freedoms for anyone who isn't one of them.
@Jimmy2Cows
"Doesn't matter that Obama did it first. That was bad enough. Trump is doing it now. He could (yeah, right) have stopped it. He chose to go all-in. That just makes them both authoritarian hypocrites."
That was the point of my comment. I am happy if you are able to condemn the action by both, believe me a lot of people struggle with that.
@cmdrklarg
"Whataboutism. The sins of Obama do not excuse the sins of the Florida Orange Man."
Your claim of whataboutism is cancelled out by your next statement. Trying to get people to that very basic level of reasoning is important and certainly not to be taken for granted. St Obama was an idol for some of those on the left (of which some will certainly be anti-Trumpers).
**** Your claim of whataboutism is cancelled out by your next statement
Why? Because you said so? Sorry, you don't get to redefine "whataboutism", no matter how many mental gymnastics you perform. Instead of posting a defense of the FOM you posted a "whatabout Obama". Classic textbook example.
**** Trying to get people to that very basic level of reasoning is important and certainly not to be taken for granted.
Agreed. Now if we can just get people like you to reach said basic level of reasoning we'd be golden.
**** St Obama was an idol for some of those on the left (of which some will certainly be anti-Trumpers).
Quite true. Still does not excuse the FOM of his own wrongdoing.
On that note, I shall bid you good day, sir.
@cmdrklarg
"Why? Because you said so?"
No, because you seem to miss the point of the comment. The actual point is the action is bad and performed by both Trump and Obama. It is trying to bring some people back from the 'orange man bad' to critical thinking. Something which has been demonstrated for a decade to cause certain mental conflicts for some people.
"Agreed. Now if we can just get people like you to reach said basic level of reasoning we'd be golden." and "Quite true. Still does not excuse the FOM of his own wrongdoing."
Amusingly you seem to have got the point, but not realised that you have the point of my comment. Let me quote what I said before to Jimmy2Cows- "That was the point of my comment. I am happy if you are able to condemn the action by both, believe me a lot of people struggle with that."
Do you now realise you ascribe your own assumption to me? That we are both saying the same thing but you seem to be attacking me as though I said something I didnt?
If you must know I am not a fan of the surveillance state which was actually created against US citizens by Bush after 9/11 and has been the starting point for a lot of the US/UK intrusive surveillance state progressions.
Obama implemented ICE trawling through social media on aliens seeking to enter the country, which is intrinsically different to those present in the country. Those outside the country and at the border have no constitutional rights and no right of entry. The current proposals would create a serious chilling affect on the rights of free speech and association enjoyed by non-citizens who are seeking citizenship or permanent residency, for fear of loss of status and deportation.
@flayman
"Obama implemented ICE trawling through social media on aliens seeking to enter the country, which is intrinsically different to those present in the country."
That makes sense but with Bidens open border policy the last 4 years this is just the vetting that should have been conducted. Also the government seem to have the sensible position that illegally crossing the border is illegal and so the criminal should be deported.
"The current proposals would create a serious chilling affect on the rights of free speech and association enjoyed by non-citizens who are seeking citizenship or permanent residency, for fear of loss of status and deportation."
I think that is the point. Promote legal entry, cut illegal entry including gangs, sex trafficking, drugs and the additional strain on the public services. Remember a few buses of illegals to sanctuary cities caused panic and demands for federal assistance.
"Also the government seem to have the sensible position that illegally crossing the border is illegal and so the criminal should be deported."
Illegal immigrants should be processed and deported unless they can claim asylum. How they elude capture can be a failure of cooperation among law enforcement agencies as well as a lack of resources. They still need to be treated fairly and humanely.
"I think that is the point."
I'm not clear on this. Chilling free speech is the point? Or is it something else. People who are already living in the US legally should not face this chilling.
@flayman
"Illegal immigrants should be processed and deported unless they can claim asylum"
Agreed and asylum should be processed timely.
"How they elude capture can be a failure of cooperation among law enforcement agencies as well as a lack of resources."
The last 4 years open border policy didnt help either. It is interesting how sharp the drop in border crossings when Trump was elected. Sanctuary cities and states refusing to work with immigration enforcement is also a serious problem.
