A new proposal aimed at foreign travelers should be thrown out.
Yes, the U.S. has (or should have) the right to determine who it lets into the country, and on what terms. And yes, we live in dangerous times, but this is a snoop too far.
Travelers visiting the United States from countries like Britain, France, Germany and South Korea could soon have to undergo a review of up to five years of their social media history, according to a proposal filed on Tuesday by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The change would affect visitors eligible for the visa waiver program, which allows people from 42 countries to travel to the United States for up to 90 days without a visa as long as they first obtain electronic travel authorization.
In a document filed on Tuesday in the Federal Register, C.B.P. said it plans to require applicants to provide a long list of personal data including social media, email addresses from the last decade, and the names, birth dates, places of residence and birthplaces of parents, spouses, siblings and children. . . .
This proposal should be thrown out.
To start with, the timing is terrible. X (and by extension, the U.S.) is embarked in a battle with the EU over online free speech, which will involve other combatants before long. This move, if implemented, will be used by Brussels (and in due course state censors in the U.K. and elsewhere) to accuse the U.S. of hypocrisy. It will invite retaliation against American travelers. It is also a power that is open to abuse by any administration, whether MAGA or woke, unwilling to allow foreigners with whom it disagreed into the country or set on discouraging online criticism from those who might want to visit the U.S. at some future date. Be careful what you tweet about Mayor Mamdani, Mr. Farage. . . .
The move will also be regarded as unfriendly by America’s allies at what can only be described as a delicate moment, and as something worse than that by this country’s tourist industry.
And for what?
The Times quotes Bo Cooper from Fragomen, a well-established immigration law firm. Cooper describes the move as a “paradigm shift” from when agencies used social media to verify specific facts, such as criminal activity,” and he’s not wrong. Cooper described the new approach as “looking at online speech, and then denying travel based on discretion and policy about the kinds of things that get said.”
What could go wrong?
And the idea that terrorists or other criminals will not circumvent such rules is laughable. To be sure, the U.S. should work hard to identify such people, especially when they want to come here, but this is a laughably futile, not so laughably destructive way of working toward this end.