Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Nearly all applicants for US visas will have to submit their social media details under newly adopted rules.

The State Department regulations say people will have to submit social media names and five years' worth of email addresses and phone numbers.

When proposed last year, authorities estimated the proposal would affect 14.7 million people annually.

Certain diplomatic and official visa applicants will be exempt from the stringent new measures.

However, people travelling to the US to work or to study will have to hand over their information.

"We are constantly working to find mechanisms to improve our screening processes to protect US citizens, while supporting legitimate travel to the United States," the department reportedly said.


-Feeling the impact of Trump's foreign worker squeeze
-US sets visa limits in Ghana deportee row

Previously, only applicants who needed additional vetting - such as people who had been to parts of the world controlled by terrorist groups - would need to hand over this data.

But now applicants will have to give up their account names on a list of social media platforms, and also volunteer the details of their accounts on any sites not listed.

Anyone who lies about their social media use could face "serious immigration consequences", according to an official who spoke to The Hill.

The Trump administration first proposed the rules in March 2018. -snip


I thought Trump/Trumpers were against the thought police.

Against the Thought Police for American Citizens...Yes.

These People are NOT American Citizens and thus are not affored the Same Rights as Us.


Yeah I know Robbie.. You don't like actual Facts when you can Lie and push false narratives instead.

Sad Sad Little Loony Lefty that you are.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Against the Thought Police for American Citizens...Yes.

These People are NOT American Citizens and thus are not affored the Same Rights as Us.


Yeah I know Robbie.. You don't like actual Facts when you can Lie and push false narratives instead.

Sad Sad Little Loony Lefty that you are.


Exactly. Those people who want to come into our country are not U.S. citizens and thus do not enjoy all the same freedoms and rights to privacy that we do. I know that's a hard concept for leftist snowflakes like robbie to grasp lol.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nearly all applicants for US visas will have to submit their social media details under newly adopted rules.

The State Department regulations say people will have to submit social media names and five years' worth of email addresses and phone numbers.

When proposed last year, authorities estimated the proposal would affect 14.7 million people annually.

Certain diplomatic and official visa applicants will be exempt from the stringent new measures.

However, people travelling to the US to work or to study will have to hand over their information.

"We are constantly working to find mechanisms to improve our screening processes to protect US citizens, while supporting legitimate travel to the United States," the department reportedly said.


-Feeling the impact of Trump's foreign worker squeeze
-US sets visa limits in Ghana deportee row

Previously, only applicants who needed additional vetting - such as people who had been to parts of the world controlled by terrorist groups - would need to hand over this data.

But now applicants will have to give up their account names on a list of social media platforms, and also volunteer the details of their accounts on any sites not listed.

Anyone who lies about their social media use could face "serious immigration consequences", according to an official who spoke to The Hill.

The Trump administration first proposed the rules in March 2018. -snip


I thought Trump/Trumpers were against the thought police. Bingo, first they came for Facebook users and I did nothing... and in the UK the right won't let people watch porn without giving a cc number.

The lolz @ the Trumper meltdown in this thread is on par with the lolz @ Trump trying to punish would-be visitors because they called him mean names on facebook and such.

Sounds great to me

Originally posted by Robtard
The lolz @ the Trumper meltdown in this thread is on par with the lolz @ Trump trying to punish would-be visitors because they called him mean names on facebook and such. I don't really use KMC at the weekend, but the brief look around at the GDF, indicates if I had used it this weekend I would have observed mega breakdowns.

IOW any thread Pb makes, not a meltdown, any thread any Trumper makes, is a breakdown.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
IOW any thread Pb makes, not a meltdown, any thread any Trumper makes, is a breakdown. Agreed

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
IOW any thread Pb makes, not a meltdown, any thread any Trumper makes, is a breakdown.

It's how they troll. By their own definition of meltdown they do it all the time.

So what happens if someone doesn't hand over their social media accounts? Jail tiime?