"I'm not clear on this. Chilling free speech is the point? Or is it something else. People who are already living in the US legally should not face this chilling."
People illegally living in the US already should be exposed to the same vetting as those at the border at least. If people disagree with the extent of the vetting that is a different discussion but illegals should be treated at least as though they made contact at the border. I say at least because I think its fair that they just be deported.
For those 'legally' as in granted real permission to remain after being vetted then I dont think they should have to fear not having free speech. I was confused by you saying "non-citizens who are seeking citizenship or permanent residency" which I guess can include probationary residents who are probationary to give them time to show their true colours (for example if they are terrorist supporters).
"For those 'legally' as in granted real permission to remain after being vetted then I dont think they should have to fear not having free speech. I was confused by you saying "non-citizens who are seeking citizenship or permanent residency" which I guess can include probationary residents who are probationary to give them time to show their true colours (for example if they are terrorist supporters)."
Because this is the proposal. Resident aliens who are seeking permanent residency or citizenship would be subject to this sort of intrusive vetting which has serious constitutional implications. The article is very clear on this. People living in the US legally on temporary work visas, for example, would have their social media combed for divisive content (which is what exactly?) and may then be denied renewal or if they apply for a green card or citizenship when eligible, there may already be a file on them. Paragraph b or the EO states:
%<----
(b) To protect Americans, the United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those aliens approved for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans or our national interests. More importantly, the United States must identify them before their admission or entry into the United States. And the United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security.
%<----
That is very broad. Hostile attitudes towards culture? Towards government? I'm an American citizen and I have a hostile attitude towards government. The government has a hostile attitude towards some of its institutions and arguably its founding principles. Would attendance at a pro-Palestinian rally be disqualifying because it could be interpreted as advocating support for designated foreign terrorists? It's enough that someone might fear it could be. What Trump has said about illegal protests on college campuses lends this credibility. How about support for Ukraine in its war with Russia? Designation of foreign terrorist organizations is the preserve of the executive. Mere verbal or moral support should not be enough.
It is the civic responsibility of every American to challenge and question authority. Having a hostile attitude towards government is a way of life in the States. It's bread and butter, meat and potatoes.
@flayman
"People living in the US legally on temporary work visas, for example, would have their social media combed for divisive content (which is what exactly?) and may then be denied renewal or if they apply for a green card or citizenship when eligible, there may already be a file on them."
I dont see an issue with this. They have a temporary work visa for example, you would be more suspicious of them than someone thoroughly vetted and not shown any hostile intent. And you would hope there is a file on them, they crossed the border into the country.
"Paragraph b or the EO states:"
That sounds reasonable. That doesnt say anything about the means of achieving that goal but keeping your country safe should be a part of the governments job.
"That is very broad. Hostile attitudes towards culture? Towards government? I'm an American citizen and I have a hostile attitude towards government."
To be honest both. You are an American citizen who doesnt like your government and that is your right to do so. Why would someone foreign want to move to a place they are hostile against and hostile to the government (not just negative opinion but hostile). Supporting terrorists, cheering on 9/11 etc is not something you surely want in your country. Add the terrorists and gangs that have moved in and used the open border to move their operations into the US. Its pure insanity and I say that from the UK where we currently have a problem with illegals and a lack of real action against them.
"Would attendance at a pro-Palestinian rally be disqualifying because it could be interpreted as advocating support for designated foreign terrorists?"
Actually if they are supporting terrorist actions such as when Hamas took hostages in a bloody and violent attack then it could. Americans were taken as hostages as well as a lot of others and treated terribly by terrorists. So far it seems that only if they break the law in the process of such protesting they are having their visa revoked as recently attempted before the judiciary stepped in. Lets see what comes of it.
"What Trump has said about illegal protests on college campuses lends this credibility."
The important word there is illegal. Aka coming to the US and then breaking the law should not shock immigrants on temporary visa's that is not acceptable.
"How about support for Ukraine in its war with Russia? Designation of foreign terrorist organizations is the preserve of the executive."
I think you hit it there, As bad as the Ukraine/Russia conflict is no side is designated terrorist. Its a war. It could be a crime to go fight for either side then return (not sure if thats US or UK or both but makes sense).
