Slashdot Mirror
'Social Media ID, Please?' Proposed US Law Greeted With Anger (computerworld.com)
The U.S. government announced plans to require some foreign travelers to provide their social media account names when entering the country -- and in June requested comments. Now the plan is being called "ludicrous," an "all-around bad idea," "blatant overreach," "desperate, paranoid heavy-handedness," "preposterous," "appalling," and "un-American," reports Slashdot reader dcblogs:
That's just a sampling of the outrage. Some 800 responded to the U.S. request for comments about a proposed rule affecting people traveling from "visa waiver" countries to the U.S., where a visa is not required. This includes most of Europe, Singapore, Chile, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand... In a little twist of irony, some critics said U.S. President Obama's proposal for foreign travelers is so bad, it must have been hatched by Donald Trump.
"Travelers will be asked to provide their Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Google+, and whatever other social ID you can imagine to U.S. authorities," reports Computer World. "It's technically an 'optional' request, but since it's the government asking, critics believe travelers will fear consequences if they ignore it..."
"Travelers will be asked to provide their Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Google+, and whatever other social ID you can imagine to U.S. authorities," reports Computer World. "It's technically an 'optional' request, but since it's the government asking, critics believe travelers will fear consequences if they ignore it..."
Do they really think that if some ISIS guy flies in, he's going to fill out the customs form honestly and say "Yep, my Twitter handle is @jihad4lyfe!" It's preposterous to think this would be effective at gathering any sort of reasonable intelligence.
get absolutely fucked.
"ludicrous," an "all-around bad idea," "blatant overreach," "desperate, paranoid heavy-handedness," "preposterous," "appalling," and "un-American," - AND STUPID!
i don't do social media, generally, so i only have accounts on two of those systems. would i be denied entry? fine. i didn't want to visit your country anyway, principally for fear of being shot by an angry cop at the airport, and i'm not even black.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oxdlDonLw0
captcha: disobey
Why not see what travelers to the USA are saying publicly?
.
So, in effect, this proposal results in the government building a database of US citizens. The government couldn't do that directly, so they go about it indirectly, i.e., using foreigners as the entry point into social media. From that entry point, they just follow the links and connections.
Certainly officer, you can have my IDs. They are Twit McTwitface, and Face McFaceFace.
So anyone without an account on any of the childish social media sites will be now regarded with suspicion?
Land of the free... as long as you have Big Brother always watching you.
We're not too far from two minutes of hate being implemented should Trump be elected anyways... more like 4 years of hate.
The combination of social media, open borders in Europe, and the Islamic extremism that is centuries old but whose recent spread was magnified by Bush, Blair, Obama, Merkel, and the other globalists has produced a situation in which very dangerous people are using social media to organize and plot very violent activities and the normal behind-the-scenes government-to-government info exchanges about travellers are not working. The countries from which many travellers are originating these days know very little about them since they are recent arrivals there and were generally unscreened while immigrating due to political correctness.
This sort of thing may be distatsteful, but critics need to offer some rational suggestion for somethng better since many of them have been supporters of the very sorts of politics that made the older methods of screening, which mostly narrowly focused on the actual dangerous people, no longer acceptable. If there are arsonists wandering around and you have campaigned to make it politically unacceptable to use fire extinguishers then you cannot be surprised if small fires are put out with big fire hoses that get everybody wet.
If Trump was the one doing this, the left would be screaming that it was obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, ..., but since it's Obama, they'll just look for ways to pretend it's Trump and that he's racist,sexist....
See how loudly you can say I DECLINE TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.
Government always wants more power -- like every other organization and individual, if you put your Machiavellian cap on -- and tries out its new ideas with test runs like this.
Push back and they will back off.
Give in and bend over, and expect more of the same, except worse.
Alternative Right.
You are only encouraging them.
I stopped doing business requiring me to fly there back in 2004 because of INS/TSA abuse.
Anyone who worries about their bank account before they worry about their freedom can go fuck themselves.
