New US visa rules will force foreign students to unlock social media profiles

2025-06-1823:11444582www.theguardian.com

Diplomats to look for ‘indications of hostility towards citizens, culture or founding principles of United States’

Foreign students will be required to unlock their social media profiles to allow US diplomats to review their online activity before receiving educational and exchange visas, the state department has announced. Those who fail to do so will be suspected of hiding that activity from US officials.

The new guidance, unveiled by the state department on Wednesday, directs US diplomats to conduct an online presence review to look for “any indications of hostility toward the citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles of the United States”.

A cable separately obtained by Politico also instructs diplomats to flag any “advocacy for, aid or support for foreign terrorists and other threats to US national security” and “support for unlawful antisemitic harassment or violence”.

The screening for “antisemitic” activity matches similar guidance given at US Citizenship and Immigration Services under the Department of Homeland Security and has been criticised as an effort to crack down on opposition to the conduct of Israel’s war in Gaza.

The new state department checks are directed at students and other applicants for visas in the F, M and J categories, which refer to academic and vocational education, as well as cultural exchanges.

“It is an expectation from American citizens that their government will make every effort to make our country safer, and that is exactly what the Trump administration is doing every single day,” said a senior state department official, adding that Marco Rubio was “helping to make America and its universities safer while bringing the state Department into the 21st century”.

The Trump administration paused the issuance of new education visas late last month as it mulled new social media vetting strategies. The US had also targeted Chinese students for special scrutiny amid a tense negotiation over tariffs and the supply of rare-earth metals and minerals to the United States.

The state department directive allowed diplomatic posts to resume the scheduling of interviews for educational and exchange visas, but added that consular officers would conduct a “comprehensive and thorough vetting” of all applicants applying for F, M and J visas.

“To facilitate this vetting, all applicants for F, M and J non-immigrant visas will be asked to adjust the privacy settings on all their social media profiles to ‘public’”, the official said. “The enhanced social media vetting will ensure we are properly screening every single person attempting to visit our country.”


Read the original article

Comments

  • By Zaheer 2025-06-190:4812 reply

    Original DHS Announcement on Social Media Screening: https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-to-begin-sc...

    State Dept on what is considered Antisemitism: https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/

    These definitions are intentionally broad and designed to censor criticism of Israel. You have more freedom to criticize the US Government than to criticize a foreign country.

    • By WatchDog 2025-06-194:289 reply

      Wow these are incredibly broad, in particular:

      > Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

      There are plenty of dual citizens that would proudly admit that their first loyalty is to Israel.

      Other examples from the document use the term "Jews as a people", whereas this example seems to apply to accusing any individual.

      Although perhaps a generous interpretation of the example, is that it excludes Israeli dual citizens, because Israel would be one of "their own nations"

      • By plextoria 2025-06-199:251 reply

        > There are plenty of dual citizens that would proudly admit that their first loyalty is to Israel.

        Plenty of dual citizens that are not Israeli citizens and would admit the same thing, but we don't go around throwing such accusations at them.

        > this example seems to apply to accusing any individual.

        Does it? It would be accusing the individual just because they are part of a certain group.

        • By cherryteastain 2025-06-1910:421 reply

          > but we don't go around throwing such accusations at them

          Simply not true. There is plenty of rhetoric about immigrants (even 2nd gen+) in Western countries being accused of being disloyal to their Western citizenship in favor of their ethnic origin countries. Chinese, Indians, Middle Easterners, Latin Americans etc are all accused of this; see the recent riots in LA for a very recent example. Yet this insinuation is made illegal only with respect to one country only for whatever reason.

          • By malicka 2025-06-1911:264 reply

            This insinuation really is only made to Jewish people, and is completely different – it is used against people who have literally never been to Israel, have no family who have been there, and have no recent ancestry even in the area.

            It goes back to the antisemitic trope that Jewish people are a part of a world-wide cabal controlling the world; so of course they are more aligned with their country than ours, even if they have no direct ties to it whatsoever.

            • By cherryteastain 2025-06-1911:39

              All racism has group specific aspects. Start curbing freedom of speech in this manner and soon you will have a list of thousands of things you are not allowed to say, at which point we can't say we have freedom of speech anymore.

            • By hearsathought 2025-06-1916:21

              > This insinuation really is only made to Jewish people

              Certainly is news to japanese americans ( literally put in concentration camps ), chinese americans, german americans, mexican americans, arab americans, italian americans, catholics in general, indian americans, russian americans, etc.

              > so of course they are more aligned with their country than ours, even if they have no direct ties to it whatsoever.

              But there are plenty of jewish americans who are pro-israel. Such as jewish americans who joined the israeli military rather than american military.

              It doesn't help that jewish americans were the main proponent to allowing dual citizenship in the US.

            • By llm_nerd 2025-06-1912:043 reply

              > This insinuation really is only made to Jewish people

              This is untrue. It's untrue to such an extraordinary degree that it's hard to believe you're arguing in good faith.

              Accusing people of being loyal to some other nation or cause is levied regularly against almost all peoples to some degree or other, particularly if the person holds any ancestral pride or accoutrements. Even just refusing to adapt to food customs is enough to arouse suspicions.

              Look at the outrage about the "invasion" because some protestors hoisted Mexican flags. Various members of Trump's administration declared this a demonstration of "occupied" territories.

              If you're Chinese in America you must never, ever, show an iota of association with your homeland -- or even just your grandparents home if you're 3rd generation -- or you will be ostracized and considered a deep agent. An Indian that has an Indian flag in their bio or the like is going to be frequently asked why they don't move back if they "love it so much".

              Similarly, a frequent criticism of some Muslims is din wa dawla, which is a belief that religion and politics/the state are one. Indeed, if someone has religious beliefs that can go in conflict with the needs/goals of the state, there is a discord there that needs to be considered.

              There are Americans who are more loyal to Israel than the US. Like, they will literally tell you this without an ounce of compunction or question (which is utterly verboten among virtually any other group. Similarly a US congressman wore his IDF uniform into congress, which is simply insane). On the flip side, there are many Jewish Americans who are deeply critical of Israel. Like does anyone think Bernie is a deep agent of Israel? Bernie, like much of Jewish America, is deeply critical of Israel.

              • By larrled 2025-06-1912:381 reply

                Get your point but Disagree. Antisemitism is singular and has a long history that is well documented. You can see clearly that it isn’t just another instance of racism or xenophobia, but something different. Nobody accuses AOC of secretly working for Mexican government. See the difference?

                • By llm_nerd 2025-06-1912:48

                  I'm clearly not disputing the existence of antisemitism (or that it is a widespread scourge), and it isn't some trump card in a discussion like this. Someone claimed that only Jews are accused of split loyalties and that is insanely untrue.

                  "Nobody accuses AOC of secretly working for Mexican government"

                  It would be an incredibly weird accusation given that her ancestry is Puerto Rican.

                  And FWIW, there is a credible observation that the US evangelical "death cult" right has a bizarre, self-sabotaging loyalty to Israel. This group is not remotely Jewish, but they -- again not Jews -- are the reason the US government is subservient and in the service of Israel. All because their mythology holds Israel as some end times revelations battleground or some other bizarrely ignorant, archaic belief.

              • By alephnerd 2025-06-1914:313 reply

                Neither India nor China allow dual citizenship, so a US citizen of Indian or Chinese origin who argues in favor of one or the other at the expense of the US's strategic goals is absolutely suspect.

                > Look at the outrage about the "invasion" because some protestors hoisted Mexican flags

                Because LA Chicanos did not realize how inflammatory using the Mexican flag is in anti-government protests outside the California.

                In CA, it's well understood it's used as an identity marker (though still exclusionary, as a growing portion of the Hispanic community in CA isn't Mexican anymore), but outside CA using another country's flag at the expense of the US absolutely is viewed as a severe faux pas.

                • By seanmcdirmid 2025-06-1921:31

                  Kids until they are 18 can be dual citizen of China and American, they just have to decide at 18 which one to renounce. Also, attractive female snow boarders are also allowed dual citizenship but those are exceptions.

                • By cherryteastain 2025-06-1919:161 reply

                  > Neither India nor China allow dual citizenship

                  You can have dual citizenship if your Chinese citizenship is of the Hong Kong/Macao flavor

                  • By alephnerd 2025-06-1919:52

                    Getting HK or Macao PR is almost impossible - you have a better shot getting Shanghai or Beijing hukou. It's also a grey area - dual nationality is "permitted", not "allowed", and this policy can easily be revoked given how unstable HKSAR and Macau's governments have become

                    As such, it is an edge case or rounding error - especially in the Chinese American community. With the amount of effort it takes to get HK citizenship, you may as well take Canadian or American citizenship and try to break Chinese nationality law by lying about not having American citizenship (but they are cracking down on this)

                • By llm_nerd 2025-06-1915:20

                  >so a US citizen of Indian or Chinese origin who argues in favor of one or the other at the expense of the US's strategic goals is absolutely suspect.

                  To be completely clear, what you are saying is that a US citizen -- I have no idea what the relevance of foreign citizenship means, unless you're saying that everyone with a foreign citizenship is suspect -- of Indian or Chinese origin cannot have an opinion on anything. On foreign wars. On immigration levels or sources of intake. On government structure or laws or budgetary spending. Because literally anything can be cast by some hate monger as being at the "expense of the US's strategic goals".

                  Let's just be completely clear about your position here.

                  >but outside CA using another country's flag at the expense of the US

                  What does "at the expense" mean? People are protesting masked groups of thugs kidnapping people and renditioning them (illegally) to foreign gulags, and that is absolutely in the service of the US.

                  Though there have been a number of pro-Israel protests that are nothing but a sea of Israeli flags. Jim Jordan hilariously said "We fly the American flag in America", while he has a giant Israeli flag festooned outside his office. There is zero consistency about this "who gets to be proud of their heritage / fly a foreign flag" position beyond "who should be cowed and shut their dirty migrant faces".

              • By nailer 2025-06-1913:27

                > Look at the outrage about the "invasion" because some protestors hoisted Mexican flags

                The invasion angle is simply entering a country without permission. Protesting against the laws of the country while holding the foreign flag adds to the poor optics but the root of the invading accusation is the people actually invading.

            • By Aeolun 2025-06-1917:04

              > who have literally never been to Israel, have no family who have been there, and have no recent ancestry even in the area

              But are somehow—without any apparent reason, given that nothing binds them to the country—in favor of Israel being allowed to continue their war of agression against pretty much everyone around.

      • By mjlee 2025-06-197:14

        The vast majority of American Jewish citizens are not dual US/Israeli citizens. Very roughly, there are about 1,000,000 Israelis living abroad worldwide and the US Jewish population is around 7,000,000.

      • By tdeck 2025-06-197:461 reply

        > Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

        I'm sure this definition is going to be applied to Zionist organizations that do this on a regular basis.

        • By nailer 2025-06-1913:301 reply

          Jews have lived in Jerusalem continuously for 3000 years. Believing they have a right to live there and not be eliminated in favour of creating a 23rd Arab nation is not disloyalty to America.

          ###

          Edit reply to sorcerer-mar (due to rate limit):

          Completely agreed. America should not make laws against racism. I don't think anyone was saying they should, though.

          • By sorcerer-mar 2025-06-1913:34

            Making laws against saying otherwise is disloyalty to America, though probably pushed more by antisemites trying to foment antisemitism than anyone else.

