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."
Are the agents also permitted to provide alternative facts when they don't find what they are looking for under this administration?
The Visa Waiver Program was improved in 2015.
"Nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited exceptions for travel for diplomatic or military purposes in the service of a VWP country)."
Just because it has been ignored by our previous administration, doesn't make entry lawful. It's far past time for enforcement agencies to follow legal mandates. Right or wrong, law is legislated. Instructing agencies not to follow laws created by legislature by defunding or other political means circumvents mandates created by legislature.
We are a democracy. If the law doesn't fit what the majority of the citizens want, change it. Effecting change without legislature is just wrong.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Not a single American was killed on U.S. soil by citizens from any of those countries between 1975 and 2015, according to statistics tallied by the conservative-leaning Cato Institute.
However, the same set of statistics show that nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by citizens from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt in the same time period - with the bulk of those killed being victims of the 9/11 attacks. Yet, people from those three countries are still welcome to apply for U.S. visas and travel permits.
In a striking parallel, Trump’s sprawling business empire — which he has refused to rescind ownership of — holds multi-million dollar licensing and development deals in all of those countries, raising potential conflict of interest concerns and alarming questions over what actually went into the decision process behind Friday’s executive order.
So please, use statistics and data to explain how Egypt, UAE and Saudi Arabia managed to escape that ban, other than having strong ties to Trump's bottom line.
I know people have been asked to volunteer Facebook and other social network information upon entry into the US, this has been the case for at least 2 if not 4 years and started under the Obama administration. Even Twitter held back their outrage about the DHS using their information for border controls until AFTER it was clear that Trump had won but even that story is now several months old.
All these 'new things' including the stopping of people at the border from certain nations has been done and legislated under the Obama administration, to quote another user here on Slashdot when Obama seized public lands from use by Indians and other members of the public: "Obama is just implementing what was legislated before, these orders are just telling particular agencies how they should implement the legislation".
Well, at least now you know why such laws should never be allowed, most of you here on Slashdot didn't care or realize the gravity of the issues when Obama, Bush or Clinton signed off on these exact laws. Next up: how Trump uses the DMCA, Patriot Act, NAFTA, TPP etc. to do whatever the fuck he wants - and you (the American public) gave it to them because you either didn't feel safe, didn't care or didn't believe that someone could rise up that would abuse those legislations. Too late now.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.
As opposed to simply pointing to the fact that the seven countries in question are (as identified by the Obama administration hotbeds of violent jihaddi output?
A bill signed by Obama to avoid a government shutdown. Hardly an example of Obama actively pushing restrictions on those 7 countries.
As opposed to simply observing the fact that hundreds of people have died in the last couple of years at the hands of immigrants from those areas who have deliberately entered the countries where they murdered people ... to murder them?
I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
And I'm pretty sure that makes two of us.
I stole this Sig
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.
And other than Syria, which was specifically referenced in the order, Trump is using Obama's list of Muslim countries, viz: "Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — and now, Trump is looking to bar immigration and visitors from the same list of countries."
So this is just lefties not caring about the actual issue. When they do it it's OK, but thay have to paint Trump in a bad light when he does it.
(Speaking of which, has Hillary been seen in a black church or black community since November? Or was that just an election thing?)
Also, Obama banned Iraq refugees for 6 months and we didn't hear a peep out of the lefties. Once again, they don't care about the issue, only which side does it.
And no, he didn't ban Muslim immigration. Muslims from Turkey and Saudi Arabia (for example) are not affected by this.
There's a fuckton of people on social media who are actually in favor of this, and who see this as a temporary measure intended to create common-sense rules intended to keep us safe. People are also noting that this was one of his campaign promises, and it's both surprising and refreshing to see someone actually keeping those promises.
You guys have 6 1/2 years to groom a replacement, and you'd better get started real soon now. Your campaign strategy of being the "lesser of two evils" won't work the next time around.
If Jared Kushner or Donald Jr. decides to run for president, the current of actually kept promises will be almost impossible to swim against.
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.
The San Bernadino shooters were from Pakistan. They had travelled to Saudi Arabia years before the attach.
Neither of these countries is on Trump's list of seven. How are these new rules supposed to stop people like the San Bernadino shooters?
While we're on the subject, do you know how many people from Trump's list of seven countries are responsible for terror-related deaths of Americans since 1975? Zero. Zip. Nada. But Saudi Arabia was the point of origin for the 9/11 attackers. And other terror-related deaths in America have been due to people from Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. Those three countries are not on the list. But they do have business connections to Trump (hotels, etc.)
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Sorry, but the election is over and you don't get to point the finger at Obama when Trump does all his daffy shit.
Compared to Obama supporters blaming everything Obama did on Bush, for eight years straight? 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. No complaints from them when their team's guy denies refugees entrance for half a year because of security concerns, 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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
... 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.
That's because Trump Administration Defends Bannon’s Role on Security Council:
“Well, he is a former naval officer,” Mr. Spicer said of Mr. Bannon on ABC’s “This Week.” “He’s got a tremendous understanding of the world and the geopolitical landscape that we have now.”
And I sure that vast experience from his 7 years in the Navy from the late 1970s to early 1980s:
Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy for seven years in the late 1970s and early 1980s, serving on the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Pacific Fleet and stateside as a special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.
Makes him *way* more valuable than the, "four-star general who heads the Joint Chiefs, Joseph F. Dunford Jr., who rose through the Marine Corps and served in Iraq and Afghanistan." who was on the NSC. (from the NY Times article above) /sarcasm
At least with Trump, this will be a HUGE shit-show, the biggest, best shit-show ...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .