Every world leader has the right to ensure that his or her country and its people are as safe as possible. It is an issue at the top of the list of priorities of anyone who holds the reins of power. So, the Trump administration cannot be faulted when it says it wants to start collecting the social media history of nearly everyone seeking a visa to enter the US.
This new visa application process would dramatically increase the amount of personal information applicants must share before they can enter the country. The new policy would require all immigrant and non-immigrant applicants to hand over all social media handles, email addresses and phone numbers used during the last five years. It also would increase the amount of information applicants must disclose about family members, employment and past travel.
The proposal, which comes from the State Department, would require most visa applicants to give details of their Facebook and Twitter accounts, Instagram, LinkedIn, Reddit and YouTube, China’s Sina Weibo and Russia’s VK.
The idea is subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The public will have two months to comment on the proposal before it makes a decision. The public’s reaction will surely include that the collection of social media information implicates civil liberties and human rights — free speech and privacy specifically — of not only the visa applicants themselves but also those of their American contacts. It’s one thing to ask for telephone numbers, email addresses and travel history, or be required to say if they had ever been deported from a country, or if any relatives had been involved in terrorist activity. But putting one’s online information out there will put freedom of expression under serious threat.
One can imagine the misunderstandings that could arise. Suppose someone who is not a terrorist nor wants to be one, wants to read or view or post material on what religion says about terrorism, who funds terrorism, how can someone be brainwashed on the Internet into committing terrorism, which countries have been affected most by terrorism, and terrorism incidences around the world. Visa officers can always misconstrue this innocent search for information as something more sinister than simply the desire to acquire knowledge. Such disclosures of social media can be used to discriminate against people who have done nothing wrong.
Free speech could be affected when arbitrary power is granted to officials to deny visas based on their interpretations of an individual’s social media history. Internet users will fear openly expressing personal or political views.
Above all, the two sides should exercise common sense. American visa officers should be firm on who wants to enter the US but also have an open mind and not let prejudice of a certain religion or skin color blind them. The applicant, too should consider any action online, should ask himself or herself if it could result in difficult questions in an immigration interview. People should review their search histories on all their digital devices before arriving, and consider the questions that they may raise. That would be the prudent thing to do.
Should the US start making subjective decisions about where people can travel based on their tweets and Facebook posts? It is a controversial question with no black and white answers. But the question of safety first for a country should overrule all else. Used the right way, the proposal would help to identify potential troublemakers and make for a more robust screening process. The Internet has become a big part of our lives and thus could be used by the authorities to weed out those who seek to harm the lives of others.
