US Customs and Border Protection Wants To Know Who You Are On Twitter (eff.org) 348
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Electronic Frontier Foundation: U.S. border control agents want to gather Facebook and Twitter identities from visitors from around the world. But this flawed plan would violate travelers' privacy, and would have a wide-ranging impact on freedom of expression -- all while doing little or nothing to protect Americans from terrorism. A proposal has been issued by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect social media handles from visitors to the United States from visa waiver countries. The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposes the proposal and has commented on it individually and as part of a larger coalition. "CBP specifically seeks 'information associated with your online presence -- Provider/Platform -- Social media identifier' in order to provider DHS 'greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity and connections' for 'vetting purposes,'" reports EFF. "In our comments, we argue that would-be terrorists are unlikely to disclose social media identifiers that reveal publicly available posts expressing support for terrorism." They say this plan "would unfairly violate the privacy of innocent travelers," would cause "innocent travelers" to "engage in self-censorship, cutting back on their online activity out of fear of being wrongly judged by the U.S. government," and would lead to a "slippery slope, where CBP would require U.S. citizens and residents returning home to disclose their social media handles, or subject both foreign visitors and U.S. persons to invasive device searches at ports of entry with the intent of easily accessing any and all cloud data."
Would they believe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What are you hiding? (Score:3)
that it's possible that someone doesn't have twitter and/or facebook?
Probably they would regard it as proof that such a person (like me) is a terrorist looking to hide something...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually *not* hiding a desire to do better things with my time
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's possible, but whether they'd believe it or not, that's an interesting question.
It's also that someone has an account which they won't believe it's real, possibly causing problems - like my twitter acc, which I set up at the time of the Icelandic volcano eruptions 5-6 years ago to follow related news feeds and flight informations and never used it for anything else
Re:Would they believe (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, it's possible, but whether they'd believe it or not, that's an interesting question.
It's just a small slide down from...
...to...
Gov't: Give us your password.
Me: I don't remember.
Gov't: We're throwing you in jail till you cough it up.
Gov't: Give us your account name.
Me: I don't have one.
Gov't: We're throwing you in jail till you cough it up.
Re: (Score:2)
I think its more likely to be..
Govt: So you don't use social media? Then we'd like to inspect your computing devices. Please ignore the fact that your devices now have new software installed on them. They're Freedom Apps designed to keep you safe.
Re:Would they believe (Score:4, Funny)
Great! Oh boy, you have NO idea what we've been trying back at $anti_malware_research_corporation to finally get a hold on your trojans, and all I had to do is fly over to get a free sample.
You're awesome, guys!
Re: (Score:3)
The assumption is that you are a terrorist.
Assuming you are a terrorist, why would you not use Twitter or Facebook?
Because they are US products, and terrorists hate the US!
Therefore you have now provided evidence to back up the assumption that you are a terrorist.
If you did use Twitter or Facebook, the question would be why a terrorist would do so?
The obvious reason would be that you were trying to create a fake cover story.
You'd only need a cover story if you were a terrorist, therefore you have once again
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What are you talking about, last time I checked the only two groups that are still populating Twitter are SJWs and terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My case. I do not have Twitter or Facebook account and I do not intend to have one. If I try to enter the United States I will be accused of being a terrorist?
Just point out that that's how they keep saying terrorists communicate so if you are one you're a shit one and no threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a great excuse to search your phone and laptop for evidence of accessing twitter.com and facebook.com. Some phones come with the Twitter app pre-installed and unremovable.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't have a twitter account it must be because Twitter shut you down in its efforts to get rid of terrorism on it's platform, ergo you're a terrorist.
Now bend over while I get the glove.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have either Facebook or Twitter. I guess that means I'm automatically "suspicious".
The smart thing to do now is to create accounts on Facebook and Twitter and fill them with innocuous crap like cat pictures, chili recipes, and other banal stuff.
No pics of kids or babies (because that means you're a pedophile!)
No pics of city skylines (because that means you're a terrorist scoping out targets!)
No "We support our troops!" stuff (because that means you're a militarist whacko!)
No pics of bridges, build
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody RTFAed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is the "they" doing the believing? EFF?
A lot of people, including the EFF, are mentioning Facebook and Twitter for some reason. Those sites are said to be fairly popular, so they might be good examples if you're trying to explain the issue to the mainstream.
