Slashdot Mirror
The US Border Patrol Is Checking Detainees' Facebook Profiles (cnet.com)
An anonymous reader quotes CNET:
Border patrol agents are checking the Facebook accounts of people who are being held in limbo for approval to enter the U.S., according to a Saturday tweet by immigration lawyer Mana Yegani that was spotted by The Independent... Yegani, who is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told CNET that checking phones has been reported by other lawyers as part of the vetting process. "[G]oing through passengers phones from the seven banned countries happens when the individual is interrogated (put under extreme vetting)," Yegani said.
Yegani told The Independent that she and other lawyers have been fielding calls from people who are already cleared to live in America, but are getting stuck at the border regardless. "These are people that are coming in legally. They have jobs here and they have vehicles here," Yegani said in the report.
The EFF warns that "Fourth Amendment protection is not as strong at the border as it is in your home or office. This means that law enforcement can inspect your computer or electronic equipment, even if they have no reason to suspect there is anything illegal on it. An international airport, even if many miles from the actual border, is considered the functional equivalent of a border."
Yegani told The Independent that she and other lawyers have been fielding calls from people who are already cleared to live in America, but are getting stuck at the border regardless. "These are people that are coming in legally. They have jobs here and they have vehicles here," Yegani said in the report.
The EFF warns that "Fourth Amendment protection is not as strong at the border as it is in your home or office. This means that law enforcement can inspect your computer or electronic equipment, even if they have no reason to suspect there is anything illegal on it. An international airport, even if many miles from the actual border, is considered the functional equivalent of a border."
Aliens of any type have NEARLY ZERO rights at the border. Consular nonreviewability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... US Citizens have a reduced set of rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Apparently we've forgotten the folks (San Bernardino, etc) who had "clear evidence of ISIS sympathies" on their Facebook profiles and other public social media that we then asked why hadn't been caught when they were entering the country.
As the SCOTUS has repeatedly stated, aliens have no Right of Entry to the US, and non-citizens have reduced guarantees (and certainly reduced privileges). Even a US citizen may be searched on entry if anything unusual is suspected, and is legally obligated to declare possessions in a way that basically happens nowhere else domestically (except agricultural goods going into California).
This is a Good Thing. How is this not a Good Thing? That's what customs/border inspection is supposed to be doing.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Only six Republican Senate seats are up in 2018, four of which are considered safe. Even if the other two flipped, Republicans would still control the Senate because of Pence. It's more likely at this time for Republicans to actually gain seats, even if Trump continues to be a disaster.
Although you're right that Americans don't use the power of the ballot box enough, the 2018 election is such that it's virtually guaranteed for Republicans not to lose the Senate. The House is so locked up by gerrymandering that it's unlikely to flip, either. And Republican Congresspeople who criticized Trump's policies during the election have largely come out in favor of the same policies over the past few days, at least among those who have spoken up. Although Americans may not have done anything if given the chance, it's almost certain because of how this election sets up.
And I see that I've been modded down for my thoughts in the GP post. It was sincere, even if some moderators don't like it. I have too many Christian friends who criticized Trump during the election but voted for him anyway because he said he was pro-life. After the election, Cardinal Raymond Burke called the vote a moral awakening and said the silent majority had spoken. This is actually a big part of the problem, because the churches help to push voters toward people like Trump. The churches have become a mouthpiece for the Republican Party.
You mean George Orwell's 1984. That was about a totalitarian society with widespread surveillance.
Brave New World (by Aldous Huxley) was about a bio-engineered caste society. Individuality was discouraged, but the main theme was not surveillance.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
If you'd paid attention in civics class you'd know we're a Republic, so -- no, we're not a democracy. We're a confederation of states.
The political genius was that they knew that this was going to cause very public chaos and likely be initially ruled contrary to the constitution. So at the same time all this was going on, while the public and media were suitably distracted; and after speaking with his good friend Mr Putin; Trump has kicked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence off the National Security Council and installed Steve Bannon in their place.
I hope you're all watching what happens next very carefully, because tomorrow does not always follow the same as today.
Those countries NEVER had visa waivers.
The change was that if you, as a citizen of a visa waiver country (eg Australia), has been to Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya or Yemen on or after March 1 2011 you would no longer qualify for the visa waiver program. You would still be able to visit, you just need to get a visa first. And given that those countries don't have a huge western tourist trade that doesn't seem like a massive impost. What's more is it isn't targetting the people of that country, its people who are citizens of somewhere else that went there.
not mentioned because not relevant. Timmy was not a member of any international terrorist organization. He was a lone wolf. you have no point
People with green cards are subjected to additional scrutiny, but can enter if they pass those checks. People with visas are delayed for 90 days until new vetting procedures are in place.
Green card holders and visa holders have always gotten screwed by the US immigration system, under Democrats and Republicans alike. I've been stuck outside the US for days due to visa processing delays; friends were stuck for months. American voters don't give a f*ck, and any sane immigrant recognizes that American voters aren't obligated to give a f*ck.
