Social media history for visas – Imagine this.
Social media history for visas. You’re a person just like most, with dreams, aspirations, and desires for the best life that you can build for yourself. Imagine you have spent months, or even years preparing the best argument for the people in charge, proving you deserve to live in a place that might have more opportunity than where you came from. Imagine you may even be doing this because where you are right now isn’t a safe place, not for you or your loved ones. Or maybe you just want to visit and work for a while, exploring the world just as countless others have before you.
All of these are understandable thoughts and wishes. It’s natural for human beings to want the best life possible for themselves and the people close to them. A lot of us, at some stage in our lives, have had to fight tooth and nail to secure our futures.
So what happens when all of this hinges on your social media history?
Social media history for visas. In order to apply for a visa in the United States of America, applicants must now submit 5 years of their social media history, among other things such as phone numbers and email addresses.
What does this mean for me?
Imagine once again that all of the above applies to you. After all the time and effort spent to try and enter a country, not to mention the potential for great changes in your life that could be hanging in the balance, your application is denied. And why?
Because, 3 years ago, you made a crude comment on a Facebook post that a friend tagged you in. A comment that was misconstrued by a government official, that decided because of that comment you didn’t deserve to enter the country.
Social media history for visas. The notion that the United States has propagated by demanding the social media history of immigration applicants is severe. It suggests that how we use the Internet to interact with others – to share parts of ourselves with friends and loved ones – is no longer safe. It implores those in positions of authority around the world to judge those who might be good as a threat to the nation based on one tiny, insignificant facet of their online presence that probably doesn’t reflect their true selves at all.
In light of these events, we encourage you to speak out for what you think is right. Ask questions. Why would such a proposal be considered, especially in what are known to be the countries with the most freedom in the world? Is this a part of life we should accept? And perhaps most importantly, will allowing authoritative figures to have such domain over our private lives open a door that would have been better off closed?
