... you had to jump through all these hoops?
https://qz.com/1241916/the-us-just-f...lications/amp/
Printable View
... you had to jump through all these hoops?
https://qz.com/1241916/the-us-just-f...lications/amp/
As a Brit I don't need to apply for a visa. If I did then my social media would be rather boring for anyone who wanted to look at it.
Go here and download a copy of what facebook has on you, see how boring you really are and if you might see any connections that would give someone pause.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It would depend on what counts as social media. Going by how I define it, I wouldn't care much as applied to my person because the only one I've used in the past five years is Facebook and my content there is fairly innocuous (I only log in about five or six times a year, almost never update anything, and have all facebook scripts blocked the rest of the time). If social media includes gay dating and hookup apps than I couldn't try to visit the US for fear of committing fraud in the application. I can't begin to remember how many I've tried out and quickly discarded over the last couple of years.
I also don't have to apply for a Visa. The form for using Visa-less entry STILL demands social media info.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
'tis a bit of a fail on your part.
To be honest, I wasn't planning to anyway.
We decided against visiting the US both last year and this year. If I had to jump through all those hoops, I wouldn't even consider visiting. Too much of a pain in the ass recalling my accounts, and hella creepy to give that information to the US government.
How's that a fail? The article only specifies visas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
To be honest its less discriminatory if they're asking everyone. Given that the vast majority of white, western nations have visa-waivers putting up visa requirements is a way of discriminating against those from predominantly non-white, non-western nations. Putting up the requirement for everyone is consistent but I'm not sure what they're planning on doing with that info since we don't need a visa anyway.
I already try to avoid visiting the US, so this makes no difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
You really haven't looked at what information you're required to provide for the Visa-less program ESTA, have you? You still have to provide a boatload of information.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Dude, you really should do some research before you're talking about stuff you haven't got a clue about. Seems to be a recurrent theme with you.
I looked it up last time I travelled and read the linked article which specified VISAS.
If the requirements have changed beyond that mentioned in the article then that is new information.
Just double checked and can't find any reference anywhere to social media being checked for ESTA. What I can find a reference to is that 99% of ESTA applications are approved within 5 seconds.
Doesn't sound like they're going through social media with a fine toothcomb within 5 seconds to me. If you're going to make claims may e YOU should provide some evidence or a link?
H1-B visas are for skilled immigrant workers looking for employment in a US company, right? I wouldn't call that 'visiting' the US (as the title implies).
Even so, the Trump administration has underfunded and understaffed the federal agencies responsible for checking these things. Sounds like another policy change that wasn't thought out very well, but framed as "Keep America Safe" (from those dirty no-good foreigners taking American jobs, or Terrorists!) that could backfire.
Maybe you should actually start the ESTA application process then. You'll have plenty of evidence then. And no, they won't go through your stuff in five seconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Do you also think that they forget what you entered immediately after being through the process?
They claim that no-one will be penalized for not answering the social media question on the ESTA form.
[photo of laughing old men]
So they have your details on record for after the fact in case they need it (just as they'll have your finger prints and other stuff) but aren't using it to prejudice your entry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Sounds reasonable to me.
You obviously also think it reasonable to ask whether you are a member of a terrorist organization or are planning an attack on the US.
Indeed. Rather pointless but entirely reasonable.
If that's "reasonable" then it explains your Brexidiocy quite a bit. Seriously, who is that supposed to catch? Wannabe-Terrorists who cannot even tie their own shoelaces and find their own ass without a map, GPS and guiding lights?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
What is the harm in asking the question?
Sometimes the purpose of the question is not in what you first think it is. EG one standard question in the UK on employment forms is the overly legalistic question "Do you have any convictions, cautions, reprimands or final warnings that are not “protected” as defined by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (as amended in 2013)?"
However as most employers don't actually run background checks on their employees its of course possible to lie on that form. Years ago I caught an employee who had stolen a very large sum from the business over a course of a long time, when we took it to the Police one issue that came up was that he'd lied on his application form by ticking No - he had an unspent prior conviction for theft from a prior employer. We didn't run a criminal records check to verify his claim that he had none so had taken his word on it. However because he'd lied on the form he had by doing so committed the offence of fraud. That was an aggravating factor for the subsequent prosecution of theft.
Now in my prior answer I already said it was "rather pointless", fraud is not much of an aggravating factor in a prosecution for terrorism, but it can be used as an aggravating factor in a prosecution if the suspect committed fraud by lying on that official paperwork when entering the country.
Jesus Christ, Rand. This is not about asking whether you stole a cigarette somewhere.
This is asking about whether you're planning to murder people on a massive scale or not. This is not about liability or being able to fire someone if they lied to you about a previous conviction.
You just exemplified once again why you're utterly clueless.
But sure, "Are you a mass murderer we didn't know about?" is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. I mean, in the case they discover that the person in question was lying, then what? Hold him on "lying under oath" or something because that's clearly more serious than, oh, the mass murders?
Or sure, I mean, the guy planned the next 9/11 but hey, he lied on his Visa application and that's a real crime! :rolleyes:
Sometimes it isn't the killings or attempted killings people can get prosecuted over. Al Capone was famously incarcerated for tax evasion not for his body count.
You've still not explained what harm the question causes and why it should be dropped besides being redundant.
Tax evasion is a far cry from being a mass murderer. Jesus Christ. A pointless question is never reasonable. And what harm? It's a bloody useless procedure. It's ineffective security theater.
How about this: You fill out this questionaire once every hour for the next month. Then throw it away immediately after filling it out. Then you tell me: "What's the harm."
By the way: You said this was "reasonable". That's what you started out with. Don't try to move the goal posts once again as you usually try to do when you're trying to defend the indefensible.
You're right tax evasion is a far cry from being a mass murder. So why go for a charge of tax evasion when somebody is a known mass murderer? However despite being a known mass murderer and despite murdering 33 people Capone wasn't convicted for any of them, nor conspiracy to murder nor any other murder-related charges. He was convicted on tax evasion however. Which only happened because people turned on him after the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre but nobody could or would prove that so they went for another charge to get the murdering mob boss off the streets. Well done, that's my point :rolleyes:
I've been to America and I've answered this question. It wasn't something filled in "once an hour every hour for a month", it was filled in once and only once on a questionnaire. So your reductio ad absurdum is just a fallacy and not a good point.
I did not simply say it was "reasonable". I said to start with (in reply to your question) it was "Rather pointless but entirely reasonable". I've not moved the goalposts at all, I stand by that completely. I still view it as rather pointless but entirely reasonable.
At least for visa application purposes, these questions, ridiculous though they may be, allow the govt. to deport you later on if you answer the questions untruthfully, because you'll have obtained the visa by fraud.
That was my point earlier :)
"You obviously also think it reasonable to ask whether you are a member of a terrorist organization or are planning an attack on the US"
I often wondered if that may be a valid legal defense if someone answered one of those idiotic question in affirmative and then got a visa anyway (oversight?), would committing the crime in question be considered fulfilling the purpose of his stay and the answer serve as mitigating circumstance.
QTWAIN.