Homeland Security Plans To Collect Immigrants' Social Media Information (fortune.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Homeland Security Plans To Collect Immigrants' Social Media Information (fortune.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday September 27, 2017 @05:00PM from the gotta-catch-'em-all dept.

The Department of Homeland Security plans to expand the files it collects on immigrants, as well as some citizens, by including more online data -- most notably search results and social media information -- about each individual. The plan is set out in the Federal Register, where the government publishes forthcoming regulations. A final version is set to go into effect on Oct. 18. Fortune reports: The plan, reported by BuzzFeed, is notable partly because it permits the government to amass information not only about recent immigrants, but also on green card holders and naturalized Americans as well. The proposal to collect social media data is set out in a part of the draft regulation that describes expanding the content of so-called "Alien Files," which serve as detailed profiles of individual immigrants, and are used by everyone from border agents to judges. Here is the relevant portion: "The Department of Homeland Security, therefore, is updating the [file process] to ... (5) expand the categories of records to include the following: country of nationality; country of residence; the USCIS Online Account Number; social media handles, aliases, associated identifiable information, and search results."

197 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Like from Facebook and Twitter who have it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 17:05 · Score: 0

I thought the NSA and other companies already scraped this info, but lets make it official.
1. Re: Like from Facebook and Twitter who have it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 18:57 · Score: 0
  
  Just as it should be. If it's an official policy, make it official and let the general public be aware of it and protest if they want.
2. Re: Like from Facebook and Twitter who have it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  Who else will provide our "red herrings" for passing unwanted legislation and performing questionable foreign diplomacy if we don't have mass quantities of college students filmed in outrage at random, biweekly bullshit to fuel the distraction for the rest of us too busy with an actual life to care? I guess I too need a scape goat for my all night, zombie, head-down, phone-starring walks with the rest of the millenials that are "protesting" while on Snap Chat and Facebook to let "followers" know how hipster and open minded I am. The extra credit you get for all those humanities classes and phone numbers must be nice. Don't play Pokemon Go while you do it; you might get hit by a car.
Welcome to the united stalker states by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 17:07 · Score: 0

Not to mention a whole group of people being demoted to second (or third) class citizens... by homeland security
1. Re:Welcome to the united stalker states by jedidiah · 2017-09-28 00:49 · Score: 0
  
  > Not to mention a whole group of people being demoted to second (or third) class citizens... by homeland security
  Except they aren't citizens and never had equal status. Sorry to burst your bubble.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
2. Re: Welcome to the united stalker states by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  They specifically include naturalized citizens in the text of the rule. It also includes conversations where one party is a visa holder, permanent resident, or naturalized citizen. That potentially includes every conversation because you won't know the status of every person in every post. Someone could add to a conversation years after you posted a comment and suddenly it becomes part of the surveillance.
3. Re:Welcome to the united stalker states by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  > Not to mention a whole group of people being demoted to second (or third) class citizens... by homeland security
  Except they aren't citizens and never had equal status. Sorry to burst your bubble.
  In my country, a big country invariably called third-world [though I can't see meaning in that expression anymore], aside from political-electoral rights, any person enjoys the same rights and protections as nationals while in our territory. I guess my country is more socially advanced and humane than yours.
Tried to slip that one by us by PopeRatzo · 2017-09-27 17:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

as well as some citizens
I like how they add that innocent little phrase. "...as well as some citizens".
If you're a naturalized citizen, you're as much of a citizen as the Founding Fathers. Don't let anyone tell you different. Unlike citizens that were born here, you've proven that you can actually pass a civics test. You belong here. You have all the rights of any American.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
1. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by emag · 2017-09-27 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  as well as some citizens
  I like how they add that innocent little phrase. "...as well as some citizens".
  If you're a naturalized citizen, you're as much of a citizen as the Founding Fathers. Don't let anyone tell you different. Unlike citizens that were born here, you've proven that you can actually pass a civics test. You belong here. You have all the rights of any American.
  I'd like to think that, I really would. The wording, however, indicates otherwise. I hope that at least that part dies quickly under a flurry of lawsuits over Constitutional grounds.
  
  --
  "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
2. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Aighearach · 2017-09-27 18:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You misunderstood. Some citizens have an A-file, is what that means. There is no requirement in the Constitution for the government to throw out all records about you if you become a citizen.
  What this does has nothing to do with that. It was already true that an immigrant has an A-file, where the records relating to their immigration are kept. And also that citizens who sponsor immigrants also have a file in the same system, as do translators and other professionals who work with immigrants during the process.
  What this does is add "social medial handles" to the list of examples of types of alias, creates a place in the database for search results relating to social media. When somebody is asking to move here, why wouldn't that be part of their background check? Why wouldn't social media handles be a type of alias? They're not doing a background check on the US citizen who is sponsoring an immigrant, they're doing the checks on the immigrant. Why wouldn't there be checks? Why wouldn't the database have a slot for the data?
3. Re: Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 18:19 · Score: 0
  
  No, actually you don't. You don't get to be President, just as one example.
4. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Aighearach · 2017-09-27 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  What part of the Constitution says the government can't retain records after you gain citizenship? It might help to realize that those aren't the new words, that part has been there since 1945 and isn't controversial. You're just jumping to wild conclusions prior to reading enough of the words to understand what the fuck that section even says.
5. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 18:26 · Score: 0
  
  why would you even want to be a citizen ? its becoming more obvious day by day that the true meaning of citizen is slave, to be subject to whatever whim the government wants to do with you. in some circles, its become known that there really is no country called usa anymore, that's its really only a corporation established back in 1871 and that we, by openly referring to ourselves as citizens, are merely employees of that corporation,subject to its codes and statues and not laws.
6. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  "... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction... the equal protection of the laws."
  If an American agent, on American soil, can do it to a foreigner - even an illegal immigrant - then they can also do it to any citizen, naturalized or not.
  Remember that. Either it's legal, or it isn't. There is no such thing as "legal, but only against foreigners".
7. Re: Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 19:04 · Score: 0
  
  Well, now. You certainly spun that up pretty fast!
  What do you usually do to wind down? Alcohol or sedatives? Or do you just continue gibbering until exhaustion takes it's toll?
8. Re: Tried to slip that one by us by easyTree · 2017-09-27 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  You should probably disagree with the points explicitly, rather than use a personal attack - it offers more opportunities for readers to confirm your superior level of correctness... which is in your interest, yes?
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
9. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by aussie_a · 2017-09-27 20:12 · Score: 2
  
  So what happens to those who refuse to hand them over? Am I not good enough for America just because I don't use Facebook?
10. Re: Tried to slip that one by us by ShanghaiBill · 2017-09-27 20:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You don't get to be President, just as one example.
  You also cannot be Vice President, and that is the only other example.
  There are no other differences. A naturalized citizen has all the other rights of a native born citizen.
11. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by alex67500 · 2017-09-27 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  Almost... You can't become President (yet).
12. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by gtall · 2017-09-27 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm...maybe we should have civics tests for everyone in order to be a citizen, to be repeated every 5 years in case they've forgotten, and they end upon retirement.
  I can hear the gnashing of teeth by Conservatives and Libertards and Liberals right now. Conservatives: How dare you accuse me of being unamerican. Libertards: I am free to be stupid and not know how the Constitution works. Liberals: this is an attempt to suppress voting of minorities and poor people.
13. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by gtall · 2017-09-27 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it means you are suspect because DHS will assume you are lying and sneakily posting messages to Twitter claiming el Presidente Tweetie's next tweet will accuse Kimmy of being a "poopyhead".
14. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by geekmux · 2017-09-27 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  as well as some citizens
  I like how they add that innocent little phrase. "...as well as some citizens".
  If you're a naturalized citizen, you're as much of a citizen as the Founding Fathers. Don't let anyone tell you different. Unlike citizens that were born here, you've proven that you can actually pass a civics test. You belong here. You have all the rights of any American.
  "You have all the rights of any American".
  I like how you add that little innocent phrase as if it actually still means anything anymore...
15. Re: Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 22:25 · Score: 0
  
  Well, now. You certainly spun that up pretty fast!
  What do you usually do to wind down? Alcohol or sedatives? Or do you just continue gibbering until exhaustion takes it's toll?
  Is your fucking point buried somewhere in this personal attack, or do you really have no way of proving the parent wrong?
  Just curious as to the overall ignorance being demonstrated here.
16. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Chrisq · 2017-09-27 22:27 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If you're a naturalized citizen, you're as much of a citizen as the Founding Fathers. Don't let anyone tell you different.
  
  Except for those who say that their allegiance is to Islam and not America, and that they don't recognise the courts, rights of women, or anything else not based on "god's" law.
17. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 22:54 · Score: 0
  
  You know what pisses me off?
  That it is seen as OK (by you and your mods) for immigrants, but not for citizens. That attitude is going to give you exactly what you want to avoid: no privacy at all.
  We are all people, we all have a right to privacy. And ironically, in your country, there is a lot of people that originate from immigrants (as if they are somehow more threatening to security)
  The powers want control. And they split you up and take the weakest groups first (just travelers to the US have already no right, I guess immigrants are next). But make no mistake: they want to control all of you.
18. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  What part of the Constitution says the government can't retain records after you gain citizenship? It might help to realize that those aren't the new words, that part has been there since 1945 and isn't controversial. You're just jumping to wild conclusions prior to reading enough of the words to understand what the fuck that section even says.
  You seem to be preoccupied with whether or not they could that you didn't stop to think if they should.
  See, some of us know that the Census was misused by the paranoid forces of patriotism before 1945, and that things haven't changed.
19. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by hord · 2017-09-28 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  The 10th amendment.
  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
  What gives the government the "right" to do anything? Our "rights" are supposed to be encoded in our flesh. Not in documents.
20. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by jedidiah · 2017-09-28 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  > why would you even want to be a citizen ?
  If you aren't a citizen, it's pretty much open season on you at the border. Or haven't you been paying to the liberal narrative for the last year?
  If you want to live some place, it's a good idea to have full status in whatever that place is. This idea doesn't just apply to the US.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
21. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  If you were not born here then YOU ARE A THREAT and should be treated as one for the rest of your life. If you don't like being treated under the law of the land, then you are free to leave.
22. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  When they come for the....
23. Re: Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  Senator Roy Moore endorses this message.
24. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by PopeRatzo · 2017-09-28 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  When somebody is asking to move here, why wouldn't that be part of their background check?
  A citizen is not "asking to move here". They've been here. Even a naturalized citizen has lived in this country for years, passed more stringent background checks than President Trump, and went through a process that almost no native-born US citizen could pass.
  They're not asking to be here. They're here and no double-standard should apply to them.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
25. Re: Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  Why does that sound almost exactly like what Christian conservatives preach? Could it be they are both right wing extremists? Hmm.....
26. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  If this is truly how you view the world, then I pity you, your miserable existence, and everyone who has to tolerate your presence in their lives.
  Judging by your comment, you're obviously born "here", and yet, your attitude makes YOU a greater threat than the vast majority of immigrants to the U.S.
27. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by cayenne8 · 2017-09-28 03:37 · Score: 2
  
  What part of the Constitution says the government can't retain records after you gain citizenship?
  
