Freedom of expression clashes with Trump’s proposal to access migrants’ social networks

Once again, the Donald Trump government has taken hold of national security to promote a migratory measure that, according to critics, threatens the right to privacy and freedom of expression. The proposal allows the United States citizenship and immigration service (USCIS) to access the social networks accounts of asylum applicants, permanent residence and naturalization. The information obtained would be used to decide its permanence in the United States.

«This is an important violation of freedom of expression, guaranteed by the first amendment of the United States Constitution, and therefore is unconstitutional and illegal,» says one of the comments he has received. Until May 5, the public can give their opinion on the initiative, which will help the Executive decide whether or not to enter into force. Many of the opinions, to a large extent under anonymity, agree to denounce the violation of the right to freedom of expression. Some, harder than others. «Violation of freedom of expression and an attempt by an aspiring fascist authoritarian dictator to crush dissent,» says one of the comments.

The authorities will force migrants to request the permanent residence declared by their users in all the social networks they use. This obligation was already imposed on visa applicants who are outside the country, but not those who already reside in the United States. The proposal is part of the Executive Order entitled Protection of the United States against foreign terrorists and other threats to national and public security, which the tycoon signed as soon as possible on January 20.

From USCIS, they justify that the order «requires the collection of all the necessary information for a rigorous research and selection of all causes of inadmissibility or bases for the denial of migratory benefits.» The data obtained will be «to help validate the identity of an applicant and determine if the granting of a benefit represents a threat to the public security of the United States.»

For Kathleen Joseph-Bush, an analyst at the Institute of Migration Policy, «the interaction between immigration and freedom of expression is very complex» for «the discretion they have to deny requests or revoke migratory benefits.» In your opinion, if the proposal comes into force, it will have an effect on the new applications, since it will make «the lawyers tell their clients to be careful with what they publish online because it could end up being examined by the United States government.»

The fact that the applicants of a new immigration status have to censure what they say because of the reprisals that may arise is precisely the basis of criticism. “This rule would mean that any applicant for permanent residence or naturalization could not express themselves freely in social networks for fear of being deported, for giving an opinion that the government does not like. There is already news in the press about foreign citizens who have been rejected on the border for publishing or writing on social networks criticizing the current administration. The first amendment protects the right to freedom of expression without fear of punishment or reprisals Inhibitor in the ability of immigrants to exercise that right, ”says a citizen in his comments.

Human Rights Defensor Groups have already denounced the executive order on which the proposal is supported by considering that it violates fundamental constitutional rights, since it allows to expel foreigners who express «hostile attitudes» towards the government, the US institutions or culture.

The Administration is currently carrying out deportation processes against Mahmoud Khalil, a postgraduate student at Columbia University and legal permanent resident in the United States, for participating in proportions last year, although he has not been accused of any crime. He also wanted to deport Badar Khan Suri, an academic from India who works at Georgetown University, for accusations that he has links with Hamas and has shared his online propaganda.

In another case, the French government declared last week that a scientist of that nationality was prohibited from entering the United States because messages were found on his telephone in which he criticized the policies of the Trump administration in the field of academic investigation, although the Department of National Security has denied it.

The collection of data and information that is considered private is for some a reason to compare the United States with other authoritarian countries. «It reflects the same massive surveillance tactics used in authoritarian regimes such as China and Russia. It is deeply worrying that a country that defends democracy and human rights now adopting the same repressive strategies that condemns abroad,» reads a comment.

The proposal, however, not only awakens criticism. Those who support it rely on national security to defend it. «An excellent way to identify anti -American immigrants before granting US citizenship,» says Jesse Tucker, identified as exmarine. «I am totally in favor. We protect the United States at all costs!» Collect another comment.