| |
| ▲ | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Nobody is saying it should be as easy to immigrate to the US as it is to immigrate to The Netherlands, they are saying that immigrating to the US should be easier than this administration is making it. | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > Nobody is saying it should be as easy to immigrate to the US as it is to immigrate to The Netherlands, they are saying that immigrating to the US should be easier than this administration is making it. Ah, we're not talking about the same thing. I drew the comparison to The Netherlands' list of reasons for why they would revoke or deny your VISA (which is what the article is about w.r.t. the US), and it is not dissimilar. I wasn't contrasting ease of immigration between the two countries. It is a mixed bag, but for educated immigrants the it is generally easier to immigrate to The Netherlands than the US (if you are doing so outside the law, I'm going to guess it is much easier "to make it work" in the US than in The Netherlands - both in terms of getting in but also to make a living). There are some notable barriers like you cannot have dual citizenship (the US allows). On the other hand, demand for immigration to the US is much higher, which, together with more arcane and byzantine regulations result in other structural barriers. | | |
| ▲ | boston_clone 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It sounds like you're moving goalposts. You started by saying: > Nothing really to see here. Normal course of business [...] And now you're shifting your position by saying "well, its more difficult elsewhere so this must be fine". You shouldn't worry, though - as long as the visa holders support the KKK and not a free Palestine, they can stay. | | |
| ▲ | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > Nothing really to see here. Normal course of business [...] > well, its more difficult elsewhere so this must be fine I don't see a difference between these. The "more difficult elsewhere" in the supposedly shifted goalposts is the "normal course of business" in the first comment. | | |
| ▲ | boston_clone 4 days ago | parent [-] | | How can you not? Changing our policies to make the process more chaotic is not our normal course of business, nor is it “nothing to see” as it will directly affect people. I feel that both of those are plainly evident. | | |
| ▲ | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, you're right; I did not understand the context. This is obviously a motte and bailey. "Nothing to see here" (even referring to the title alone) is the hard to defend position and when that's called out as ridiculous they say that they were just talking about the actually normal things that countries do for immigration, which nobody is going to argue with. The end goal being for the "nothing to see here" that everybody is looking at to become normal. | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Changing our policies FWIW, part of my engagement is to try to understand the real risk vs. alarmism (i.e. as reported). My understanding is that the material change is that there is somewhat more leeway for the government to interpret what it means to be "to be of good moral character". You should know that when you apply for citizenship, for example, they have for many years asked you about traffic violations, which, theoretically have always been allowable as input in deciding "of good moral character". Another is whether you have ever supported the Communist Party or been involved in prostitution, and a whole host of other things. Check out page 14 ("General Eligibility and Inadmissability Grounds") on the form: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-4... I have not read the actual policy change, so I don't know whether it has actually changed or whether it is just being more rigorously applied AND/OR targeted (biased) more. If you can articulate it precisely, that would be nice for all of us here since the article is not sufficiently objective or illuminating. | | |
| ▲ | boston_clone 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > If you can articulate it precisely, that would be nice for all of us Strongly agree - how nice would it be if this administration cared enough to do just that? In any case, your understanding is severely incorrect; please read the second half of the article. Here are some helpful paragraphs: >The administration has steadily imposed more restrictions and requirements on visa applicants, including requiring them to submit to in-person interviews. The review of all visa holders appears to be a significant expansion of what had initially been a process focused mainly on students who have been involved in what the government perceives as pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel activity. >Officials say the reviews will include all visa holders’ social media accounts, law enforcement and immigration records in their home countries, along with any actionable violations of U.S. law committed while they were in the United States. >The reviews will include new tools for data collection on past, present and future visa applicants, including a complete scouring of social media sites made possible by new requirements introduced earlier this year. Those make it mandatory for privacy switches on cellphones and other electronic devices or apps to be turned off when an applicant appears for a visa interview. So, looks like we have intentional ambiguity coupled with mass surveillance. Do you not see how that is problematic? > [...] the article is not sufficiently objective. Might there be some confusion between objectivity and your own bias? Playing the innocent enlighted centrist about immigration policies this far in to 2025 seems either wildly ignorant or dangerously veiled. Here are some links from several months ago for understanding and "engagement": https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/03/deporting-in... https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-scraps-guidance-limit... https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/06/27/dhs-terminates-haiti-tps... | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 4 days ago | parent [-] | | >The administration has steadily imposed more restrictions and requirements on visa applicants, including requiring them to submit to in-person interviews. This is NOT new.