"It is the civic responsibility of every American to challenge and question authority. Having a hostile attitude towards government is a way of life in the States. It's bread and butter, meat and potatoes."
How many illegals are legally allowed to vote? Hell if you directly threatened an attack on the government do you think you might be investigated?
I'm sorry, because you've been fairly reasonable up to now, but some of what you're saying is really obtuse. For example, in response to the thing about civic responsibility:
"How many illegals are legally allowed to vote?" You're completely missing the point. If someone wants to be American, then let's be honest about what it means to be American. Americans owe a duty to be vigilant against encroachments on liberty. Americans should see themselves as troublemakers. Government by the people, of the people, and for the people. Government works for me. That's what it means to be American. These are the sort of people we should welcome because it strengthens us.
"I think you hit it there, As bad as the Ukraine/Russia conflict is no side is designated terrorist. " Yeah, until they are. That could happen years from now, and that ever growing file could be used to weed out whatever the administration of the day deems undesirable. That alone should give you pause.
"I dont see an issue with this. They have a temporary work visa for example, you would be more suspicious of them than someone thoroughly vetted and not shown any hostile intent. And you would hope there is a file on them, they crossed the border into the country." As I attempted to explain, which apparently fell on your deaf ears, it is entirely different to subject entrants to this vetting than to subject residents and visitors to it. ICE is not (yet) constantly monitoring the X accounts of everyone who has entered the country looking for dirt. I think it's probably unconstitutional, but we'd have to wait for a ruling. If you're okay with this, then there is no hope for agreement.
"The important word there is illegal." An illegal protest is whatever Donald Trump decides is illegal. Generally speaking, peaceful protests are protected. I know what he means when he says illegal. The rest of it is not worth responding to. You've lost me completely.
@flayman
"I'm sorry, because you've been fairly reasonable up to now, but some of what you're saying is really obtuse"
Honestly not trying to be. You talked of the civic duty of Americans, and we are talking about non-Americans without actual residency in the country and I pointed out they dont have that civic duty- they cannot vote. I find that very reasonable. You say a lot about what it means to be American, and we aint talking about that. We are talking about people wanting to move to the country, maybe applying for temporary or even permanent residency but not having it hating America, supporting terrorists and committing crimes (illegal entry being a crime in itself).
"These are the sort of people we should welcome because it strengthens us."
I agree to that only where legal entry. And actually shown to the best of ability not to be a criminal or terrorist threat etc. Is this what should be arriving (UK example)-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/palestinian-gaza-jews-mail-on-sunday-facebook-b2712806.html
"That could happen years from now, and that ever growing file could be used to weed out whatever the administration of the day deems undesirable. That alone should give you pause."
Sure except it is fairly normal to identify your enemies and not want them just wandering into your country and inflicting harm, even killing people.
"As I attempted to explain, which apparently fell on your deaf ears, it is entirely different to subject entrants to this vetting than to subject residents and visitors to it. ICE is not (yet) constantly monitoring the X accounts of everyone who has entered the country looking for dirt. I think it's probably unconstitutional, but we'd have to wait for a ruling. If you're okay with this, then there is no hope for agreement."
You keep talking about abuse by government, I say you are too late- https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/report-de-facto-mass-amnesty-how-biden-harris-administration-abused-temporary
I think we have a similar acceptance to a point except the rules have already been abused and twisted. As a result it is very reasonable to assess the actual problem of gangs and terrorists being accepted with no real checking (otherwise they wouldnt be in the country).
"An illegal protest is whatever Donald Trump decides is illegal. Generally speaking, peaceful protests are protected."
How about mostly peaceful protests? How about demonising a kid for protecting his property during riots and defending the 3 criminals he shot (Rittenhouse)? Or democrats supporting funding to bail out criminals of the mostly peaceful protests? It seems what isnt illegal is also under the purview of the President (or whoever was running the country at the time). But violating the law could certainly be a good reason to remove someones right to their temporary residence visa. Once an American citizen everything you say makes sense.
"It seems what isnt [sic] illegal is also under the purview of the President (or whoever was running the country at the time)."
