Trump 47
- Thread starter PF5
- Start date
He could have asked nicely.
LOL, Is he mad because the skin tone isn't orange enough?
Polds4OSU
Marshall
Trump wants green card applicants already legally in the US to hand over social media profiles
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.
The agency is collecting feedback from the public on the proposal until May 5, the majority of which are overwhelmingly opposed at the time of writing.
“So the US is heading for authoritarian now,” an anonymous commenter said. “Anything that the current administration doesn’t like means bad. Pure ideology means total destruction. This is a violation to the First Amendment.”
“Chilling Effect on Free Speech: The fear of government scrutiny of online expression will undoubtedly stifle free speech,” another comment read. “This is particularly concerning for individuals from countries with different political climates, who may fear the misinterpretation of their online activity.”
Out of the 143 comments, 29 mentioned a violation of free speech. “This policy undermines the fundamental values that make America a beacon of freedom, including free speech, privacy, and human rights,” another person wrote.
The proposal follows the detention of green card holder Mahmoud Khalil, labeled “pro-Hamas” by the Trump administration, and the deportation of Brown University doctor, Rasha Alawieh, a H1-B visa holder. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials inspected the kidney medic’s phone and determined she followed the religious teachings of the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. They also claimed she “openly admitted” attending his funeral while in Lebanon.
Civil rights groups have raised concerns that the policy proposal would disproportionately impact critics of Israel and the U.S. government’s handling of the conflict.
“This policy would disparately impact Muslim and Arab applicants seeking U.S. citizenship that have voiced support for Palestinian human rights,” Robert McCaw, director of government affairs at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told The Intercept. “Collecting the social media identifiers of any potential green card applicants or citizens is the means to silencing their lawful speech.”
McCaw added that he also worried that people’s activity would be continuously monitored on social media even if they became U.S. citizens.
Polds4OSU
Marshall
A top Republican official says Republicans are not being forthright with voters on Social Security.
“We’re not being honest with people,” Sen. John Curtis told NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday. “We’re not being honest when we look people in the eye and say we’re not going to touch it.”
“That’s not being honest with the American people, and I think that makes them not trust us when we say something that they just know is not true,” he added.
Curtis’s remarks come in the wake of troubling comments by Elon Musk, who has described Social Security as “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time” and said it is “the big one to eliminate.”
President Donald Trump pledged to leave the entitlement program, which 70 million Americans rely on, alone.
The GOP Senator further claimed there was no need to “impact the people” who rely on the program but that there need to be discussions about “moving some of the variables around” in order to ensure it remains solvent.
“The sooner we do it, the less dramatic it has to be,” he said. “If we don’t do it, we have worse decisions thrust upon us.”
“We’re not being honest with people,” Sen. John Curtis told NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday. “We’re not being honest when we look people in the eye and say we’re not going to touch it.”
“That’s not being honest with the American people, and I think that makes them not trust us when we say something that they just know is not true,” he added.
Curtis’s remarks come in the wake of troubling comments by Elon Musk, who has described Social Security as “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time” and said it is “the big one to eliminate.”
President Donald Trump pledged to leave the entitlement program, which 70 million Americans rely on, alone.
The GOP Senator further claimed there was no need to “impact the people” who rely on the program but that there need to be discussions about “moving some of the variables around” in order to ensure it remains solvent.
“The sooner we do it, the less dramatic it has to be,” he said. “If we don’t do it, we have worse decisions thrust upon us.”
Another thing I agree with but his reasoning probably has to do with aliens.
BREAKING: Robert F. Kennedy Jr has announced plans to ban pharmaceutical advertisements on television.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) March 24, 2025
Aliens run the media, duh.
Aliens run the media, duh.
And they really want us to ask our doctor about Trulicity.
<checks Trulicity side effects>
"Studies show a 79% risk that Trulicity will turn you into a Romulan. Discontinue use if a large brow ridge appears."
Yep.
Who gives a S*&T what the reasoning is. Not only are these commercials the worst commercials, but everyone who has health insurance is basically paying additional premiums to have these adds shoved down our own throats.
At least we are getting some of the good out of this.
I've never understood why we needed ads for medication. Do people really walk into their doctors office and ask about taking a pill they saw on tv?
This should never have happened in the first place.
Agreed. And also no more gambling commercials. Its getting really over the top.
Polds4OSU
Marshall
Why it matters: Conservative justices have called for the Supreme Court to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, which determined that a plaintiff must demonstrate "actual malice" in defamation lawsuits against the press.
What we're watching: Trump has threatened to "open up" libel laws to be able to further target the press.
- In Sullivan, the court determined that the First Amendment protects news outlets from liability, even when they publish false statements, as long as the outlet did not do so knowingly and recklessly — without seeking to determine its accuracy.
What we're watching: Trump has threatened to "open up" libel laws to be able to further target the press.
Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to landmark press freedom case
LinkSimilar threads