      • By dgellow 2025-06-1910:40

        > Although perhaps a generous interpretation of the example

        Absolutely zero reasons to give the current US government the benefit of the doubt

      • By wolfcola 2025-06-1912:41

        Donald Trump has done this multiple times, saying that Jewish Americans who vote for Democrats are disloyal or traitors because he treats Israel better.

      • By nailer 2025-06-1913:24

        > whereas this example seems to apply to accusing any individual

        I think citizens is meant to mean “American citizens” as opposed to Jewish people that are citizens of other countries. It seems intended to prevent people saying Jewish people cannot be loyal to America, though I agree the wording is clumsy.

      • By lazyeye 2025-06-199:276 reply

        It's all so confusing. Defending Jewish people is very unexpected behaviour for someone, who we've been told for years now, is a nazi...

        • By viraptor 2025-06-1910:38

          It's just convenient right now, not a part of ideology of protecting minorities. Consider how this is effectively a type of targeted affirmative action just a short time after all dei was the devil and had to be erased. If Israel does something the gov doesn't support, I expect all of this to go away.

        • By CuriouslyC 2025-06-1910:011 reply

          He's a white supremacist, only in as much as he is white and thinks he's supreme, and is looking for anything to support that narcissistic worldview.

          He supports Israel in the way that Christians who believe it will bring about Armageddon and the second coming do, though he doesn't himself believe (that would require someone being greater than him, total non starter). To him, this is just the kool-aid he has to drink to get people to bow down to him.

          • By lazyeye 2025-06-1910:311 reply

            Either that or what you are saying is complete nonsense and is much more a rationalisation of your own beliefs than a reflection of anyone elses..

            • By sorcerer-mar 2025-06-1913:361 reply

              Trump likes Israel because the GOP likes Israel. The GOP likes Israel because they believe it's important to ushering in the endtimes.

              https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZboeOkG9e0E

              • By lazyeye 2025-06-1919:501 reply

                More nonsense.

                • By sorcerer-mar 2025-06-1920:48

                  Video of a sitting US Senator, one of the most prominent leaders in the entire GOP, saying he supports Israel because his magical book tells him to.

                  "more nonsense"

                  Great rebuttal.

        • By const_cast 2025-06-1919:501 reply

          When people say that Trump is a Nazi, they mean in the fascist "enemy from within" type of way. As in they're using Nazi as a drop-in for fascist because Nazi Germany was the most popular fascist nation that everyone knows.

          They probably shouldn't do that and should just say fascist.

          • By lazyeye 2025-06-1920:011 reply

            Yes I guess nazis were the "most popular fascist nation". Interestingly there were alot of themes in nazi ideology that could almost be considered left-wing. They believed in the dignity of the German working class man for example and that the Jewish people represented big business and were a corruption on society etc.

        • By sofixa 2025-06-1912:331 reply

          That's because people confuse generic fascism with nazism. A big part of the difference is the virulent antisemitism.

          Trump and his friends are fascists (corporatism, corruption, strongman rule, us vs them with human rights abuses vs the "them", etc).

          • By lazyeye 2025-06-1919:471 reply

            I dunno...the Dems campaign funds were 3 times the Republicans at the last election so the corporate donors were very much on their side.

            And the corruption within USAID was off the charts..billions of dollars shovelled out the door to Democrat friends.

            The bypassing of the first amendment by pressuring social media companies to self-censor.

            And the weaponisation of the legal system to take out a political opponent.

            I think your description far more accurately describes the Democrats than the Republicans.

            • By sofixa 2025-06-1920:19

              > the Dems campaign funds were 3 times the Republicans at the last election so the corporate donors were very much on their side.

              I'm not going to fact check that because it's probably wrong, but regardless, it doesn't matter.

              Trump literally appointed a billionaire to be a minister of his, after said billionaire spent hundreds of millions on his campaign. Same billionaire also has government contracts, was in charge of "optimising" government spending. Oh and he runs a social media with blatant censorship. Trump had a coronation event where billionaires had to donate big sums of money to be able to attend. He launched shitcoins and collectibles and a fucking mobile phone.

              Nothing any recent politician in any western country has done comes even close to this level of brazen corruption. Hell, well known corrupt autocrats like Putin are more delicate in public about their corruption.

              > And the corruption within USAID was off the charts..billions of dollars shovelled out the door to Democrat friends

              Like preventing HIV from being transmitted to babies in Africa? Darn Democratic HIV infected babies!

        • By immibis 2025-06-1910:071 reply

          A common misconception. Hitler was a big supporter of creating Israel (which didn't exist at the time) too. Why? Because the point of Israel was to make the Jews go far away from Europe, where Hitler didn't want them to be.

          • By lazyeye 2025-06-1910:391 reply

            So ummm..are you saying Trump is defending the Jewish state so that eventually all the Jewish people in the US can be moved there? Trying to understand your logic here...

            • By assbuttbuttass 2025-06-1912:031 reply

              I don't think Trump personally is anti-semetic. But it's pretty common for right-wingers, even neo-Nazis, to support Israel because of the argument "The Jews get to have a state to call their home, why not Whites?"

              • By FirmwareBurner 2025-06-1918:301 reply

                >But it's pretty common for right-wingers, even neo-Nazis, to support Israel because of the argument "The Jews get to have a state to call their home, why not Whites?"

                It really isn't. Where did you get that information?

                • By const_cast 2025-06-1919:512 reply

                  From right-wingers and neo-nazis. There's a big overlap between Zionism and right-wing ideology.

                  • By lazyeye 2025-06-1920:051 reply

                    There's a big overlap between Nazism and Zionism?

                    It's really hard to keep up.

                    • By const_cast 2025-06-1920:10

                      Believe it or not, yes. It's specified above but yes, Adolf Hitler was a Zionist.

                      The fallacy here is thinking Judaism and Zionism are related. They're not at all. I would wager most Jews worldwide are not Zionists. What Zionism is is the belief that Jews are entitled to a Jewish Ethnostate and they may create that state through violence and colonialism.

                  • By FirmwareBurner 2025-06-1920:081 reply

                    I meant some sources you can quote that we can all review and verify, not just "trust me bro i know some neo Nazis and they love Israel"

                    • By const_cast 2025-06-1920:131 reply

                      Feel free to look up the Haavara Agreement.

                      • By FirmwareBurner 2025-06-1920:49

                        Who said neo Nazis today are defined by an agreement from the 1930s? Hitler and Nazi Germany made many agreements. They also had one with Russia, and we all know how that went. So your info on neo nazis is way off.

        • By ItCouldBeWorse 2025-06-1910:202 reply

          [flagged]

          • By throwaway290 2025-06-1911:042 reply

            People who think Israel is white probably never been there. Similar about apartheid, if you look at actual laws quoted as evidence of apartheid they don't come close to places like Saudi Arabia or Malaysia and honestly a bunch of other countries who have their own laws of return/restricted citizenship/political representation/cultural representation etc (even South Korea has it all)

            But obviously this is not an excuse for Israel government supporting religious orthodox extremists and their settlements and aggression against Muslims in the area near Jordan. If you just take the situation there then it is basically a war zone.

            If West Bank was considered part of Israel then I can see elements of apartheid but people who say it's apartheid also say West Bank is a separate country. You can't have apartheid in another country. Call it invasion/occupation or apartheid, but pick one? (Also yes this is whataboutism but what Russia is doing is orders of magnitude worse if invasions are considered.)

            • By ItCouldBeWorse 2025-06-1912:57

              I think Netanyahu is not certain of the left/international part of his population. They would likely abandon israel if things got to bad (which they tend to do in that neighborhood)- he sort of uses the senseless hatred of the arabs worldwide as a sort of kadyrite barrier troop- if you cant go anywhere and be save- might as well stay in israel.

            • By nailer 2025-06-1913:332 reply

              Absolutely this. I have a strong left leaning Irish family and believed the apartheid hoax for most of my life. It’s absolutely false. Arabs in Israel have a great life.

              • By throwaway290 2025-06-1914:18

                For me I have been to Israel end of covid before I heard apartheid accusations. I talked to Arabs there and honestly if I was offered to swap my Russian rights with rights of Arab in Israel I would go for it. I mean healthcare alone... When I looked up the allegations it appears that most alleged "apartheid" laws were common to other countries, so why double standard.

                It sort of made sense if I thought just of West Bank. One reason, freedom of movement. I did not see from the inside but from what I read it is semi closed like a warzone with checkpoints and all. What's worse is that it is supposed to be closed for everybody but allegedly it is not equal and Israel military tolerates Jews but can be way overly strict to Muslims. Some people mad at Netanyahu for it.

                But it's a weird limbo, people say it's apartheid and then the same people also say it's occupied and not really part of Israel. (Except for people who also say Israel shouldn't exist but I wouldn't listen to them, because then why a shitton of militant Muslim countries are allowed to exist right there but Israel isn't considering it is much more democratic and Jews were there as early if not earlier than Muslims)

              • By immibis 2025-06-1918:131 reply

                FYI this user (nallar) mostly comments pro-Israel stuff, anti-vaccine stuff, pro-cryptocurrency stuff, etc and not much actual technical stuff. You know the type.

                • By nailer 2025-06-1920:50

                  I comment on many topics, including distributed systems, node.js, Linux, low latency topics, software licensing, and yes science, history, the law and politics.

                  I don’t think I’m particularly pro-Israel, but since HN seems fixated with this particular conflict over others I certainly post in those submissions - just like everyone can see you do. This unnecessary personal attack is completely off topic (you’re responding to a post about me realising I believed in a myth about Israel) and easily proven false by looking at my post history - and also yours.

          • By lazyeye 2025-06-1910:541 reply

            Yes I think they like to camouflage a very basic, garden variety hatred behind a cloak of supposed "virtue" but really they are just haters, plain and simple.

            They accuse others of being nazis so that they themselves can be nazis.

            Some interesting maps thankyou.

            • By ItCouldBeWorse 2025-06-1913:42

              I think its a real interesting challenge, from a hacker perspective. How do you bootstrap a culture, that spirals into this minima, to recover and redevelop a interest in science and cultural development, without external intervention or enforcement. You only have the Robinson Crusoe elements you start out with and the technology and external culture that is not actively rejected by maximum religious fervor. If all other parts of humanity got stuck in this mindset, how could a open culture redevelop from this? Its really tough, i bow my head to the Houdini who pulls it off. Like - can you school a child, without school, only on youtube videos - or with some teacher LLM, downloaded to an illegal phone, smuggled in and only capable to run during the day on some battered solar.

      • By JumpCrisscross 2025-06-195:058 reply

        > There are plenty of dual citizens that would proudly admit that their first loyalty is to Israel

        This is legitimately debatable. If your allegiance is first to a foreign state, in my view, you should have to relinquish your American citizenship.

        • By mathieuh 2025-06-196:032 reply

          > How does one hate a country, or love one? Tibe talks about it; I lack the trick of it. I know people, I know towns, farms, hills and rivers and rocks, I know how the sun at sunset in autumn falls on the side of a certain plowland in the hills; but what is the sense of giving a boundary to all that, of giving it a name and ceasing to love where the name ceases to apply? What is love of one's country; is it hate of one's uncountry? Then it's not a good thing. Is it simply self-love? That's a good thing, but one mustn't make a virtue of it, or a profession... Insofar as I love life, I love the hills of the Domain of Estre, but that sort of love does not have a boundary-line of hate. And beyond that, I am ignorant, I hope.

          Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness

          • By strogonoff 2025-06-198:57

            Allegiance is not love. Allegiance is recognising yourself as part of some whole. It’s not impossible to feel that and also dislike or even hate the whole, though it probably would not come without psychological issues unless you channel that into political activity to effect what you think is a positive change to the whole. It’s complicated.

            In terms of what dictates your action, true allegiance is more significant: it is possible to really love somebody and not do something for their sake, but if you really are a part of something then it’s not much of a choice.

            Some people, culturally or temperamentally, have an allegiance to their family and do not care beyond that. Some feel allegiance to a community (whether defined religiously or geographically or elsewise). Some people feel allegiance to nothing. In the US specifically feeling belonging to one’s state I presume could be more powerful than belonging to the country. It is not always or not everywhere that people feel a strong allegiance to a country, even if they always lived in one and never thought of moving.

            Among people who do feel country allegiance, I would imagine it is rare to feel belonging to two different countries with a similar force. Perhaps those people do exist (e.g., someone who mostly lived in country A but was born to immigrants from country B and also spent a lot of time in country B), and then it would be mighty unfair if they had to pick one, but people I know can usually classify one citizenship as “convenience” and another one as “true”.

            Comprehensively assessing true allegiances (or lack thereof) of a prospective citizen is fraught, but as phrased the question does not actually require that. For 99.9% of people, “do you feel allegiance first to a foreign state?” is pretty unobtrusive and has a clear answer. The main caveat is, of course, that those for whom the answer is positive will almost certainly just lie.

            In case using tangentially related quotes is considered smarter than original thought, I looked one up too and I raise you Orson Scott Card:

            “Every person is defined by the communities she belongs to and the ones she doesn’t belong to… a person who really believes she doesn’t belong to any community at all invariably kills herself, either by killing her body or by giving up her identity and going mad.”

          • By jaoane 2025-06-197:391 reply

            I love when people come here with quotes from books like this is the ultimate argument or something.

        • By Mashimo 2025-06-196:371 reply

          > If your allegiance is first to a foreign state, in my view, you should have to relinquish your American citizenship.

          I have one or two friends in that situations, and they want to do that. But it also cost a $2,350 fee to give up your US of A citizenship.

          • By llsf 2025-06-196:581 reply

            And exit tax...

            • By rietta 2025-06-197:271 reply

              And being permanently barred from possessing firearms in the USA.

              • By ben_w 2025-06-199:35

                I doubt that will matter to them, even if they like guns. How many dual nationals give up the citizenship of a nation they still live in?

        • By GrantMoyer 2025-06-1912:18

          Any law that allows a government to renounce people's citizenship for broad, vague reasons is a very, very bad law. Regardless of its intentions, it will be used as a tool to subvert the rights of citizens even outside the target group.

        • By ses1984 2025-06-196:421 reply

          If that's your view then the only logical conclusion is to not allow dual citizenship at all.

          • By FirmwareBurner 2025-06-1918:26

            Many country don't allow dual citizenship precisely for these issues.

        • By larrled 2025-06-1913:291 reply

          Amazed to see such a take after what happened in LA. Obviously the median immigrant has strong feelings of loyalty to their mother soil as can be witnessed by the huge Mexican flags and the direct testimony of many individuals. Should we deport all those people who swear loyalty to “La Rasa”? If we want immigrants, and we should because we need them to lead us into the future, we need to be realistic about their loyalties. People are proud of their race/nationality, and immigrants often even moreso.

          • By alephnerd 2025-06-1914:40

            The Chicano movement made their own flag back in the Cesar Chavez era. 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Gen Los Angeleños of Mexican origin could have used (and plenty did) and a sign finger portion of protestors made sure to incorporate the US flag as well, but a significant portion simply did not realize that the Mexican flag is not viewed as an ethnic marker outside of CA.

        • By spwa4 2025-06-198:321 reply

          Wow ... this will suck. Islam, the ideology, either is a state, or meant to be a state (just ask a few muslims, they'll explain. Also historically islam was a state until 1918/1923, and died in WW1, with the leader of islam, the caliph, abandoning islam)

          And, frankly, while this is most prominent with Islam, that religions describe their goal to be a single state and trying to be a single state is the norm, not the exception. Christianity is the exception here that does not want to have state power (even though that rule screams "compromise with the Roman emperor", and hasn't exactly been followed very well once Christians were well established)

          So no more muslims allowed in the US then? In fact no religion allowed except Christianity or revering the US directly somehow?

          • By Propelloni 2025-06-1910:031 reply

            Yes, this will suck. No argument from me.

            However, I disagree with your conception of Islam as a state, even if it was explained to you by Muslims. The strongest argument I can build from your statements is that, according to the reference to the end of the Sunni Caliphate in 1923,

            p1) only Sunnis are Muslims, and

            p2) the Caliphate is unique, and

            p3) the Sunni Caliphate of 1923 is the original one, thus

            c) it was the state of Islam.

            We can disprove all of these premises. p1) is obvious, there are more Muslim religions than just Sunnis. The earliest schism was the Sunni-Shiites split, happening immediately after the first prophet's death.

            About p2), while I'm fuzzy on the details, I'm pretty sure that between the 900s and the 1900s there were at least 3 major, parallel Caliphates and also a bunch of smaller Caliphates. Geographically they were even sometimes overlapping. It might be interesting that the Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire (the one in question) was a Hanafist (a Sunni splinter group) Caliphate.

            On p3), the Sunni caliphate of 1923 was reestablished after a 300 year "hiatus" by the Ottoman Emperor to lay claim on Crimea. It had no representation besides a leader, the Sultan. Before the dissolution of the major Sunni Caliphate in the 1500s it relocated several times, from today's Syria to today's Iraq, to then and now Egypt. Thus we can say that the Caliphate had no continuous existence. We can furthermore say that the time the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was the Caliph, it was because it was a diplomatic ploy of the secular power of the Ottoman Empire.

            Therefore, c) must be wrong. There are more Muslims than Sunnis, the Sunni Caliphate wasn't unique, and the Caliphate that ended in 1923 was not the original one.

            A less philosophical counter-argument could be the vigorous infighting between different Muslim groups we see today. I'm curious how the war on Iran changes that, if at all.

            • By spwa4 2025-06-1910:491 reply

              You're applying logic to dogma. I hope you understand your error at this point, but as to exactly what's wrong:

              ... every group of every monotheistic religion says and believes they're the only "true" group, their group is the only valid group, and the entirety of that religion. Islamic dogma states very clearly, and every muslim will repeat it, that there is "only one islam".

              This despite the fact that what you say is correct. There's 100s, minimum, of different versions of islam.

              Your idea, that history is clear proof to the contrary ... well history is clear proof that there is no god and therefore no valid religion. In the case of islam, one might point out that the central promise of islam as a religion is that muslims will win militarily, because god will intervene directly (but "of course" what is currently happening in Iran proves they are wrong and every other group of muslims is right - this is the sort of argument you're up against). The fact that any caliphate fell at all is a pretty damn obvious contradiction to the entire religion.

              Frankly, I must say, I like the "goal" of Christians and Jews a whole lot better.

              • By Propelloni 2025-06-1917:38

                I'm not going to argue, because I think you are right. It's still fun to think rigorously about some random statement ;)

        • By victorbjorklund 2025-06-198:05

          Does that mean all Americans should be stripped of their other citizenship since they have allegiance to a foreign state? For example Barron Trump is a dual citizen.

        • By peterlada 2025-06-195:081 reply

          Totally disagree.

          • By JumpCrisscross 2025-06-195:126 reply

            > Totally disagree

            Hence debatable.

            Let me escalate: I think such a bill would find bipartisan support. Right now might be a good time to attempt it.

            I hate the idea of revoking citizenship. But a question about swearing, on naturalisation, that your supreme allegiance is to America should be incredibly popular to secure.

            • By WastedCucumber 2025-06-196:12

              Hate to break it to you, but you'd have to find support from the IRS / Ways and Means Committee first. For these institutions, the primary characteristic of US Citizenship is filing your taxes, no matter where to live or if you've ever even lived in the country. This puts the USA in the same odd category as Eritrea, Hungary, and I believe one other country.

              And despite the difficulty of revoking US citizenship, the rate of revocations has increased over the last decade or two. If there was such a simple way to toss out that old rag, I'm sure there would be many more (and a little less tax revenue).

              So I'm afraid* the USA is much more transactional than you think, at least regarding citizenship.

              *I must admit this is sarcasm. Thank god the US is transactional rather than so stubbornly patriotic about citizenship.

            • By birn559 2025-06-195:391 reply

              That would have the consequence that naturalized citizen would be second class. Because they have to watch out for what to say, otherwise somebody might denounce them and they have to fight against their live being destroyed.

              • By JumpCrisscross 2025-06-196:062 reply

                > would have the consequence that naturalized citizen would be second class

                I know more born citizens with a second nationality than naturalised ones who gave up their first.

                • By birn559 2025-06-196:19

                  The same argument still applies.

                • By exe34 2025-06-196:131 reply

                  Could you say a few words on why you think the words you have written justify the words you have quoted?

                  • By JumpCrisscross 2025-06-1915:15

                    The class of American citizens with two nationalities is populated more with the native born than naturalised citizens. If the class became second class, the latter would be—I suspect—underrepresented in it.

            • By adastra22 2025-06-195:24

              You are conflating naturalization with born citizens.

            • By tdeck 2025-06-198:26

              I think it would take more than an act of Congress.

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk

            • By simondotau 2025-06-196:451 reply

              Revoking citizenship for any reason (other than for abject fraud) means that citizenship means nothing.

              Also, to be pedantic, you don’t have to have citizenship of a foreign country in order to have a greater allegiance to it.

              • By lipowitz 2025-06-197:18

                > Also, to be pedantic, you don’t have to have citizenship of a foreign country in order to have a greater allegiance to it.

                The behavior of the christian conservative cult is a bit more than a pedantic detail at this point. Why is trying to get Israel into a conflict to get Jesus to come and accelerate the end of all jews on Earth not antisemitism? I don't see wanting to use the Jew for cockfighting making it to the State Department's summary of antisemitism.

            • By victorbjorklund 2025-06-198:07

              You know Trumps own wife and son are dual citizens right? Is he going to strip them of their citizenship and deport them?

      • By slg 2025-06-194:353 reply

        That is a strange one to call out as too broad because it is literally an ancient form of antisemitism going back to the Romans.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_loyalty#Jewish_Believers

        https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/us/politics/jews-disloyal...

        • By f33d5173 2025-06-195:061 reply

          The point is that is may be admitedly true on the part of the one accused.

          In general, you should be wary of "forms of antisemitism" (or similar "forms of x-ism/x-phobia/etc"). Such things usually consists of the defensible but vacuous notion that "doing X in an antisemetic way is antisemetic", while attempting to imply that doing X is antisemetic in general, regardless how it's done, or at the least that doing X is suspect. But the only proof that has been provided in such cases is that X has ocassionally been done in an antisemetic way, which you could say for just about anything. Since X in these cases is not per se anti semetic, it is more helpful to identify what antisemetic thing has often been done alongside it, and be on the lookout for that, instead of for X.

