If you’re on US soil, you have a constitutional protection against unreasonable searches, and the law is very clear about what you must provide and in what circumstances. It varies a little by area, but even in “stop and ID” states, cops generally need “reasonable suspicion” (strict legal definition) that you have, are about to, or are in the process of committing a crime. ID is limited to state issued ID, and in many areas you don’t even need to provide that, only verbally assert your name and DOB.
If the government wants additional information from me, they need an arrest and/or warrant. Or they can do their own investigation without an arrest or warrant.
Those constitutional protections should apply to visa applicants as well. If the government wants additional data, they should do a background check. They should not be able to demand things unnecessary to process the visa application like social media handles, groups they associate with, etc, because that’s a constitutional violation.
Explain to me why this should apply to a visa applicant? They are not here yet, they are still within their country and want to enter here so your “on American soil” argument doesn’t make sense. Seems pretty reasonable to me to be actually vetting people who enter a country. By actual investigative means and not arbitrary ones.
Yes, we should absolutely be vetting people, but we should also be following the law. They should be able to ask for extra information, but applicants should be informed that they are not obligated to provide it, and decisions should not be based on whether that information is provided. However, it could be decided based on whether the immigration officer has enough information to approve or deny entry, and that extra information could be useful in tipping that balance (i.e. if they can’t find your SM and found other sketchy stuff).
What kind of a message does it send if we have different standards depending on which side of the border you’re on? That’s incredibly dumb.
I guess I’m mistaken. Immigrants and visitors are not technically “on US soil” until they have been processed. However, but once they are on US soil, they enjoy many (most?) of the rights and privileges in the Constitution and legal code, including the 4th amendment (governs searches). So it depends on where you’re applying for a status.
It just seems odd to me that, once processed, you immediately gain rights that would be violated had the order of operations been reversed (i.e. admit first and then searched). It seems to me that if we’re considering someone for entry to the US, there may be an argument that an unreasonable search is unconstitutional, even if it happened just prior to entry.
If you’re on US soil, you have a constitutional protection against unreasonable searches, and the law is very clear about what you must provide and in what circumstances. It varies a little by area, but even in “stop and ID” states, cops generally need “reasonable suspicion” (strict legal definition) that you have, are about to, or are in the process of committing a crime. ID is limited to state issued ID, and in many areas you don’t even need to provide that, only verbally assert your name and DOB.
If the government wants additional information from me, they need an arrest and/or warrant. Or they can do their own investigation without an arrest or warrant.
Those constitutional protections should apply to visa applicants as well. If the government wants additional data, they should do a background check. They should not be able to demand things unnecessary to process the visa application like social media handles, groups they associate with, etc, because that’s a constitutional violation.
Explain to me why this should apply to a visa applicant? They are not here yet, they are still within their country and want to enter here so your “on American soil” argument doesn’t make sense. Seems pretty reasonable to me to be actually vetting people who enter a country. By actual investigative means and not arbitrary ones.
Yes, we should absolutely be vetting people, but we should also be following the law. They should be able to ask for extra information, but applicants should be informed that they are not obligated to provide it, and decisions should not be based on whether that information is provided. However, it could be decided based on whether the immigration officer has enough information to approve or deny entry, and that extra information could be useful in tipping that balance (i.e. if they can’t find your SM and found other sketchy stuff).
What kind of a message does it send if we have different standards depending on which side of the border you’re on? That’s incredibly dumb.
No, that’s called being a sovereign nation. Every country treats its citizens differently from outsiders, it’s literally the entire point.
I guess I’m mistaken. Immigrants and visitors are not technically “on US soil” until they have been processed. However, but once they are on US soil, they enjoy many (most?) of the rights and privileges in the Constitution and legal code, including the 4th amendment (governs searches). So it depends on where you’re applying for a status.
It just seems odd to me that, once processed, you immediately gain rights that would be violated had the order of operations been reversed (i.e. admit first and then searched). It seems to me that if we’re considering someone for entry to the US, there may be an argument that an unreasonable search is unconstitutional, even if it happened just prior to entry.
Again, every nation on earth treats its own citizens different from visitors. Its not weird, it’s literally why we have borders.