Why not demand any diaries while they're at it? Or cell phones, so they can inspect their pm's?


Hell, assign an agent to shadow them as they shit, and inspect said shit for digested contraband. If privacy expectations no longer exist, why half ass it?

Presumably, their visa would be revoked.

Originally posted by Robtard
The lolz @ the Trumper meltdown in this thread

What meltdown?

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I don't really use KMC at the weekend, but the brief look around at the GDF, indicates if I had used it this weekend I would have observed mega breakdowns.

When the UK even flirts with some nonsense like this, Trumpers are the first to point the finger and shout. Now it's great.

Originally posted by cdtm
So what happens if someone doesn't hand over their social media accounts? Jail tiime?


Why not demand any diaries while they're at it? Or cell phones, so they can inspect their pm's?


Hell, assign an agent to shadow them as they shit, and inspect said shit for digested contraband. If privacy expectations no longer exist, why half ass it?

Originally posted by Robtard
When the UK even flirts with some nonsense like this, Trumpers are the first to point the finger and shout. Now it's great.

What trumpers did this?

Let's be honest: I hate it and everything about it.

It's a violation of the 4th amendment.

Anything can be used against you to make you look bad no matter what. It doesn't matter how innocent you are.



This is terrible. It's best to just hide in the woods, VPN with everything, get all things shipped to you with an LLC shell whose HQ is in a foreign nation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's be honest: I hate it and everything about it.

It's a violation of the 4th amendment.

Anything can be used against you to make you look bad no matter what. It doesn't matter how innocent you are.



This is terrible. It's best to just hide in the woods, VPN with everything, get all things shipped to you with an LLC shell whose HQ is in a foreign nation.

Agreed, almost as terrible as the time this happened:

https://i.imgur.com/mUs3KIc.jpg

Originally posted by Surtur
What trumpers did this?

eg You're one the Trumpers who shits on the UK whenever then even flirt with nonsense thought-police like this

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's be honest: I hate it and everything about it.

It's a violation of the 4th amendment.

Anything can be used against you to make you look bad no matter what. It doesn't matter how innocent you are.



This is terrible. It's best to just hide in the woods, VPN with everything, get all things shipped to you with an LLC shell whose HQ is in a foreign nation.

Bingo

Originally posted by Robtard
eg You're one the Trumpers who shits on the UK whenever then even flirt with nonsense thought-police like this

So I called this great?

Originally posted by Surtur
So I called this great?

I thought you were asking which Trumpers shit on the UK for like behavior. So my error there.

But let's be honest though, you were cool with this until DDM posted against it.

I never said anything to indicate I was cool with it, and I'm not.

You were wrong Rob, it's okay to admit it.

Right.

TI is openly cool with this, so no, I wasn't wrong.

TI doesn't seem to go after the Uk much. I'm the one who does.

Correct, but he cosigns.

Yeah, but you're kinda reaching to say you're right.

I'm nice, I'll allow it

I'm gonna make a chocolate shake soon I think.

Originally posted by Robtard
Right.

TI is openly cool with this, so no, I wasn't wrong. TI loves rules and strong leadership, no offence meant but a lot of ex military types do.They like enforcing rules and obeying rules, they enjoy serving, they are programmed to follow orders. Which is very important in the military and somewhat blinkering in civvie street. Many even look for authoritarian partners.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah, but you're kinda reaching to say you're right.

I'm nice, I'll allow it

I'm gonna make a chocolate shake soon I think. Someone taking up a belief isn't reaching, sport.

You're welcome for the ingredients required to make that shake.

Originally posted by Robtard
Someone taking up a belief isn't reaching, sport.

You're welcome for the ingredients required to make that shake.

Your claim was a reach, it's okay. It is allowed

^ Can't deal with the facts/reality

Reed Richards is all "damn that's a nice reach".

5/7

And if an applicant is not on social media - what then?