  The better question is, what part of the Constitution says the federal government CAN gather and keep such records.
  Remember, the constitution is not there to grant rights to the people...people are BORN with rights.
  The constitution is there to list the limited, enumerated powers, privileges and responsibilities that the Federal Government has.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
28. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by losfromla · 2017-09-28 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  If you're a naturalized citizen, you're as much of a citizen as the Founding Fathers. Don't let anyone tell you different.
  Except for those who say that their allegiance is to Yahwe and not America, and that they don't recognise the courts, rights of women, or anything else not based on "god's" law.
  FTFY
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
29. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by arth1 · 2017-09-28 03:57 · Score: 2
  
  A citizen is not "asking to move here". They've been here.
  Not necessarily. There are citizens who has never been to the US, including residents of US Territories, and children of American citizens born on foreign soil.
30. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by arth1 · 2017-09-28 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  Also, the rules of reciprocity come into play. What we deem is okay to do to foreigners, we also signal that we are okay with foreign countries doing the same to our people.
31. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by jwhyche · 2017-09-28 05:11 · Score: 2
  
  You are American by your hopes and dreams, not by where you where born..
  
  --
  I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
32. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Stephen+Battleware · 2017-09-28 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Someone took the red pill. Next thing you know you'll be telling us that the land's real courts were usurped by commercial courts.
33. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Stephen+Battleware · 2017-09-28 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yes you can since 2008.
34. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by jbengt · 2017-09-28 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  1871?
35. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Falconnan · 2017-09-28 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  as well as some citizens
  I like how they add that innocent little phrase. "...as well as some citizens".
  If you're a naturalized citizen, you're as much of a citizen as the Founding Fathers. Don't let anyone tell you different. Unlike citizens that were born here, you've proven that you can actually pass a civics test. You belong here. You have all the rights of any American.
  This. This all day.
36. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Aighearach · 2017-09-28 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  You're just burbling words out but you don't actually say anything. If you think there is a Constitutional problem, you need to be able to say what that problem is. If the Constitution doesn't address it at all, that means there is no problem.
  What part of the Constitution implies in any way that government records with your name must be destroyed if you're a citizen? How would we even have elections? How would people born on US Territories or military installations outside of a US State even get birth documentation?
  You don't know, because you aren't a thinking being. Somebody told you to be upset by this, so you're upset by this. At least memorize some talking points that contain talking points.
37. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Aighearach · 2017-09-28 06:18 · Score: 2
  
  You don't seem to comprehend what a list of aliases is.
  On my wife's immigration application, she had to list her maiden name as an alias.
  On my application for her to receive immigration benefits based on my citizenship, I didn't list any aliases because my name didn't change when we were married.
  If my father was filling out that sort of form, he'd have to list an alias because he's often completed official paperwork using the colloquial nickname for actual legal name.
  There is no issue about having aliases, or not having them. The issue would be if you do have them, and fail to disclose them. Then you'd be dishonest, and not fit to immigrate to the United States.
38. Re: Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  They are still full citizens though.
39. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by q4Fry · 2017-09-28 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  as well as some citizens
  I like how they add that innocent little phrase. "...as well as some citizens".
  This appears to be a rather broad category of people (solicitors, doctors, interpreters, and the like) who provide professional services to INA individuals and I quote:
  
  Relatives and associates of any of the individuals listed above who are subject to the INA;
  There's a funny question I have about how that's interpreted. Does the final clause link to the "individuals listed above or does it link to the "relatives and associates?" Depending on the law's reading, this could be most of the USA and a fair number of everyone who has ever known a person who moved there.
  Did your uncle marry someone who wasn't a US citizen from birth? Do you work with a green-card holder? Under one interpretation, that's you, and the DHS can hold for 100 years after your birth, information including the following (among others):
  
  Family, criminal, education, travel, and employment history; Professional accreditation information; Medical information; Social media handles and aliases, associated identifiable information, and search results;
  Search results? The DHS is specifically asking to browse your search results? Great work, America.
40. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Aighearach · 2017-09-28 06:39 · Score: 2
  
  There is no double-standard, just a lack of comprehension on your part. I'd say "reading comprehension" except that you obviously didn't read about what the changes are.
  A naturalized US Citizen, by definition, first applied to be a Resident Alien, also known as an immigrant. As part of that process, they filled out various applications. On those applications are included questions including a required list of all aliases.
  US citizens who apply to have relatives receive immigration benefits also have to list their aliases on the application. For example citizens who marry a foreign national, or whose parents or children are foreign nationals, and apply for that person to receive immigrant status, must fill out an application.
  Also, US citizens who work as translators or lawyers during the immigrant application process have a separate set of forms that they fill out, and that are stored in the same record-keeping system as the applications and related documents listed above.
  OK, now understand that the Federal Register isn't listing the changes to the regulation; it is publishing the new set of regulations that include the changes. The part that you're getting upset over isn't even a change; it has been that way since 1945. What it says is that the system of record keeping that stores these files holds records relating mostly to foreign nationals but also to some US Citizens; specifically, the ones who have filed paperwork similar the types listed above. It seems natural that having received applications, the government would wish to store them. That is all that part says.
  The changes are much deeper in, and they simply add "social media handles" to the list of alias types, and create a database slot (or paper record classification) for that information and any search results related to it. They already do as complete a search as they can on immigration applicants, including public information. That hasn't changed at all. They can already ask for social media information at the immigration interview if they want to, they only difference is that they would have to put the answers in with other uncategorized notes.
  Then later after they become legal immigrants, they might apply to become citizens. Now they're one of the citizens who have the file with the answers from their earlier application process. Just as I am one of the citizens with a file in that system, because I applied for immigration benefits for a close relative. Why would my file get deleted, and when? Don't you see problems with deleting that sort of record?
41. Re: Tried to slip that one by us by sound+vision · 2017-09-28 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is, they are already collecting everybody's everything. Or they can get it with a quick note to Facebook. what they are doing now is just formalizing it somewhat. But make no mistake, this goes on secretly all the time. It is unconstitutional but it's not being challenged or it's existence even acknowledged. Anyone who talks about it ends up hiding in Moscow or an embassy.
42. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by yuriklastalov · 2017-09-28 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Usurped? It's evolution, baby.
43. Re: Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  They could be, indeed. However, in that set of all right wing extremists, only one type of Right Wing Nut Job is being imported en masse into Western Countries. Only one type of RWNJ is protected from any and all criticism by the Left.
  To summarize:
  White Christian RWNJ - Bad
  Non-white Islamic RWNJ - Good
  Any questions?
44. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by yuriklastalov · 2017-09-28 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh, Universal Americanism. Next thing you'll tell me is that Pax Americana should be instituted de jure, rather than left as the de facto state of the world. Oh wait, that's "White Supremacy", LOL.
  Unite the world under the Constitution of the United States of America, it's the unstated goal of Globalism anyway. If it's not done with Pax Americana, you can expect anti-white pogroms and other nasty business as the anti-western UN types take control.
  The US, and the West in general, are in a tricky position. If they lose their current status as dominant world powers, then like the losing side in an armed conflict, they'll be punished severely by those on the winning side with grievances (legitimate or not) against the old order. You can already see the anti-western sentiment forming in bodies like the UN, and unfortunately for everyone involved, Western is currently conflated with White. We all know where these kinds of racial conflicts end up, whether perpetrated by Whites or Non-Whites, so spare me the Nazi comparisons.
  Those on the right (aka, Alt-Right) going on about White Genocide are a few decades and a few critical historical crossroads off. Is there White Genocide happening now? No. Could it happen in the future? Absolutely.
45. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjsJq9PVPI8&list=PL3696DEA6F27A3688&index=1
46. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  nor can yiu become a SPY, like Syril Galindo is
47. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by jwhyche · 2017-09-28 08:50 · Score: 2
  
  By all means I'll spare you the nazi comparisons, and just call you what you are. A god damn moron.
  
