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.’
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.
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.
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]. I think everyone here is actually in agreement except for the finer point about efficacy not being 100%.
https://theconversation.com/if-my-measles-shot-was-years-ago-am-i-still-protected-5-questions-answered-115691
[1] I much prefer this phrasing than saying someone “believes” in science, since science does not require belief.
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.