In most cases, in-person interviews have always been required at a US embassy or consulate abroad. I know this not only from personal experience but you can also double check if you don't believe me: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://travel.s... There are certain exceptions: - interview waivers: certain applications may qualify to skip, e.g. children under 14, adults 80+, some renewing applications - certain visa categories: diplomats and some official travelers. That said, US consular officers have always had the discretion to require an interview even if you might otherwise qualify for a waiver. >Officials say the reviews will include all visa holders’ social media accounts, law enforcement and immigration records in their home countries, along with any actionable violations of U.S. law committed while they were in the United States. Do you object to all of these or only some? I can see objecting to social media account review, but surely actionable violations of US law committed while in the US any reasonable person can agree that that can be cause for denying or revoking your VISA. Surely? | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | LargoLasskhyfv 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That recording is actually unlawful. They can look at it, and compare it with your face, write up the address in their systems, and that should be it. This practice of copying passports/id-cards is malpractice. The (european) issuers actually say so! |
|
| |
| ▲ | anigbrowl 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The 'arbitrary and capricious' part (a legal term of art) is in saying things like attending a protest constitute grounds for deportation absent any published rules or guidance to this effect. While statute law gives wide discretion to the Secretary of State and Attorney-General in immigration matters, there's still an obligation for transparency and process, which is why there's a whole infrastructure set up for contestation, appeals and so on. You cannot just start issuing orders of removal based on, say, whether people like waffles. As a side note, Israel isn't a US state the last time I looked. I doubt that a blanket ban on political expression could survive a first amendment challenge. | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > is in saying things like attending a protest constitute grounds for deportation absent any published rules or guidance to this effect. The law is clear that if you support a terrorist group, your visa application can be denied or your current visa revoked. If we take Hamas for example, they are designated a terrorist group by: European Union, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Paraguay, United Kingdom, United States, Organization of American States, Switzerland[1] If you are in the US on a non-immigrant visa (you are a guest) and you go to a rally in support of Hamas, I struggle to understand why it would be controversial that the US can revoke your visa ("your permission to be in the US"). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_g... | | |
| ▲ | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > if you support a terrorist group What does "support" mean in this context? | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Commonly, when we talk about "support" for an organization (or a cause) it can mean any of the following: 1) financial (e.g. donations, membership fees, investments) 2) human resources (e.g. volunteers, staffing, training) 3) material & in-kind (e.g. equipment, office space, supplies) 4) knowledge & expertise (e.g advisory, R&D, workshops, training) 5) networking & partnerships (e.g. collaboration, referrals, advocacy alliances) 6) policy & institutional (applies to governments, not individuals, so not relevant "in this context") 7) community & social (e.g. public awareness, volunteer mobilization, cultural legitimacy) | | |
| ▲ | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I appreciate the answer. I guess "attending a protest" falls under "public awareness" or "cultural legitimacy" if the protest is specifically about the organization being unpopular or demonized. Sticking with the Gaza situation example, most protests are along the lines of "Israel shouldn't do that" and not "Hamas needs more support". Claiming otherwise seems massively disingenuous; it's obvious that people oppose terrorism and Israel's actions for largely the same reasons. | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > Sticking with the Gaza situation example, most protests are along the lines of "Israel shouldn't do that" and not "Hamas needs more support". Yes, here is the nuance, which I concur with and I would hope most reasonable people could agree on. In practice, protests are a mix of people but onlookers take a binary stance. It is not going to be difficult to see at protest a poster or cameras capture someone shouting something like "globalize the infitada! or or death to America". Complicating matters further, protest organizers and the protesters themselves have more of a fluid behavior and motivations - it is not a club where membership is controlled and patrolled, a protest's mission is usually a little vague and fluid, etc. And that is, I think, where the real risk lies - you are at a protest and you can find yourself surrounded by others who ARE supporting Hamas even if you're not and you get lumped together. This happens on "the right" as well. You'll have some Neo-Nazi's in a conservative protest against XYZ, and now all of a sudden they're all Nazi's. It is deeply unfortunate. | | |