          • By slg 2025-06-195:191 reply

            What is a context in which it is acceptable to say that an American's loyalty to this country can't be trusted because of their ethnicity/religion? Some of these definitions are too broad, but this is not the example to use in that argument. Accusations of dual loyalty are widely recognized as antisemitism.

            • By DangitBobby 2025-06-195:431 reply

              > because of their ethnicity/religion

              You specified that. The excerpt did not.

              • By slg 2025-06-196:25

                I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are calling attention to the phrasing of the excerpt rather than insinuating that Jews collectively are more loyal to Israel than the US.

                I admit the phrasing of the excerpt does look vague out of context, but it is about the collective of Jewish people. That is suggested by the excerpt saying "Jewish citizens" rather than "a Jewish citizen". It should also become more clear if you click through to the original and see all the other examples are about the Jewish people as a collective too. So yes, this text is specifically about the "because of" even if the excerpt doesn't make that explicit. It is not saying that any accusation of disloyalty is inherently antisemitism. For example, if a Jewish American citizen was arrested with real evidence of them being an Israeli spy, there would not be a serious discussion of whether the arrest was an act of antisemitism.

        • By Zaheer 2025-06-195:192 reply

          This isn't theoretical. There's literally cases of ICE kidnapping people off the streets for writing an innocuous op-ed in a magazine:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_R%C3%BCmeysa_%C3%...

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil

          • By slg 2025-06-195:24

            What did I say that made you think I support the ICE kidnappings? I was making a very specific point that you seemingly received as a much different general point.

          • By sibhezt 2025-06-195:38

            [flagged]

        • By axel6665 2025-06-195:15

          [dead]

    • By chasd00 2025-06-190:551 reply

      Thanks for some actual information. I’m trying to find the directive to force student social media profiles to be public but can’t find anything yet. This article mentions everything in the wsj article that I could read (no sub) but makes no mention of requiring profiles be “public”. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/18/social-media-screen...

      • By ddeck 2025-06-194:111 reply

        >I’m trying to find the directive to force student social media profiles to be public but can’t find anything yet.

        It's on all the US embassy sites, although it says "are requested":

        Effective immediately, all individuals applying for an F, M, or J nonimmigrant visa are requested to adjust the privacy settings on all of their social media accounts to ‘public’ to facilitate vetting necessary to establish their identity and admissibility to the United States under U.S. law.

        https://uk.usembassy.gov/visas/

        https://ca.usembassy.gov/visas/

        https://in.usembassy.gov/visas/

        etc.

        • By JumpCrisscross 2025-06-195:041 reply

          > It's on all the US embassy sites, although it says "are requested"

          The smart ones won’t sign to it. The dumb ones will take too long to arrest and charge.

          • By ascorbic 2025-06-199:20

            They'll just deny them a visa.

    • By barbazoo 2025-06-193:593 reply

      > However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

      • By somenameforme 2025-06-194:411 reply

        Of course when people's applications are rejected, exactly 0 reason will be given other than that they failed the screening process. So nuances like this are, in practice, irrelevant. When the obvious motivation is to eliminate criticism of the Israel, all they're going be looking for is criticism of the Israel.

        • By Aeolun 2025-06-1917:14

          I find it very hard to believe any current student would not be critical of Israel.

          They haven’t exactly been model citizens these past few years.

      • By krunck 2025-06-1919:40

        It's easy for one to criticize Israel in a way that one does not criticize other countries because there are no countries acting like Israel is at the moment: Genocide, apartheid, unprovoked war, etc, etc.

        Plus it acts this way with the blessing of so-called liberal democracies so that we must confront the absolute hypocrisy by voicing our criticism.

      • By KingMob 2025-06-194:38

        ...which is immediately followed by a bunch of counter-statements carving out exceptions.

    • By 834h3o9hf 2025-06-1921:26

      The facts are in — just delete social media.

    • By hearsathought 2025-06-193:097 reply

      Does the DHS also screen for people who post anti-chinese, anti-russian, anti-canadian, anti-mexican, etc social media posts? Why screen for anti-israel comments only? I'm guessing they are not screening for anti-palestinian or anti-muslim posts.

      Imagine if DHS said they are going to ban anyone who criticizes china or russia or saudi arabia from traveling to the US? Both the republicans and democratics would be raising hell. Why the silence when it comes to israel?

      What Homeland is DHS securing? The US or Israel? Why is it that so much of our political class openly and unabashedly act like agents of israel? Doesn't matter who you vote for. Republican or democrat. As soon as they are elected, they all grovel for israel. How many wars are we going to fight for israel? How many american colleges are we going to attack for israel? How many people are we going to censor for israel? Just doesn't make any sense.

      • By jampekka 2025-06-198:331 reply

        > Why is it that so much of our political class openly and unabashedly act like agents of israel?

        According to Jimmy Carter:

        "The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.

        It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians."

        https://www.latimes.com/news/la-oe-carter8dec08-story.html

        Carter was of course widely (and absurdly) slandered as an antisemite. He probably wouldn't get a visa.

        • By EvgeniyZh 2025-06-1919:031 reply

          Oh yeah, "Jews control the government", such a new trope that has nothing to do with antisemitism.

          Let's fact check, I have almost zero interest in US politics and know two members of Congress speaking frequently in defense of Palestine (Ilhan Omar and AOC). In fact, both called for ceasefire while Hamas terrorists were still in Israel. Ihlan criticized Israel even before the election to Congress. Was it almost politically suicidal for them?

          • By const_cast 2025-06-1919:541 reply

            > Oh yeah, "Jews control the government", such a new trope that has nothing to do with antisemitism.

            He didn't say that.

            > know two members of Congress speaking frequently in defense of Palestine

            This is your evidence? Really? I mean, do you guys hear yourselves?

            Two members of congress? Out of hundreds? Two members who, might I remind everyone, are constantly accused of being anti-American communists?

            > Was it almost politically suicidal for them?

            Yes! These two are treated like the scum of the Earth by 100% of the American right and 80% of the American left!

            It's not even debatable that the US is absurdly pro-Israel. I don't know what we're even arguing here. Zionists should all agree that Zionism is good, right? So why are we arguing that Zionists are some sort of minority? You should be ecstatic that our government is explicitly Zionist!

            • By EvgeniyZh 2025-06-1920:221 reply

              > He didn't say that.

              Sure, you replace "Jews" by "Zionists" and then every trope is ok. It's Zionists who have the power to influence or direct US government behavior (i.e., control it).

              > Two members of congress? Out of hundreds?

              Well yeah, to show something possible it's enough to show one example.

              > Yes!

              How is being elected to Congress political suicide?

              > It's not even debatable that the US is absurdly pro-Israel.

              I'm not debating that. I'm debating the idea that this is somehow doing of evil Zionist lobby or that repeating antisemitic tropes is not antisemitic because you euphemize Jews by Zionists

              • By const_cast 2025-06-1920:27

                > Sure, you replace "Jews" by "Zionists" and then every trope is ok

                Yes, because Zionism and Judaism are not related. Zionism is the belief that Jews are entitled to a Jewish Ethnostate and they may create that state through violence and colonialism.

                That has nothing to do with being Jewish. I would wager the majority of Jews are not Zionists. And being not-Jewish doesn't make you not-Zionist. The Third Reich were Zionists.

                > Well yeah, to show something possible it's enough to show one example.

                That was never the argument. The argument was that the US government is explicitly Zionist. Which they are. Nobody is claiming literally everyone within our government is a Zionist. Because that's stupid and obviously not true. You're creating a strawman.

                > euphemize Jews by Zionists

                Nobody is doing this. They're calling Zionists Zionists because said Zionists are saying "I am a Zionist". These policies, for example, are explicitly Zionist. The US government is explicitly Zionist.

      • By nashashmi 2025-06-193:46

        It is a litmus test: Israel is the most controversial western (not middle eastern) country and if you don’t criticize it, there is a good chance you will not criticize any western nation including the US. You will be easily bullied by the US govt with a tape over your mouth.

        Or this is the story line that US politicians have bought and unpacked after being hand delivered by AIPAC with a brief case of money plus a set of blackmail love letters waiting to be leaked if they don’t take it.

        I am convinced that our govt never had spine to stand up for freedom unless Israel/lobbyists were behind it. They quarrel amongst themselves because of Israel and agree in large numbers because of Israel.

      • By mahirsaid 2025-06-195:25

        Most likely the very same people that passed it are part of the lobbying of you know who ( i don't want to say the exact names or party). Any future bills in favor of that foreign country will be hard to protest against. petitioning will be heavy criticized for being anti-semitic in nature firstly, which will delay any reverse action to a bill, such as a arms deal package or some aid in war effort such what's happening right now. another way to block none align congress vote or civil pushback.

      • By kotaKat 2025-06-1911:45

        Whoa, whoa, whoa!

        > Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

        That's awfully anti-Semitic thinking of you, buddy. ICE HSI would like to know your current location for your free trip to the gulag.

      • By petre 2025-06-193:312 reply

        > What Homeland is DHS securing? The US or Israel?

        There are more Jewish people in the US than Israel. I guess this is what they're securing against?

        https://www.adl.org/resources/report/audit-antisemitic-incid...

        Or who knows, maybe they ban Trump critics or commies from entering the US? I will definitely avoid travelling to the US due to the Trump Administration's hostility towards immigrants. These screening policies will probably remain in place under the next administration.

        • By KingMob 2025-06-194:411 reply

          There are more Jews in Israel than the US, but it's close. Roughly, 6mil to 7mil.

          • By slg 2025-06-194:532 reply

            There are also roughly 100 million Evangelical Christians in the US who are strongly in favor of political support of Israel too. It is a little silly to think the American position on this is exclusively about wooing the votes of 6 million people who will overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats anyway.

            • By afpx 2025-06-1913:141 reply

              Not true. That assumption reflects a dated and oversimplified narrative. Most Evangelicals under 50 give no special status to Israel. No scripture instructs modern Christians to give political Israel special treatment.

              I'm an Evangelical, and like many others, I don’t prioritize foreign policy through the lens of Israeli politics. Our core mandate is global discipleship, not geopolitical allegiance.

              • By slg 2025-06-1917:01

                You are right that young Evangelicals are less supportive of Israel, but that is an overall trend in the US[1] and not specific to Evangelicals. Maybe the rest of what you said is true about your specific church, but it doesn't seem to match the general polling data.

                For example, "support for Israel among evangelicals is largely based on age and Biblical knowledge and has not been substantively impacted by the current Israel-Hamas war in Gaza... a belief that "God's covenant with the Jewish people remains intact today" has the greatest impact on support for Israel among a number of potential political, theological, sociological, and demographic factors... evangelical support for Israel remains stable from 2021 to 2024, though earlier surveys did show a sharp decline in evangelical support for Israel between 2018 and 2021...A decrease in core evangelical behavior like attending church and reading the Bible. Past studies have shown that these religious practices increase support for Israel."[2]

                In addition, "The only U.S. religious groups that have a majority favorable view toward Israel are Jews (at 73%) and Protestants (at 57%), according to the survey. In particular, 72% of white evangelicals view Israel favorably... Among American Jews, 53% do not have confidence in Netanyahu and 45% do. The only U.S. religious group to demonstrate confidence in Netanyahu is white evangelical Protestants."[3] And once again, these groups are not comparable in size meaning there are a lot more supportive Evangelicals than supportive Jews.

                There is also the matter of the US's current ambassador to Israel being an Evangelical who texts the president stuff like this[4].