But if you actually click through to the .gov site's proposal, they don't say anything specifically about those two sites. They say "social media identifier." The page's only mention of Facebook is that the page has a Facebook-sharing widget.
So: "social media identifier." For people who use Facebook, their facebook id would, indeed, happen to be something the government would be interested in. But if you don't use Facebook, then that's not what they're asking for. The presumption is that you socialize (to at least some degree) somehow. That may or may not be correct, but for 100.0% of the people who are reading this comment, it happens to be an accurate assumption.
One good answer to their question might be: what's your Slashdot identifier? Well, if you log in, then it's your login name. Using that combined with some really large logs (presumably where the https was broken) they can see all the pages you requestedwhich uses that cookie, and infer what kinds of things you're interested in. And Slashdot already helpfully shows your posts, so they'll know what you're often saying. And that will happen to work fairly well for you, sirber [slashdot.org].
If you don't log in, then they might like to know your ISP accounts (home and mobile) so they can check logs to see your IP address at certain times, to either directly tie it to Slashdot activity, or indirectly through, say, Google Analytics cookies or something like that. At some point, this crosses the line into the impractical, but let's remember: if you don't login to Slashdot, then the value of whatever identifies you on Slashdot is significantly lessened, since you're probably not maintaining persistent communications anyway, so they're less likely to care. They'd ask you about some other site.
Other "site" presumes HTTP, though, and of course social media is far larger than just the web. Email might still possibly the biggest social media network of all, where your identifier would be your email address. IRC? Usenet? (Ok, we're sounding very old here. But maybe someone knows how to investigate old people.)
If there's really nothing, then you probably are somewhat unusual (no, not a "terrorist," just unusual), so they might need to talk to you instead of just read about you in the other room. The presumption isn't Facebook and Twitter: it's just something.
Something online. Maybe you spend all your time chatting people up in bars, in the real world, without a computer network. Then I suppose a photograph of your face is your social media identifier. No?
Re: (Score:2)
I have a 25 yr old email account.
How old are you?
Re: (Score:3)
I was downloading games from BBS in 1983. On my 1200 baud modem. It was awesome. Until someone else picked up the phone line.
Re:Would they believe (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a single letter telegraph handle
Re: (Score:2)
34.
I have no Twitter account, no Snapchat, no WhatsApp etc. I have an old Facebook account under my real name that I used to play Farmville and such about ... a decade ago or thereabout?
I stay in touch with friends over an ancient MUCK, but I bet border control would have no f'ing clue what a MU* is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm 22 and I don't have any social media account and no account anywhere that uses my real name (possibly excluding my bank account and/or any government-related services if you count that).
Ditto. I'm a few years older than you (still in my 20's). It seems like oddballs like us will be treated as suspects in the future, the way things are unravelling.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a good bit older than both of you, and I don't do social media either like FB or twitter, etc.
Never have, and not planning to any time soon..
Some o
Re: (Score:3)
Originally the internet was designed by the government. It was originally released to the public in order to watch over them.
Drivel. Government was late to the party in terms of spying on citizens via the Internet. You're suggesting it was the plan all along? Nah.
Re:FYI (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you are posting with any handle other than "Anonymous Coward" you will need to provide that handle to your friendly neighborhood spy.
Or just not travel to countries that don't treat their visitors with respect and basic human decency.
There are many places I would love to visit in the world, far more than I ever will be able to in one lifetime I expect. Why would I voluntarily subject myself to the kind of culture we're talking about here, when I can be welcomed as both a tourist and a business person in so many other places?
Obviously some people have no choice, and I hope things work out OK for them, but this sort of policy seems absurdly counter-productive for people who do have a choice and do care about the way they are treated.
Re:Would they believe (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you trying to hide, citizen?
No more than what's constitutionally protected, employee of the citizens.
Re:Would they believe (Score:5, Informative)
And again, the Soviet Union already had a joke about this.
A rabbit ran wildly in the street.
"Why are you running like mad?" a bear asked.
"Don't you know, they are now arresting all camels and castrating them."
"But you're rabbit, not a camel."
"Right, but if they catch you, and cut off your nuts, then you can prove that you're not a camel!"
Re: (Score:3)
Stick with the alliteration.
If you're @AngryAbrahamist you have to also be @FluffyFelineFancier.
