Connect with us

Politics

U.S. immigration officials look to expand social media data collection

Published

on


U.S. immigration officials are asking the public and federal agencies to comment on a proposal to collect social media handles from people applying for benefits such as green cards or citizenship, to comply with an executive order from President Donald Trump.

The March 5 notice raised alarms from immigration and free speech advocates because it appears to expand the government’s reach in social media surveillance to people already vetted and in the U.S. legally, such as asylum seekers, green card and citizenship applicants — and not just those applying to enter the country. That said, social media monitoring by immigration officials has been a practice for over a decade, since at least the second Obama administration and ramping up under Trump’s first term.

Below are some questions and answers on what the new proposal means and how it might expand social media surveillance.

The Department of Homeland Security issued a 60-day notice asking for public commentary on its plan to comply with Trump’s executive order titled “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.” The plan calls for “uniform vetting standards” and screening people for grounds of inadmissibility to the U.S., as well as identify verification and “national security screening.” It seeks to collect social media handles and the names of platforms, although not passwords.

The policy seeks to require people to share their social media handles when applying for U.S. citizenship, green card, asylum and other immigration benefits. The proposal is open to feedback from the public until May 5.

“The basic requirements that are in place right now is that people who are applying for immigrant and non-immigrant visas have to provide their social media handles,” said Rachel Levinson-Waldman, managing director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program at New York University. “Where I could see this impacting is someone who came into the country before visa-related social media handle collection started, so they wouldn’t have provided it before and now they’re being required to. Or maybe they did before, but their social media use has changed.”

“This fairly widely expanded policy to collect them for everyone applying for any kind of immigration benefit, including people who have already been vetted quite extensively,” she added.

What this points to — along with other signals the administration is sending such as detaining people and revoking student visas for participating in campus protests that the government deems antisemitic and sympathetic to the militant Palestinian group Hamas — Levinson-Waldman added, is the increased use of social media to “make these very high-stakes determinations about people.”

In a statement, a spokesperson for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service said the agency seeks to “strengthen fraud detection, prevent identity theft, and support the enforcement of rigorous screening and vetting measures to the fullest extent possible.”

“These efforts ensure that those seeking immigration benefits to live and work in the United States do not threaten public safety, undermine national security, or promote harmful anti-American ideologies,” the statement continued. USCIS estimates that the proposed policy change will affect about 3.6 million people.

The U.S. government began ramping up the use of social media for immigration vetting in 2014 under then-President Barack Obama, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. In late 2015, the Department of Homeland Security began both “manual and automatic screening of the social media accounts of a limited number of individuals applying to travel to the United States, through various non-public pilot programs,” the nonpartisan law and policy institute explains on its website.

In May 2017, the U.S. Department of State issued an emergency notice to increase the screening of visa applicants. Brennan, along with other civil and human rights groups, opposed the move, arguing that it is “excessively burdensome and vague, is apt to chill speech, is discriminatory against Muslims, and has no security benefit.”

Two years later, the State Department began collecting social media handles from “nearly all foreigners” applying for visas to travel to the U.S. — about 15 million people a year.

Artificial intelligence tools used to comb through potentially millions of social media accounts have evolved over the past decade, although experts caution that such tools have limits and can make mistakes.

Leon Rodriguez, who served as the director of USCIS from 2014 to 2017 and now practices as an immigration attorney, said while AI could be used as a first screening tool, he doesn’t think “we’re anywhere close to where AI will be able to exercise the judgment of a trained fraud detection and national security officer” or that of someone in an intelligence agency.

“It’s also possible that I will miss stuff,” he added. “Because AI is still very much driven by specific search criteria and it’s possible that the search criteria won’t hit actionable content.”

“Social media is just a stew, so much different information — some of it is reliable, some of it isn’t. Some of it can be clearly attributed to somebody, some of it can’t. And it can be very hard to interpret,” Levinson-Waldman said. “So I think as a baseline matter, just using social media to make high-stakes decisions is quite concerning.”

Then there’s the First Amendment.

“It’s by and large established that people in the U.S. have First Amendment rights,” she said. This includes people who are not citizens. “And obviously, there are complicated ways that that plays out. There is also fairly broad authority for the government to do something like revoking somebody’s visa, if you’re not a citizen, then there’s steps that the government can take — but by and large, with very narrow exceptions, that cannot be on the grounds of speech that would be protected (by the First Amendment).”


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Florida Supreme Court disciplines 10 lawyers for various acts of chicanery

Published

on


Ten lawyers from across the state found to have engaged in various acts of misconduct were disciplined by the Florida Supreme Court in March.

Four of the lawyers were disbarred, another two had their licenses to practice revoked, three were suspended and one was reprimanded by the high court, according to a Florida Bar news release.

One of the more lurid cases involves Maurice DeShawn Hinton of Fort Lauderdale. Hinton was suspended from practicing law for two years by the Supreme Court after he neglected his clients and failed to properly communicate with them.

“In one instance, Hinton engaged in a sexual relationship with a client, and after the relationship ended, he neglected the client’s matter and failed to communicate with the client,” the Bar news release said.

“Hinton also engaged in the practice of law while under a delinquency for (Florida Bar) membership fees and continuing legal education requirements. Additionally, Hinton failed to respond to The Florida Bar during the disciplinary proceedings.”

Thomas Arthur Chandler of Sarasota was disbarred by the Justices after he pleaded no contest to driving under the influence in a third or subsequent conviction in Manatee County.

Malik Leigh of Tallahassee was disbarred for making several threatening social media posts against several defendants involved in litigation, one of them being the Palm Beach County School District. Leigh also made false accusations about opposing legal counsel, committed multiple rule violations in a case, failed to comply with numerous court orders and falsely accused a Circuit Court Judge of racial bias.

Chance McClain of Lake Park was disbarred after representing his mother, then engaged in improperly transferring a Mercedes Benz and then getting disqualified from the case.

Charles Wade Price of Winter Springs had his license revoked but can apply for readmission after five years. Price misappropriated funds provided by a client that were supposed to be used in a bankruptcy case to pay creditors. Price was also suspended from practice before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Hammad Rashid Sheikh of Knoxville, Tennessee, was suspended from practicing in Florida. Sheikh accepted fees in eight immigration cases but did not diligently respond to handling those cases.

Jeffrey Marc Siskind of Wellington was disbarred after misappropriating large sums of money from two different clients.

Danielle Renee Watson of Tallahassee was suspended from practicing law for 91 days after falsely accusing opposing counsel of forgery and then ignoring phone calls and emails from that attorney who wanted the claim corrected.

Lisa Renee Wilcox of Pilot Point, Texas, had her license revoked, but can seek readmission in five years. Wilcox engaged in a conflict of interest by taking action that was adverse to a client’s interest.

Shayne Jeremiah Epstein of Boca Raton received a public reprimand after being involved in a recruiting company that focused on getting jobs for foreign nationals. One of those foreign nationals was not informed by Epstein about a conflict of interest involving Epstein’s legal representation.


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Winner and Loser of the Week in Florida politics — Week of 3.30.25

Published

on


The Gators are officially hunting their third men’s basketball national championship.

With a win over Auburn Saturday night, their second victory over the Tigers this season, the University of Florida (UF) is heading to the championship game in San Antonio.

The Gators won 79-73 Saturday night, a much lower scoring game than their 90-81 win over the Tigers in early February.

UF overcame an 8-point halftime deficit and pulled away late in the second half thanks to a stellar performance from Walter Clayton Jr., who finished the game with 34 points. The Gators held Auburn’s top player, Johni Broome, to just 15 points.

The Gators are looking to revive their 2006-07 golden era, when they won back-to-back national championships with a historically great roster featuring Al Horford, Joakim Noah, Corey Brewer and Taurean Green.

Fans complained about how chalky March Madness has been this year. And we love upsets as much as the next guy. But every once in a while, it’s fun seeing the nation’s best teams duke it out with everything on the line. And from the Elite Eight onward, we got the most talent-packed matchups we’ve seen in recent memory.

Now, the Gators will have a chance to etch their names in the history books. It should be a fun one.

Now, it’s onto our weekly game of winners and losers.

Winners

Honorable mention: Tom Leek, Shevrin Jones, Ben Albritton. The Process can be frustrating at times, both for partisans who don’t get their way and for everyday Floridians who at times feel left behind by the back-and-forth in Tallahassee.

