This policy is incredibly ignorant of how online communities work and where communication is going. The only thing I can see happening is terrorism-minded individuals actually creating and maintaining clean Facebook profiles as a smokescreen. That's an easy win and great distraction as communication moves to non-centralized, encrypted, expiring messages.
It'll be very effective at this. Most people aren't going to establish a plausible social media profile after they figure out they're going to the US to live/work/whatever.
"Real" spies and terrorists and whatever can obviously afford to setup enough cover. (Though there is the case of a spy getting discovered because she used her real frequent flier number while traveling under aliases.)
At best, this might put a chilling effect on Facebook and other things like that, which is probably a net win for humanity.
And is it the role of CPB to prevent under the table employment? Surely there are better ways to address that issue if it's a concern. Building walls and inspecting social media seems like a political smoke screen for avoiding more effective enforcement measures - requiring farmers/factories/roofing companies to prove their labour is legally allowed to work in the US etc. Or we could acknowledge the reality of immigration (we need workers if we can't afford to pay Americans an adequate wage to pick fields etc).
No, but it is left entirely up to the agent interviewing you for entry to decide whether he thinks you're likely to leave later when your visa is expiring.
Yes, it is the role of CBP to make sure you're coming under the right visa. It's no different than making sure you're not coming to stay while on a temporary visa.
No whether or not this is important or just silly politics is a different question. Same to the question of is this ethical/right/whatever. But there's zero doubt that this will enable CBP to be more effective. So arguments against it should focus on "yeah, this makes their job easier, but at what cost?" instead of pretending there's zero upside.
There's still random bad luck - as a Canadian I've been theatened deportation for not cancelling my green card despite not using it or living in the US. I've been detained because a CBP agent decided a trade show was work and I wasn't eligible for a B1. (His first words were "you're going miss your flight, I'll make sure of it".) But most of the time they wave me right by.
I wouldn't be surprised if they had an internal profiling tool that they run similar to https://applymagicsauce.com/.
Kind of similar to what Cambridge Analytica (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-hel...) uses to target political campaigns.
You know, the Cambridge Analytica whose board of trustees includes Steve Bannon.
So the question to be asking is why does the US government want a psychological profile of every traveller passing through the border?
> It's bizarre how people don't think ahead to their border crossing and are willing to admit they are going to live with their SO, or work as a nanny -- while under a tourism visa.
So we're not catching "real" spies and terrorists; we're catching nannies trying to get paid under the table; do you think maybe we've got bigger fish to fry? This is a bad precedent, and what are we gaining? Nothing.
And if they cannot or will not take the nanny jobs for themselves, at least they get to mock the uppity mothers that voted for Hillary and now are forced to dump their careers to take care of their own children.
And yes, it's possible that this isn't worth the gains to CBP. But the US is pretty powerful and can force quite a bit of crap on people without getting too hurt. If it stops, it'll most likely be from efforts from e.g. Facebook lobbying against it.
Business travelers have little choice. A lot of migrants have no choice (the benefits of US residency far outweigh the inconvenience for most people) -- we can test this out by looking at how many Mexicans or other Latam folks stay in the US vs, say, Canada over the next few years (confounding that is Canada removing visa requirements for Mexicans). Tourism might be hit a bit, but I'm unconvinced this is a big enough deal for people to rethink their entire vacation plans.
A country which controls its borders gains … control of its borders. If it's illegal to enter a country as a tourist in order to live with one's girlfriend, well it's illegal to enter that country as a tourist in order to live with one's girlfriend. That doesn't mean the law is right, or good, or desirable, just that if one enters that country as a tourist in order to live with one's girlfriend, one will be breaking that country's law and is liable to be deported.
Although I tend to favour open borders, myself, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the customs police of any country to turn away people trying to enter that country illegally.
It would certainly be feasible to require every vehicle to be fitted with a data/position logger so that a vast number of hitherto undetected breaches of the laws governing the road can be immediately detected and punished - but it's pretty clear that the invasiveness of this is not worth the gains in compliance.
No, it doesn't, because I addressed the statement, 'What are we gaining? Nothing.'
I don't support the policy at all; I think it's a fundamental human right to encrypt data and not have to give the password to anyone.
fb.post.synth.byDate(
{ { 2, 18, 2017 }, "Today I watered the flowers!", { "flowers" , "me" } },
{ { 2, 19, 2017 }, "Watched my favorite show!", { "television" } },
{ { 2, 20, 2017 }, "My kids are so hilarious!", { "children", "bicycles", "outdoors" },
{ { 2, 21, 2017 }, "Frustrated with lawn mower!", { "lawn mower" }
)