Exactly the point (Score:2)
They say this plan "would unfairly violate the privacy of innocent travelers," would cause "innocent travelers"...
I'd say that is EXACTLY the point of the idea if indeed they are actually doing this. Our government is most likely not quite that stupid even though sometimes they make a strong effort to prove me wrong. The vast majority of the time they invoke "terrorists" what they are really doing is finding ways to put their boot on the throats of normal citizens. The more subjugated the citizens are the easier it is for them to get what they want. Crime investigators see the constitution and civil rights as obsta
I can see it from here... (Score:2)
- Custom officer : Do you have a github account? ... And that is how I found myself in Guantanamo, thinking I was going to visit my aunt in New York.
- Me: Sure, it's x x x
- Custom officer (takes one look at the github page, does a double-take): right this way sir.
Re: (Score:2)
They'd find mostly "Fuck the US government, they're scumbags" on my FB page. Don't have (or want) a Twitter account...
By some definitions, (Score:2)
even Slashdot qualifies as 'social media'. Given the propensity for over-reach that's been displayed by CBP and associated agencies, visitors to the US might soon be required to supply ALL of their usernames and pseudonyms to border agents. After that, I'm sure the passwords will be demanded too.
BTW, this seems to be a dupe of a story first posted here in June: https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who uses twitter? (Score:3)
Re:Moron Uprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, don't want to sound like a dick or nothin', but, ah... it says on your chart that you're fucked up. Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded. - Idiocracy(2006)
The moron uprising is shifting into high gear.
Intelligent people, or even less intelligent people capable of critical thinking, are being drowned out by drooling morons. The only salvation appears to be wealth and even the wealthy are under siege by the moron hoard. I'm really not sure how much longer they will be able to stave off the tide.
You should spend more time with rich people. You may find they are just as benighted as the common folk, perhaps more so. The ability to amass wealth has no correlation with intellectual enlightenment or critical thinking.
Re: (Score:3)
If you have something to say that can be said in 140 characters, you have nothing to say.
It's an intelligence test. People who have Twitter accounts have failed.
Oh you barely passed! Your post has 134 characters with no spaces. Sorry, I couldn't resist that one!
Fake Accounts (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How would they prevent people from using sanitized "fake" accounts? Seems a pretty obvious work-around.
I don't think they gave it that much thought.
Perjury (Score:3)
How would they prevent people from using sanitized "fake" accounts? Seems a pretty obvious work-around.
The point would be that if you lied about it and they find out later they have extra ammunition to prosecute you with. Basically either you give up private information or they charge you with perjury if they catch you hiding information. Either way you lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Which leads to, "We have discovered you have an account on MySpace created three days after the site started and never used. You failed to disclose this to the border agents and is considered reasonable suspicion to search all your belongings etc. etc."
Re: (Score:3)
Shhh. Just don't mention it, ok? Look, let me tell you how this works.
They get to find an easy solution that costs little to nothing, so they can feel good about "doing something" while not really having to do anything. They can sell that to the idiots who actually believe this solves anything. And we get to simply continue with our life because it doesn't really bother us too much.
Once you learn how the system works, it's far easier and less stressful to accept it.
Why do people still go there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do people still travel to the US? I haven't visited the country since they started treating visitors like criminals and I refuse any business travel towards the US. Sure, it may not always be avoidable for everyone, but if tourists simply stop coming, they will have to start treating their guests more normally at some point.
Re:Why do people still go there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly my thoughts. I just got sick and tired of being treated like a criminal every time I went through immigration. And guess what, there are lots of other places around the world which are happy to see tourists and make them feel welcome. Who'd have thought it?
Re:Why do people still go there? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm glad I made several trips back in the 90s when it was still easy. On one road trip, we turned up without a single room booked - you could just put "touring" on the waiver form and it was accepted. Jumped in the hire car, found a motel. Spent five weeks touring with no fixed route, it was a great trip. More or less impossible now - I think you have to supply a complete itinerary.
Last time I went was 2003, so post 9/11 and the shoe thing had come in but - at least at the airport I went through - that was about it. The horror stories I hear now put me off ever going back.
I flew into Phoenix on that trip, straight form Heathrow. I wonder if the smaller international airports are a bit less hostile than the likes of JFK and LAX?