Just like encryption, just have a secondary generic/sparsely populated one for them to "find" and explore.
from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
Give them a ham sandwich! If they don't eat it, kick them out.
Fuck you and your imaginary friend you religious nutjob!
The only one I have is here and Imgur and that gets deleted every month or so. And when I travel, I use a separate mailbox for each trip. Easier to organize. So they could get the email usa2016@example.com, but they have that already as it was the one I used to apply for my Visa. So they can follow it, but they already know where I am going, because I had to enter that on my Visa.
And that address will be deleted when I get back.
And why do they need it? NSA unable to crack https?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
It would make it difficult for those of us without a facebook, twitter, instagram, linkedin or google+ account... Not having these social media account means you cannot provide them which could be interpreted as a refusal to supply account information... Maybe not by a sane person but the people that make and enforce these rules are another story. That could complicate entry to the US by appearing suspicious and have the typical effect of harming the innocent while doing nothing to improve safety and security.
I generally avoid social media because of privacy and security considerations. I do have memberships of many forums and discussion groups because they offer an acceptable level of privacy.
Don't post here.
Post here
If I can avoid it I no am longer willing to go to the USA as I find the attitude at the border intolerable. Why go somewhere to be treated as a criminal? Customs and Immigration staff in all of the countries I have visited are capable of being both effective, polite and friendly. The big exception is the USA, where the attitude and rudeness are legendary. So now they want to ask for (demand) my social media accounts before letting me enter the country... not going to happen, but only because I won't visit the USA.
USA constitutional rights apply to citizens only.
No. You fail civics,
The Supreme Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. The Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office.
Here, have a little light reading.
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
No FB, no twitter, no snapchat, absolutely no accounts on "social media". Given the number of working neurons in your typical Homeland Security worker, that means I get the hammer to the kneecaps until I give up an account.
USA constitutional rights apply to citizens only.
No. You fail civics,
And you fail the law. ENTRY (for non-citizens) has no such rights (in pretty much any country). It is what gives Customs and Border Control such power over those who request (and it is a request) entry to the country (any country) when the requester is not a citizen.
Now, perhaps, the laws should be changed for all countries to eliminate all border controls for "citizens of the world". But that is a different discussion.
"are you a terrorist?"
All this would do is make the social media companies happy, as they should see a huge increase in registered users.
Terrorist or not people will be creating fake accounts in addition to (or as their only one) their real accounts.
not sure how capturing accounts with no links or any activity will help.
This can only produce a database of innocents, some of them unaware of their connections. So it is spying on innocents. And it possibly will result in abducting some of them for torture, maybe drone bombing when they get back home after not doing anything against Americans.
People with half a brain and actual terrorists or terrorist connected people aware of such connection wouldn't give the information or they would fabricate alternative ones.
Just because the dumb innocents are not US citizens it doesn't mean decent Americans won't care. They did, you are not one of them.
If the NSA, CIA, FBI, and other US agencies already have access to Facebook's and Google's databases, then why ask individuals for their ID's? I suspect it's another case of misguided "security theater" designed to have an impact on public perception rather than have any investigative usefulness. Do they still ask people if they are or ever have been members of the Communist Party?
U.S. Constitutional rights are limited to everyone (citizens, foreigners, illegals) in certain U.S. territories. When you're trying to enter the U.S. and are held up at Customs and Immigration, you are not yet considered to be on U.S. soil, so you do not enjoy the protection of U.S. Constitutional rights. This is precisely why Bush put a POW prison camp in Guantanamo Bay. While Guantanamo is controlled by the U.S., it is Cuban territory. And thus prisoners there would not be protected by the U.S. Constitution. (At least until Boumediene v. Bush which decided since the U.S. maintained "de facto sovereignty" over the base, it could be considered U.S. territory.)
Whether U.S. citizens enjoy U.S. Constitutional protections when abroad is an unsettled matter too. The recent drone killings of U.S. citizens fighting for ISIS abroad were done under the presumption that the answer is "no". They are not entitled to due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments. If you extend that reasoning (not saying this is correct, just saying if you extend that reasoning), then U.S. citizens trying to re-enter the U.S. do not enjoy Constitutional protection until after they have been admitted.