                [1] - https://www.newsweek.com/israel-poll-gen-z-biden-election-19...

                [2] - https://religionnews.com/2024/06/03/new-study-measures-senti...

                [3] - https://www.jta.org/2025/04/09/united-states/most-americans-...

                [4] - https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2025/06/17/trump-posts-fa...

            • By jasonfarnon 2025-06-195:251 reply

              " exclusively about wooing the votes of 6 million people "

              Surely you aren't suggesting political power is just about the numbers? That one group of 6 million people has the same political sway as any other block of 6 million?

        • By hearsathought 2025-06-193:432 reply

          > There are more Jewish people in the US than Israel. I guess this is what they're securing against?

          There are more chinese in the US than jews. So is DHS going to ban anyone who makes anti-china posts? We have a lot of arabs and palestinians. Why isn't DHS protecting them? Shouldn't DHS check every israeli's social media for anti-palestinian comments?

          > Or who knows, maybe they ban Trump critics or commies from entering the US.

          What does that have to do with israel and "antisemitism"?

          • By petre 2025-06-193:54

            > Why isn't DHS protecting them?

            I'm not sure the DHS is protecting anyone other than the Trump Administration's narratives at this point.

          • By subjectsigma 2025-06-193:492 reply

            [flagged]

            • By JumpCrisscross 2025-06-195:09

              > Jewish people are literally being gunned down in the streets in the US

              Lots of folks are being gunned down. Nobody, particularly not those who claim to represent Jewish interests, gives a fuck.

            • By hearsathought 2025-06-194:081 reply

              > Jewish people are literally being gunned down in the streets in the US, so you don’t need to put antisemitism in scare quotes.

              That comment was in response to : "Or who knows, maybe they ban Trump critics or commies from entering the US." I was asking what trump critics or commies have to do with israel or "antisemitism".

              > That being said, I don’t think this has anything to do with Israel, and everything to do with Trump trying to steal more power.

              Right. A policy specifically tailored for israel has nothing to do with israel. The prime minister of israel asked the US government to attack US colleges for "antisemitism" because so many college students were protesting against israel's genocide against palestinians. I'm sure that has nothing to do with israel also.

              > I’m not Jewish so I can’t speak authoritatively, but the Jews have a very long memory and the Holocaust was only 60-ish years ago.

              What does this even mean? Also, do you think just randomly throwing in the "holocaust" is making an argument?

              > I can’t imagine the majority of Jews in the US would support fascist government surveillance.

              What?

              I asked a simple question of why so many US politicians act like lackeys to israel. And every response so far has been awkward and obvious. Let me guess, you're next door neighbor is a holocaust survivor.

              • By subjectsigma 2025-06-194:311 reply

                [flagged]

                • By JumpCrisscross 2025-06-195:111 reply

                  > Jews still pray prayers written during the Crusades asking for peace in the Middle East

                  Literal thoughts and prayers.

                  I have no horse in this race. But what folks say, whether prayers for peace or death to Israel, shouldn’t matter in a hot war.

                  • By subjectsigma 2025-06-1910:47

                    I was using it as an illustrative example, so the contents of the prayers don’t matter, they could have been praying to see unicorns. Did you read the comment?

      • By peppers-ghost 2025-06-1915:03

        Israel is a defacto extension of the US. They're a part of us as much as Texas is.

    • By claudiulodro 2025-06-1914:43

      For context, I'd also recommend the Heritage Foundation's Project Esther playbook which the administration has clearly been following: https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/report/project-esther...

    • By huevosabio 2025-06-195:193 reply

      > Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

      > Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor

      > Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

      > Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

      ...

      Many of the examples make sense, but these four above are absurd.

      • By mrkramer 2025-06-199:031 reply

        > Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

        I draw comparisons to Roman Empire, would that please them better? Because Roman Empire also had racist expansionist state policies.

        • By suddenlybananas 2025-06-199:121 reply

          You can call the Roman Empire many things but to call them racist is very anachronistic

          • By mrkramer 2025-06-199:352 reply

            Romans called barbarians anyone who is not from the Roman Empire, I don't think Israel thinks any better of its Muslim neighbors. And Jews had pretty bad experience under the Roman Empire in then called Judaea and now Palestinians have pretty bad experience under Israel. Palestinians are Jews of the Islamic world as well as Kurds.

            • By sillystu04 2025-06-199:501 reply

              The Romans never referred to the Greeks, Jews or Egyptians as barbarian. If they did it certainly wasn't with great frequency.

              It almost always targeted at the tribal Anglo, Celtic or Germanic peoples. And in these circumstances it was really an insult at their style of government rather than their ethnic identity.

              • By rightbyte 2025-06-1910:38

                Wasn't the insult to the way their languages sounded, i.e. a onomatopoetic word?

      • By grafmax 2025-06-199:37

        Genocide is human beings at their worst. Suppressing the condemnation of genocide means any speech can be suppressed.

      • By dlubarov 2025-06-195:292 reply

        How so? Double standards for the only Jewish state seems like a pretty clear example of antisemitism, at least.

        (It's usually difficult to decisively prove that someone is applying a double standard, but I think here we're assuming that was somehow firmly established.)

        • By huevosabio 2025-06-195:472 reply

          On that one (and many of the Israel-related ones) I think the problem is that it implicitly assumes that because you do, you do it because of antisemitism.

          But I could have double standards for all type of countries! I tend to hold the US at a higher standard than most countries for almost anything, and I think everyone holds Germany to a much higher standards with respect to minority rights (particularly, Jews) than other countries.

          I think people overindex on Israel as "the only Jewish state", and less as "just another country". I wish we could entirely separate the identity of the Jewish people and the state of Israel at least in the discourse. It would make everything healthier.

          • By birn559 2025-06-196:17

            All of the mentioned bullet points could be applied to other countries.

            While I think there's quite a lot of antisemitism out there, I find it questionable trying to deduce antisemitism. Explicitly expressed antisemitism itself is something else. I also find it very questionable to redefine the term that it includes deductions.

          • By dlubarov 2025-06-1915:27

            If there's some universal principle underlying your treatment of the US, I wouldn't really call that a double standard, assuming the principle is based on things like economic or military capabilities and not race, national identity, etc.

        • By jaoane 2025-06-197:41

          Why is criticism of the only Jewish state antisemitism but then whites can’t even think of having their own state?

    • By CommanderData 2025-06-198:02

      It's always been about Israel.

      Everything from Tiktok bans to banning social media for teens. Who's going to fight US wars if your canon fodder witnessed Israel's inhumane behaviour as teens growing up. Nothing todo with China.

      It's a national security threat alright.

    • By keernan 2025-06-192:062 reply

      >>You have more freedom to criticize the US Government than to criticize a foreign country.

      I doubt that. I would honestly be shocked if anyone with anti-Trump posts would 'pass' DHS screening.

      • By TimorousBestie 2025-06-193:031 reply

        The IHRA definition of antisemitism is so vague that it includes otherwise innocuous and/or factual statements.

        > “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

        In IHRA’s defense, this definition was never intended for legal use. But here we are.

        • By timr 2025-06-194:253 reply

          They go on to discuss more than a page of examples, all of which sound completely reasonable to me. Or perhaps you could just quote the very next paragraph, which is pretty specific:

          > Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

          • By somenameforme 2025-06-194:531 reply

            A key issue in this is that the screening process is completely opaque. I have acquaintances who have tried to get visas to the US, and it usually takes several attempts - with nothing really changing in between. It mostly comes down to the exact immigration officer working somebody's application, and the waxing and waning of the moon.

            The reasons given are extremely broad, so it makes nuances like this largely irrelevant. If an immigration officer perceives their duty (or maybe it's just their own personal opinion) to be to reject applications which are critical of Israel, then that's exactly what they're going to do. And you have no ability to appeal decisions, not that you'd even know what caused those decisions.

            FWIW the people I'm referencing were also completely upstanding, educated individuals with high competence in English. It's a great way to make one loathe the double standard given to people who just illegally cross the border. Even moreso when you consider that each of these applications costs hundreds of dollars in places where that's often a rather substantial sum of money (just as it would be in most places in e.g. South America).

            • By timr 2025-06-1911:04

              Yeah, I’m not saying anything about the idea of screening someone based on the content of their thoughts (i.e. their social media feed). I’m only commenting about the purported unreasonableness of the definition of antisemitism.

              There are obviously issues of subjectiveness here, but that’s also nothing new in the world of immigration. These decisions are made by humans, not robots (or at least, robots trained by humans).

          • By TimorousBestie 2025-06-1910:48

            “X might include Y”, “X frequently Z”, “X is often W”: these phrases do not legally define anything, they’re merely vibes. If I argue that a particular statement is neither Y, Z, or W, that doesn’t logically imply that it isn’t X.

            If a censor is trying to determine if a particular post doesn’t contain antisemetic content, this paragraph is not helpful.

            Well, they do state one negative criterion:

            > However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

            I have never seen this principle successfully cited as an affirmative defense, however. They give examples that contradict this quote, so I don’t think we’re supposed to take it seriously.

          • By KingMob 2025-06-194:521 reply

            Many are reasonable, but several are not.

            > Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

            One does not entail the other. You can support our right to self-determination while not supporting Israel's apartheid-style policies, but this sentence conflates them.

            > Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

            This is pure whataboutism. Israel is actually given incredible leeway by America, and I usually see this trotted out to shut down legitimate criticism. There's a good discussion to be had about why we don't criticize China, or why we ignore atrocities in African countries, but none of that absolves Israel from its misdeeds.

            > Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

            Call it "sparkling ethnic cleansing" then. Ironically, actual genocide scholars have pointed out that when the Shoah is your metric, then almost nothing can compare, rendering the word useless.

            • By timr 2025-06-1910:502 reply

              > > Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

              > One does not entail the other. You can support our right to self-determination while not supporting...policies, but this sentence conflates them.

              Uh...exactly? You're criticizing the state. Per the definition you can do that, but you can't generalize to the people. And certainly, calling the state a "racist endeavor" should cross the line?

              Basically, all three of your examples boil down to the same thing: you want to accuse a nation of something bad, and think it’s somehow unfair that, under this definition, you can’t then accuse a people of the act. That isn’t ambiguous. If you did the same thing for, say, Chinese people and the CCP, you’d be equally wrong. Jewish people are not of one mind about current events, and that seems like a fairly obvious point.

              As far as the third item, specifically, any comparison to the Nazi party is so hyperbolic as to be in obvious bad faith.

              • By harimau777 2025-06-1911:181 reply

                Accusing a nation of something bad is precisely what their definition of anti-semitism includes. The examples they gave are all from the controversal definition of anti-semitism.

                • By timr 2025-06-1911:241 reply

                  > Accusing a nation of something bad is precisely what their definition of anti-semitism includes.

                  They literally say the opposite, right in the paragraph I quoted at the top.

                  Yes, they give examples of criticizing Israel. But the point of the examples is that you a) can't apply standards unique to Israel, and b) if you do criticize the country, it's not fair game to extend it to an entire people.

                  • By SauciestGNU 2025-06-1915:041 reply

                    But under this guideline it seems that if I say "ethnostates are a crime against humanity and Israel is committing genocide to create an ethnostate just like the Nazis did" I'm violating these guidelines in a number of ways despite this being purely political criticism leveled at the state and not at Jewish people.