  --
  I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
48. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Pseudonym · 2017-09-28 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  What part of the Constitution says the government can't retain records after you gain citizenship?
  Indeed. One would presume that the government can't acquire new information due to the Fourth Amendment, so one key problem is then that the information retained is stale, and any mistakes are not corrected.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
49. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 14:43 · Score: 0
  
  why would you even want to be a citizen ?
  Of the US? If I'd ever considered it in the past, the Trump presidency, the rise of the altcucks and the Nazis and the SJWs has convinced me that it's a bad idea.
  Social democracy (the best kind of socialism) is far preferable to crony capitalism (the worst kind of socialism). I think I'll stay where I am thanks.
50. Re: Tried to slip that one by us by Pseudonym · 2017-09-28 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not the AC you're responding to, and I'm not going to defend what they said, but I couldn't make head nor tail of it.
  What is the cryptic reference to the year of 1871, a year in which a lot of things happened, about? The creation of the government of DC? The impeachment of the Governor of NC? The deposing of William "Boss" Tweed? The Civil Rights Act? The first Major League Baseball game, perhaps?
  Only the author and presumably the "some circles" in which they move (and everyone else doesn't) has any idea what the hell this is about.
  The first step in critical thinking is that we must understand the claims being made on their best terms, assuming the person making the claims is rational, and interpreting any statements in their most charitable light. If we can't do that, we can't address the claims.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
51. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Aighearach · 2017-09-28 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it is stale, in the same way your birth certificate is stale. It is a historical record that would only be used in case it is relevant to some controversy.
52. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Pseudonym · 2017-09-28 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  I would assume that "search results" are not as carefully curated as birth certificates.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
53. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Pseudonym · 2017-09-28 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  The depressing part is I don't know if you made that up or it already happened.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
54. Re: Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 17:27 · Score: 0
  
  Puerto Rico probably finds that difficult to believe at the moment.
55. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 18:12 · Score: 0
  
  IT HURTS MY EYES.
  Also, it's a big wall of garbled speech that didn't explain anything in the 5min or so I listened to before I had to stop. Is there a comprehensible summary of this theory anywhere, preferably in well-structured text form?
  Having said that, I'm getting a sovereign citizen vibe from it. You know, the people who seem to think that there are certain phrases or capitalisations which are magic cheat codes so they can avoid financial or legal responsibility, only in this case it's the nebulous government doing it instead of oh-so-clever sovereign citizens.
56. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Pseudonym · 2017-09-28 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  Depending on the law's reading, this could be most of the USA and a fair number of everyone who has ever known a person who moved there.
  Kevin Bacon's file must be huge.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
57. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Aighearach · 2017-09-29 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  You assume wrong.
  The care used in the curation is given to the entire record-keeping system used. Federal records are carefully curated.
  If you're curating one column differently from the rest of the database, or one page in a folder differently from the rest, the whole collection of data is only as carefully kept as the least carefully kept page. That is just a reality of data storage.
58. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by shutdown+-p+now · 2017-09-29 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  That's not how it works. Constitution grants powers to the federal government. If there's no grant of power to do X, then federal government can't do X.
59. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Aighearach · 2017-09-29 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  No, that is just niche propaganda you misunderstood. The Constitution grants Executive, Legislative, and Legal powers. That already covers the full range of powers. Clue up.
60. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by shutdown+-p+now · 2017-09-29 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  Constitution grants specific executive, legislative and judicial powers (I have no idea what "legal powers" are, except as a synonym for "legislative") to the federal government. It furthermore specifically states:
  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
61. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Aighearach · 2017-09-30 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  You better tell it to the Solicitor General because he'll be arguing this week at the Court that the Executive was granted expansive powers over general subjects.
  You also might want to check with some legal websites instead of just political ones, so you can find out what the propaganda means, because here you're way off.
  The Constitution grants lots of powers, not all of them even clearly worded enough for it to be possible that they're "specific." I recommend actually reading it instead of just reading propaganda telling you what it means.
  Your propaganda is all lit up with flashing lights because it exactly matches a certain tired brand of political propaganda that is known to be total hogwash and to misunderstand all areas of existing precedent.
62. Re:Tried to slip that one by us by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-03 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  Really? Then pretty much every human being including those here are not fit to be here/immigrate here. Nobody is 100% honest.
Before people lose their minds again by El+Cubano · 2017-09-27 17:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Before people go losing their minds again about how Trump is a xenophobic racist, please have a look at this Slashdot article from 15 months ago:
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/06/28/005202/us-customs-wants-to-know-travelers-social-media-account-names
You will note that it was during the Obama administration. I am not making a value judgment on the practice, I am just pointing out that the previous administration did or tried to do something substantially similar.
1. Re:Before people lose their minds again by emag · 2017-09-27 17:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That didn't apply to naturalized citizens. This new one does. Naturalized citizens are now second class citizens.
  
  --
  "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
2. Re:Before people lose their minds again by deviated_prevert · 2017-09-27 17:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Before people go losing their minds again about how Trump is a xenophobic racist, please have a look at this Slashdot article from 15 months ago:
  https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/06/28/005202/us-customs-wants-to-know-travelers-social-media-account-names
  You will note that it was during the Obama administration. I am not making a value judgment on the practice, I am just pointing out that the previous administration did or tried to do something substantially similar.
  The NSA seems to be a branch of government that does not answer to the executive office unless they fuck up. Same reason why several presidents tried to reign in the CIA and even before that the FBI under Hoover. This is the problem with civil servants who achieve too great a level of power independent of the executive branch and therefore can do shit behind the back of everybody. The CIA backing the crazy Cubans is one example of this level of independent action backfiring on presidents all the way back to when Kennedy took over from Eisanhoover and had to, somewhat reluctantly I might add, approve the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Which was a huge CIA intelligence screw up too say the least.
  It took until Regan for the executive branch to realize that the level of drug financing of bad guys for guns and troops by the CIA was going to create huge PR problems in the future when the public found out the truth. So Regan reigned in the CIA to an extent, but he had a hell of a time doing it and never really succeeded.
  The problems with the covert actions NSA/CIA are starting to show their ugly head, Obama had to keep tight lipped even when the idiots bugged Angela Merkel. Though it would be interesting to see what they got out of that little job. All and all it is a problem for any president even Lord Trump is going to have trouble with what they do behind his back perhaps even to him and his family if he tries to reign them in.
  
  --
  This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
3. Re: Before people lose their minds again by pdavisgenoa · 2017-09-27 17:43 · Score: 0
  
  You're just casually leaving out that it's written as an "optional request". This is different. Also note that at the time that was introduced our countries legislators - as in those making laws - were a GOP majority.
4. Re:Before people lose their minds again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 17:53 · Score: 0
  
  How does that show Trump to be not a racist xenophobic moron who can't stop lying implausibly about the dumbest shit as he picks fights with the NBA for no reason during nuclear war posturing?
5. Re:Before people lose their minds again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 17:57 · Score: 0
  
  Amazing how everything bad is seemingly Bush's or Trump's fault. Obama was an angel promising change. In my view, the strong push to collect information on immigrants relates to fears of terrorism.
  As for the Alien Files, it seems Area 51 would be a good place for a detention camp. Make no mistake, if it comes to rounding up Muslims and/or other groups, the U.S. government will. It did with the Japanese during WWII, and the U.S. Supreme Court later ruled that to be legal. Maybe it was necessary, don't know.
  Rambling on, but many Americans, in particular those with lots of money (they're scared too with many of them having walls around their homes and/or armed security), don't want the U.S. to be overrun by immigrants with very different beliefs that aren't compatible with the modern Western world. Of course, it's possible such immigrants will integrate better than they have in Europe, but if Dearborn, Michigan, along with some other locales, are any indication, that's still an open question.
6. Re:Before people lose their minds again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 18:01 · Score: 0
  
  Trump isn't as bad as Obama (yet, this can change if he gets us into a shooting war with NK). Obama got a nobel peace prize (just for not being Bush) and ended up creating more wars and chaos around the world than several of his predecessors combined.
  His administration waged war on government transparency like there was no tomorrow, he deported hundred of thousands of illegals. He expanded the military and started a program for the update and expansion of nuclear weapons that's gonna cost us trilions of $. He didn't even prosecute those that were responsable for creating a regime of institutional torture. No one, not even a democrat that has an ounce of grey matter can describe the Obama tenure in the white house successful. Obama took the worst of the Bush years and made it even worse. 8 fucking years of hope and change. Yeah right. His only worthwhile accomplishment was the ACA (watered down by Republicans) and it still needs to be corrected so that it doesn't implode.
7. Re:Before people lose their minds again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 18:06 · Score: 0
  
  learn the difference between citizens, immigrants and visitors retard.
8. Re:Before people lose their minds again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 19:08 · Score: 0
  
  Amazing how everything bad is seemingly Bush's or Trump's fault. Obama was an angel promising change. In my view, the strong push to collect information on immigrants relates to fears of terrorism.
  As for the Alien Files, it seems Area 51 would be a good place for a detention camp. Make no mistake, if it comes to rounding up Muslims and/or other groups, the U.S. government will. It did with the Japanese during WWII, and the U.S. Supreme Court later ruled that to be legal. Maybe it was necessary, don't know.
  Rambling on, but many Americans, in particular those with lots of money (they're scared too with many of them having walls around their homes and/or armed security), don't want the U.S. to be overrun by immigrants with very different beliefs that aren't compatible with the modern Western world. Of course, it's possible such immigrants will integrate better than they have in Europe, but if Dearborn, Michigan, along with some other locales, are any indication, that's still an open question.
  Hey you dumb shit head you just said round up Muslims. Your prejudiced idiotic rhetoric is the reason why some young radicals have become a problem. The Muslims that I know are wonderful people and treat all other religions with respect and don't shove their religion down other peoples throats the way some so called Christians do. The vast majority of American Muslims do much more for the US than assholes like Trump and his family of xenophobic Nazi wanta be slum lords have ever done.
  A great many American Muslims have served faithfully in all the wars including Vietnam, the first gulf war and even the second phony war started by Dick Chaney for Bush the Second!
  No sir it is assholes like you that are the problem with the US and this has been true for a very long time and includes some major shit disturbing morons with names like Wallace and his ilk.
9. Re: Before people lose their minds again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 19:09 · Score: 0
  
  Trump Derangement Syndrome.
  You guys are going to have a hard time fielding opponents in 2018 if you don't try to settle down.
10. Re:Before people lose their minds again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  And by "apply" you mean "we don't shred the folder when they become naturailzed." This isn't a change from Dear Leader Obama's policy.
11. Re: Before people lose their minds again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 20:08 · Score: 0
  
  Go sit on a dick while your party burns faggot GOP nazis
12. Re:Before people lose their minds again by zifn4b · 2017-09-27 22:33 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  That didn't apply to naturalized citizens. This new one does. Naturalized citizens are now second class citizens.
  They are second class citizens. A naturalized citizen is a person who was born to illegal immigrants. They are second class citizens already because they are not eligible to become President or Vice-President. We already have restrictions for these folks. Why all of the sudden right now are your concerned about naturalized citizens rights? If you want to cry discrimination, then it's been going on the whole time but it's only now that you're interested apparently.
  