This is only a "big deal" because the American left thinks they can turn it into a political issue, and they will pay attention to this for only as long as it serves their anti-Trump agenda, then they'll go right back to their own form of anti-immigrant rhetoric. It's pathetic.
Regardless: the point of looking at Obama's signing off on a half-year ban in 2011 is simply to show how hilariously hypocritical the shrieking left is as they react to things like this.
Obama stopped processing applications for refugee status. Trump has banned people who had already been granted visas and even green-card holders (i.e., residents of the U.S.), though apparently they've backed off a bit on the latter today after the huge backlash.
but a national shortage of fainting couches the moment the same thing is ordered for a much shorter period of time now. Love the hypocrisy, and love how transparently it's on display. That's the best.
Let's put this in different terms, shall we? If Obama were running a business, the equivalent of his actions would be to cease accepting new applications for jobs. If Trump were running a business, the equivalent would be to lay off people you had already said were hired, and to lock out of their homes longer-term employees who had relocated to join your company when they tried to return from vacation.
If you can't tell the difference between the severity of those actions, I don't know what to say.
Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.
Funny thing about that...
Trumps actual order has an exception for immigrants who are already in transit, viz section (e): "[...] when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States."
So holding people up at US airports just some ICE pricks trying to make a false narrative to paint Trump in a bad light.
I'd say you hadn't read the article you linked to, but since you quote it, and seem capable of English comprehension, I can only assume you are deliberately trying to mispresent the case. The "ICE pricks" are doing exactly what Trump has decreed. You conveniently left out the start of the section, which includes as the beginning...the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis...[including] when the person is already in transit...
So those 'ICE pricks' have no discretion. BOTH Secretaries of State AND Homeland Security must apply that "in transit exemption". AND they can't even do it by a class or group - they have to give approval for each individual. Before they can enter.
AND this exception only applied to refugees. Not to tourists or people visiting their families.
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
Since you can't seem to make an argument w/o resorting to name calling...
Obama didn't demote the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence. In addition, previous to her appointment as National Security Advisor, Rice, among other things:
Steve Bannon worked at Goldman-Sachs, produced a few movies and ran a right-wing newspaper.
The two don't exactly compare.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The residents of the countries on that list have performed 0 terror attacks on US soil since 1975. And the source for this is not some 'libtard' site bit the conservative as Cato institute:
Meanwhile, Saudi-arabia is the largest propagator of Wahabbism which is both the state religion of the kingdom and also at the core of ISIS ideology. Saudis are also largely behind the funding of ISIS. 15 of the 911 attackers were Saudi nationals, 2 were from United Arab Emirates, 1 was Lebanese, and one was from Egypt, But is Saudi-Arabia on the list? Nope. And neither are Egypt or Lebanon. They're still considered your 'allies'. In fact Saudis themselves seem 'very optimistic about Trump.'
So he's planning to combat radical Islam by maintaining military and financial support to its largest state sponsor in the world, while banning a list of countries that have done the US zero harm comparatively? So what, exactly is this 'fixing' outside playing right into the hands of your enemies by allowing them to trump up the rhetoric of 'holy war' and senseless persecution of muslims in an attempt to radicalize the american muslim population?
Nothing. You're being played like a cheap fiddle. The ISIS commanders are laughing their beards off and Sun Tzu is rolling in his grave because of such utter strategic incompetence.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Many people from these countries have been vetted before and so far it's worked, that is, there's no history of peole coming in from these regions committing acts of terror in the US. Obviousuly the vetting is hard and takes time, but that's not a good reason for an across the board ban, as opbviously cases exist in which vetting can (and has) be successfully done.
They're a totalitarian theocracy. They have a 'functioning government' in the same sense North-Korea has a 'functioning government'.
No, I don't think banning entire countries is a good strategy to begin with. I support giving refuge to anyone fleeing the totalitarian government of SA just as I support giving refuge to those fleeing isis. My point was an is that Saudis are the primary source of monetary and ideological suport for ISIS. They share a good deal of values, as SA is also a strict islamic theocracy.
If the goal is to combat radical islam, then doing so without putting pressure on the Saudi government to stop aiding extremists groups and funneling them money is a useless effort.
Also, trusting the Saudi officials is also not likely a safe strategy. The declassified 28 pages of the 911 report make it seem pretty likely that Saudi intelligence is lackluster at best, and in league with the hijackers at worst.
Obviously the official conclusion of the FBI is still that SA was not complicit in the attacks, because admitting that while continuing to hold them as a military ally would be impossible.
Whatever the case is, either the Saudi officials are so incompetent in their monitoring and record collecting that they missed their own former ambassador wiring money to an extremist. Or they did not miss that and simply let it slip. Anyway, in this light, were I american I would be heavily skeptical of any 'vetting' or other such intel provided by Saudi officials and their 'working' government, which shares more of its core values with ISIS than it does with western democracies.
It's impossible to simultaneously say that ISIS is evil but there's nothing wrong with Saudi-Arabia, and this is the key cognitive dissonance that american politicians, officials and the public will have to face if you want to address the issue of militant Islam without seeming totally clueless.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead