Biden Administration Continues To Defend Social Media Registration Requirement in Court (knightcolumbia.org) 52
In a terse court filing on Friday, the Biden administration indicated that it would continue to defend a controversial Trump administration rule that requires millions of visa applicants each year to register their social media handles with the U.S. government. From a report: The registration requirement, which stems from the Muslim ban, is the subject of an ongoing First Amendment challenge filed by the Knight Institute, the Brennan Center, and the law firm Simpson Thacher on behalf of two documentary film organizations, Doc Society and the International Documentary Association.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
I have this great idea for a new TV show. The premise is simple. Just toss a liberal celebrity into the ring with a couple of Marines, and spend about an hour filming him getting the living shit beat out of him. Wouldn't it be great, every night you can turn on your TV and watch some loathsome parasite like Gavin Newsom or Chuck Schumer getting a Front Street Face Lift? If that's not a hit, I don't know what is!
How about we just give you a one way ticket to Mars and you can rage against the aether on your own special planet.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that, even though it might be wicked slow, you can still post to Slashdot from Mars.
He who gets the (Score:3)
last post!
Re: (Score:2)
last post!
Sorry to see you go.
Think of the children (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Think of the children (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reports are in the news continually showing that terrorist, and other assorted criminals, use Social Media. And that their Social Media usage leads to criminal charges, prosecution, and sentencing.
Question: Are you someone with education and experience with Sociopaths and Terrorists? Or are you just blowing smoke?
I ask that question because you left out Psychopaths. While associated with Sociopaths, Psychopaths and Sociopaths are quite different. Their omission indicated a lay p
Damn centralist! (Score:2, Troll)
Compromise, bipartisanship infrastructure bill, and leaving some prior Presidential changes in place? WTF is the world coming to!? Centrists will ruin the goddam place!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Biden has never been listed as "right wing" since he entered the Senate. His basis, "Let George Do It", i.e., Federal Government controlling all facets of USA life puts him well outside of Republican ranks.
Bernie Sanders calls himself as Socialist (Democratic Socialist or Socialist Democrat) and proposes that the Federal Government control alll USA Industry and Businesses. His proposed policies are to the left of Joe Biden.
You're really trying to "move the goal posts" --
Re:Damn centralist! (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't about compromise, this is about inaccurate reporting.
Before Trump changed any of the rules they already asked about social media accounts. I know this, because I filled out one of the applications right after he was elected, but before he was in office.
"which stems from the Muslim ban" (Score:1, Informative)
Who banned Muslims? When?
Oh, right, the Newspeak troll meant Trump's travel restrictions that denied visas to people from countries that the Obama administration recognized as not providing sufficient background checks.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
98% of the people affected by Trump's ban were muslim. We all know why cos certain polticians talk too fucking much.
December 8, 2015: On MSNBC:
Geist: Donald, a customs agent would then ask a person their religion?
Trump: That would be probablyâ"they would say, "Are you Muslim?"
Geist: And if they said, "Yes," they would not be allowed in the country?
Trump: That's correct.
May 11, 2016: On Fox News:
I'm looking at it very strongly with Rudy Giuliani heading it. I've spoken to him a little while ago. We're going to put together a group of five or six people. Very, very highly thought of people, and I think Rudy will head it up, and we'll look at the Muslim ban or the 'temporary ban' as we call it . . . He will head it up and he's agreed to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Here you go:
"A Dozen Times Trump Equated his Travel Ban with a Muslim Ban"
https://www.cato.org/blog/doze... [cato.org]
How can the FBI do their job... (Score:1)
What am I missing here? (Score:2)
I honestly see this legislation as another "nothing burger" that people want to get all fired up over, but means little?
I mean, ok ... so they have to divulge the nickname or handle they prefer using online? A lot of people have used multiple usernames online over the years/decades. What if you just list one of them? What if you give them one you never really said anything under? How much effort is going to go into finding out someone actually used a different name than the one they wrote down?
Ultimately,
Re: (Score:2)
If they find that you deliberately left one out, I’d imagine that would cause them to immediately revoke your application.
So does this mean.... (Score:3)
If not, what precludes a person who does have one from simply not disclosing the account?
Re: (Score:2)
If not, what precludes a person who does have one from simply not disclosing the account?
Oh I'm sorry, were you expecting enforcement?
Yeah, sorry we only make laws now.
- Rep. Win Dow-Dresser
Re: (Score:3)
As with everything else, if they find out later you were lying, you lose your status.
If you lie on your initial application, then later even if you get citizenship, it can (will be) revoked if they discover you lied on your application.
You're much better off deleting your accounts before applying, if you don't want to have accounts to disclose.
And no, of course it doesn't mean you have to have social media accounts. There are lots of things that have to be disclosed on the forms. For example, all groups you
Re: (Score:2)
And how do they prove that you were lying and that it was not an accidental omission?