Re: (Score:2)
From an EU citizen:
In the 90ies, that form you had to fill was pretty ridiculous, as if ill-minded persons would write out their nefarious plans there. The humor-less stern look by the border agent was certainly just as efficient.
I seriously doubt that the current security theater is much more effective though - but it does make sure I won't willingly travel to north america anytime soon. It's a pity really, I'd love to see some of the landscapes (Yellowstone, some of the canyons, Death Valley etc.)...
Re: (Score:3)
Death Valley isn't really anything special. The Grand Canyon, othh just cannot be adequately depicted in pictures. It was probably the inspiration for Douglas Adams's Total Perspective Vortex, which would drive people mad by showing them their actual importance in the universe.
FWIW, I can remember a time when the US was indeed relatively lax, and it was Europe that it was a total PITA to travel in due to all the border security theater. Interesting that the shoe is now on the other foot.
Re: (Score:3)
Yo do realize that the TSA/DHS goonsquad has claimed sovereignty over all of North American airspace, whether the flight lands in the US or not, right?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/... [www.cbc.ca]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people still travel to the US? I haven't visited the country since they started treating visitors like criminals and I refuse any business travel towards the US. Sure, it may not always be avoidable for everyone, but if tourists simply stop coming, they will have to start treating their guests more normally at some point.
Sucks to be Hawaii, but for the rest of the states, how much money do they make from tourism? Would that be a noteable dent in USA GDP?
Re:Why do people still go there? (Score:4, Informative)
From Wiki [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
OK.. then the US should think twice about those ideas.
And honestly, given the treatment you receive at the US border, I haven't expected tourism to be that popular. They are already doing a good job of not making you feel welcome.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget that a lot of those tourists will be Americans traveling in their country
Re: (Score:3)
The UK might actually be worse.
https://medium.com/@rachelnabo... [medium.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty terrible story, but technically, she did not have a valid visa to enter the country. How do you think someone attempting to enter the USA without a suitable visa would be treated?
On the flip side, I would have thought that a rule that would have allowed her to enter if she were being paid by a UK company but did not allow entry because she was paid by a German country would be in violation of EU rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people still travel to the US?
Forced to. Interestingly enough one of the few countries I actually dread travelling to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The embassy is the worst (Score:5, Informative)
Once you arrive at the US, you have to get past passport control and customs. That's what most people worry about, but it's less unpleasant than getting the visa. The problem is only that the personnel act overworked, surly and suspicious - very unwelcoming.
Far worse is the process of getting a visa, because this requires visiting the American embassy. The place is built like a prison, and that's pretty much the feeling you have when you are there: the personnel is behind thick glass windows with over-pressure against poison gas, talking to you through a crappy speaker. Even though you may "have an appointment" you often spend hours waiting. Sure, your appoint may begin on time, but then you wait again, then go to some other window, then wait some more, then go pay at the cashier, who may be on her lunch break...
And you aren't allowed to take anything in with you. Just your wallet and any paperwork you may have. No bags, not a phone, not a Kindle. I've learned that they let me take in a physical paperback, a pad of paper and a pencil - that's as far as you can stretch the rules.
The process of checking people to let them inside is slow, and the only place to wait is outside - if it's stormy, windy and raining, be sure to dress warmly. But not too warmly - you can't have a backpack or anything, because the embassy has no provision for your belongings. They don't want them on the premises, so you have to find someplace else to leave your stuff. The obvious spot is the train station, which is about a mile's walk away (there's no parking at the embassy, they're far too paranoid for that). This is really great for people who are visiting for the first time, because they naturally assume there will be lockers or some other provision for their belongings; they face a 40-minute walk to deposit their stuff elsewhere, missing their appointment. It is also great for families with babies or small children, since you can't bring in your kiddy bag to take care of them.
The whole setup is a truly unbelievable PITA - you have to see it to believe it.
Re:Why do people still go there? (Score:5, Insightful)
they will have to start treating their guests more normally at some point.
I think you underestimate our insular mentality and the degree to which we believe in American exceptionalism. Only 30% of us even have passports, despite the 2007 change that requires us to present them every time we re-enter the country, even if we just visited a neighboring nation. And regardless of whether it's true or not, I'd wager that most Americans would believe that the tourism taking place within or between states far outweighs the 80 million visitors that come to the US for tourist activities each year.