  --
  We'll make great pets
13. Re:Before people lose their minds again by AmiMoJo · 2017-09-27 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  People were complaining that naturalized citizens couldn't become president or VP, it just wasn't a very urgent issue since it only affected one or two people who might ever have a chance of reaching that level.
  This affects millions of people and worse than simply being denied a particular job, it actively harms them.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
14. Re:Before people lose their minds again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 23:39 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  A naturalized citizen is a person who was born to illegal immigrants
  No they aren't, what you are referring to here is what is termed as anchor babies where some people make the claim that the 14th Amendment
  which reads
  
  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
  means any kid popped out on US soil is automatically a citizen regardless of the status of their parents. A claim that has never been upheld by any court and doesn't actually have backing by the Amendment itself because there's that little phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof that those making the claim like to ignore. That phrase means the person in question must not be under the jurisdiction of any other nation at the time of birth.
  So an immigrant not yet a US citizen is technically a citizen of their home country, as is a tourist on a baby visit. Just as the United States has no problems taxing its citizens who live in foreign countries or, requiring those living abroad to still sign up for selective service and, should be necessary, to draft those folks into military service for the US, so the same applies to the immigrants and their home countries. Until a person renounces their citizenship in another country and gains citizenship in the US, they are technically not under the jurisdiction of the United States. That phrase was specifically added at the time of the Amendment to ensure that the freed slaves were covered by the Amendment, but not the local indian tribes. The freed slaves had no choice about being here so they were considered under the jurisdiction of, but the original Amendment did not apply to the indian tribes that were here as they were considered not to be under the jurisdiction of the US government, they were considered separate nations. That change latter with legislation.
  So birth is not what makes you a naturalized citizen, there is a well defined legal process that an immigrant goes through to become a naturalized citizen, which ends with a swearing in ceremony where they renounce allegiance to any other government and swear allegiance to the US. At this point they become under the jurisdiction of the US government and any of their children born after naturalization are considered native born American citizens.
15. Re:Before people lose their minds again by zifn4b · 2017-09-27 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  This affects millions of people and worse than simply being denied a particular job, it actively harms them.
  Please describe in more detail what "it actively harms them" means otherwise I think we can safely assume you're making an irrational appeal to emotion aka hyperbole.
  
  --
  We'll make great pets
16. Re:Before people lose their minds again by zifn4b · 2017-09-27 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say they weren't considered "citizens". What I said is in the situation where a child is born on US soil to non-US citizens a distinction is made between those who are born to US citizens and those who aren't (naturalized citizens). And we also have evidence to show that these two types of citizens are indeed treated differently based on that status. Can you refute that claim?
  
  --
  We'll make great pets
17. Re:Before people lose their minds again by DarkOx · 2017-09-28 00:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  A naturalized citizen is a person who was born to illegal immigrants.
  
  Completely false! A naturalized is a legal immigrant who has become a citizen. Someone born here regardless of their citizenship parents is citizen and could be president.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
18. Re:Before people lose their minds again by AmiMoJo · 2017-09-28 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  Knowingly having your social media accounts monitored and/or periodically checked creates a chilling effect. It may discourage people from discussing certain things, or even from passing through the US border.
  You know, all the usual reasons why giving border staff unlimited power to e-molest people is a bad idea.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
19. Re:Before people lose their minds again by MorePower · 2017-09-28 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  Um, a naturalized citizen is someone who traveled to the USA (usually legally getting a green card and all) and later took the civics test and did the little ceremony to become a US citizen.
  Anyone born on US soil (regardless of their parents status) is native born citizen, not a naturalized citizen.
20. Re:Before people lose their minds again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  Knowingly having your social media accounts monitored and/or periodically checked creates a chilling effect.
  Nonsense. The whole idea of social media is that people, for whatever reason, WANT to put stuff for the world to monitor and periodically checked.
  They're aren't scared to keep posting their stupid opinions (which can and does get people into trouble) even when they know people are watching. In fact, the rise of the alt-right indicates a very strong desire for people to watch their stupid drivel: when you try to censor/kick them off your platform, they scream louder and even try to build their own social media platforms so somebody can see their stuff.
  And of course there's the president, who is the king of saying stupid things online and not stopping no matter how how much people say how stupid it is for him to say those things online (or offline, or anywhere). In that light, he really is the president America deserves.
  It's not like people haven't been warned before. It's been years since Edward Snowden. John Oliver did the whole thing of framing the problem to the government seeing your dick pic.
  But people, for the most part, still don't care.
21. Re:Before people lose their minds again by swillden · 2017-09-28 01:51 · Score: 2
  
  a distinction is made between those who are born to US citizens and those who aren't (naturalized citizens)
  You have no idea what "naturalized citizen" means. https://www.uscis.gov/us-citiz...
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
22. Re: Before people lose their minds again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  Both parties are burning down. Here, want a marsmsllow?
23. Re:Before people lose their minds again by zifn4b · 2017-09-28 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  a distinction is made between those who are born to US citizens and those who aren't (naturalized citizens)
  You have no idea what "naturalized citizen" means. https://www.uscis.gov/us-citiz...
  You are splitting hairs. What's your fucking point? Just want to be a superior pedant? The issue is citizens who when you trace back the path which they became citizens either included legal immigration procedures or they did not. Do you refute that there is a difference? I mean let's get to the point why have any fucking immigration law at all if illegal aliens can just side-step the whole thing based on their own self interest and not be tax payers and suck off of the teat of the actual taxpaying American citizens? You don't see a problem with that? I have an idea, why don't you send me all your money as a gift and a demonstration of altruism. Better yet how about I find a way to force you to do it because I consider you selfish. Sounds like a good idea doesn't it? You're a typical liberal idiot.
  
  --
  We'll make great pets
24. Re: Before people lose their minds again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  Who cares? We are talking about the crazy nut job we have in office now. Obama isn't in office and is no longer a threat - time to get over it. Meanwhile, we have an orange haired wacko whose loyalty is split between a neonazi white nationalist, the Russian FÃ¼hrer and his weirdo admiration for his daughters appearance.
  For just a few minutes can we all put partisan politics aside, not worry about what president Grover Cleveland did in the 1800s and see the cluster fuck we got leading our nation today?
  And no I don't care what Hillary would have done or why she lost or whose fault everything is. Our nation is falling apart. For God's sake people, there are thousands marching in the streets dreaming of the good old days when the Confederates warred with the North. Shit like this doesn't die, it grows and ultimately explodes.
  And no, all you white nationalists who believe you will win need to wake up and realize you will not. Even if somehow you manage to create a civil war and kill every brown, black, yellow, pink purple or whatever. person, the US will be destroyed and Russia, China or someone else will be the new global power. Stop being a pawn and let's all go back to being Americans of all races colors Creed's who will bicker but at the end will stand United.
  Fuck Trump, fuck white nationalism, fuck any other separatist movement. It's time we take America back from those who use hate to divide us.
25. Re:Before people lose their minds again by cayenne8 · 2017-09-28 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Knowingly having your social media accounts monitored and/or periodically checked creates a chilling effect. It may discourage people from discussing certain things, or even from passing through the US border.
  Yet ANOTHER reason not to be on Facebook.....or other 'social media'....
  :)
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
26. Re:Before people lose their minds again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  This isn't about how we feel about the law but how the law actually works at this time.
  This means that anyone who is born on US soil is a full US citizen. Their parents can be illegally here and the child is still considered a full US citizen.
  The whole welfare part is technically the child needs help and can't make decisions so the parents get to stay and raise the child(ren) or some such. It's a bunch of crap as it rewards breaking the law. The child ought to be put up for adoption and the parents deported. Don't come here looking for a free ride.
  What would make sense would be for at least one of the parents to be an American citizen and they would then apply to have their child become an American citizen. It'd all just be some paperwork but it would get rid of automatic citizenship of any child born here to non-citizens.
27. Re:Before people lose their minds again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  So here's the problem... A child born in the US (regardless of who their parents were) has birthright citizenship. They are NOT naturalized citizens. A person who is born outside the US, and travels here, and seeks citizenship, is the one who is a "naturalized citizen". Becoming a naturalized citizen is very difficult if your immigration was illegal.
  So children born to illegal immigrants are NOT naturalized citizens but birthright citizens. This doesn't apply to birthright citizens.
28. Re:Before people lose their minds again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  > They are second class citizens. A naturalized citizen is a person who was born to illegal immigrants.
  No, a naturalized citizen is someone who chooses to become a citizen, idiot...sheesh
29. Re:Before people lose their minds again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  > A naturalized citizen is a person who was born to illegal immigrants.
  The point is you said this and you're an ignorant idiot. You don't even know what you are talking about.
30. Re:Before people lose their minds again by swillden · 2017-09-28 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  a distinction is made between those who are born to US citizens and those who aren't (naturalized citizens)
  You have no idea what "naturalized citizen" means. https://www.uscis.gov/us-citiz...
  You are splitting hairs.
  
  I'm not splitting hairs, I'm pointing out that you are using a specific, legally-defined term (naturalized citizen) and claiming that it has a meaning different than it does. Naturalized citizens are people who went through a specific process of naturalization, including a civics exam and a loyalty oath. You claimed that the term described children who are born on US soil to non-US parents. It does not. Those children are either natural-born citizens or they're not citizens at all (and the general consensus is that they're natural-born citizens).
  There is some controversy over the citizenship status of children born on US soil of non-US parents. The undisputed approach since the 14th amendment up until very recently has been that they are "jus soli" citizens, that they have "birthright citizenship". The Wong Kim Ark ruling in 1898 affirmed this. There have been recent attempts to pass a law clarifying that undocumented immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" and therefore their children don't have birthright citizenship, but no legislation has been passed, and indeed part of the reason it hasn't been passed is because it would probably be unconstitutional. It's likely that we would need an amendment to the constitution to end birthright citizenship for anyone born on US soil.
  Yes, Native Americans used to be a special case, since their reservations were considered to be out of US jurisdiction and under the jurisdiction of their tribal nations even though they are within the borders of US states. Not only does that special case not apply in the situation of someone not born on a reservation, it hasn't applied to native Americans since 1924, when Congress granted US citizenship to all Native Americans.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
31. Re:Before people lose their minds again by emag · 2017-09-28 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  This is probably the most ignorant post I've managed to read yet. My mother was from Maine, my father from Montreal. I was born in Canada, moved in 1979, became a permanent resident at age 4. Became a naturalized citizen at age 22. "Illegal" doesn't even enter into the conversation, you ignorant fuck. Learn actual immigration laws before passing judgement.
  