That's why DHS trying to extend this territorial exclusion to a 100 mile bubble around U.S. entry points (borders and international airports) was so ridiculous and troubling. They were basically trying to make it so anyone within 100 miles of the U.S. border or an international airport did not have Constitutional protection.
When the U.S. government requires a biometic ID of all it's citizens via the 'Real ID' act. I mean when you are required to surrender your papers whenever approached by law enforcement, why is it such a big deal to require non citizens to show their online activities to law enforcement officials.
If you feel naked if you do not have a form of Real ID whenever you are traveling and you will willingly surrender the Real ID whenever requested by law enforcement, you will also surrender you guns, or any other rights you might have once had.
You are the subject of President Obama. You have all the rights delineated in the constitution, but the government can interpret the constitution in any and every way it sees fit at the moment, which may change from time to time at the discretion of the government.
Rights are a 20th century construct. Hell rights were invented by white people who owned slaves. When you people say you want your 'rights' that is a 'code word' for saying you want to own slaves. In the new world, it takes a village, and the village knows what is right for your and your family. What is wrong with giving out your Real ID to a cop, or you social security number to the phone company, or a history of you online activities to immigration if it will protect you and your family from crazy people. Are you some kind of homophobic, racist, nazi, pedophile, sovereign citizen type nut case who wants to interfere with the governments lawful right to enforce the law?
Nothing to see here move on.
Just another reason for never going to idiot lah lah land,just further proof that their so far up their own arses that they can no longer see what's going on around them.
Americans,an evolutionary dead end.
Send us your poor,your stupid,your criminal,your retarded,your idiot God botherers,we will let them all breed together to get a hybrid stupid,criminal regard.
https://www.hackcanada.com/can...
Alternative Right.
The U.S. Government has rather quietly introduced some subtle language changes in certain questions, designed to help identify possible terrorists.
Q: How long will you be staying in the Great Satan?
Q: What is the primary purpose of your visit (pick one)?
- Vacation / Pleasure
- Work / Business
- Slaughtering infidels
Q: How fast can you disassemble and reassemble an AK-47?
#DeleteChrome
All constitutional rights (unless otherwise indicated) apply to US Nationals.
Nope. Go read the bill of rights. None of those amendments say "unless you're not a citizen."
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Do they really think that if some ISIS guy flies in, he's going to fill out the customs form honestly and say "Yep, my Twitter handle is @jihad4lyfe!"
No, they probably think that he will refuse to give them a handle and then they will use this as grounds to detain him for interrogation. The problem is that some of us don't use Facebook, Twitter etc. and so I don't have an account to give them - other than a dummy Facebook account which is entirely devoid of any personal information and that I only created because our local airport used to insist on Facebook to access the free WiFi. However I expect this will look like I created a dummy account to hide my real account from them.
I'm beginning to wonder whether the US government's long term plan is to make travelling to the US such a horrible experience for us foreigners that identifying the terrorists will be easy because they will be the only ones insane enough to try.
welcome to Nazi Germany papers please!
Generally I don't think they should be doing this because of the potential for abuse, but there actually *ARE* reasons why it could be used in ways which are not really privacy invasive.
The Visa Waiver Program allows stays of up to 90 days. After 80 days, if you have not left the country they could use your social media for a friendly reminder. It might help someone who was going to overstay feel like someone is paying attention and that they have to follow the visa law, and reduce the number of people overstaying their stay in the United States.
Real lawyers write in C++
The idea may be stupid but NON-CITIZENS are not guaranteed all the rights and privileges as a citizen has ...
-- Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
"...but I also like lively protoplasm"!
I don't do social media. I have no interest in in at all. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Google+. You name it. Google+ almost got me as I have an Android phone, but after repeatedly refusing signup offers to Google+ I find I can do things that used to require it, like review apps on the app store.