If that can be grounds for citizenship revocation, then depending on the circumstances, that might leave a person stateless, which would be a violation of human rights.
Re: (Score:2)
They hold a hearing, and an administrative judge decides if you were lying. If you lose, you might be able to sue the government in regular Court...
But there is no such thing as an accidental omission. That phrase merely describes a lie born from carelessness. It is not a matter of intent, it is a matter of the truthfulness of the document submitted.
Now, if your citizenship specifically can be withdrawn does require the omission to have been substantive; it has to be something that would have prevented your
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Thank you for detailing that.
However,. you omitted the case where a person renounces their prior citizenship upon acquiring US citizenship, and then something happens where they would have otherwise lost their US citizenship. I don't know if the original country is still legally required to reinstate them if they had actually renounced their citizenship upon gaining citizenship in the USA. Again, revoking citizenship could leave someone stateless on account of something that could have eas
Re: (Score:2)
Few places even have such a thing as "renouncing citizenship."
You're either a [Nationality] Person, or you're not. If you were born there, and your parents were [Nationality] Persons, you're a [Nationality] Person. It is not something that can be removed.
Part of the reason for this is related to the fact that few places have "freedom of speech." (Not even Europe has this) It is just a US thing. Everywhere else, there are various things you could say that would be illegal. If you move to a place with more fr
Re: So does this mean.... (Score:2)
Freedom of speech in Europe: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
LOL
You're rather derptastic and credulous, aren't you?
Stuff your wiki link up your ass, you're an idiot. -- not entirely legal for Europeans to say to each other
Figure out what you want to say, and fucking say it. Don't be a link-idiot.
Re: So does this mean.... (Score:2)
Maybe I should provide a link to anger management resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should find "spammers anonymous" and learn how to read well enough that you can personally learn from your links, and then communicate with other humans using that knowledge.
Naw, you're too fucking stupid.
You're so stupid you think that when somebody berates you online, they must be angry!
Re: (Score:2)
Keep going, get it all out.
Re: (Score:2)
If they get caught their visa gets cancelled. Phone inspected at the border.
No one is trustworthy (Score:1, Insightful)
That basic principle of human nature should not be forgotten.
Immigration to the US is a privilege to be earned. It may be difficult to understand but citizens have an ownership stake in their country not held by outsiders. All practical intel should be collected on outsiders and all Constitutional intel collected domestically.
The world is a very bad place and humanity evolved to be so savage we only have global peace thanks to Mutual Assured Destruction. Think about that before childish (therefore stupid)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree. We have to stop handing out inherited citizenship, and stop calling people citizens just for being born here. Infants clearly haven't earned anything, and shouldn't be given citizenship. Everyone should have to earn their citizenship, no matter who their daddy is or where their mother was squatting when they were born.
You know the whole idea of citizenship is foreign. Maybe we should do away with it altogether.
Re:No one is trustworthy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if this is some kind of joke, a reference to Starship Troopers perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure if this is some kind of joke, a reference to Starship Troopers perhaps?
Sadly no, people genuinely are that stupid.
Who in their right fucking minds would want to train people who are foreign to your country in how to kill people? I'm nowhere near a xenophobic, anti-immigrant, far-right bitchy blow-hard incel, in fact I'm an immigrant myself (to the UK) but agree there does need to be a process in place to ensure we're not letting in complete whacktards. I don't think giving them guns is conducive to that.
I'm anti-compulsory service in general because the quality of our armed fo
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with any kind of mandatory service is that it discriminates against people with disabilities, or even just older people. Or young people, children won't be able to get citizenship.
Remember that as well as skilled adults there will be their families, refugees, adopted children, students who stay on etc.
I tend to think that immigrants should be seen as an asset that we should be looking to attract.
Re:No one is trustworthy (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that TFA says "MILLIONS of visa applications per year", this appears to be about TOURIST visas.
IMMIGRATION visas are already vetted in minute detail, and have been since before "social media" meant Usenet...
Re:No one is trustworthy (Score:4, Insightful)
That basic principle of human nature should not be forgotten.
Except no, if anything, history shows human nature is very much trustworthy on a large scale. Most people are not psychopaths or sociopaths. Most people aren't murderers or thieves. Most people aren't spies. Most people aren't cheats. Immigration was fine long before social media.
They haven't caught anyone of note with this mass surveillance social credit system. Those who have been caught doing stuff like sending data back to foreign governments have been doing so with complete social media transparency.
Yours is the stupid childish idealism that people with the intent to do harm on a nationwide scale would brag about it on their social media handles. Shame on you, and all those who voted you "Insightful".
Re: No one is trustworthy (Score:2)
Trump 2.0 (Score:1)
People though Biden would be Obama 2.0 when he was elected.
It seems to be turning out he is actually Trump 2.0, he is just Democrat's Trump rather than Republican's Trump.