  --
  "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
32. Re:Before people lose their minds again by emag · 2017-09-28 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  Aside from the "Demolition Man" Schwarzenegger Amendment, I've never given a single flying fsck about being President or VP. This monitoring is... I don't even have the words for it. Especially considering where I currently work.
  
  --
  "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
33. Re:Before people lose their minds again by emag · 2017-09-28 19:06 · Score: 1
  
  By the DHS definition, /. *is* social media. So is any site you log in to, like Reddit, HN, Digg (does anyone still use that?!), G+, or any web forum (Ford Explorer Owners, Ridgeline Owners, Tropical Fish Keepers, Dog Owners, etc).
  
  --
  "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
34. Re:Before people lose their minds again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 00:36 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone born on US soil (regardless of their parents status) is native born citizen, not a naturalized citizen.
  No they are not, that is a lie spread by activists based on their purposeful mis-reading of the 14th Amendment ignoring the phrase under the jurisdiction of in the law. That is the anchor baby argument that has never been upheld by any court or legislation.
35. Re:Before people lose their minds again by cayenne8 · 2017-09-29 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  By the DHS definition, /. *is* social media.
  Hmm...even the Feds have to be smart enough to realize that slashdot is anything but social.
  ;)
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Some citizens are less equal than others... by emag · 2017-09-27 17:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

The most disturbing part of this is that permanent residents and naturalized citizens are subject to these changes too. I can almost see how permanent residents should be subject to this. What I can't see is how naturalized citizens are. They've had to renounce their former citizenship and swear an oath to the United States...
How do I know? I spent 18 years as a permanent resident in the US. I've spent the last 19 years and 11 months as a naturalized citizen. To my understanding, the only limit on naturalized vs natural born citizenship is that a naturalized citizen can't be President. (I'm OK with that, until the "Demolition Man"'s predicted Schwarzenegger Amendment happens.) Since becoming a "citizen" (I can no longer not quote it), I've voted in every election, I've gladly served jury duty, I've done everything expected of me. (Just living here, even before, I paid taxes and had an SSN... go figure)
This change makes naturalized citizens a de facto second class of citizen. The ironic part is that most of those nearly-20 years of being a "citizen", I've been a contractor to multiple US government agencies, including the DoD, NASA, and NIH. I've had Public Trust clearances, access to information most wouldn't, etc.
What I've learned in the past couple days is this...
Natural born citizens good, Naturalized citizens bad...
(apparently /. doesn't respect any type of overstrike... Imagine an overstrike on "Four legs" and "Two legs" on the above)

--
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
1. Re:Some citizens are less equal than others... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 18:24 · Score: 0
  
  No, that's not the reason. The reason is on some of these comments though...
2. Re:Some citizens are less equal than others... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 19:43 · Score: 0
  
  Please don't act like you are some kind of a moral hero: you did all of the above because it was better to live in America compared to whoever you came from... nothing else. Most other First World countries make it much harder to naturalize, and place much more severe restrictions on the naturalized citizens compared to the US: Germany and Israel from my first hand experience.
  Of course, you are still more moral than the "dreamers" whose parents sneaked them into the country for our great education, welfare, and healthcare systems... If they wanted to be heroes, they could have stayed in Mexico, trying to make it less of a shithole it is. They can still go back and help their people. They should be grateful we do not ask for all the money directly and indirectly spent treating, feeding, and educating them.
3. Re:Some citizens are less equal than others... by stealth_finger · 2017-09-27 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  for our great education, welfare, and healthcare systems
  Bwahhahahaha, oh man, good one. You almost had me there playing it all straight face then dropping in a zinger like that.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
4. Re:Some citizens are less equal than others... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 22:09 · Score: 0
  
  "To my understanding, the only limit on naturalized vs natural born citizenship is that a naturalized citizen can't be President."
  After going to the trouble of becoming Naturalized, you must know that you can be Denaturalized as well, and deported. This isn't common, and the process is taken seriously, but it does happen, and in the case of Emma Goldman, for Political reasons.
  "This change makes naturalized citizens a de facto second class of citizen."
  You were always a Second Class Citizen. Somebody determined to be born as a Citizen can't be Denaturalized. You can.
  "The ironic part is that most of those nearly-20 years of being a "citizen", I've been a contractor to multiple US government agencies, including the DoD, NASA, and NIH."
  I've been here nearly 60 years. Worked three decades as a DOE Contractor. Still have my "Green" Card. I maybe take this more seriously than most. If in my retirement, I choose to become Naturalized and take the Oath, it's because I want to, and not because I fear not to.
  Taking that Oath out of Fear doesn't make me a Citizen, it makes me a Slave.
  Still, my best wishes to you. You seem to be a decent and honorable Citizen, something that too many born here, aren't.
5. Re:Some citizens are less equal than others... by dunkelfalke · 2017-09-27 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  Stop spreading lies.
  Getting German citizenship is not really difficult. Living for 8 years in Germany, speaking German reasonably well and not being on welfare is enough, all what is left is answering a questionnaire basically showing that you are okay with democracy and everyone having equal rights. A naturalised German citizen has every right a natural born citizen has - unlike in the USA there are no exceptions or restrictions whatsoever.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
6. Re:Some citizens are less equal than others... by zifn4b · 2017-09-27 22:35 · Score: 0
  
  What I've learned in the past couple days is this...
  Natural born citizens good, Naturalized citizens bad...
  Translation: gaming the system at other people's expense, bad. When corporations do it, it's bad. When illegal immigrants do it, it's good.
  
  --
  We'll make great pets
7. Re:Some citizens are less equal than others... by jedidiah · 2017-09-28 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  >> for our great education, welfare, and healthcare systems
  >
  > Bwahhahahaha, oh man, good one. You almost had me there playing it all straight face then dropping in a zinger like that.
  My city has more and better healthcare facilities than all of Germany or France. Forget about the nordic socialist utopias.
  Heads of state, nobility, and even random Iranians don't go to Paris or Berlin when they want something done right.
  Our welfare system isn't exactly "world class" but it still attracts and supports a fair number of layabouts.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
8. Re: Some citizens are less equal than others... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:11 · Score: 0
  
  Aren't you late for your burger flipping duties ? You don't get paid for posting your half baked nativist rants on /.
  At least end your post with 'they took our jerbs' - to make it more in common with your motivation to post this :) :)
9. Re:Some citizens are less equal than others... by burningcpu · 2017-09-28 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry for how the country is treating you, emag. I want you here and will fight for your rights as I would my own.
10. Re:Some citizens are less equal than others... by stealth_finger · 2017-09-28 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  My city has more and better healthcare facilities than all of Germany or France.
  Yeah? And how much does that cost you? Fuck knows where you are but American welfare is a joke. I notice you don't mention education because that's even worse. Sure, you can get a good education there and you can get great healthcare, but only if you pay up through the nose for it. Come back to me when you have a system that doesn't resent and treat like shit the 90% of people who commit the ultimate crime of not being rich enough to live in your fucking utopian wonderland.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
11. Re: Some citizens are less equal than others... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  they may need a bigger storage for my content alone ðYoe
12. Re:Some citizens are less equal than others... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah - it may be great for the 1%. That doesn't make it great.... I would argue it makes it the opposite.
13. Re:Some citizens are less equal than others... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  Brazil is freer than the US. I live in total freedom, which is guaranteed both de Jureand de facto [yeah, I really don't think you can understand what these expressions mean].
  I shiver, and my stomach revolves, at the thought of going to or living in the US. You can have all your shit to yourselves, as I'll never set foot in a such a hellhole.
14. Re: Some citizens are less equal than others... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  So then why do the immigrants take advantage ofnour social structure and even come here if its not better than say, where they came from, like central America? (Including Mexico) Only jobs? Man you had me there playing straight faced until you let out that zinger.
15. Re:Some citizens are less equal than others... by ImprovOmega · 2017-09-28 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  He didn't game the system, he went through a legal permanent residency and then became a naturalized citizen. That's legal immigration. That's working within the system exactly as the laws allow. I don't get where you pulled "illegal immigration" from.
16. Re:Some citizens are less equal than others... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  I live in San Diego county in a city called Lakeside, 22 miles from the beach. There are many hospitals to choose from. We also have our UCSD medical school, the VA hospital, children's hospital. SD isn't the cheapest place to live but then no where in California that you would want to live actually is.
  I could live in Arizona and live a nice life but part of me really is scared to ever need real hospital services there. They don't have a fraction of the infrastructure, their main hospital in Prescott looks like the very same one from the 1950s for crying out loud. It's scary.
  My wife and I don't even break six figures but we own a townhouse and are working our way towards a house. You can have access to amazing healthcare and not live in Europe.
  My work provides healthcare and it's actually pretty decent. Sure, it's not free, but I'm willing to bet the typical French or German couple that makes the same as my wife and I pay much more in taxes then we do. They might get more social services with healthcare being one of them. Hard to say who has it better.
17. Re:Some citizens are less equal than others... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  Translation: You're a fucking retard who cannot read.
18. Re:Some citizens are less equal than others... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  They've even begun kneeling to save us the trouble.
19. Re:Some citizens are less equal than others... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 18:30 · Score: 0
  
  Well, some of Brazil is freer. Some of Brazil (the rapidly-diminishing greener parts) is literally run by organised criminals, and the rest is administered by some of the most corrupt government you'll find anywhere in the developed world.
  Still probably better than the US, though, I'll grant you that.
20. Re:Some citizens are less equal than others... by emag · 2017-09-28 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, I think I'm going to land on my feet. I'm white, male, heterosexual, no accent (38 of 42 years here), and most friends and coworkers literally had *no* idea I wasn't born here until I started bitching about this. If anything, spend your efforts on all the *other* naturalized citizens who have to overcome things like skin color, accents, etc. They're just as much citizens as me. We're *all* citizens, and should stand together. The fact my parents came from a primarily white country (with no accents), shouldn't factor into it. I'm personally pissed off that me and everyone else in my "graduating class" 20 years ago aren't seen as "real citizens", despite the fact that all of us took the time to a) learn English (ok, the only language I've ever been fluent in), b) learn current civics (I scored highest in HS on that exam, which was amusing), c) took the time and effort to actually take the test and commit to being a citizen instead of just being born into it like so many jack-holes.
  I'll be fine. I'm currently disenfranchised, but I'll be fine. Your local bodega owner, taxi driver, or whatever, they'll need your support more than I ever will. But I appreciate your support nonetheless.
  