                    • By timr 2025-06-1916:381 reply

                      It seems to me that you’ve understood the point and are now just attempting to play games with code.

                      • By SauciestGNU 2025-06-1917:31

                        I'm not sure what you mean, can you elaborate?

    • By mrkramer 2025-06-198:562 reply

      This is dystopia in the making, 1984 coming alive, first of all; why someone's social media activity would be the matter of the government? Everybody in the world has freedom of speech, it is a human right. US will no longer be free if it peruses politically motivated persecution and segregation. This is political hysteria akin to anti-communist and anti-Japanese hysteria during WW2 and after.

      And secondly why would US government target only anti-semits, will they check for anti-white racism, African-American racism, anti native-American racism, homophobia etc. This is a mess of a policy. And Trump is openly homophobic and anti-LGBTQ+, what that should tell us?

      Abraham Lincoln said: "At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

      • By toast0 2025-06-1915:04

        > This is dystopia in the making, 1984 coming alive, first of all; why someone's social media activity would be the matter of the government?

        I don't know that it's specifically required for a visitor visa, but 'Good Moral Character' is required for naturalization in the US. Activity on social media is probably an indication of moral character, so it's not unreasonable to check social media before issuing visas that have a path towards citizenship. Student visas may technically be visitor visas, but there's a clear path F-1 -> OPT -> H-1B -> EB-2 or EB-3; if you're going to check on moral character at the end of all that, you may as well check at the beginning too.

        What constitutes good moral character might not be a great question for a government to decide. There is certainly potential and precident of the government using good moral character as a proxy for discrimination that has nothing to do with morality.

      • By iLoveOncall 2025-06-1910:042 reply

        > Everybody in the world has freedom of speech, it is a human right

        This is absolutely not true.

        There isn't a single country in the world with absolute freedom of speech to begin with. And even if we take the very permissive freedom of speech of the US, it is matched by only very few countries, even in the west.

        As a simple example, here's a map of the countries where it's at least an offence to insult the head of state: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Lese-maj...

        • By immibis 2025-06-1910:11

          The US doesn't even have free speech, as we can see from this event happening right now. Many European and European-style countries have weaker constitutional protections, but stronger actual protections in reality, than the USA. The USA's constitution significantly differs from the USA's reality.

    • By georgeburdell 2025-06-193:051 reply

      The criticism of Israel thing is not what you think it’s for.

      • By lurk2 2025-06-193:151 reply

        What do you think it is for?

        • By georgeburdell 2025-06-194:002 reply

          It’s Trump’s latest incarnation of a “Muslim ban”. As a side bonus, it also targets the Left

          • By lurk2 2025-06-194:39

            I think that’s what most people thought it was for.

          • By somenameforme 2025-06-194:142 reply

            This is nonsense. At this point in time anybody who isn't of a very specific political persuasion is going to be criticizing Israel, including most Israelis!

            • By KingMob 2025-06-194:562 reply

              > including most Israelis!

              Not quite. Don't confuse criticism of Netanyahu with criticism of Israel. Many dislike Netanyahu for various reasons, but are still broadly supportive of Israeli policies.

              • By JumpCrisscross 2025-06-195:25

                > Many dislike Netanyahu for various reasons, but are still broadly supportive of Israeli policies

                More importantly, most Americans don’t care about foreign policy.

                The decades-long failure by the American left has been projecting Vietnam-era protests against the draft to modern foreign policy.

              • By somenameforme 2025-06-195:21

                This is definitely not true. For instance 69% of Israelis support(ed) ending the Gaza 'war' after a hostage exchange. [1] Only 21% opposed.

                It's going to be impossible to get reliable polling on Iran right now because Israel's going extremely authoritarian with domestic 'information warfare.' But it's fairly certain that most Israelis will oppose what's happening, once they can speak again. For instance in early 2024 Israeli decided to destroy the Iranian embassy in Syria, killing multiple generals amongst others. This led to a largely performative counter-strike by Iran. And here 74% of Israelis opposed continued escalation if it harmed security alliances. [2]

                And the Israeli government decided to carry out the recent invasion when global support for Israel is already at record lows, which means it is obviously going to hurt security alliances, especially in the mid-term (double entendre intended). Search my post history and you'll find I've been notably favorable towards most Trump policies. If an election was held tomorrow I'd happily vote against him (and anybody else who supports this stupidity), a million times over, if he drags us into another forever war. And I think that corresponds to a sizable chunk of his support. People think "we" wanted out of Ukraine out of preference to Russia. In reality "we" just want the US to stop getting involved, and wasting money (to say nothing of lives), in stupid wars all around the world, period.

                [1] - https://www.timesofisrael.com/69-of-israelis-54-of-coalition...

                [2] - https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-74-of-israelis-oppose-cou...

            • By llm_nerd 2025-06-1911:391 reply

              But they are spot on. The performative declaration of war on so-called antisemitism by this administration is 100% just a façade to target Muslims.

              Anyone who truly believes this administration, or the American right wing in general, cares about antisemitism suffers from extraordinary levels of gullibility. The incantation of George Soros as the master manipulator behind everything "the left" does in the US is a pretty transparent placeholder for "The Jews Control Everything". White replacement theory is predicated on the belief that "The Jews" are for some reason trying to water down every white nation with masses of immigrants by sneaking in and sneakily changing immigration to open borders. Virtually every crazed conspiracy among the US right somehow ends up at "The Jews".

              But it is utterly perverse that questions or criticism of the actions of a pretty vile sovereign can be dismissed as antisemitism. Many if not most American Jewish people are deeply critical of the things the Israeli government is doing (all under the cover of "to question it is antisemitism"). Israelis, though....polling of Israelis is extraordinarily uncomfortable, to such a degree that I would hardly consider the country "Western" as it is often called.

              • By somenameforme 2025-06-1916:121 reply

                Trump's daughter is married to an Orthodox Jew and also converted to Judaism herself. That's something that's not like other religions where you can just say you're a Christian (of this denominator or that) - it's an official, tested, and very extended affair, particularly in the Orthodox tradition. In other words, it's "real." And Trump has always been deferent, come obsequious, to Israel, like many US politicians. In fact he was the first sitting President to visit the Wailing Wall back in his first term - traditionally US Presidents do that before elections.

                Evangelicals are also probably the most reliable base for the Republican party (though remain a minority within it), and they have an extremely positive relationship with Israel.* And then on top of this the Israel lobby is well funded and tends to shower pro-Israel politicians in money in public, and I doubt the support ends there.

                This is a somewhat long-winded way to say that - yes I do believe this administration is completely and sincerely focused on Israel and the interests of Israel, and I think there are a million reasons to think this is the case. And I also don't think this is a good thing, because the Israeli government seems to have lost their minds, and I think the world was already far closer to WW3 (and has been for a number of years now) than most appreciate.

                What would be billions dead because of a nutter government and US politicians love affair with Israel would make just about as much sense as Brits killing Germans because a Bosnian Serb assassinated an Austro-Hungarian royalty.

                ----

                * - that's actually changing with younger generations, but it still remains mostly true.

                • By llm_nerd 2025-06-1917:49

                  >yes I do believe this administration is completely and sincerely focused on Israel and the interests of Israel

                  100%, and I completely agree with you. This administration seems positively subservient to Israel.

                  But they don't care an iota about antisemitism. Many in Trump's circle are infamous antisemites. It has long been an observation that Trump is pro-Israel yet paradoxically simultaneously an antisemite. Trump himself seems to view Jewishness as being loyal only to Israel -- he has quite literally stated this -- and that those that aren't loyal to Israel are not actually Jews. Trump has frequently repeated stereotypes and caricatures about Jews.

                  I don't for a moment think Trump cares an iota about antisemitism, even though I think he's a strong ally of Israel. Which is fair because it's possible to be critical of Israel without being an antisemite. The simple conflation of the two -- as this administration does -- is itself antisemitism. I conflates Jews worldwide as mere vassals of Israel.

  • By octo888 2025-06-195:526 reply

    My desire to visit the US just went sub zero.

    The worst part is this has the possibility to spread to other countries (that the US can twist the arm of) because they want to extend their policies further.

    • By xtracto 2025-06-1913:252 reply

      Right, just freaking stop going there. Americans have made it loud and clear (by voting with majority) that they don't like outsiders.

      Stop going to the US. Is it pretty? There are way better places on earth. Is it fun? There are way funnier places ok earth. There's no reason to submit to all that degrading behavior.

      Good riddance. Let the. Keep their decadent country to themselves until it crumbles.

      • By soared 2025-06-1914:434 reply

        To be clear, at this point the majority of Americans do not support the current administration. So blaming it on the American government is more apt.

        • By tempaccount420 2025-06-1919:111 reply

          If a little less than half the people on the street hated you, would you feel comfortable walking that street?

        • By phire 2025-06-1917:09

          The majority voted for this government... They don't get to wash their hands of it just because some people later changed their minds.

        • By overfeed 2025-06-1919:301 reply

          > To be clear, at this point the majority of Americans do not support the current administration

          At the very least, the majority of Americans certainly condoned the current administration at the polling booth - or couch. The Trump campaign can't be accused of not being up-front with its agenda.

          • By sbelskie 2025-06-1920:001 reply

            A plurality of those who voted, you mean.

            • By overfeed 2025-06-1920:17

              Choosing not to vote when you're eligible is a statement in itself - which why I referred to the couch.

        • By jampekka 2025-06-1915:481 reply

          Majority supports the immigration agenda though.

          • By quantified 2025-06-1916:301 reply

            That's not clear. The problems and the agenda don't align. Majority definitely supports fixing the problems, but the political leadership clearly supports keeping things dysfunctional. Remember that the US Congress was ready to pass legislation to solve before the last election, and Trump made them stop it so he could campaign on the problems.

      • By mig39 2025-06-1914:102 reply

        I'm Canadian. Before Trump, I made several trips a year to the USA. all my vacation money was spent there. Now I go to Europe every summer instead.

        Meanwhile, I recently received a survey from some industry association in the USA asking what it would take for me to return to travelling in the USA. Like asking a bunch of questions about accommodations, travel, flights, etc. Without even mentioning the obvious.

        Do Americans not know how they are perceived in the rest of the world?

        • By quantified 2025-06-1916:34

          As an American, I can only believe it because I know the dipshts that got elected. I wouldn't come here. This is all a real wtf.

          Note that in the pre-social media era, this particular bs would not be possible.

        • By idkfasayer 2025-06-1919:50

          [dead]

    • By quite-sfwd 2025-06-198:04

      Some countries don't even need the arm twist (eg Central/South America) they'd just copy the US out of inertia.

    • By jampekka 2025-06-198:404 reply

      > The worst part is this has the possibility to spread to other countries (that the US can twist the arm of) because they want to extend their policies further.

      UK is already almost as bad. But UKs political elite is maybe even more pro-Israel than USAs.

      • By ascorbic 2025-06-199:152 reply

        It really isn't. The UK government has strongly criticised the Israeli government's actions, and has applied sanctions to some far-right Israeli government ministers:

        - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-from-the-... - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-partners-unite-to-...

      • By TheOtherHobbes 2025-06-199:251 reply

        We lost a potentially transformative prime minister because of an insane media campaign that painted him as simultaneously wildly anti-semitic and a lackey of Putin - when the reality was that he was (still is...) popular with Jews in his local constituency, and had been protesting Russian atrocities as soon as they started, while the official story was that Putin was a potential ally who would be good for business.