So if this became a thing, and I traveled to America, would I be branded a suspect of some kind for refusing to hand over details of accounts that don't exist?
But Donald Trump did not launch it. Genius boy Obama has to take the credit. Along with all the dumbasses who voted for him. Keep on feeling all smug and self-righteous.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
the constitution does not apply, even to citizens, within the confines of international airports and anywhere within a certain distance of an international border or waters, etc... so they're a little iffy on the subject.. it should apply to all citizens or those who are not but are legally here, ANYWHERE on u.s. soil or territory, including airports, including near borders and international waters, and in embassies or other 'u.s. soil' located in foreign countries (military bases, etc). it should, but it dosen't.. because 'fuck you, we're doing what we want' says the gov't.
When you're trying to enter the U.S. and are held up at Customs and Immigration, you are not yet considered to be on U.S. soil, so you do not enjoy the protection of U.S. Constitutional rights.
Reductio ad absurdum So, non-citizens lacking any rights whatsoever, Customs & Immigration could happily kill them on a whim? You are not within the USA, so a lawless zone exists? Free-fire anyone?
If you are not on U.S. soil, why do non-citizens need a visa to transit? Fly from Asia to Europe via the USA and you need a visa. Almost every other country simply provides a transit lounge where you wait while you change planes.
It seems both obvious, and likely to withstand legal challenge, that when you are on the wrong side of the Customs & Immigration barrier, you are nevertheless under U.S. control, in U.S. jurisdiction, and under the mantle of the U.S. Constitution. You have not yet been admitted, according to due legal process, into the country. You might be denied entry, and sent back. You might be arrested because you are in fact a terrorist.
I agree with you, the current issues with Guantanamo and the 100mi limit show what happens when people try to create places where the law doesn't apply to 'them' (because 'they' are the good guys).
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
NO FOREIGN PERSON HAS ANY RIGHT TO ENTER THE US
I'm not in any way disagreeing with this. I am simply refuting the misstatement that USA constitutional rights apply to citizens only.
In the context of the debate, it might be a fine, geekish point, but once someone is in a line waiting to get into the country, they don't magically become a non-person, Once they are in the country, they are afforded full constitutional protection, even if they overstay their visa, or even entered under false pretences! The law, backed by the constitution, will allow for them to be tried, punished and removed.
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
I don't use computers, so I don't know what this social media stuff is all about that the kids are on about!!!
(looks left and right)
How will they handle someone with no social media accounts. Search my name, number, email and you get 0 results. Toss me out of the country?
If you're flying via Beijing and you don't already have a Chinese visa, the Chinese authorities will issue you one that's good for 1 day so you can move about the airport freely. Or, if your layover is long enough, you can take a cab into the city and mess around for a few hours.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
It's Obama, not Trump, who has had that kill list and been droning all those people. For the first few years of his administration, the person running his foreign policies with him was Hillary Clinton.
I do not post this as a pro-Trump thing, or as some baseless partisan anti-Clinton or anto-Obama thing. I post it because it is a basic FACT and one which the Clinton and Obama teams are happy to have the public avoid facing.
Trump has never used government power to kill ANYBODY. Not being a Trump-bot, I will not assert that he never would. He has promised a muscular response to ISIS. Again: my Point is that one party always petends to be "good people" and always pretends the other party is a party of war mongers, so much so that I've lost count of the number of people I've heard tell me Trump is some psychopathic monster who is so morally repugnant and dangerous they could never vote for him, but who are happy they voted for Obama or are planning to vote for Hillary Clinton. People need to wake up and stop being sheep. Both parties have done some pretty harsh stuff, and in the real world some pretty harsh stuff is sometimes justified. It's insane, however, to rant and rave about one candidate using blunt/harsh/mean words while the other has actively used the government to kill with only dubious legal authority. If actual industrial mechanized automated DEATH is not a problem, then tough words are a joke as a political/voting issue.