Not that I agree with this or am a fan of it, but immigration is not a right it is a privilege.

Yeah... that got pointed out pretty early in this thread as I seem to recall...

Originally posted by Robtard
When the UK even flirts with some nonsense like this, Trumpers are the first to point the finger and shout. Now it's great.

Remember when a number of states wanted to pass laws that required the social media accounts of applicants for gun licenses to be screened for intent to commit terrorism, and Trumpers flipped shit? I do.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Remember when a number of states wanted to pass laws that required the social media accounts of applicants for gun licenses to be screened for intent to commit terrorism, and Trumpers flipped shit? I do.

Is owning a gun a right or a privilege, like immigration?

Immigrant labour keeps most countries going. How would your hospitals do without foreign born Doctors? That's a genuine question, as I don't know.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Immigrant labour keeps most countries going. How would your hospitals do without foreign born Doctors? That's a genuine question, as I don't know.

It's not a right, though. It's kinda weird trying to ding people on "they got more upset over a right being trampled on than a privilege".

Sometimes it's symbiosis and not a privilege for example a highly skilled person in a shortage sector needed by a nation benefits it as much as is benefitted by the destination nation. Any other statement is political rhetoric

Originally posted by Robtard
Nearly all applicants for US visas will have to submit their social media details under newly adopted rules.

The State Department regulations say people will have to submit social media names and five years' worth of email addresses and phone numbers.

When proposed last year, authorities estimated the proposal would affect 14.7 million people annually.

Certain diplomatic and official visa applicants will be exempt from the stringent new measures.

However, people travelling to the US to work or to study will have to hand over their information.

"We are constantly working to find mechanisms to improve our screening processes to protect US citizens, while supporting legitimate travel to the United States," the department reportedly said.


-Feeling the impact of Trump's foreign worker squeeze
-US sets visa limits in Ghana deportee row

Previously, only applicants who needed additional vetting - such as people who had been to parts of the world controlled by terrorist groups - would need to hand over this data.

But now applicants will have to give up their account names on a list of social media platforms, and also volunteer the details of their accounts on any sites not listed.

Anyone who lies about their social media use could face "serious immigration consequences", according to an official who spoke to The Hill.

The Trump administration first proposed the rules in March 2018. -snip


I thought Trump/Trumpers were against the thought police.

There's a lot of good money for IT people in America, from what I've been told. Then again... **** that noise.

Originally posted by -Pr-
There's a lot of good money for IT people in America, from what I've been told. Then again... **** that noise. pr you are Irish, it's in your blood like mine to travel to work mate. It's our nation to go where the money is.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Sometimes it's symbiosis and not a privilege for example a highly skilled person in a shortage sector needed by a nation benefits it as much as is benefitted by the destination nation. Any other statement is political rhetoric

Yet immigration still isn't a right, so comparing it to an actual right being trampled on is silly.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
pr you are Irish, it's in your blood like mine to travel to work mate. It's our nation to go where the money is.

Oh, I plan to travel. The USA wasn't initially one of my main choices, but when I saw how good the money was, I had to at least consider it a possibility.

I mean, I don't foresee any problems getting a visa, but those are some weird restrictions...

Originally posted by Surtur
Yet immigration still isn't a right, so comparing it to an actual right being trampled on is silly. It isn't a right anymore, but it's what made America great when it was. Irish people getting off boats in the eastern seaboard and building cities, Mexicans and other south Americans giving the South West it's almost Spanish vibe in places etc.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yet immigration still isn't a right, so comparing it to an actual right being trampled on is silly.





Exactly. A sovereign nation though does have every damn right to decide who gets to enter into its borders and what rules exactly they have to follow to in order to become actual citizens.



"But... but... that's racist!! Waah, waah, waaaah!!"-- typical libtard reply

Originally posted by -Pr-
Oh, I plan to travel. The USA wasn't initially one of my main choices, but when I saw how good the money was, I had to at least consider it a possibility.