  --
  "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
Rule of Law by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 17:37 · Score: 0

Do NOT ENTER! Stay AWAY! Go back! You are not wanted!
Have a Nice Day!
TRUMP powa!
1. Re: Rule of Law by easyTree · 2017-09-27 19:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm ok with the 'no foreigners in' rule if a 'no Americans out' rule is introduced :D
  Makes sense really, if foreigners are so bad, the rest of the world should be pretty unappealing due to the high concentration of non-Americans.
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
Wow, France Did It First ? by AncalagonTotof · 2017-09-27 17:41 · Score: 1

A new law just passed, authorizing police to ask for all and everything "electronic" identifier you have.
Forget one and risk 3 years in jail and a 45 000 € (close to $53 000) fine.
Link : https://www.nextinpact.com/new... (may be pay-walled)
Of course, this can only happen when you are suspected of communism. Oh, sorry, I mean terrorism.
Permanent exception state is coming so is the Orwellian France. Please, send UN troops to free the people !

--
Totof
1. Re:Wow, France Did It First ? by Aighearach · 2017-09-27 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  Don't whine for blue helmets, you have the EU to spank them if they were truly naughty.
  But you're probably just lying.
how the fuck did we get here? by pablo_max · 2017-09-27 17:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

I was, no doubt like many fellow /.'s a child of the 70's/80's. After hearing about the posted story a couple of days ago, I was trying to remember back to my youth.
Was America like when I was young? Was our government actively and openly doing things contrary to the interests of her people?
Perhaps I wear the rose colored glasses of those who look upon the past, but I don't recall that being he case.
Sure, we still had a ton of racist. Especially where I grew up in "the valley". But America, in general term, was something to look up to.
I had many pen pals from Europe as a child. Every one of them expressed the sentiment of wanting some day to go to America since so many wonderful things were happening there. Amazing technology, exciting movies and television shows, a government who protects smaller countries from bullies and all the rest of it.
One of the pen pals is living in America. He got a green card in the green card lottery. Clever guy. Got his doctorate in applied physics. He has been in the US, geez... 12 years now. During our last phone call, he mentioned he was starting to look for something back in Germany. Things, as he put it, are just not the same.
It makes me sad to think about the direction our country is headed. A government given to more and more excess, a population more and more introverted and xenophobic. The stead rise of populism and religious extremism.
Even on this forum, which should be normally "thinking people" you can see it. People willing to defend every insane thing the government does with "well Bush did it first" or Obama did it first". People who treat their political party like their favorite sports team or even like a religion. It's insane!
Do people truly believe that any party gives a single fuck about them? Because they don't. Both parties care about 1 thing. Power. Staying in power and expanding their power. Nothing else.
So tell me follow /.'s, how the fuck did we get here?
1. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by coastwalker · 2017-09-27 18:30 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Personally I blame the ending of the cold war and the passage of time. Now America has no need to even pretend to the moral high ground and it can adopt behaviour such as mass surveilance which used to be thought to be tôtalitarian. Also most of the people who were alive to see the horror of fascism in Europe are gone now and we have a president who openly supports Nazis because they are part of his base. The world has indeed gone mad.
  
  --
  Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
2. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by Aighearach · 2017-09-27 18:32 · Score: 2
  
  For me, instead of day-dreaming I just clicked the link to the Federal Register, read the words, discovered the changes are small and not at all scary, and only relate to immigration applicants, and moved on to thinking about the real problems facing immigrants.
  Don't just hear people tell you that something is scary and be scared without any verification. Especially when you only have to comprehend a couple thousand words in order to know for yourself if there is anything to be scared of.
  You never looked up to America. You looked up to whatever mental image a magazine editor declared would be written for you. Same as today, with this very story.
  Is there any particular reason why "social media handles" wouldn't be a type of alias? It seems rather obvious to me that it is indeed an alias.
3. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 19:10 · Score: 0
  
  How did we get here? We went do-gooding on the other side of the planet because of our sole-superpower status. Gulf War I led to 9/11, which led to everything else.
4. Re: how the fuck did we get here? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 19:17 · Score: 0
  
  There aren't any nazis. There are contrarian idiots who live a fantasy life where they are nazis. If a real nazi-like regime took over in the US the idiots who at present think they are nazis would be some of the first up against the wall. Historically, thats how it has generally gone.
5. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  You are partially right. It went downhill since the end of the Cold War because there is no longer any competition, but also because the deep state propaganda was formerly directed at the country's enemies.
  These days, the propaganda is directed onto the citizens, designed to brain-wash them into believing that anyone against the deep state is a "russian nazi pussygrabber." About half my colleagues in academia are affected, and it's sad: being good at numerical simulations apparently does not make you good at detecting overt propaganda techniques.
  Once you realize that we spend 2 trillion (yes, with a T) each year to prepare for the war with Russia, you start to understand why the deep state goes so apeshit on anyone that dares to say that Russia might not be quite the evil enemy it was 50 years ago... Nazi racist pussygrabber russia delusion follows.
6. Re: how the fuck did we get here? by easyTree · 2017-09-27 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  Even on this forum, which should be normally "thinking people" you can see it. People willing to defend every insane thing the government does with "well Bush did it first" or Obama did it first". People who treat their political party like their favorite sports team or even like a religion. It's insane!
  In fairness, most of those comments are likely posted by 'people' paid to shill for particular viewpoints.
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
7. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by istartedi · 2017-09-27 20:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Some things have changed, some haven't. The government was *always* abusing people both here and abroad. The Internet just makes it easier to hear about things, and easier to engage in different kinds of abuse. Tuskeegee experiment, MK ultra, CIA meddling overseas, FBI files on people, McCarthyism, eugenics, etc. All that stuff took place a long time ago in the America that people looked up to. It was easier to hide back then.
  That said, it does seem like there's something more than simply the removal of rose-colored glasses at work here. We've seen a steady erosion of ethics, a tighter integration of lobbyists and government to the point where corruption is blatantly obvious, an exhaustion of the treasury by the military-industrial complex, and a lack of vision. We don't even have our own manned space vehicles now, although "we're working on it".
  We need statesmen. We keep electing yes men.
  It's not necessarily the end of our nation--we've actually had some really terrible corruption if you go back through history and read it. It may be part of a generational cycle. I definitely think we are going through an ugly phase now. I'm not sure how we pull out; but I know we can.
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
8. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by zifn4b · 2017-09-27 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  Now America has no need to even pretend to the moral high ground and it can adopt behaviour such as mass surveilance which used to be thought to be tôtalitarian.
  The guy you're looking for that wanted what you're describing is George W. Bush. He wanted the "Total Information Awareness" program in a knee-jerk response to 9/11. It got such backlash that it was cutely renamed to "Terrorism Information Awareness". If the United States was going to do that, it would have done it by now.
  
  --
  We'll make great pets
9. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by pablo_max · 2017-09-27 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps the end of the cold war has a lot to do with it. Truthfully, I have no idea.
  I suspect a lot of the current issues stem from the increase in difficultly of obtaining secondary education coupled with the decrease in quality for primary education.
  There is a growing rift between the educated and the under educated. Indeed, there is a growing tread of people taking pride in their under-education to the point of scorning those who have gone to university.
  I believe this is part of "the plan". I believe that those in power do seek to keep the people divided. To limit their access to education and thus reduce the number of people with critical thinking skills.
  A population which is not educated is very easy to manipulate with religion and populist messages, which is what we are seeing now.
  Look at how the republican party has turned their base against the "evil scientists" who are only after that research money.
  I am sure many of us on this board know at least one scientist. These are normally folks who are out to become rich. I don't want this to turn into a discussion about the rigors of the scientific method so I digress.
10. Re: how the fuck did we get here? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  Nicely argued. Good post.
11. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by Dripdry · 2017-09-28 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  No mod points, so here here to those who've RTFA and eschew fear for knowledge.
  
  --
  -
12. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  The two party system is how we got here.. plain and simple. Two parties that, other than a few hot-button issues, are carbon copies of each other. It is so embedded in the minds of Americans that the only real choices we have are a lever with a (D) and a lever with an (R). Until enough of us say "fuck you, both (D) and (R)", we'll end up with fucking Trump vs. Hillary. Think it's bad now? Lets, as citizens, continue to reinforce this schema and allow ourselves to get pulled to one extreme or the other on the hot-button issues and ignore the glaring fact that neither Trump nor Hillary give a flying fuck about you. By drifting towards the extreme ends of the (D) or (R) scale, it serves both (D) and (R) perfectly and allow them to stay in power. Perhaps it's too late now.. I don't know. But if we don't all figure this out pretty fucking soon, then the point of no return will be behind us. God (tm) help us all then...
  -Scaredy Cat
13. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by apoc.famine · 2017-09-28 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Fear politics, fake victims, and a media willing to blow everything out of proportion for the sake of fearful eyeballs. Fear politics on both sides - Obama's going to take your guns, the Republicans are destroying the middle class, murdering immigrants are going to take your jobs, climate change is going to kill us all, killer storms, terrorists, crumbling infrastructure, etc., etc., etc.
  
  To varying degrees, all of these things have grains of truth to them. But what we lack is a press that has the balls to actually quantify how true these things are, and how impactful they will be to the average person. We've actually got the opposite - a willingness by the media to blow these things out of proportion, or minimize them depending on which agenda they are supporting. And even when they are fairly neutral, the media can't help but put on a show to try to get more eyeballs, distracting from the actual factual issues.
  
