I can't see an easy way to prove someone supplied an incomplete list of online handles though. It would be trivial for me to look up all the places I've supplied my real e-mail address and make sure to include them in the list, and good luck finding my handles otherwise.
1. it doesn't matter - it's immigration, them simply asserting you lied is enough for them to decline your visa, and as of January 2025, enough for them to have masked goons kidnap you on the street and imprison you without charge or trial and/or deport you to some random country
2. the easy way is to just ask American Big Tech to rat you out - Elon obviously would do it for a kind glance, the rest will do it because they either support the actual end of democracy in the US or because they think it'll increase shareholder value
It goes by different names depending on your bias, but it exists. The right side of the political spectrum would call it anarcho-tyranny.
As to the sudden insistence on due process when it comes to deportation of illegals I do wonder why this was not an issue when the previous regime let in millions of people without any regard for the laws of the land - i.e. due process. Is it the intention to make it impossible to correct this flagrant violation of migration laws by suddenly insisting on having every single individual go though a lengthy legal process, clogging up the courts?
All of the evidence available to us shows us that migrants, on average, commit less crime than U.S. citizens. The evidence shows us that they pay into social programs without reaping almost any benefit. The evidence shows us that they take jobs that the average American isn't interested in. An evidence-based political program would not target migrants as a first priority, except to provide some more straightforward way to become documented and legal.
The other issue is -- the U.S. has 300 million+ citizens. This argument that migrants will "clog up" the courts seems ridiculous if you also believe U.S. citizens deserve due process. If your court system can't handle a relatively small percentage of your residents committing the crimes you have on the books, then maybe those crimes aren't really serious crimes are they? Or else not funding the courts appropriately to satisfy the political program is purposeful. The goal is to avoid due process and accountability, for citizens and non-citizens alike.
Say you let someone in who suicide bombs himself and takes out several Americans. Then a reporter asks the DHS spokesperson how they let someone in the country that had "Death to America" posts all over their social media out in the open for everyone to see but they didn't. Nobody would forgive the government for such a grave oversight.
At the airport you already let them check your luggage and pockets to make sure you're not a threat to the crew and passengers. How's it different to be checking your social media before entering to make sure you're not a threat to the citizens?
Which do you think is more important to the electorate, the safety of the citizens, or the privacy inconveniences of immigrants, which doesn't exist anyway?
To me, this seems like a grave transgression of privacy with little to no actual safety benefits.
It's no different than your local government that's probably happy to permit all sorts of absurd invasive development as long as some engineer puts a stamp on it but if a homeowner wants to build a retaining wall he gets told to f-off and come back with $20k of engineered plans that make the project not worth it.
It's not about the end result. It's about dodging accountability.
People on Visas are guests, it makes sense to ask questions like this that wouldn't ask ordinary citizens. We have been way too relaxed with it and it's nice to see some changes.
Citizens don't sacrifice anything. The rules applies to those who request visas.
Everything else you wrote after that is so much more delulu, it's not even worth addressing.
Everything is partisan now.
If something bad happens, every media outlet will blame the party they don't like for it somehow. It doesn't matter what that party actually did, therefore there is no value in doing harmful stuff for CYA purposes because deploying the CYA tactics will not stop you from being blamed for it by the outlets that don't like you, and also will not stop the outlets that do you like you from blaming the other party instead of you.
You're making it partisan, I wasn't.
>If something bad happens, every media outlet will blame the party they don't like for it somehow
Ignore the media. If a loved one of yours would be killed by a visa holder who wasn't vetted properly even though his social media profile had all the red flags, who would YOU blame ?
It isn't you or I who decides that, it's media outlets. And they've decided to be partisan.
> If a loved one of yours would be killed by a visa holder who wasn't vetted properly even though his social media profile had all the red flags, who would YOU blame?
The visa holder.
Also, those kinds of social media posts are public, so what does it have to do with immigration? If you want to blame law enforcement for not investigating the nutters who post on the internet then maybe they should start with the ones posting crazy stuff and investigate who they are, instead of starting with random innocent people and unmasking them with no justification.
So this only provides the government means to oppress and intimidate regular people while having no effect on crime and terror.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
I will submit to inspection of the things I bring into a country, but I will not submit to a review of everything I've written that I haven't made public.
It's like asking me to bring decades of letters and personal journals to be judged by. It's unreasonable. If this required of me I won't go.
Do you think the US will see you not going there as a huge loss?
Since the leading sentence with the devil's advocate, it's hard to presume the post is mostly sarcastic. If not - the inability to see the difference is rather staggering.
"Yes, 40kg of trinitrotoluene"
US Intelligence agencies collect a lot of data about people. Especially the ones who write about "Death to America" on their social media. If we follow your logic and it doesn't happen today then there are bigger problems than the made up issues DHS will have in your imagined future.
Building a profile on someone doesn't require their social media profiles. This is just a bogeyman. As some has pointed out, this is purely to build a case if and when people protest against the government.