I mean, I don't foresee any problems getting a visa, but those are some weird restrictions... No, I agree totally mate they are incredibly weird restrictions. Depending where in the US the standard of living can be very good. It's not as free as Ireland though.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
It isn't a right anymore, but it's what made America great when it was. Irish people getting off boats in the eastern seaboard and building cities, Mexicans and other south Americans giving the South West it's almost Spanish vibe in places etc.



*Yawn*

Actual immigration is just as much of a "right" now as it always was, moron. However, thugs illegally crossing the border is not a "right".

People who wait in line and do it the right way by following all the rules are actual immigrants, not thug asses sneaking across the border. They are illegal aliens and no, they don't have a right to do that and never have. Try harder, snowflake.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
No, I agree totally mate they are incredibly weird restrictions.

I agree they can appear weird but in some of the countries that people are coming from there is no information that can be accessed about individuals due to their govt not spying on them like in the USA

Originally posted by snowdragon
I agree they can appear weird but in some of the countries that people are coming from there is no information that can be accessed about individuals due to their govt not spying on them like in the USA Brilliant and Bingo X4

Nie to see Pooty actually ADMIT that He takes full advantage of his White Privilage when it comes to taking jobs away from people of color in their own Nations..

Oh and Pooty....
Originally posted by Putinbot1
pr you are Irish, it's in your blood like mine to travel to work mate. It's our nation to go where the money is.

That should be "NOTION" Not "NATION".

God Full advantage of that WHITE PRIVILEGE for Sure!

Originally posted by Putinbot1
No, I agree totally mate they are incredibly weird restrictions. Depending where in the US the standard of living can be very good. It's not as free as Ireland though.

Well, that's probably true.

I bet if we looked we wouldn't find ANY OTHER Country with such Laws or anything....

Cause you know "Hate Murica Good!"

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Nie to see Pooty actually ADMIT that He takes full advantage of his White Privilage when it comes to taking jobs away from people of color in their own Nations..

Oh and Pooty....


That should be "NOTION" Not "NATION".

God Full advantage of that WHITE PRIVILEGE for Sure! Their are not enough with my skills in there own countries yet. I hope on day there are. This is why it's always a privilege for countries to gain highly skilled workers they don't create enough of.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Their are not enough with my skills in there own countries yet. I hope on day there are. This is why it's always a privilege for countries to gain highly skilled workers they don't create enough of.

Until then you are more then happy to take those jobs away from them.


Oh Pooty.....Put the White Privilege down and just step away...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Remember when a number of states wanted to pass laws that required the social media accounts of applicants for gun licenses to be screened for intent to commit terrorism, and Trumpers flipped shit? I do.

But, see, that holds more intellectual weight than this other thing.

We've long established the unhinged-ness of homicidal freaks from their social media habits/postings.

Sure, it is an invasion of privacy but it makes sense to pass a social media background check before you purchase large amounts of fertilizer or weapons.

Edit - Let me be clear that I still do not support this. Purchasing a gun or ammo is not probable cause.

I don't really have a prob with this. I would rather every one coming into this nation be as Vetted in as many ways as possible before getting here.

Too bad we can't do this on the Southern Border as well..

Lots of Horrible Trash crossing down there all the time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, see, that holds more intellectual weight than this other thing.

We've long established the unhinged-ness of homicidal freaks from their social media habits/postings.

Sure, it is an invasion of privacy but it makes sense to pass a social media background check before you purchase large amounts of fertilizer or weapons.

Edit - Let me be clear that I still do not support this. Purchasing a gun or ammo is not probable cause.

Hmm, but earlier you said:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's be honest: I hate it and everything about it.

It's a violation of the 4th amendment.

Anything can be used against you to make you look bad no matter what. It doesn't matter how innocent you are.



This is terrible. It's best to just hide in the woods, VPN with everything, get all things shipped to you with an LLC shell whose HQ is in a foreign nation.