I am a German citizen with a Turkish sounding last name and have been requested to provide my email used to login to Facebook and Twitter every time I entered the US in the last years. That is when they single me out at the border and immigration desk each time in the last five year, claim it is random, detain me for 45 minutes, 30 minutes of which is waiting for anything to happen, then ask the same questions each time such as: been traveling to Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq? Any friends there? Political affiliations of my parents? Social media login email addresses (they don't seem to need passwords)? What is my job and education?
Even though they are seemingly friendly, any question on the why will immediately chill the atmosphere, letting the officer become cold in tone, threateningly often. I have learned not to oppose anything.
There seem to be no rights in these situations. Fearing to miss connecting flights forces you to cooperate to the fullest, leaving a bad taste about civil liberties in your mouth.
What is most infuriating to me is that it is always the same questions and the same fake friendlyness when I explain that I have a masters degree from a top American graduate school, lived in the US from 2003 to 2004 and am a startup founder...
There should not be outrage about this, collecting social media accounts is already the norm. Just not for everyone...
We get that you don't like Trump, but it's fucking ridiculous to pin a policy hatching under a Democratic president on Republican CANDIDATE Donald Trump. Have you no shame?
If I have zero rights it might be nice to tell me before I have flown 10 hours to the US and wasted a thousand bucks that you want to turn me back. I find it troubling that constitutional rights such as being equal in front of the law are not universal.
Now Obama and Hillary Clinton and their pals have joined Trump on the list of people we all can call NAZIs now? After all, its Obama and his party, which Hillary is associated with and promises to be a third term of, that is doing this. Trump has very openly stated that he wants to secure the borders and seriously screen immigrants, and has been labelled a racist for this. I guess now that Obama is going after social media, it'll be perfectly fine for Trump to do it, right?
I just want to keep my NAZI list up to date, so I know who I can acceptably slime with one of history's most odius titles.
Incidentally, the first job of any government is, and long has been, to protect its citizens. As a result, most nations in modern history have had borders and have screened visitors and even said things like "papers, please!". That's just normal government, and NOT what was wrong with the NAZIs. Hint: it had something to do with invading other countries, genocide, death camps, looting of entire nations, and all the rest. The NAZI official saying "Papieren bitte" was scary because he was an agent of an evil national socialist regime known for repression and genocide looking at you suspiciously and might not end well for you.
And thus is perfectly in line with the U.S. stance on surveillance. So it is sure to get implemented. I can only assume that the survey was done in order to get more data on dissenters, in order to more effectively police them in future and keep them from spreading their liberal poison.
Well, you can keep your trade.
We can take our business elsewhere. Or then you just get to travel to our common meetings. No skin off our backs.
It baffles me that USA would deliberately want to piss off the rest of the world, but hey - you are free to do so.
me: "I used to have the facebook ID uscis, but someone hacked it, changed the password, and are using it for their own nefarious purposes"
officer: [goes off to check out the account...]
I had a 5 hour layover at Shanghai (PVG) last month. No visa of any sort required to move around the international terminal of the airport. Of course I'm pretty certain they would not have let me leave the airport - but definitely no transit visa involved just to change planes.
Well, they lost me then, because I don't have any of those, I don't give away my privacy for connecting so somebody who had a locker beside me 30 years ago, I'm perfectly able to do that myself if I wanted to.
Anger, denial, depression and ultimately, acceptance. Nothing we can do. Power is power and might is always right.
America gets fucked every day as it is, why the actual hell would I waste money going to a rich shithole?
This is only required if you need to change terminals or want to travel into the city.
You can most definitely have a layover in Beijing and move around the airport without ever being issued a visa. This is standard practice in most of the world.
Different setup in Beijing where any meaningful interpretation of "moving about the airport" involves going out of doors between terminal buildings.
Shanghai/Pudong seems like a much nicer airport, though (only been through there once). I particularly enjoyed the calligraphy shop and getting to watch and have a chat with the chief calligrapher as he worked.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Speaking for the USA.
The operative is *living amongst us*. And it's clear that living *with* us is different than *living in the same place as us*.
