Trump administration approves social media checks for Visa applicants

[Deagle 508]

I read this article on Reuters, which is a credible news agency. I am not sure how true is it, though.

 

Trump administration approves tougher visa vetting, including social media checks

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-visa-idUSKBN18R3F8?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=592f765004d30106d2a45c2a&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Yes, this is correct, I have read this also but can't remember where. I bookmarked it somewhere.
Aside from that Trump's new fox in the hen house is the new director of the USCIS Ombudsman, an individual who is against

immigration and whose agenda is to reduce legal immigration dramatically.

 

[narakthisud 174]

28 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

Aside from that Trump's new fox in the hen house is the new director of the USCIS Ombudsman, an individual who is against

immigration and whose agenda is to reduce legal immigration dramatically.

Yikes, it looks like you're correct:

 

Quote

Between 2005 and 2015, Ms. Kirchner worked at the Federation for American Immigration Reform and for eight years served as the organization’s Executive Director.

 

From FAIR's web site:

 

Quote

FAIR seeks to reduce overall immigration to a level that is more manageable and which more closely reflects past policy. Reducing legal immigration from well over one million presently, to 300,000 a year over a sustained period will allow America to more sensibly manage its growth, address its environmental needs, and maintain a high quality of life.

 

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Yep. Exactly. He loves foxes guarding the hen house in just about every agency.

They were deemed a hate group and white nationalists.

It blows my mind what is going on behind the scenes these days.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Ebunoluwa

[TBoneTX 45,288]

Thread is moved from General Immigration Discussion to the Current Events forum.

[IAMX 3,055]

Good for Trump. 

 

Until some nutty 9th circuit judge decides they don't like this policy.

[Dashinka 24,495]

Similar thread started by Sukie in the Immigration News and Discussion Forum back in March.  Seems like Reuters is recycling their stories.

[sarahandyunus 133]

I always assumed that social media checks were already being conducted for visa applicatns. I think that the government knows when a potential visitor/immigrant is suspicious and should be checked out further than just their paper application and has probably been doing it already, honestly. Don't put it online if you don't want your mama to read it, thats what I was always told! 

 

Though I am very curious as to whether they will decide to give out less visas in general... 

Edited June 1, 2017 by sarahandyunus
for, not by.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

15 hours ago, IAMX said:

Good for Trump. 

 

Until some nutty 9th circuit judge decides they don't like this policy.

Interesting you find it good.
On an immigration forum nevertheless and as a petitioner of an immigrant.

[IAMX 3,055]

3 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

Interesting you find it good.
On an immigration forum nevertheless and as a petitioner of an immigrant.

Thank the idiotic 9th circuit court for the federal government doing all in its authority to make sure they know who are entering the country.

Edited June 1, 2017 by IAMX

[ready4ONE 5,400]

If Donald Trumps social media record, should a would be immigrant Tweet like him, would be a disqualifier I am all for it! Seriously though I have grave concerns about how many anti-agency people Trump picks to lead said agencies. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

39 minutes ago, ready4ONE said:

If Donald Trumps social media record, should a would be immigrant Tweet like him, would be a disqualifier I am all for it! Seriously though I have grave concerns about how many anti-agency people Trump picks to lead said agencies. 

I wonder if they'll deny visas to anyone who disagrees with Trump.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

How dare they violate the rights of people that may be potentially terrorists  by checking their FB page.. what an outrageously heinous violation of their basic human rights 

[jg121783 3,915]

Reuters gets it right sometimes and gets it wrong sometimes. I haven't seen this reported anywhere else so I will reserve my judgement on whether it is true or not for now. That being said I have no problem with the government taking a look at someone's public posts on various social media websites for evidence of terrorist activity or intent or criminal activity or intent.

 

This is becoming a common thing now as a part of some background checks. Even for jobs. There have been cases of terrorists immigrating to various countries and carrying out an act of terror where even a quick glance at what was posted on their Facebook page would have prevented them from successfully immigrating. 

 

Here is the way I would do it. Don't do it for everyone but if something was suspicious in the normal screening process then have it as a tool to investigate the person further if needed. I don't believe it is a violation of anyone's rights to look at people's posts on a social media website that is considered a public commons anymore than it is a violation of anyone's rights for a police officer to look at something in someone's front yard in plain view from a public street. This is really a non issue even if there is any truth to it.

[OriZ 3,157]

12 hours ago, sarahandyunus said:

I always assumed that social media checks were already being conducted for visa applicatns. I think that the government knows when a potential visitor/immigrant is suspicious and should be checked out further than just their paper application and has probably been doing it already, honestly. Don't put it online if you don't want your mama to read it, thats what I was always told! 

 

Though I am very curious as to whether they will decide to give out less visas in general... 

I also always assumed somebody might be looking, and I agree if you don't want people to see it don't put it out there.