Wouldn't that thing about "anything can be used against you to make you look bad" apply here as well though? If the government would abuse this with visa applications why wouldn't they with gun licenses?

Originally posted by Surtur
Hmm, but earlier you said:



Wouldn't that thing about "anything can be used against you to make you look bad" apply here as well though? If the government would abuse this with visa applications why wouldn't they with gun licenses?

You should read my whole post. Especially the edit part.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You should read my whole post. Especially the edit part.

I did, I agree with doing it for fertilizer, but not for a gun

Originally posted by Surtur
I did, I agree with doing it for fertilizer, but not for a gun


"Edit - Let me be clear that I still do not support this. Purchasing a gun or ammo is not probable cause."



Looks like we agree. But even with fertilizer, you need probable cause, IMO.

Originally posted by Surtur
I did, I agree with doing it for fertilizer, but not for a gun Guns are used far more often to commits acts of murder than fertilizer is. Seems like you're just saying that because you dream of owning a gun one day.

Originally posted by Robtard
Guns are used far more often to commits acts of murder than fertilizer is. Seems like you're just saying that because you dream of owning a gun one day.

Guns are used for defense far more often than fertilizer too.

Originally posted by Surtur
Guns are used for defense far more often than fertilizer too.

Red Herring, which didn't counter what I said.

Originally posted by Robtard
Red Herring, which didn't counter what I said.

It's one of the reasons why I'm okay with it for fertilizer, but not guns.

The only reason is because you want to own a gun while you'll never buy that much fertilizer in bulk. You're not fooling anyone; including yourself.

Originally posted by Robtard
The only reason is because you want to own a gun while you'll never buy that much fertilizer in bulk. You're not fooling anyone; including yourself.

Your opinion, while wrong, has been noted

Are any of his opinions ever NOT wrong?


No, they pretty much always are.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
It isn't a right anymore, but it's what made America great when it was. Irish people getting off boats in the eastern seaboard and building cities, Mexicans and other south Americans giving the South West it's almost Spanish vibe in places etc.

What are you talking about? It was never a right.

He's a typical left-wing retard snowflake; cut him some slack for his ignorance as it isn't really his fault. You see, the BBC (british version of CNN, lol) has brainwashed him & filled his head with bullsh*t. Wouldn't be surprised if he also thinks Trump is literally Hitler reincarnated as well.

Triggered

^triggered

Wouldn't bother trying to reason with him. He'll just end-up accusing you of being "triggered" lol.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
So sparsely populated states never offered people jobs or land to immigrate to them? Really? Of course they did.

It's safe to say we are past the days of passing out land and most 1st world countries do benefit from immigration, over immigration of low skilled workers that tend to stay in highly populated areas don't really add a lot to post-industrial countries at this point.

Regardless, illegally crossing into the United States is not a right as snowflake pooty/bashy thinks it is. It is a crime and should be treated as such. No excuses. No exceptions.


If a person wants to immigrate to our country then they should do it the legal way.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
So sparsely populated states never offered people jobs or land to immigrate to them? Really? Of course they did.

That happened many times in the US' history and in general, those free land ventures were offered more often to White people...

Originally posted by Robtard
That happened many times in the US' history and in general, those free land ventures were offered more often to White people... Yup, funny stuff how Trumpers hate facts.

Originally posted by Robtard
That happened many times in the US' history and in general, those free land ventures were offered more often to White people...

White Christians. The Mormons tried to take advantage of this in Missouri, and were driven out of the state by force.

Idk why the aliens didn't help the mormons.

Of course we all already knew that Adam hates white Christians lol.

Obviously, he hates ALL real Christians but particulary white ones.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
White Christians. The Mormons tried to take advantage of this in Missouri, and were driven out of the state by force.