But this week, we saw a pitch perfect example of The Process working the right way.

Sen. Leek, an Ormond Beach Republican, was pushing legislation creating harsher penalties for manslaughter cases where a police officer is killed after a controversial case from a few years back. But that pro-law enforcement bill also contained language removing a requirement that police officers act in “good faith.”

Republican backers said the move was necessary to avoid confusion by a jury and further guarantee bad actors are punished if an interaction leads to a cop being killed. But several Black Senators, led by Jones, raised serious concerns about axing that provision and its repercussions, leading to a heated exchange followed by Leek pulling the bill from being voted on.

This week, all was resolved. The “good faith” language was inserted back into the bill, per an amendment posed by Jones, along with definitional language, and the legislation passed unanimously in the Senate. Senate President Albritton and Senate leadership were key to allowing the amendment to go through.

A lot of us who just want to see this state be the best version it can are really tired of the culture war hysteria and fatigued by fights in the Capitol over these issues. This easily could have been another example if Leek and other Republicans demanded to stay firm. After all, Republicans have a supermajority in both chambers. They can do whatever they want.

Instead, Leek listened. The bill got better for it. And what could have served as a legislative food fight instead is an example of lawmakers putting aside their partisan hats and working together to come to consensus.

This is where most Floridians are, no matter how loud the fringes get. And this week shows that if you stop, listen and take up suggested language to make a bill better (even from a Democrat), you can get unanimous support. Thank you to all of these Senators for showing how it’s done.

Almost (but not quite) the biggest winner: Byron Donalds. Donalds does it again.

This week continued to show Donalds building his case to be the front-runner in the 2026 Governor’s race.

First, he announced raising $12 million in his first month as a candidate. That’s a massive haul and a sign that Donalds has tapped into a network to heavily fund his campaign into next August, when the GOP Primary will take place.

Still have concerns he may not have enough resources? Well, Donalds later in the week added U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson’s endorsement. That’s a direct line into the national GOP donor network.

All of this doesn’t lock anything up 16 months away from any votes being cast.

But it does serve as example after example that more big moves — endorsements, major donations, etc. — are coming Donalds’ way down the line.

Meanwhile, Gov. Ron DeSantis says that if First Lady Casey DeSantis announces her own bid for Governor, she will wait until after this year’s Legislative Session — another month-plus away — to do so.

Great idea. Waiting until after Session to announce a campaign while a rival candidate freely builds up massive momentum has never hurt the DeSantises before.

The biggest winner: Randy Fine, Jimmy Patronis. Scoreboard.

They were outspent big time. Democrats honed in on these seats to show their anger at the Donald Trump administration. Critics — even Florida’s Republican Governor, in Fine’s case — hammered them over residency questions.

And none of it mattered. Both won by 14 percentage points.

Now of course, margins matter. These districts were both Trump +30 districts in November. The fact that Democrats cut the margins by at least half shows something — maybe just the weirdness of Special Elections, or maybe a sign, combined with the Wisconsin results, that Democrats have some successes ahead in more competitive districts.

So down the line, maybe Democrats in other states can build on these results.

But for now? They got nothing. No cutting into the GOP’s thin House advantage. No shocking the world and dunking on Trump.

Fine and Patronis will now likely be able to serve in Congress for as long as they like.

We hate to say we told you so.

Losers

Dishonorable mention: Donna Deegan. Deegan faced an admittedly tough decision this week regarding a Jacksonville law looking to crack down on illegal immigrants by requiring jail time: sign a law she vocally disapproves of, or veto it and invite the wrath of the DeSantis administration, which warned her and others not to interfere with the state’s push on this issue.

And with that choice ahead of her, Deegan made the tough decision … to do neither.

She instead just let the measure become law without her signature.

Talk about a cop out.

Deegan couldn’t sign the bill and invite the wrath of her supporters. But make no mistake: just letting this thing become law without a signature is the same exact thing. Yes, she could put on a performative display by refusing to sign it, but it changed absolutely nothing here.

If she was so opposed, and if she thought she was on firm legal ground in her opposition, she could have vetoed it. Yes, there would have been a backlash, but if that’s her position, then isn’t it incumbent on her to use every means necessary to resist?