Most western cultures have managed to integrate, adding their bits, and blending. Even the more insular Asian cultures have integrated. Has that caused pain? Absolutely. Indians have ABCD. (Look it up). But by the time immigrants grandkids are adults, they can claim *heritage*, not their identity. And this includes societies in Japan and Germany who the US nuked and fire bombed, respectively.
But. It's apparent that a disproportionate percentage of middle eastern immigrants grandkids aren't being integrated into western society, which creates an us (the immigrants) vs them (the wests wide open society which tolerates and even sometimes welcomes newcomers, vs the society they came from).
Until that's resolved, we'll be left with trying blunt tools like 'give me your social media ID' as a way to determine, amongst those who want to remain insular, which ones *living amongst us* hate us enough to walk into their workplace and kill their infidel co-workers.
Ya really cannot argue with the 'disproportionate' logic. So instead of complaining about this arguably bad initiative, got a better idea to figure out the ones in the group who are *living amongst us* that hate the infidels so badly that they want to kill us?
Cool! I'm uninterested in visiting a countries where an adult cannot get a cold beer, and where women are treated differently than men. Or where the US Olympic committee has asked athletes not to go outside after dark given the likelihood that they'll be robbed.
Sounds like you've made a great decision.
The USA must really be a lousy place, that's why no one, like you, are trying to get in or visit.
The Obama administration has gotten flack for letting in people whose social media reveal them to be dangerous radicals. This is a rather clumsy PR stunt. Requiring foreign travelers to list their social media simply means they'll create an innocent-appearing one and point to it.
It's yet another illustration of 'security theater'—doing things because they look good in the press not because they accomplish anything.
They're not asking for passwords, and given the power of the CIA/NSA/5eyes they don't need to. What this is really doing, is de-anonymizing social media: Every account is now linked to a person, with their real-world name and date of birth. (You didn't stupidly put the true value for both of those in your online profile did you?) Also linked, are your friends and colleagues on social media services.
The correct answer is to create accounts just for use in the USA. And to not take a phone/tablet/laptop to the USA so that your personal data / contacts / history / emails / messages can't be copied or confiscated. I imagine some people can't survive a few weeks without Facebook and Twitter, so hidden access is required, such as a VPN, which is too complex for the average user. In that case, set the fake account to follow your real account. A good alternative is to have a family member change the password on your actual accounts, without telling you, and to forward messages to your fake account.
In the first place...
Guantanamo Bay is a nice little 'fuck you' to your theory. In practice, the Constitution is selective in its protection of foreigners.
Good-bye
Well, its ridiculous, because as there are so many ports of entry into the US.. it would essentially eliminate ALL constitutional rights.
Folks, there is a International Airport in the middle of freaking Nebraska and another in Kansas.. (ie: the middle of the continental US). So a 100 mile bubble around all international airports and ship ports essentially means zero protection for anyone. The US doesn't have international airports exclusively on the coasts.
Well, there are two visa types..
One is a 72 hour visa intended for VERY short stays.. this one is intended for you flying into and out of a Chinese city, but not necessarily the same city.
The other is a Direct Transit visa (good for 24 hours), so you can see the city a little, but you must be entering and leaving from the SAME airport. Both are issued upon arrival and upon request. (with no promises of approvals for each since they are granted on the spot).
Anything else requires a standard entry visa. (I go to china a LOT)
All constitutional rights (unless otherwise indicated) apply to US Nationals.
Nope. Go read the bill of rights. None of those amendments say "unless you're not a citizen."
-jcr
Nope, it says we the people. There is a big discussion about this in the federalist papers. The Bill of Rights were put in specifically to say what the government can't do to the citizens. Such as take their guns from them. Such as silencing the press. Such as making them a witness against themselves.
Take the liberal crap elsewhere. You probably also think a child born in the US is automatically a US Citizen as well. That's not true. More leftist fairy dust.
Let's not get into a debate over what assorted government agencies do on a regular basis that is, in fact, illegal.
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
Invasion after invasion of the privacy of actual US Citizens has occurred at the hands of our government in the pursuit of 'safety' but the outrage comes from potentially asking foreign travellers for their social media user names?