Because:

1. Of their threat to the Missouri Compromise,
2. Insular and self-sustaining communities (economically)
3. Moral propriety (congregational sabbatical meetings, no tobacco and alcohol use (very anti-Southern, at the time),
4. Educating their children as a knowledge right - culture clash as it was seen as uppity New Englander "Libtard ideal". I know this seems like a made up point but it is legit - Mormons rubbed people the wrong way with their Yankee ideals.
5. Treating Black and Native Americans as humans - they preached to and baptized all humans - this type of anti-racism was extremely controversial and caused the most friction.

The vandalism and violence really got started against the Mormons after the Mormons posted a news article in their paper titled, "Free People of Color", clearly a highly incendiary piece in the North vs. South Slavery debate. But Mormons, especially Joseph Smith, were Abolitionists. Joseph Smith went as far as to say slavery made him burn with rage.

Mormons were driven out of the state for being smarter, more self-sufficient, abolitionists, and more moral than the existing residents. Local evangelists whipped up the locals against the Mormons because Mormons didn't have paid clergy and people were converting which is a direct loss to their paychecks. Despite historical primary accounts stating it was a culture issue, I believe that this is the real reason. It's always about money.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Because:

1. Of their threat to the Missouri Compromise,
2. Insular and self-sustaining communities (economically)
3. Moral propriety (congregational sabbatical meetings, no tobacco and alcohol use (very anti-Southern, at the time),
4. Educating their children as a knowledge right - culture clash as it was seen as uppity New Englander "Libtard ideal". I know this seems like a made up point but it is legit - Mormons rubbed people the wrong way with their Yankee ideals.
5. Treating Black and Native Americans as humans - they preached to and baptized all humans - this type of anti-racism was extremely controversial and caused the most friction.

The vandalism and violence really got started against the Mormons after the Mormons posted a news article in their paper titled, "Free People of Color", clearly a highly incendiary piece in the North vs. South Slavery debate. But Mormons, especially Joseph Smith, were Abolitionists. Joseph Smith went as far as to say slavery made him burn with rage.

Mormons were driven out of the state for being smarter, more self-sufficient, abolitionists, and more moral than the existing residents. Local evangelists whipped up the locals against the Mormons because Mormons didn't have paid clergy and people were converting which is a direct loss to their paychecks. Despite historical primary accounts stating it was a culture issue, I believe that this is the real reason. It's always about money.

TLDR. Mormons in Missouri in the 1830s are like Muslims in Michigan today. Large numbers of them moved to a community, outnumbering the original residents. They vote as a block, and put themselves in positions of power, which the original residents see as a hostile takeover.

So Democracy at work and the status quo doesn't like it?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
TLDR. Mormons in Missouri in the 1830s are like Muslims in Michigan today. Large numbers of them moved to a community, outnumbering the original residents. They vote as a block, and put themselves in positions of power, which the original residents see as a hostile takeover.

But you left out the part where the original residents took up arms against the new comers, murdered some, confiscated all their guns, and then used their own guns against them until they were beaten and driven from their own homes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But you left out the part where the original residents took up arms against the new comers, murdered some, confiscated all their guns, and then used their own guns against them until they were beaten and driven from their own homes.



You should demand reparations

Originally posted by Robtard
You should demand reparations

Nah, my grandparents were the converts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But you left out the part where the original residents took up arms against the new comers, murdered some, confiscated all their guns, and then used their own guns against them until they were beaten and driven from their own homes.



No, I did not:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
White Christians. The Mormons tried to take advantage of this in Missouri, and were driven out of the state by force.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
So sparsely populated states never offered people jobs or land to immigrate to them? Really? Of course they did.

Not the point guy. A sovereign state still has the right to deny entry to anyone if they so chooses.

Originally posted by SquallX
Not the point guy. A sovereign state still has the right to deny entry to anyone if they so chooses. That's a different point, and in conjunction with my point it shows rules are flexible and not all times for immigration and not all immigrants are equal. Which is a more nuanced answer than rightists want to understand.