On the flipside, I think you also overestimate the typical person's level of care about any of this stuff. I've opted-out of going through the body scanners every single time I've gone through an airport since they were introduced, but in all of those trips, I have yet to see anyone else do the same. While you and I might view this suggestion as an abridgement of our rights and a gross invasion of privacy, most people won't give it a second thought, simply because they've already made their vacation plans and a question on a form about something minor like that isn't enough to put them off. I wish it wasn't so, but we both know that to be true.
The fact that international tourist visits to the US have grown in the last few years (only France receives more tourists, but we bring in nearly 4x as much tourism revenue as they do, and nearly 2x that of China, which is the next closest in terms of revenue) only provides evidence for the notion that these draconian measures haven't adversely impacted the industry.
So, what if I'm not on any social media? (Score:3)
I'm planning to visit US in August 2017 to watch the total solar eclipse that pretty much is visible in lots of the states (path of totality goes from Pacific northwest to South Carolina). If this ruling gets implemented, I wonder what's would be more problematic: Leaving the field empty since I don't have any (well, I guess I could give my nick on IRCNet) or creating a throwaway account on Facebook without any content if they decide to look it up?
Not that I really expect any true problems at the border, have visited US many times in the past due to business although not in last 5 years. Some agents have been more friendly than others...but no real problems whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
You are on a social site - you're "Zarhan" on slashdot.
Hmmm... and perhaps some of your previous posts might warrant some additional investigation...
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, best way would be to fly to Canada, and sneak into the US. There's plenty of ways to get in without inspection.
Re: (Score:2)
You can visit the total solar eclipse from a nice camp site from Cuba. Alternatively you can experience your own eclipse.
i never go near the International Borders (Score:3)
i do have a twitter account, but i never tweat to anybody ever, i only have a twitter account so i can read tweats from things that interest me, i just flag the spammers is about the only interaction i do
Re: (Score:3)
Border patrol has jurisdiction 100 miles inland from the border.
So, the entire state of Hawaii & Rhode Island.
Nothing to hide (Score:2)
I put my phone number on goods I'm having shipped to America illegally so customs can call me for an explanation if they so desire. Yes, I'm trafficking things across the border that I'm not allowed to traffick across the border; and yes, customs inspects the package and decides it's fine.
I still don't want them digging through my Facebook and shit. My Facebook is online and exposes a ton of shit to everyone; there is no expectation of privacy, and they're welcome to go looking, and I still don't want
Wake the FUCK UP PEOPLE! (Score:2)
Really? It's not even funny anymore, the fascists are winning, it's out of control....
This initiative sounds like it was paid for by Twitter and Facebook to boost the creation of extra accounts that people can give the SS at the border while being themselves on another account...
"digital" = "unreasonable" (Score:2)
Busywork (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not supposed to achieve anything - except for making them look like they are "doing all they can". Last time I went to the Statets, I was required to fill in form that asked me"Are you coming to America to carry out terrorist offences?" or something like that. The things they come up with; I still haven't figured out how anybody can even ask such a question.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here when my sister wanted to visit Disney, is simply hilarious... Come on the US embassy, a real terrorist would answer "yes" to this kind of question? Is silly
Just tell them (Score:2)
the terms of your plea bargain require you to stay away from all social media sites.
Lack of anonymity impacts freedom of expression? (Score:2)
Why should freedom of expression necessarily mean freedom of accountability for such expression?
Not trying to troll... this is a serious question.
Barring the situation where one is living under an actual oppressive regime wherein the government surreptitiously "silences" anyone who expresses disagreement with them, I don't see how that is an issue. The USA still definitely has its problems, but it is one of the furthest places I can think of in the world from having such a regime.
I am not an advoca
The proper answer (Score:5, Funny)
is not "I don't have a facebook|twitter" account.
It is "Huh? Whats a facebook?"
Visiting the GDR (Score:2)
Dear US customs,
from past experience visiting the (now no longer existing German Democratic Republic (Democratic as is Congo)) you could do so much more to make your country save. First, do not use Facebook or Twitter to find out anything about people. These services are used to project your public image. Second, in the old GDR no filthy foreigner could simple visit (except for those from West Berlin to East Berlin). You required an invitation. Third, everyone required a visa and you had to exchange some mo
Lol, too bad for them (Score:2)
"U.S. border control agents want to gather Facebook and Twitter identities from visitors from around the world."
That would assume I have a Facebook or Twitter account, which I do not.