        It's been genuinely shocking to see how many EU leaders are in lock step over this. Only Spain and Ireland have broken ranks and called Gaza what it is.

        • By sofixa 2025-06-1912:461 reply

          While I agree on Corbyn being wrongly painted as an antisemite, he is still a piece of shit Putin lackey.

          https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corb...

          August 2022, after the invasion of Ukraine, calling for "peace" by stopping shipments of armaments to Ukraine, saying they won't solve anything. The useless communist party of France has the same rhetoric, as do the far right loonies here. Because letting Ukraine fall to the Russians will definitely get peace.

          Anyone with that sort of opinion is either incredibly dumb, or paid by the Kremlin.

          • By jampekka 2025-06-1914:171 reply

            Well, how much have the shipments solved? Any peace agreement after these years of carnage will be a lot worse for Ukraine than was on the table in 2022.

            Labeling those with different views on Ukraine-Russia policy as putinists is the same phenomenon as Israel critics being labeled antisemites or pro-Hamas.

            • By sofixa 2025-06-1914:22

              > Well, how much have the shipments solved? Any peace agreement after these years of carnage will be a lot worse for Ukraine than was on the table in 2022.

              What peace deal was on the table for Ukraine in 2022? Surrender and let their population be brutalised by the Russians, their culture and language erased, their civilians and military tortured and raped? Great deal, I wonder why they didn't take it.

              It has solved the immediate problem of limiting the Russian expanse and subsequently war crimes in Ukraine. It's literally the best that can be done right now, until Putin realises he can't win.

              > Labeling those with different views on Ukraine-Russia policy as putinists is the same phenomenon as Israel critics being antisemites or pro-Palestine.

              No, because both sides in the Israel/Palestine conflict both have good points and deficiencies. Both have a right to exist, and both have done terrible things to one another. There are nuances, and there can be a solution where both exist. But both need to take part of it.

              In Ukraine, Russia is a genocidal regime invading its neighbour. Ukraine being forced to give up territory and concessions on army/NATO restrictions would just guarantee they'll be weaker for Russia to invade again in a few years. If you want peace, take it up with Putin. Preventing help getting to Ukraine to defend itself is serving Putin's interests and nothing more. The war stops the second Putin stops.

      • By GJim 2025-06-1920:45

        > UK is already almost as bad.

        My earlier comment was removed for calling you out on this ridiculous whatabout-ism.

        This topic is attracting some strange moderation.

      • By GJim 2025-06-198:52

        [flagged]

    • By franczesko 2025-06-197:469 reply

      USA is a beautiful place to visit and people are very hositable. I think that there's a big difference between what people do and what the state does. I do agree however, that what is happening in this country right now is deeply concerning.

      • By jeroenhd 2025-06-198:472 reply

        The same can be said about just about any country.

        Based on the way Americans vote, I don't think that hospitality is there for the majority of Americans. I know the way the American system of politics has shifted to a binary choice doesn't leave much room for nuance when it comes to specific policies, but when Americans were faced with a choice between a racist, misogynist, fraudulent, insurrectionist sex offender and anyone else, they showed their values.

        Plus, the country's leader announced he was considering invading a close ally, that kind of threat cannot be ignored either, though it's only one of the more recent threats to world peace that only happens to hit close to home for me. I'm sure people in the Middle East and Central or South America will have heard this kind of talk before.

        In the same vein, I hope people judge my country for the fact that right extremists that have held a significant amount of power for years now. There are hospitable, kind people in every street in every town, but I won't pretend the average person will be like that; voter demographics have definitely been a continuous source of disappointment for me. Perhaps that's one of the downsides of democracy: the people of a country show their true colours quite publicly, and can't hide behind "that's just what the regime thinks".

        You're right about the beauty, though. America is a very pretty place.

        • By sofixa 2025-06-1912:431 reply

          > but when Americans were faced with a choice between a racist, misogynist, fraudulent, insurrectionist sex offender and anyone else, they showed their values.

          Don't forget serial cheater with multiple divorces (supposedly the choice of the religious people of "family values"), blatantly corrupt out in public, borderline senile (seriously, listen to the guy speak for more than a minute, it's barely coherent), mocking disabled people, etc etc etc.

          How that person is even seriously taken as a candidate, let alone actually winning anything, is genuinely beyond me. Especially for a second term after multiple convictions inbetween.

          • By laurentiurad 2025-06-1914:341 reply

            shows the morale decline of the general population

            • By quantified 2025-06-1916:35

              Moral, I think you mean.

              Being all "jesus christ is my savior" has nothing to do with actual morals, just power.

              Morale has declined too, though.

        • By jumpman_miya 2025-06-1911:09

          [dead]

      • By showsover 2025-06-197:58

        As can be said about Afganistan and its people. That doesn't mean it's not risky going there or that people are queueing to enter.

      • By kashunstva 2025-06-199:33

        > I think that there's a big difference between what people do and what the state does

        One of most famous speeches in U.S. history talks about a government that is “of the people, by the people, for the people.” If the State behaves in a certain way, it is of the people. Many people who cast their vote for the current regime are perfectly cordial in face-to-face interactions; but nonetheless they gave their consent to these policies. There is a deeply divided plurality, of course, but I’d rather limit my visits to the U.S. regardless of its natural beauties or the hospitality of its populace, be it real or superficial. Were I a student from outside the U.S., forget it, I would never consider it a safe option for post-secondary education. The absolute risk of serious harm, I imagine, is low; but who needs this humiliation?

      • By acdha 2025-06-1912:58

        > USA is a beautiful place to visit and people are very hospitable.

        There’s a high degree of variability there based on location, your English fluency, and skin color. I know people who’ve had very different experiences based on that - it’s why my white European friends never think twice about going on a backwoods camping trip but some from Africa or South America stopped. Even if most people are nice, the ⅓ or so set the tone for the entire trip.

      • By beloch 2025-06-199:491 reply

        Speaking as a Northern neighbour of the U.S., it rings hollow when we hear American state politicians telling us that they love Canadians and really hope we visit more (tourism is down) and go back to buying American (exports are down).

        The American government is waging economic war on us with the openly announced intention of annexing us. American pundits (and the idiot ambassador Trump sent us) tell us to downplay it, but the president keeps bringing it up!

        I'm still working to cut more American goods and companies out of my life. I'm sorry, but Americans are responsible for what their government does. If you wish to be forgiven, you must first stop doing what you say you're sorry for!

        • By amanaplanacanal 2025-06-1914:30

          I think most of us would like to get rid of our idiot president, but the only way to do it now is impeachment, which would require breaking the Republican majority in both houses of the legislature. It could possibly happen next year in the mid term elections, but it's going to be tough.

      • By Vinnl 2025-06-199:59

        The point of GP's remark was not to condemn the people or the beauty of the place, but that they didn't want to expose themselves to these rules.

      • By arunabha 2025-06-199:45

        > USA is a beautiful place to visit and people are very hositable

        Yeah, the jury is still out on the second part of the claim.

      • By ehnto 2025-06-1912:42

        Whilst that is nice to know, these are real tangible barriers to entry. Both literally and by making it a far less attractive place to cross the border.

        As a very run of the mill Australian, I would not feel safe crossing your border right now. The overreach, lack of transparency and documented instances of recent abuse put it at about the same risk as Russia or China. If border force is having a bad day, bad luck, you get fucked over with no recourse, no transparency. Too bad.

        It is no surprise that tourism has plummeted.

      • By tigrezno 2025-06-1910:37

        North Koreans are also good people but I'm not visiting that country ever

    • By laurentiurad 2025-06-199:23

      considering the low price of the aircraft tickets (at least from Europe) to the US, you are not alone.

    • By amazingamazing 2025-06-1911:441 reply

      It’s for the best - air travel is expensive climate wise and our planet is warming.

      • By ponector 2025-06-1914:101 reply

        Is it the only way to travel to the USA?

        • By amazingamazing 2025-06-1915:18

          The vast majority of those traveling to USA do so through plane, yes.

  • By testfoobar 2025-06-1823:384 reply

    Outside of just wanting privacy for its own sake, there are many, many reasons to keep social media profiles private: health privacy, sexual orientation privacy, relationship privacy, location privacy, financial privacy, etc.

    “To facilitate this vetting, all applicants for F, M and J non-immigrant visas will be asked to adjust the privacy settings on all their social media profiles to ‘public’”, the official said.

    • By dashundchen 2025-06-194:241 reply

      The party who loves to scream about social credit scores in China is essentially implementing... A social credit score, where only government approved speech is allowed.

      • By tempodox 2025-06-195:37

        I can already see it transform from “must not be critical” to “must be pro-American propaganda”.

        One you see that extortion works, you tighten the screws to see how much you can get out of it before it flops.

    • By sneak 2025-06-193:064 reply

      Another of the thousand reasons people should delete their Facebook and Instagram accounts.

      • By irjustin 2025-06-193:146 reply

        Question: Does this create more problems?

        i.e. "I don't have a social media"; "Sureeeee buddy"; "I really don't, I deleted it"; "We'll wait here until you do"

        Some scary variation above.

        • By herbst 2025-06-196:55

          Talked to police guy once for something unrelated. The moment I mentioned I don't have a telephone number all alarm bells went off in this man and you could tell the police guy was suddenly suspicions.

        • By BLKNSLVR 2025-06-194:281 reply

          I have vague but genuine concerns about that. I legitimately don't have any social media accounts. Does HN count? Well, none that can be casually associated to the name on my passport.

          • By GJim 2025-06-198:563 reply

            > Does HN count?

            Social media is where one shares ones social life (it's in the name!). Technical discussion forums are something entirely different.

            Naturally, there is sometimes crossover (I'm thinking of a motorbike forum I frequent), but to suggest the likes of HN is social media is demonstrably false.

            • By 0manrho 2025-06-1913:361 reply

              Thats some semantic pedantic gymnastics. Even if you could persuade me to agree with you (and I very much do not) it does not matter. The only definition that matters here is the governments, and they LOVE overreach.

              • By GJim 2025-06-1920:42

                > Thats some semantic pedantic gymnastics.

                Ummmm. No. It's a statement of fact.

                > The only definition that matters here is the governments,

                No. It's the courts.

            • By Symbiote 2025-06-199:37

              "Github" is on the drop-down list of social media identifiers for a US ESTA (visa waiver) application.

            • By zarzavat 2025-06-1910:481 reply

              Under your definition Reddit and Twitter/X aren't social media either, since you're mostly interacting with strangers. I believe your definition doesn't reflect how the term is used.

              • By GJim 2025-06-1913:12

                Bizarre response.

                One can share ones social life with strangers!

                In fact Reddit is a prime example of a site with crossover between technical discussion forums, social media forums and mixed ones.

        • By sneak 2025-06-193:20

          This is only the case today because it makes you an outlier.

          When it’s common to have deleted your accounts due to widespread privacy impacts, it won’t be such a showstopper.

          Be the change you wish to see in the world.

        • By catlikesshrimp 2025-06-194:131 reply

          Now that we are there, deleting social media presence for privacy concerns, you will need to keep a "Stub" account to access the parts of life that require social media accounts: marketplace, local groups, immigration.

          • By jjulius 2025-06-1912:01

            I killed my accounts with fire some time back and have yet to come across a single instance where I've felt that I've needed some kind of "stub" account. YMMV, however.