Thank you for making my point so succinctly. If you let one guy extend his power, then another guy that you might not like will have it and be unwilling to relinquish it. I have no interest in these partisan squabbles. All I will say about the sources you've linked is that however these may be interpreted as violating rules, they do not represent encroachments on individual liberty, that being the bedrock of the Constitution. You keep muddying the water by bringing in issues related to illegal immigration. I agree that illegal immigration needs to be tackled. I support the policy of removing the automatic right to citizenship upon birth in the country, as this will help to curb that sort of illegal immigration; however, a constitutional amendment is needed. My main focus here is the effect on legally present aliens and the exercise of their constitutional rights. I welcome that these proposals are under public review, but the executive order that they are relating to is an overreach.
"As stated in the article- "In fact, this goes back to 2014, at least, to one degree or another, and has been standard procedure for years for foreigners, particularly those coming in on a visa."."
And as I stated in another reply, aliens have no constitutional rights at the border. Aliens living in the United States or even present there do have constitutional rights, even if to a lesser extent. That makes this different legally and much more of an intrusion into freedom of speech and association.
There's a whole hinterland of notions of property and its relation to kinship and identity that obviously forms a thick emotional cloud.
However, from a purely practical point of view, immigrants form a very small proportion of the population so, if you were truly worried about people with subversive views, you'd do better scrutinising the people already on the inside.
"The United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security,"
And what about citizens with those attitudes? Maybe that's OK, the occasional mass shooting is in line with the culture, institutions and founding principles: the right to bear arms AKA the right to get shot.
I can't see how this could possible go wrong?...
ICE officer: So Muhammad tell me why you didn't tell us about this secret account on Twitter where you posted anti American hate?
Muhammad: That isn't my account, Muhammad is a very popular name from where i come from. And that isn't even my photo on the profile.
ICE office: Well it sure looks like you to me, but then yous all look the same anyway. Its just a good job Elon was there to spot these things with his new find the terrorist AI. Pack your bags we are sending you back to "I rack"
Muhammad: But i'm from Pakistan!
Speak in less than fllattering terms of him and that's it ,game over for you .. You'll get dragged outside ( deservedly so ) and shot with a bullet in the back of the head , which of course, will be billed to family members. God bless the USA , the land of Freedom .. /s
Used to look up to them, now it turns my stomach to read the news in their papers. How the mighty have fallen.
This post has been deleted by its author
Yo!.....Remember Edward Snowden??
Yup!..That would be when we found out that EVERYONE (yup.....spell EVERYONE) in the USA is being monitored.
Ever heard of Ron Wyden? Look him up!
Please...ElReg....can you give up this REGULAR misdirection of your readers?
Of course you're going to answer 'No' to questions like "Are you a terrorist?". The trick behind all this is not to weed out terrorists, its to cause you to "Lie on a Federal form". This isn't just a criminal offense but it also invalidates your application and consequently all further applications. This, as you may have noticed, tends to be applied selectively because its really in the furtherance of the administration's wet dream of making citizenship discretionary (i.e. you annoy them, they remove your citizenship), something that so far the Federal courts have resisted (....but for how long?).
If you had tried to get permanent residency status say 40 years ago you needed to provide a huge folder of background information many inches thick including a full medical (with x ray) and a police certificate (or equivalent) from you country of residence to prove that your did not have a criminal record / the local rozzers / flics etc did not know you. And then there were lots of questions on lots of forms. Lots of questions. If you were smart you got an immigration lawyer because every INS district seemed to make up its own rules regarding "extra information required".
Or you could have paid a coyote the going rate of $1000 back then and crossed the border illegally and paid some guys who knew a chulo $50 for a fake green card / SS number
So nothing new. So sh*t post about burning the US flag or spray painting "Man Utd Rules OK " on the Washington Monument and it may come back to bite you one day.
In fact until the 1960's all resident aliens had to register with the police once a year and notify all changes of address within 30 days. Or bad things happened. So just like resident aliens in the UK until the late 1950's
If you are wondering the current going rate with the coyotes (until 11/24) was $5K / $10K. The narcos controlled the borders (not the Federales) so everyone paid. Or really bad things happened. Those "transit fees" take years to work off. At payday loan interest rates.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