Common account (Score:2)
We're all @Snowden on Twitter, right?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Obviously only braindead idiots use Twitter.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
We have always been at war with Oceania (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if say, someone like me who does not have a Twitter or Facebook account wanted to visit America would that now make me a terrorist?
Would it be deemed that I am refusing to cooperate by telling them I do not have such?
No, but they will likely note it down, and if a search later finds out that you really had one, you can at least expect to have your phone/PC confiscated, be tossed out at your own expense, and automatically be refused future admission to the US or on flights that relay through US controlled territories.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes.
Bad luck then....
Re:Constitution-free zone (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't that count on international airports as well and cover pretty much everyone in a built up area?
Yes.
About 85% of the US lives within 100 miles of a border. Convenient for them, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're anywhere within 100 miles of a US border, the constitution doesn't apply, and any US customs agent can do anything they want to you, at any time, for whatever reason.
I think my Canadian relatives, almost all of whom are within 100 miles of a US border may take serious exception to that.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're anywhere within 100 miles of a US border, the constitution doesn't apply
I think my Canadian relatives, almost all of whom are within 100 miles of a US border may take serious exception to that.
Your Canadian relatives expected the US constitution to apply to them ? :)
and any US customs agent can do anything they want to you, at any time, for whatever reason.
As long as the Canadian constitution applies to US customs agents on Canadian soil, your Canadian relatives should be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're anywhere within 100 miles of a US border, the constitution doesn't apply, and any US customs agent can do anything they want to you, at any time, for whatever reason.
If you're still in the US, you should move inland > 100 miles, so at least whatever remains of the constitution still applies to you under specific conditions.
Lol, like that would stop them.
That 'zone' will be expanded to whatever they want when they want, if they even bother to formally expand it.
Re: (Score:3)
The fourth amendment actually uses the word 'people' and not 'citizens'. In cases where the lawmakers or framers intended the rights to be extended only to 'citizens', they make that explicit (i.e., for voting).
http://scholarship.law.georget... [georgetown.edu]
So, no. Your assertion probably isn't true. But I'm not a lawyer--or even an American!--so my cursory search around the internet isn't worth much. Then again, it appears to be more than you've done...
Re: (Score:2)
First, there is something called human rights which apply everywhere (the US signed them, they even created them). Second, the 4th amendment applies to people in the US. You are already on US soil when you stand in the queue before customs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would argue there should be no visa waiver countries in the first place. We really ought to require everyone entering the USA notify the state department a head of time. As a small government guy one of the few things our government is supposed to be doing according to the preamble is providing for the common defense. .
Congrats. You've just moved into totalitarian nightmare. What happens to US travelers when other countries reciprocate these travel restriction ? Part of why there are countries that can enter the USA more easily than others is to ensure easier travel for Americans. International business will be affected. Tourism will be affected. You've just started to treat your closest allies badly, and will suffer those consequences.
Also, can you imagine the logistical nightmare of having the hundreds o
Re:Going to have to side against the EEF on this o (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what happens when you DO have full documentation going to the UK.
https://medium.com/@rachelnabo... [medium.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As somebody from the US, I strongly disagree with you. I quite like going to Europe without having to get a visa. I personally feel that all Europeans should be treated with the same respect they treat me with and they should be let into our country with an equivalent amount of hassle as I have going into theirs (read almost none). Fact is I go through more hassle re-entering my own country then I do entering Europe as a visitor. It's ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I would argue there should be no visa waiver countries in the first place. We really ought to require everyone entering the USA notify the state department a head of time.
What about countries you share a land border with, like Canada? An estimated 75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US-Canada border [nationalgeographic.com], and "Canada accounts for about 20 per cent of America’s US$2.3-trillion export sector [macleans.ca], making it the single biggest destination for Made in America products in the world." Requiring pre-visit visa applications would seriously dampen the enormous day-trip cross-border shopping industry. As of a few years ago, all visitors to the US require a valid passport (pre
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you would not ask a citizen to leave the country u
Re: (Score:3)
In Canada, the only rights foreign persons don't have are political, voting and holding office, and mobility rights including entering and/or staying in the country and earning a livelihood. Landed immigrants have most of the mobility rights but can still be deported.
I'd think most countries would be similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Because more is required of a citizen?
Taxes, jury duty, voting rights, many other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)