        • By jajko 2025-06-199:32

          Not at all, many friends have at least tried to cancel FB account, even when those assholes are making it a very lengthy and painful process. We talk about doctors and surgeons here in their 30s and 40s, wife is a doctor who waits for second year to get her FB account deleted so these are our social circles.

          Its sort of a mark of upper class (or just having a class) in more developed societies these days.

          Sidenote - all folks here working for meta - shame on you. I get the greed part, but then you define what sort of human being you are and what your legacy is.

        • By bigbacaloa 2025-06-194:17

          [dead]

      • By emodendroket 2025-06-196:36

        Not having social media is itself considered suspicious in these same guidelines. Or at least that's what I read in the news when they started talking about this recently.

      • By jmye 2025-06-193:121 reply

        Wouldn’t that be likely to be taken as identical to having a locked one? I don’t use traditional social media, and never have, and have always assumed that would cause me to “fail” a test like this.

        (Sorry, I mean this to read as a question, not an assertion.)

        • By Liquix 2025-06-195:562 reply

          if having an instagram/tiktok/facebook/etc is a hard requirement for entering the country, we've truly reached peak clown world

          • By codedokode 2025-06-197:221 reply

            If 99% have the account then rejecting the 1% seems like a good way to not let different weirdos (like me) enter the country?

            And the irony is that this would reject only those who properly did the paperwork and won't stop the people who prefer different methods of entry.

            • By emodendroket 2025-06-1916:401 reply

              Nobody is illegally entering the country and then beginning graduate studies at Harvard, so if you understand this as an attack on universities and an attempt to essentially “close” the country then it makes perfect sense. That JD Vance interview where he went on about “we didn’t need immigrants to get to the moon” is probably the clearest statement of their outlook.

          • By emodendroket 2025-06-196:40

            Being unreasonable seems like half the point.

    • By vFunct 2025-06-191:22

      There’s also a lot of reasons to have a completely public social media account.

    • By Mountain_Skies 2025-06-1823:548 reply

      Much of the world is against LBGTQ+ rights. If an immigrant has social media posts expressing open hatred and even calls for violence against people with sexual orientations not approved of in their home culture, will you still have an open mind about welcoming them in the US with open arms?

      This isn't theoretical. Both China and India, the two countries that supply the most students to the US, prohibit marriage equality. Both have extensive discrimination throughout their societies, both at the government and cultural levels.

      • By UncleMeat 2025-06-191:162 reply

        The only students who've ever called me a homophobic slur were born in the US.

        • By eddythompson80 2025-06-193:083 reply

          Man, I'm sorry to tell you. But you must not have been around the world much.

          • By JumpCrisscross 2025-06-195:281 reply

            > you must not have been around the world much

            Gay man here. Multi-ethnic, world travelled.

            American evangelicals are up there with the mullahs in opposing both free society and everything Christ preached.

            • By throwaway290 2025-06-1910:291 reply

              Your comparison of Muslims and American evangelicals has self selecting bias. There are places where non straight orientation is punishable by law or extrajudicially. Maybe they call you homophobic slurs but you might not walk to tell the tale. None of those places are Catholic as far as I know. One or two of them bordering Israel. In Russia if it's not done by Muslim extremists than by fascists/activists or by government classifying LGBT as extremism. (This is not anti Russian propaganda, it's in the laws. I lived in Russia for most of my life and I met let me count... zero gay people that I know of. But I know some forever unmarried people, I wonder what's going on;)

              • By JumpCrisscross 2025-06-1915:12

                > There are places where non straight orientation is punishable by law or extrajudicially

                I didn’t mean to suggest the comparison was exhaustive. Just that both those groups, if they had control of a state, would do exactly this. (And when they have had such control, they have. See American evangelical effects on liberty in their African missions.)

          • By UncleMeat 2025-06-1911:06

            There are homophobic people all over the world, but the topic of discussion is people coming to the US on student visas.

          • By bigbacaloa 2025-06-194:18

            [dead]

        • By dullcrisp 2025-06-192:50

          I’m sure we can still deport them to El Salvador.

      • By kennywinker 2025-06-190:142 reply

        Until 2015 gay marriage was illegal in many states. Plenty here hold pretty nasty anti lgbtq beliefs. This is a bad argument for screening visa applicants for beliefs, and not what this new rule will be used for. It will be used to deny anyone critical of israeli genocide, people who think we shouldn’t destroy the planet’s climate, and people who think women should control their own bodies.

        • By andsoitis 2025-06-193:371 reply

          > This is a bad argument for screening visa applicants for beliefs, and not what this new rule will be used for.

          And do you think permanent residency or citizen applicants should be screened for their beliefs?

        • By sibhezt 2025-06-195:302 reply

          [flagged]

          • By disgruntledphd2 2025-06-196:291 reply

            What do you call what's happening in Gaza then?

            • By sibhezt 2025-06-196:541 reply

              A war, an armed conflict. Started by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups against Israel, on October 7th 2023.

              • By disgruntledphd2 2025-06-198:34

                If it's an armed conflict then it started a long time before that. Otherwise Israel wouldn't have built the hilariously named "Freedom Wall".

                It's incredibly depressing that the Jewish people have basically done unto others as was done to them. Even if we don't consider it a genocide, then it's definitely a pogrom and Gaza and the West Bank are ghettos. I would have hoped that at least one people might have learned that this kind of stuff is wrong based on their own history.

                But i guess all that we learn from history is that no-one learns from history.

          • By kennywinker 2025-06-196:341 reply

            “Curate” away the 4k footage of children, doctors, refugee camps being bombed, aid blockades starving people? Must be nice to have your head in the sand like that. Quibble over the word genocide all you want - it is very clearly a genocide unfolding in front of us.

            • By sibhezt 2025-06-196:582 reply

              This is not a genocide. It is a war. A war started by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups on October 7th 2023.

              • By kennywinker 2025-06-1915:43

                This started long before oct 7th, but even if it was started then it wouldn’t make the mass murder and starvation of civilians justified.

                Maybe curate your feeds a little better if you actually believe what you’re saying.

              • By immibis 2025-06-1915:08

                If the war started on Oct 7, why were bombs falling on Oct 6, Oct 5 and Oct 4?

      • By voidUpdate 2025-06-198:20

        I mean, given the current political climate, I think someone with posts like that would be welcomed easily, and people who are pro LGBT, especially pro-trans, would be denied outright

      • By sundaeofshock 2025-06-190:012 reply

        Yes. I wouldn’t be happy they hold those views, but I don’t support basing a person’s entry into the US on how the feel about Donald Trump.

        Of course, your scenario is a big ol’ straw person, as those beliefs are not what they are screening for.

        • By dmoy 2025-06-190:072 reply

          It might not be what the US is screening for, but if you're forced to make your account public, not just to the US, then your own government would also know.

          • By thfuran 2025-06-192:40

            Yes, that's part of why it's a bad idea.

          • By mahirsaid 2025-06-195:39

            They will most likely force FAANG to disclose this anyway. Some of which already have contracts with that country that is at war.

        • By bastardoperator 2025-06-190:11

          This isn't a screening process, it's a deterrent.

      • By digianarchist 2025-06-190:002 reply

        Right. That’s what these new powers will be used for. To defend LGBT folks in the United States. /s

        • By BLKNSLVR 2025-06-194:42

          Well, to me, it sounds as if the ban on LGBT folks joining the armed forces is a kind of protection of LGBT folks, especially given the world seems to be moving towards an inevitable near-future in which US forces will be deployed to Canada, Greenland, Panama, Iran, Russia (to protect it from invasion by Ukraine and/or Europe), Gaza (to protect the construction of Trump's Oasis on the Mediterranean), Taiwan.

          Non-LGBT front line.

        • By derektank 2025-06-190:523 reply

          Obviously not by this administration, but if we are creating new powers, the question of the principle is relevant and its potential use by a Democratic administration is also relevant.

          I, personally, don't see a problem with creating an ideological test for certain kinds of visa holders or permanent residents. As Karl Popper noted in outlining the paradox of tolerance, unlimited tolerance can lead to the destruction of tolerance itself. I think it's worth exploring ways for the government to prevent enemies of liberalism from entering the country, even if we already face illiberalism at home.

          That being said, I think this specific proposal threatens personal privacy far too much to be justified.

          • By scarecrowbob 2025-06-193:26

            I dunno, I think it's not super great that I might not be able to pass an ideological test to get into my own damn country. Why do they get to say that what I believe isn't "American".

            Like, I'm "Texas from Texas"- my anglo ancestors go back before the 1836 revolution.

            But I'm not a racist so I have often been told that I'm "not really from Texas".

            It's the same vibe here. I'm way more worried about the fact that they wouldn't let me back into the country if I had to pass an ideological litmus test than I am worried that someone with illiberal beliefs is going to join the other theocrats in Texas.

          • By riffraff 2025-06-194:07

            Are you really advocating for 1984's thoughtpolice?

            If someone has "bad" ideas and they keep them to themselves by having private social media accounts, it's crazy to think it's a risk to society.

            Countries already have rules to deal with hate speech, inciting riots, etc.

          • By TheOtherHobbes 2025-06-199:38

            To add some nuance to Popper's argument, the implication is that intolerance means violence against others.

            People can believe whatever they like as long as they don't become a movement dedicated to murdering those they don't like.

            Historically, observably, and objectively, the US right has much more of a history with political murder than the left does.

            This isn't some ideological purity test about "liberalism". This is about maintaining a culture that supports a broad spectrum of views in a peaceful way.

            When the state itself crosses that line the state itself becomes oppressive, and would-be residents should be asking themselves whether that's the kind of state they want to live in, or visit.

      • By bigyabai 2025-06-191:324 reply

        Many Americans have never seriously looked at a map before. Should they be categorically denied entry to foreign countries for their stereotypical ignorance?

        Here in America, you can't put someone on trial for a crime they haven't committed. Even if you think they're from a suspicious country. That's called racial profiling, and it's forbidden by civil rights laws for a reason; nobody should have to tolerate the indignation of their peer's stupidity.

        • By lurk2 2025-06-193:29

          > you can't put someone on trial for a crime they haven't committed.

          What do you think happened in a trial where a not guilty verdict is reached?

        • By recursive 2025-06-192:59

          If we know someone has committed the crime before the trial, we could really streamline the judicial process.

        • By Freedom2 2025-06-191:591 reply

          > Here in America, you can't put someone on trial for a crime they haven't committed

          Actually in the US you can - it's why there's stories of innocent men and women being released from jail after other evidence proves their innocence (eg: DNA).

          • By bigyabai 2025-06-192:54

            That's exactly why they're being released, though. If you manufacture a bogus case or plant evidence against someone, that's not probable cause. You're not acting within the acceptable norms of a just society, and the rectification of these cases is proof. Oftentimes the falsely persecuted will countersue, especially if they get an early injunction.

        • By andsoitis 2025-06-193:35

          > > Should they be categorically denied entry to foreign countries for their stereotypical ignorance?

          You missed this bit that parent said:

          "If an immigrant has social media posts expressing open hatred and even calls for violence against people with sexual orientations not approved of in their home culture, will you still have an open mind about welcoming them in the US with open arms?"

      • By frollogaston 2025-06-190:21

        To answer your question, yes those people should be welcome, yes I'm ok with people coming from China and India.

HackerNews