Trump’s plan to access migrants’ social media account stirs free speech concerns

Once again, the Trump administration has invoked national security concerns to push through an immigration measure that critics say violates the right to privacy and freedom of expression. The proposal allows U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to access the social media accounts of asylum, permanent residency, and naturalization applicants. The information obtained would be used to determine their eligibility to remain in the United States.

“This is a major violation of freedom of expression, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional and illegal,” reads one of the comments to the measure.

The public has until May 5 to share their opinions on the initiative, which will help the executive branch decide whether it goes into effect. Many of the responses — largely submitted anonymously — argue the initiative violates the right to freedom of expression, some more strongly than others.

“A violation of freedom of expression and an attempt by a fascist authoritarian aspiring dictator to crush dissent,” reads one comment.

If the measure goes ahead, authorities will require immigrants applying for permanent residency to disclose their usernames on all social media platforms they use. While this requirement was already in place for visa applicants abroad, it had not previously applied to those already living in the United States.

The proposal is part of the executive order “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” which Trump signed on January 20, the day he took office.

USCIS justifies the order by stating that it “requires the collection of all information necessary for a rigorous vetting and screening of all grounds of inadmissibility or bases for the denial of immigration-related benefits.” The data obtained will be used “to help validate an applicant’s identity and determine whether such a grant of a benefit poses a security or public safety threat to the United States.”

For Kathleen Joseph-Bush, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, “the interaction between immigration and freedom of expression is very complex” due to “the discretion they have to deny applications or revoke immigration benefits.” In her opinion, if the proposal goes into effect, it will affect new applications, as it will force “lawyers to tell their clients to be careful about what they post online because it could end up being scrutinized by the United States government.”

Indeed, the main criticism of this requirement is that it forces immigration applicants to self-censor out of fear of potential retaliation.

“This rule would mean that any applicant for permanent residence or naturalization would not be able to freely express themselves on social media for fear of being deported for expressing an opinion the government doesn’t like,” reads one comment. “There are already news reports about foreign citizens being turned away at the border for posting or writing on social media criticizing the current administration. The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of expression without fear of punishment or retaliation, and this would have a chilling effect on immigrants’ ability to exercise that right.”

Human rights groups have condemned the executive order behind the proposal, arguing that it violates fundamental constitutional rights by allowing the expulsion of foreigners who express “hostile attitudes” toward the U.S. government, institutions, or culture.

The administration is currently seeking to deport Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student and legal permanent resident, for participating in pro-Palestinian protests last year — despite the fact that he has not been charged with any crime. It has also sought to deport Badar Khan Suri, an Indian scholar at Georgetown University, over allegations that he has ties to Hamas and has shared its propaganda online.

In another case, the French government recently stated that a French scientist was barred from entering the U.S. because border agents found messages on his phone criticizing Trump’s policies on academic research. The Department of Homeland Security has denied this claim.

For some, the collection of private data and information invites comparisons between the United States and authoritarian regimes. “It reflects the same mass surveillance tactics employed in authoritarian regimes like China and Russia. It is deeply troubling that a country that champions democracy and human rights is now adopting the same repressive strategies it condemns abroad,” one comment reads.

The proposal, however, is not without support. Advocates defend it on national security grounds. “An excellent way to identify anti-American immigrants before granting them U.S. citizenship,” says Jesse Tucker, a self-identified former Marine. “I’m all for it. Let’s protect America at all costs!” reads another comment.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition