US to require would-be immigrants to turn over social media handles

[Diane and Chris 651]

20 hours ago, Beast333 said:

Well i think you have not read the article.

They are requiring your privacy from last 5 years.

And so what if they are?  If you have nothing to hide, what would it matter?  

[Unidentified 2,930]

I wish I wasn't out of reputation points. 

[Dashinka 24,375]

Just now, Unidentified said:

I get confused too as we have a socialist democratic party and then when I just did a quick google search (should have been more throughout) it said is Democratic Socialism. 

Yes, political party names can be confusing.  Regardless, I agree, Scandinavian countries are not operating under a socialist economic system.

[CEE53147 559]

Social media posts are public. There is no privacy to them and  users should expect none.

[CEE53147 559]

They need to follow those subject to extreme vetting after they enter as well.  An account I follow has a recent entrant posting troubling things and receiving responses (in a foreign language) threatening the US.  Yes, I did something about it.

 

It is a privilege to come to the US. If you don't like the rules. choose to go elsewhere or stay home.

[sasha8384 7]

21 hours ago, Beast333 said:

So guys how will this thing affect visas especially from high fraud countries list.

Will every immigrant will have to addidional wait for social media checking or can be denied for any facebook post or any unknown call that even that person dont know about that.

This is serious issue.!

Even all social media id names and you telephone numbers would be required now!

Dont know why trump administration is turning blind eye to gun control and just pushing immigrants further and further!!!

 

 

 

Washington (CNN) - The Trump administration plans to require immigrants applying to come to the United States to submit five years of social media history, it announced Thursday, setting up a potential scouring of their Twitter and Facebook histories.

 

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2018%2F03%2F29%2Fpolitics%2Fimmigrants-social-media-information%2Findex.html&h=ATMowBarQ7ZsEKe9d4RcPKT3VJTcQmTKqzysMDJsSNeYVRlQRNe88BZd1Loq5164RGsw3-kZjDrjqyhhdksgw2vINyEBaKYpad_pmpKmXGKM9H9J2GnONnyv&s=1

Lol....dont mean to laugh but it is kinda funny requesting things like this....what happens to those people where they don't have a social media history or who have deleted the accounts just for this purpose. What about those sneaky set that have 15 different social media sites...under different names at that 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 hour ago, Jaquelly said:

I'm just curious, and I want someone like @cyberfx1024 to hit me with research if possible:

How many agriculture jobs would be lost if mass deportation happened?

Who would replace those jobs?

What would happen to our grocery prices?

What about factory workers?

 

I don't give two hoots about who likes what. I like numbers. Gimme them cold hard facts.

I will look in this as well. I have a mission yay.

[AtlToBlr 64]

Love how people just keep spewing based on how they feel. When you ask someone for a source for some statistics they pulled out of there behind, there is nothing :/ 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

5 hours ago, abe&kari said:

DACA is still around because Judges ruled for them to stay and Former President Obama's executive order.

Again Immigration is NOT a right. It's a privilege. People don't have the right to immigrate to America just because their relative lives there so it's their right.

The judges ruled that president Trump did not give DACA recipients their due process. 

The (mostly conservative) supreme Court basically agreed with the lower courts ruling. 

 

Your comment on the subject is merely a "spin".

 

 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

5 hours ago, cyberfx1024 said:

No, DACA is still around because some Liberal judge decided to keep it around for the time being until it reaches the SC then more than likely it will be deemed unconstitutional.

Which is a spin. 

The official reason was because trump did not give DACA recipients their due process. 

 

The only people pushing that(as in your) narrative are conservative news outlets. 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Keith & Arileidi

[usmsbow 801]

2 hours ago, Jaquelly said:

I'm just curious, and I want someone like @cyberfx1024 to hit me with research if possible:

How many agriculture jobs would be lost if mass deportation happened?

Who would replace those jobs?

What would happen to our grocery prices?

What about factory workers?

 

I don't give two hoots about who likes what. I like numbers. Gimme them cold hard facts.

An academic paper via Brookings partially answers a couple of your questions.  Link to the paper are below my quotes (bold and underlines are mine): 

 

"Over time, low-skilled immigrants have become more specialized in particular lines of work. The share employed in immigrant-intensive sectors in 2015 reaches 14.8 percent in construction (from 7.8 percent in 1990), 11.3 percent in eating and drinking establishments (from 8.7 percent in 1990), 7.2% in personal services (from 6.9% in 1990), and 6.9 percent in agriculture (from 5.7% in 1990). The one immigrant-intensive sector registering a decline in its share of low-skilled-immigrant employment is nondurable manufacturing, which includes apparel and textiles, two sectors whose overall employment in the United States has fallen sharply in recent decades due to technological change and competition from China and other low-wage countries."

 

And in the 5 border states:

 

"Immigrant presence is also high in industries intensive in the use of less-skilled labor. As seen in Table 3, in 2015 immigrants with 12 or fewer years of schooling account for 29.3 percent of total hours worked in agriculture (up from 3.9 percent in 1970), 21.8 percent in personal services (up from 6.4 percent in 1970), 20.3 percent in calculate based on “true” wage weights. This problem is partially ameliorated when we examine the share of low-skilled immigrants in total hours worked, as we do in Figure 4. 9 We construct these weights as follows. First, we divide workers into labor-market groups broken down by gender, two education categories (less than 12 years of education, exactly 12 years of education), and eight experience categories (0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-20, 25-29, 30-34, and 35-39 years of potential-labormarket experience). Then, for each gender-education-experience group, we calculate the weight as average weekly earnings in each year (for full-time, full-year workers, defined to be those working at least 35 hours per week and 40 weeks a year) divided by average weekly earnings for white, male, high-school graduates with 8 to 12 years of labor-market experience. 10 The number of Mexican-born workers in the United States increased by more than 350,000 per year over the 20 years from 1980 to 2000. Negative net migration of 160,000 per year subsequent to 2007 therefore represents a drop of a half a million people per year relative to the prior trend, enough to constitute a sizeable change in the foreign-born population when cumulated over a decade of low migration. 10 construction (up from 3.9 percent in 1970), 16.8 percent in eating and drinking establishments (up from 8.3 percent in 1970), and 13.5 percent in non-durable manufacturing (up from 5.9 percent in 1970)"

 

Their summary at the beginning:

 

"From the rhetoric during and since the 2016 presidential election, one would think that the United States continues to experience a surge of low-skilled immigration. Although in previous decades such labor inflows certainly occurred, since the Great Recession U.S. borders have become a far less active place when it comes to the net arrival of foreign labor. The number of undocumented immigrants has declined in absolute terms, while the overall population of low-skilled foreign born workers has remained stable."

 

Gordon Hanson is a UCSD econ professor who has written extensively on low-skilled immigration. I don't know if I'd call it his expertise, but it certainly is a focus of his. 

 

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2_hansonetal.pdf

 

2 hours ago, AnonIndia said:

DOJ report says 1 in 5 federal prisoners are illegals. Illegals are not 1 in 5 of the general population. Illegals are 11 million in a 350 million population. Which means they are over represented in the federal prisoner statistics. They should be 3.145% of the federal prisoners. Not 20%. 

As for this:

 

"But there is no discounting the Alien Incarceration Report jointly released by the Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Homeland Security (DHS) last December. It too misrepresented data when it estimated that "one-in-five of all persons in the [federal] Bureau of Prisons custody were foreign born, and that 94 percent of confirmed aliens in custody were unlawfully present." That seems shockingly high as illegal immigrants are, at most, about 4 percent of the population. But if this report were right, they would be 19 percent of all prisoners.

But the report had no solid basis for its conclusion because it did not have all the prison data. If you scroll down beyond the report's press release and Summary of Findings, it admits as much. It notes:

This report does not include data on the foreign-born or alien populations in state prisons and local jails because state and local facilities do not routinely provide DHS or DOJ with comprehensive information about their inmates and detainees. This limitation is noteworthy because state and local facilities account for approximately 90 percent of the total U.S. incarcerated population. DHS and DOJ are working to develop a reliable methodology for estimating the status of state and local incarcerated populations in future reports.

Of course that didn't stop Fox News and other similar outfits from using it to peddle their "illegal immigrants are hardened criminal" line.

It is really important to bear in mind that the federal prison population is not representative of the incarcerated populations in state and local prisons. That's because federal prisons house illegal immigrants who commit immigration offenses. The ones who commit more serious crimes tend to be housed in state adult correctional facilities."

 

https://reason.com/archives/2018/02/01/immigrants-and-crime

 

 

 

 

[Unidentified 2,930]

2 hours ago, AnonIndia said:

I don't understand. The report is illegal vs US citizen federal prisoners. By having one part of the equation you will have the pother. One in 5 federal prisoners are illegals. The other 4 out of 5 must be US citizens. What else are they gonna be? Penguins? 

If it is the report I think you're thinking of it's just a report about immigrants in prison. Illegals and legals. I still haven't seen you post the actual source where you pulled those numbers out of other than a soundbite from youtube. 

[usmsbow 801]

2 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

If it is the report I think you're thinking of it's just a report about immigrants in prison. Illegals and legals. I still haven't seen you post the actual source where you pulled those numbers out of other than a soundbite from youtube. 

 

Here is the link to those numbers:

 

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Alien_Incarceration_Report_OIS_FY17_Q4_2.pdf

 

The problems with that report are noted in my post above. It's a pointless report because the federal gov't is the one that handles illegal immigration, so it naturally would have a high % of prisoners that fit that description. It does not include non-fed prisoners. 

 

 

[Unidentified 2,930]

6 minutes ago, usmsbow said:

 

Here is the link to those numbers:

 

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Alien_Incarceration_Report_OIS_FY17_Q4_2.pdf

 

The problems with that report are noted in my post above. It's a pointless report because the federal gov't is the one that handles illegal immigration, so it naturally would have a high % of prisoners that fit that description. It does not include non-fed prisoners. 

 

 

Yes, I replied to him before I saw your post. Thank you. I read the summary on DOJ and knew even from that little part that the report was biased but the guy I quoted insisted that FOX was right... Fox cant' read reports. 

[aspiringnobody 2]

22 hours ago, missileman said:

Like was said earlier...Security trumps convenience.

Just a note to all the wonderful people here trying to come to my country...

 

This guy doesn't speak for all Americans.

 

I, for one, welcome you with open arms and am sorry you'll have to raise your children in fear of gun violence.

 

May you find your own American dream.