  With no way for the average citizen to understand how important or true any of these things are, politicians can make any claims about them that they want to. And "their" media will likely support those claims. Can a reasonably intelligent person dig down into these things and come to the general truth? Maybe. If they have the time, training, understanding of implicit bias, ability to question their own beliefs, etc. Which means that not a lot of people can and do get to a greater truth about the world. Instead they latch on to what resonates with them and they parrot it back. It's echo chambers all the way down now, because there is no money in rational truths.
  
  --
  Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
14. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  I was, no doubt like many fellow /.'s a child of the 70's/80's. After hearing about the posted story a couple of days ago, I was trying to remember back to my youth.
  Was America like when I was young? Was our government actively and openly doing things contrary to the interests of her people?
  Perhaps I wear the rose colored glasses of those who look upon the past, but I don't recall that being he case.
  The self you are today can not look upon both now and the past with the same perspective, so unless you are using hard data from the past and comparing it to today, you can objectively compare them. One big change that has occurred, and is concrete, is that communications have improved tremendously. The time between when an event happens and when everyone knows the details has shortened immensely, and the number of hops that a communication goes through has been reduced, improving the chances that the communication received is close to/same as the communication that was sent. This improvement in communications may have affected everyone's perception of the current state of affairs, as the impression of the state of affairs is developed more directly by individuals, and less by filtered reports through a small number of influential individuals or organizations.
15. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by jhol13 · 2017-09-28 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  I once visited USA. It was wonderfull trip, and enjoyed everything and everybody. Really nice people - except the immigration. I was surprised the official seemed to believe everyone wants to move to USA. Er, really, why would I want? Today I cannot even think of visiting USA, there is pretty much nothing that can persuade me to go there.
  Then came Bush. I decided that I will not support his imperialistic wars. I started actively buying non-USA stuff. Obama did not help, at all.
  Don't worry, USA is not the only country I "boycott", for example Russia is another (there are more, but you don't want to know).
16. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  We got older. That's really all there is to it.
  20 years ago we were on here and we were all going to college, we were all interested in how to perl/sed/awk/s X or y. Now most of us have found success in our careers and are looking to impart our "wisdom" on the world (and rest of slashdot).
  And now we have the internet to let us voice our stupid opinions, and hear the stupid opinions of the rest of the world.
  Since then I have lived abroad for 8 of those years - the rest of the world has equally stupid crap going on. There are pro's and con's of living anywhere - and mostly there are stupid people doing and saying stupid things in every country (let's just say, at least 60% of people - which is a lot of people).
  The US is mostly a good place, with mostly good people. We still are at the top of the game entertainment wise, technology isn't only produced here but there is amazing technology here, we have clearly the best national parks in the world. While we have racism and discord - at least we're dealing with it. Been to Asia lately? The racism there would make your head explode.
  We're not the only country that has elected bad leaders recently - and we'll probably all get through it. We almost had a Trump, Putin, Duterte, Boris quadfecta of amazing leadership choices worldwide. It will probably pass. Focus on your loved ones, your local community, and the things you like to do.
17. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  People who treat their political party like their favorite sports team or even like a religion. It's insane!
  Politics isn't about which "team" you're on. It's about what you believe in. In that sense, it's a lot like a religion.
  Anyone that's ever taken a political science course knows that there's a 2D axis of political preference; the two axes are economic and personal freedom. The "left vs right" line that you hear about is actually a diagonal line in the 2D space.
  Democrat/Left = prefers personal freedom more than economic freedom.
  Republican/Right = prefers economic freedom more than personal freedom.
  Libertarians = strongly prefers both.
  Political preference is really that simple. Now that you know how the teams are chosen, it'll be a lot easier for you to pick a side. When you listen to a debate, plot the points of the candidates on the 2d graph, and you'll be able to tell which party they're from without being told.
18. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by GameboyRMH · 2017-09-28 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  The end of the cold war also led to runaway inequality, with no credible communist rival putting political pressure on the US to keep inequality in check, and other Western countries have let themselves go in turn (most recently Germany).
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
19. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  "Let us be lovers, we'll marry our fortunes together"
  "I've got some real estate here in my bag"
  So we bought a pack of cigarettes and Mrs. Wagner pies
  And walked off to look for America
  "Kathy," I said as we boarded a Greyhound in Pittsburgh
  "Michigan seems like a dream to me now"
  It took me four days to hitchhike from Saginaw
  I've gone to look for America
  Laughing on the bus
  Playing games with the faces
  She said the man in the gabardine suit was a spy
  I said "Be careful his bowtie is really a camera"
  "Toss me a cigarette, I think there's one in my raincoat"
  "We smoked the last one an hour ago"
  So I looked at the scenery, she read her magazine
  And the moon rose over an open field
  "Kathy, I'm lost," I said, though I knew she was sleeping
  I'm empty and aching and I don't know why
  Counting the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike
  They've all come to look for America
  All come to look for America
  All come to look for America!
20. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by fatwilbur · 2017-09-28 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Identity politics. I was a child of the early 80s, and I grew up with the impression that all people were equal, and that's the society we strived for. I'd like to think my generation largely achieved that.. it's ridiculous to think any significant percentage of my age range (30-40) supports white supremacist views anymore.
  
  But alas, the newer generation supports divisive politics so much, by mandating that all sorts of people are in special 'victim' classes. Using obscene names like racist to denounce valid forms of opinion. The same thing happened with hippies - the older generation hated them but at least hippies were for peace and freedom, ideas the older generation wasn't naturally opposed to. The newer generation seems to have forgotten the point of our sacred freedoms like free speech, and how they are more important that their cause de jour.
  
  Oh, and fools like the other poster calling Trump a Nazi supporter. Most of us are can see how ridiculous that is, and refuse to stand with such people. Hence I'm a Trump supporter, because to me, he is far less divisive.
21. Re:how the fuck did we get here? by Pseudonym · 2017-09-28 19:21 · Score: 1
  
  The end of the Cold War is part of it, but to be honest the seeds were planted before that and the ball started rolling in the aftermath of Watergate. It was somewhere around the 1970s that a phase change happened.
  Between the end of WW2 and the 70s, society was optimistic. The leader who got elected was the one who could give us the greatest vision. Science, technology, and the new economy would make everyone's lives better. Everyone would get a piece of the pie.
  After that, society became pessimistic. Science was no longer the solution, it was now the great problem. It could actually destroy the world thanks to nuclear fallout or ecological disaster. No longer was the would-be leader's job to create a better and more equal society, it was to protect us from disaster (be it terrorists, illegal immigrants, cancer, or what have you). The leader who gets elected today is the one who can manufacture the worst nightmare that they will save you from.
  When we gave up on utopia, dystopia became rampant.
  Adam Curtis has done a number of documentaries exploring the idea that many of the thinkers and technocrats on all sides who were responsible for getting us to now (and, of course, those who were influenced by them) have constructed a world based on theories and frameworks which only work up to a point and fail to take into account the real world in all its complexity. The upshot is that most of our leaders are living in an elaborate constructed fantasy world populated not by people, but by over-simplified models of people like "conservatives" and "liberals", "good guys" and "bad guys", "Islam" and "the West", and homo economicus.
  It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it actually isn't. Conspiracy theorists believe that the shadowy forces are running the show. Curtis' point is that nobody is in charge, and we are actually governed by a tangled web of self-reinforcing fantasy, incompetence, wilful blindness, and sheer bloody-mindedness.
  The Trap probably lays the argument out the best, although The Power of Nightmares may be worth watching first. HyperNormalization brings it up to the "fake news" era.
  I want to stress that this is just one strand of thought, and it's not even close to the whole story. But it has a lot of explanatory power.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
That's exactly the reason by no-body · 2017-09-27 18:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

why I don't use social media - I just don't like being snooped, scanned, evaluated and judged by some unknown mechanisms which, excuse me, reminds me a lot of totalitarian systems where secrete files are kept, people in your neighborhood block have something like a block-ward looking after your activities, everyone suspects somebody and suspects to be suspected.
We have been there (in other countries), done that (in other countries) and now - it's happening under the umbrella of a free country which more and more turns into a farce of the original idea.
1. Re:That's exactly the reason by SeaFox · 2017-09-27 18:57 · Score: 2
  
  why I don't use social media - I just don't like being snooped, scanned, evaluated and judged by some unknown mechanisms which, excuse me, reminds me a lot of totalitarian systems where secrete files are kept, people in your neighborhood block have something like a block-ward looking after your activities, everyone suspects somebody and suspects to be suspected.
  Next step:
  They don't believe you when you say you don't use social media, and lock you up for contempt.
  Leading to:
  It's illegal to not actively use social media, and voluntarily report about your daily activities for their overseers to monitor for deviation from expected behaviors.
2. Re: That's exactly the reason by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 19:25 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Hey, guy.
  You just used a form of social media to post that you don't use social media. You evendid it from a logged-on account. Do you really think the operators of /. are paragons of integrity who will resist divulging identities if it is demanded of them? You seriously don't think this site is heavily monitored?
  Don't fool yourself.
3. Re: That's exactly the reason by easyTree · 2017-09-27 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  Re. your point 'free country'...
  If something has a natural character X, this is apparent. In that case, there is no need to affix a sticky label reading 'has natural character X.'
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
4. Re:That's exactly the reason by zifn4b · 2017-09-27 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  why I don't use social media - I just don't like being snooped, scanned, evaluated and judged by some unknown mechanisms which, excuse me, reminds me a lot of totalitarian systems where secrete files are kept, people in your neighborhood block have something like a block-ward looking after your activities, everyone suspects somebody and suspects to be suspected.
  Except when you say "social media" it has nothing to do with the government. Facebook is already tracking you and advertisers and marketing agencies are as well. They are far more sinister. Where is your protest against that?
  
