Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't understand what these things are good for.

If you want to enter the country illegally, overstay your visa, or perform some sort of attack, then it's trivial to lie on the forms.

It's just making it inconvenient for honest, harmless travellers. Is that the goal?



The goal is to provide an excuse.

Very few people will be able to provide a list of 100% of the accounts they used. This means every visitor will technically be lying on their forms.

You're more than happy to visit - until you do something the regime doesn't like, like criticizing the recent attack on Iran, or making fun of the military parade. Then they have a ready-made reason to deport and ban you.


He didn't mention it, but I think he meant to extend it to "and how would they check/prove it?".

The practice of creating pretextual laws is well established in places like Russia, but a necessary component is proof. In fact that's the entire purpose of a pretextual law, to have something (as ridiculous as it may be) to pin on someone. I can't see any way they could prove I have this handle on Hacker News, for example.


You can call yourself lucky if you're "just" deported, and not sent to (and forgotten in) some unnamed prison abroad in a random exotic country.


Are there any instances where the US has refused to repatriate a foreign citizen whose government was willing to take them back?

In the interest of truthfulness, I believe all(?) of the CECOT deportations weren't accepted by their own country.

Which doesn't make it right, but does change the situation.


At a minimum you get locked in a damp basement for an unknown amount of time while they book a flight for you, which happened to an Australian journalist recently.

The general vibe I'm hearing in Australia is that people are afraid to travel to the US right now if they have any reason at all to raise suspicion (being trans, having posted political comments, etc).


Overlong detentions with limited communication / ability to contact lawyers should definitely be illegal.

The check on enforcement excess is that one should always have the option to confer with legal council.


The goal is to have leverage over everyone, and to occasionally execute overt performative acts for the media, like refusing entry to famous ideological opponents.

Vote for clowns, live in a circus.


Not exactly - they're guaranteeing that if you do lie on the form then they've got a nailed-on route to expel you even if nothing else sticks, because lying on an immigration form is an offence.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: