USCIS said the vetting of social media accounts is necessary for “the enhanced identity verification, vetting and national security screening.” Critics say it crushes free speech

Summary:

The Trump administration’s proposal to vet social media profiles of green card applicants already legally in the U.S. has been condemned in initial public feedback as an attack on free speech.

Visa applicants living abroad already have to share their social media handles with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, but the proposal under President Donald Trump would expand the policy to those already legally in the country who are applying for permanent residency or seeking asylum.

USCIS said the vetting of social media accounts is necessary for “the enhanced identity verification, vetting and national security screening.”

The agency also said it was necessary to comply with Trump’s executive order titled “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.”

“In a review of information collected for admission and benefit decisions, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) identified the need to collect social media identifiers (‘handles’) and associated social media platform names from applicants to enable and help inform identity verification, national security and public safety screening, and vetting, and related inspections,” the agency announced on March 5.

President Donald Trump’s administration has proposed vetting the social media handles of immigrants already legally in the U.S. who are applying for green cards or permanent citizenship. The plan has been condemned as a ‘violation of the First Amendment.’

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    27·
    13 days ago

    Just another reason to avoid the US like a plague. On the other hand, with bird flu and measles running more or less unchecked in a country with a horrible health system and an antivaxxer at the helm for health, avoiding the US is avoiding the plague.

      • mzesumzira@leminal.spaceEnglish
        31·
        12 days ago

        Vaccines usually aren’t a 100% shield. If enough people around you are unvaccinated, you may be at risk too.
        Immunity comes in numbers.

        That without counting potential mutations in such a favourable environment.
        I’d stay out of the US for the foreseeable future.

        • Coreidan@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          12 days ago

          They don’t need to be 100%.

          We didn’t have a measles problem in this county until the fucking morons stopped vaccinating.

          Even if you some how manage to get the virus after getting the vaccine your body is better equipped to deal with the virus by a significant factor.

          There is absolutely zero reason to not get vaccinated. Stop being dumb.

          • GreyBeard@lemmy.one
            4·
            12 days ago

            Nobody in this thread suggested not getting the vaccine. Entire problem is that we are dropping below herd immunity thresholds and that means worse outcomes for the vaccinated and unvaccinatable alike.

            • Coreidan@lemmy.worldEnglish
              12·
              12 days ago

              And if you get vaccinated it becomes virtually a nonissue with or without herd immunity.

              Unless of course you just don’t believe in science.

              • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                12 days ago

                virtually a nonissue

                Emphasis on virtually. It’s not 100%. That’s why there is talk about herd immunity. I don’t think anyone here is proposing to not get vaccinated or that they don’t accept the science [1].

                https://theconversation.com/if-my-measles-shot-was-years-ago-am-i-still-protected-5-questions-answered-115691

                One dose of the MMR vaccine protects against measles at 93% efficacy (that is, 93% of individuals will receive the protective benefit of the vaccine), two doses of the vaccine provides 96-97% efficacy.

                [1] I much prefer this phrasing than saying someone “believes” in science, since science does not require belief.

                • futatorius@lemm.ee
                  1·
                  12 days ago

                  I believe (not believe in) science because I can check the steps myself if I’m so inclined. In my field, I often do, it’s not just a “could but never do” situation.