| ▲ | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > And that is, I think, where the real risk lies - you are at a protest and you can find yourself surrounded by others who ARE supporting Hamas even if you're not and you get lumped together. This is incredibly dubious. Not only the idea that I would find myself around any number of people explicitly supporting Hamas but also the idea that I would be confused as being part of them. (Like, I can just walk away and tell others that I disagree with the dumb shit they're saying.) People are told not to say dumb shit at the protests I go to; anyone saying something explicitly pro-violence is an obvious agitator. > This happens on "the right" as well. You'll have some Neo-Nazi's in a conservative protest against XYZ, and now all of a sudden they're all Nazi's. This is not an equivalent comparison. It's not like there's a grassroots movement of Hamas sympathizers in America that have inspired songs to be written about them. But neo-Nazis... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYKAQZUAbHU But don't you think it's at least a little bit telling that you automatically jump to neo-Nazis showing up at "conservative protests"? What makes the protest "conservative" and why do you present it as a truism that such an event would appeal to neo-Nazis? One might assume that the neo-Nazis are loudly told to FUCK OFF when they show up... well, anywhere, a "conservative protest" included, but one would also imagine that they'd eventually stop showing up to such events, at least not openly as neo-Nazis. It seems like they keep showing up to them because they are welcome at them. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | boston_clone 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | An actual rally for Hamas? Or rather deliberate conflation of supporting Palestinians and their right to resist occupiers and genocide in their home country? [0]. Stop bullshitting people here. 0. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/03/deporting-in... | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The Taliban sucks shit. I also thought that the war in Afghanistan was a monstrous campaign of death and I publicly said this throughout the war. Should I be punished by the state for "supporting a terrorist group?" I'm very sorry but advocating for not bombing hospitals in Gaza is not "supporting a terrorist group." | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > I'm very sorry but advocating for not bombing hospitals in Gaza is not "supporting a terrorist group." I don't think we disagree on this. In practice, protests are a mix of people but onlookers take a binary stance. It is not going to be difficult to see at protest a poster or cameras capture someone shouting something like "globalize the infitada! or or death to America". Complicating matters further, protest organizers and the protesters themselves have more of a fluid behavior and motivations - it is not a club where membership is controlled and patrolled, a protest's mission is usually a little vague and fluid, etc. And that is, I think, where the real risk lies - you are at a protest and you can find yourself surrounded by others who ARE supporting Hamas even if you're not and you get lumped together. This happens on "the right" as well. You'll have some Neo-Nazi's in a conservative protest against XYZ, and now all of a sudden they're all Nazi's. It is deeply unfortunate. | | |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | boston_clone 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > Guess what, friend. If you have neo-Nazi's showing up to your protest and people don't immediately throw them out, you are now at a neo-Nazi event. Do you apply the same logic when people waving pro Hamas flags or chants show up at an anti-Israel rally? If you are, you are doing the same thing as the administration! If you do not, why the unequal treatment? | | |
| ▲ | immibis 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I've literally never seen a pro-Hamas protestor at an anti-Israel rally, but neo-Nazis seem to be at every conservative rally. Why is that? Is it because conservatives support free speech? | |
| ▲ | boston_clone 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > To most sensible people, that’s an easily recognizable false equivalence.
Zionists and their ethically bankrupt apologists disgust me, and those views are not welcome here. Ouch |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | slt2021 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How is protesting against the genocide suddenly becomes “supporting a terrorist group”? Only material support for terror group (fundraising and sending $$$ to people in the OFAC list) | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | See my reply to sibling about what people generally mean with the word "support". | |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | anigbrowl 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > goalposts I'm sorry you feel that way, but perhaps what I can say is that I'm trying to be hyper-precise about the boundaries (as I see them at least), rather than move them. I think it is fine to be outraged about: a) systematic racist (read: selective) application of the law b) no due process c) egregious mistakes d) commanding the military to stampede cities (ok, in reality, it is more show than scary, but the precedent is unacceptable) What I don't think is valid is arguing that the government should not apply the law as it stands, which empowers the government to revoke or deny visas (or residency application or naturalization application) for reasons enumerated by the State Department: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/tourism-... | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > attended an anti-Israel protest The test may not be arbitrary. How the test was chosen is. A CAPTCHA is an objective test; forcing everyone in high school to take one is arbitrary. (Also, to my knowledge, mere attendance wouldn’t constitute a lawful reason to eject. Material support would have to have been offered, e.g. fundraising for Hamas. | |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | slt2021 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | if it is not arbitrary, as you claim, surely it must be encoded in law and history of past precedents, right ? Israeli people need to read the 1st Amendment that we have in the US | | |
| ▲ | immibis 5 days ago | parent [-] | | The USA does have a long history of punishing people severely for protesting. | | |
| ▲ | slt2021 5 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > it is another thing to punish people protesting a third country israel.
> it just signifies who really occupies all positions of power in this country who is this group of people who occupy all positions of power in this country?
men? white men? republicans? billionaires? women? straights? which group of people have their grabby hands all over the positions of power in this country? | | |
| ▲ | slt2021 5 days ago | parent [-] | | from your suggestive tone, it looks like you already know the answer... | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I honestly don't, and don't think there is such a thing. Which is why I'm challenging you to articulate which "group" you think controls the key positions of power... | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