This is fucking astonishing.....
Its not a matter of 'if you will commit a crime'. It's a matter of 'when will you commit a crime'
There is a video of an old FBI guy who gave a talk at blackhat or defcon a few years back. He said something along the lines of "if i look at anyone for long enough, ill catch them doing something illegal" and he was right.
I really hate it when the news articles about this kind of crap come out after the request for comment period has expired.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
Right. Because there was still that one guy who kept coming back to the US for a holiday. Let's make sure that guy never comes back. He's a nuisance and takes away airline seats from everyone else who has no choice but to go to the US for some reason. Airline seats are scarce and precious. Let's keep them as empty as possible. To be fair I guess it does make their jobs easier to keep tourists away.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
So as a former bank robber, I cannot get the hazmat CDL. Transportation companies are desperate for drivers (especially hazmat), I am desperate for a good paying job, but we cannot get together on this. Certainly there are other driver jobs, but I don't really need any more obstacles thrown in front of me.
Yeah, I know I put myself in this position, but I'm here now, and I'm trying not to reoffend, I'm trying to do the right thing.
This is a direct violation of the international treaties the US signed with Canada and the EU, Australia and New Zealand, and Japan.
Other countries ... meh.
But you can't do that by treaty.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Either you're really bad at sarcasm, or you don't know what you're talking about.
Anyone born in the US is a US citizen, according to the Fourteenth Amendment. I haven't noticed that part of the Fourteenth being repealed by another Amendment.
While the Bill of Rights may have been intended to protect US citizens, it doesn't limit itself to them. A person from another country can't be required to incriminate himself or herself, for example.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The law allows the US government to expel people who are not US citizens and are here illegally, and that's a significantly lower barrier than would be required to convict and punish them.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The idea behind the Constitution was that it provided the Federal government with assorted legal powers and responsibilities, and that therefore the Feds could not do anything not authorized by the Constitution. Therefore, there's no such thing as something the US government runs that's not subject to the Constitution, since either the Feds have no power to run it or they're bound by the Constitution.
The drone killings of US citizens are done on the basis that there's a war on, and that it's not necessary to conduct a trial before killing an enemy in war. If they're a member of a hostile military force, they're legal targets no matter what else might be true about them. US citizens abroad who have not taken up arms in the service of a foreign power need not worry.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
From the original story, it seems that the request came from within the US Customs and Border Protection agency:
"The US Customs and Border Protection agency has submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget, asking for permission to collect travelers social media account names as they enter the country."
Does anyone have more info showing that this idea came from Obama or his administration?
Could be way more than you ever wanted to know and you'll have to do some reading to understand this.
Very common misconception. Especially people that read a little law. I know what I'm talking about. Referring to the 14th Amendment by itself tells me you don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't have mentioned it. See a lawyer (not a whacked out crazy one...sometimes known as an ACLU lawyer). Until then, consider:
The Constitution, Federalist papers, USSC Decisions:
The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939)
As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that “a natural born” is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. Only the crazy left keep trying to mislead people that don't know any better. The 14th Amendment was intended to make citizens of slaves and that was clear. Otherwise, what are they? Some could technically still be from some other country and not necessarily from some African country. The Arabs took slaves from all around there, even England, Spain, Portugal, Italy. It's the Arabs that came up with slavery BTW. Not "white people."
I'll say Mexican below, however you can also substitute your favorite alien - Canadian, Nigeria (Nigerian Prince with money for you), etc.
As for the Constitution applying to foreigners, it depends. I was poking with a stick. The rights that are specified to just citizens, don't apply to foreigners. That's very clear. For example a Mexican national cannot run for office. You'd think all the Constitutional Amendments would apply, however you'd be wrong. For example the 1st Amendment does, I don't think there is any argument on that one by anyone. What about the 2nd Amendment? Can a Mexican buy a gun in the US legally? Hell, I couldn't buy one two states away. Unless my state touched that other state, forgetaboutit.