  --
  We'll make great pets
5. Re:That's exactly the reason by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 23:07 · Score: 0
  
  I don't use Facebook and the like, but I've used /. for many years. Not sure if that counts as social media, but in the interests of completeness I'll happily include the "Anonymous Coward" handle I've always used. Good luck with that, DHS.
6. Re:That's exactly the reason by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 23:19 · Score: 0
  
  Unless you're running a very good adblocker the social networks are still tracking you. The little "share on facebook" icons are often hosted on facebook's servers, so when they serve the image they can collect some data. Then of course there are javascript tracking scripts like google analytics and facebook pixel that are usually hidden in the source. Some captchas are also externally hosted.
7. Re:That's exactly the reason by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 23:23 · Score: 0
  
  This page alone connects to 19 different domains under the hood and has at least 13 tracking/advertising scripts.
8. Re: That's exactly the reason by no-body · 2017-09-28 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, guy.
  You just used a form of social media to post that you don't use social media. You evendid it from a logged-on account. Do you really think the operators of /. are paragons of integrity who will resist divulging identities if it is demanded of them? You seriously don't think this site is heavily monitored?
  Don't fool yourself.
  Hey - look who is posting.....
So.... why was /. down for so long? by QuietLagoon · 2017-09-27 18:31 · Score: 2

Inquiring minds would like to know....
1. Re:So.... why was /. down for so long? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 22:05 · Score: 0
  
  Inquiring minds would like to know....
  See previous story: https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
  
  There is an article describing the issues at: https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
2. Re:So.... why was /. down for so long? by zifn4b · 2017-09-27 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  Inquiring minds would like to know....
  Oh you didn't get the memo? The Trump administration sent slashdot a nastygram informing them that they must install tracking software or be shut down. Now that the tracking software is installed, slashdot is back up. Enjoy!
  
  --
  We'll make great pets
3. Re:So.... why was /. down for so long? by burningcpu · 2017-09-28 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  https://www.theregister.co.uk/... Someone linked to this yesterday
I became a US citizen this week ! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 18:33 · Score: 0

After living here for the last 17 years as a legal permanent resident, I became a US citizen this week and I am DISGUSTED to see the government still does not consider me on equal grounds with citizens born here. I had to pledge to bear arms for the country, risk my life if called upon but the government still treats me like a 2nd class citizen.
1. Re:I became a US citizen this week ! by emag · 2017-09-27 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, welcome to the new reality. Those of us who did this decades ago are at *least* as disgusted. The American Dream is effectively dead. I'm just dreading having to report myself and every naturalized citizen employee in my organization as now being a potential "insider threat", because I believe (any of us who are paying attention) we're now all dis-enfranchised and likely susceptible to outside influences. This saddens my heart greatly, since I've spent most of my life in and supporting the country, only to now realize that I'm seen as a threat due to short-sighted policies that place me and people like me on a threat list. People who've *chosen* to become citizens. (Not) Oddly, I can see that some of Heinlein's writings were prophetic.
  
  --
  "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
Native vs naturalized citizenship by Michael+Woodhams · 2017-09-27 18:46 · Score: 2

You speak like there are lots of examples.
You can't be president.
I expect that your citizenship can be revoked if you lied in the citizenship application process.
Are there any other legal differences between naturalized and native citizens?

--
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
1. Re:Native vs naturalized citizenship by jedidiah · 2017-09-28 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  > You speak like there are lots of examples.
  You can have your citizenship revoked if later it was found out that you engaged in fraud or are the member of some terrorist group.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
2. Re:Native vs naturalized citizenship by arth1 · 2017-09-28 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  You can have your citizenship revoked
  By international human rights, every human has the right to belong to a country or state. If a naturalized citizen came from a country that requires renouncing the original citizenship when becoming an American citizen, the US cannot revoke the citizenship without turning the person stateless.
  For dual citizenship individuals, it's less problematic.
3. Re:Native vs naturalized citizenship by dunkelfalke · 2017-09-28 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  USA is not a signatory of the convention on the reduction of statelessness so they can do that.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
4. Re:Native vs naturalized citizenship by arth1 · 2017-09-28 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  USA is not a signatory of the convention on the reduction of statelessness so they can do that.
  USA is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where the right to a nationality and not be deprived of his nationality is specifically listed in Article 15.
5. Re:Native vs naturalized citizenship by dunkelfalke · 2017-09-28 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  unfortunately it is non-binding
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Everybody is a suspect = police state by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 18:53 · Score: 0

Everybody is a suspect = police state (as far as I am concerned, the police state is already here)
Everybody in a non affiliated demographic group being a suspect = police state + racist and/or fascist
Meh, a government agency (afaik) in my country recently made a public proposal for soliciting for tech solutions for handling personal data or the like, but I thought there was nothing to like about it, thinking of how dedicated storage and handling of personal data might as well really be an anti-privacy initiative, based on doing the work of the police state of recording everything, from mass surveillance, to theft by corporations stealing personal data and/or metadata from people.
1. Re:Everybody is a suspect = police state by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 20:18 · Score: 0
  
  To add to what I wrote:
  It just occurred to me today, that I really think that any society that label itself as a 'democracy', while also being a police state, would be a fascist nation. Because, 'fascist' wouldn't just be this negative label that you slap onto people or things you don't like, but would be those things in which it is obvious that there would be a problem where the general attitude to liberty in general, is that of opining about what you must/ought/shall do and say, or accept, or, working for that to happen, like when having a police state, while also calling yourself a democracy, and going about your business as usual.
REading it wrong by Dorianny · 2017-09-27 18:58 · Score: 1

No this doesn't say that DHS will keep tabs on naturalized citizens (that is part of NSA black ops). All it says is that online information collected during the naturalization process will be kept on file as the rest of the collected information. The reason this is done is because if you lied on your naturalization application your citizenship can be revoked by a court
1. Re:REading it wrong by emag · 2017-09-27 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  No, you're reading it incorrectly. It very clearly calls out naturalized citizens as still being subject to these guidelines.
  
  --
  "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
2. Re:REading it wrong by jedidiah · 2017-09-28 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  The law or the "media narrative". There's a big difference.
  Even before the election you could be pretty much certain any situation you had personal knowledge of was vastly different than how it was being portrayed in the media. Different sources usually present different pieces of the "puzzle" or contradict each other. Sometimes the same source will contradict itself.
  You don't even have to be the "boot on the ground" to find the nonsense.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Godwin FTW by easyTree · 2017-09-27 19:14 · Score: 1

First they came for the immigrants and I said nothing because...
Nothing says Nazi State better than the phrase 'Department of Homeland Security.'
Don't be afraid, just start wearing the uniforms in public and be proud!

--
Requiem for the American Dream
No problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 20:02 · Score: 0

Account Name: xXFreshMilkXx
Social Media: hxxps://xtube.com/user/xXFreshMilkXx
Recent Search: [censored], [censored], [censored]...
Last active: 15 minutes ago
Recent Friends: HomelandSGuy1031, HomelandSGuy925...
First! by houghi · 2017-09-27 20:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

First they came for the immigrants, but I do not do anything, because I am not an immigrant.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
1. Re:First! by sysrammer · 2017-09-28 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Nicely done.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Huh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 22:55 · Score: 0

Interesting... So only the native americans are exempt?
Search Data by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 23:30 · Score: 0

This is new and more than a little disturbing. Now, by being a foreign-born person, the DHS wants to have the rights to get your search history? If this is written into law, they'll be able to go to your ISP and request your search history. No warrant required, because it's already law that they have a right to the information!
How is this not a huge invasion of privacy?
1. Re: Search Data by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  You give up that right every time you agree to terms of service or end user agreements. YOU. And you do it willingly, every time. Try reading once in a while.
Filing new Accounts by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:41 · Score: 0

So, do the next tax filing ask for any new social media accounts created during the tax year? How are they going to filter out search engine bombs from their Alien Files? Was Rick Santorum really a naturally born citizen instead of a test tube baby, a clone or a product of a c-section?
More misdirection by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:44 · Score: 0

I don't have a problem with this. It is in every single TOS that we do not own the info we post, and that we agree to sacrifice privacy. If you wan't to be pissed at someone, look no further than the CEOs and staff of these companies. Also, if one is not on Facebook, there is no information to be gleaned from it. Take some responsibility for yourself and your life, people, instead of being a whiny victim. It gets really old.
This includes Trump's wife? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:34 · Score: 0

Right? I can't imagine this passes the Supreme Court. If it does then fully encrypted communication will become the norm.
searcher results? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:16 · Score: 0

Setting aside for a moment the other issues being discussed, including search results is a problem. By malicious intent or by accident, it's common for reputations to be erroneously trashed.
Umm...okay by thunderclees · 2017-09-28 04:26 · Score: 1

If they are illegal then by all means but also throw the deadbeats out.
If they are citizens leave us alone.
Better lay off the steroids. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 06:12 · Score: 0

Anyone and everyone born on US soil is a US Citizen. Period.
You're a typical angry right wingnut who needs to look in a mirror. Your momma must be so proud.
Posting AC because you know, legal immigrant here.
We were... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 07:59 · Score: 0

Just nothing quite as egregious to our founding principles as this.
I've been ranting the past few years how all the anti-commie BS my 70 year old grade school teacher in the 80s used to talk about as reasons we should be glad we were americans and had to pledge allegiance to the flag every day have now been implemented in the US. Travel without showing your papers? Using commercial transit? Thing of the past. Privacy in your home and 'mostly anonymous' in public? Nope. Your phone is tapped, your internet is tapped. Siri/Alexa/Cortana/Your TV/Cellphone are all spying on you. Go outside, and half the intersections have live video cameras now, disguised as 'red light cameras'. Automated License plate scanning is everywhere, tracking any vehicle movements that match/don't match your cell phone travel. Go into stores and they are funnelling those security camera feeds to the feds, supposedly to help curb shoplifting, but really so the feds can sort through and flag when a 'person of interest' has been in a store recently.
The list goes on. But my faith in America as a country living up to its founding principles are as dead as my gradeschool anti-commie pro-corporal punishment teacher.
As to how we got here: Americans being 'obedient' or 'compliant' sheep rather than independent, argumentative free-thinkers.
Melania is an immigrant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 15:10 · Score: 0

Just saying.
uncle Buck by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:06 · Score: 0

indeed.
the poor Canadians: it's like they grew up watching their favorite once-great Uncle (Sam) turn into a belligerent alcoholic heroin-addled pedophile right before their eyes.
captcha: curmudgeon