And if she knew she was boxed into a corner legally and was essentially forced to accept this at law, then just sign it and explain to her supporters that her hands were tied.

Instead, Deegan tried to thread a needle and ended up taking the squishiest path possible. That’s not leadership.

Almost (but not quite) the biggest loser: Tampa Bay. It appears the Tampa Bay area is getting the short end of the stick in some significant ways when it comes to federal and state budgeting priorities.

Congress appears to be the big villain here. After Representatives from the area pushed for millions to fund water projects to help recover from devastating storms last year, Republicans in the House voted to cancel every single project. That includes pushes from Republican U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, as well as Democratic U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor.

“Some of these were pretty modest congressional appropriations, but they fill huge needs back home,” Castor said.

There’s more. An op-ed in the Tampa Bay Times from Rick Garrity, who used to lead Hillsborough’s Environmental Protection Commission, argued that cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency are going to harm the region’s water quality.

And food banks are warning that a funding slash targeting the U.S. Department of Agriculture will hammer food purchasing programs in Tampa Bay and the ability to distribute food to those in need.

On that latter point, the Florida Senate budget appears to make up some of the difference in the loss of federal funds. But so far, the Florida House isn’t going along.

Things like the Department of Government Efficiency cuts and Trump’s tariff program may lead to some long-term gain. Some believe they are absolutely necessary, even with the short-term pain they bring.

But these potential benefits only come if our leaders execute these plans, well, efficiently. And so far, the massive screw-ups we’ve seen in these areas the first few months of Trump’s administration are making a lot of people worry.

And in the meantime, these various silos in Tampa Bay are getting left behind.

The biggest loser: Jackson McMillan. This guy …

“Unethical.” “Hard to justify.” “Donor abuse.” Those were just a few of the phrases from Democratic consultants used to describe the fundraising strategy for the two Democratic congressional candidates who got blown out by Fine and Patronis Tuesday.

That money was essentially lit on fire here isn’t solely the fault of McMillan and his firm, Key Lime Strategies. Democrats nationwide were eager to see a sign of hope, and these were the first two congressional Special Elections in the country since Trump took office. Many donors probably didn’t realize how ruby red they were; they just wanted a place to vent. So money poured in.

But as Gay Valimont and Josh Weil raised around $16 million as of March 12, McMillan pocketed around $4.7 million during that time span.

Not bad for two elections where your candidates lost by nearly 30 points combined.

McMillan told Florida Politics that everything he charged, he displayed upfront.

Fair enough. But let’s pull back for one second.

As hype as these fundraising numbers were for Democrats, the chances they were ever winning these seats was always near zero, despite some of the breathless media coverage from outlets looking to gin up drama.

So without a win, what could Democrats realistically get from hauling in all of this money? They could have used it to build up infrastructure. They could have transferred some of it to a larger party apparatus that could use it for more competitive races.

You know what doesn’t help the Democratic Party? A consultant pocketing about a third of this massive haul for, again, delivering two 14-point losses.

So far, no one’s alleging anything illegal here. McMillan in his defense argued, in part, that this is just how the game is played. And to some degree, he is correct.

But as he pointed to other consultants hauling in big paychecks, we’d like to point out one thing: Many of those firms have actually won a lot of big races. That’s why Democrats hire them.

McMillan did nothing here and siphoned money that could have been spent better elsewhere. That’s great for him, and everyone should get a bag where they can.

But for Democrats actually looking to compete in this increasingly red state, we’re just not sure what McMillan is offering going forward.


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Auburn Tigers take on the Florida Gators in Final 4

Published

on


The game is tonight.

Florida Gators (34-4, 17-4 SEC) vs. Auburn Tigers (32-5, 16-4 SEC)

San Antonio; Saturday, 6:09 p.m. EDT

BETMGM SPORTSBOOK LINE: Gators -2.5; over/under is 159.5

BOTTOM LINE: No. 4 Auburn and No. 3 Florida meet in the NCAA Tournament Final Four.

The Tigers’ record in SEC play is 16-4, and their record is 16-1 against non-conference opponents. Auburn scores 83.2 points while outscoring opponents by 14.0 points per game.

The Gators’ record in SEC action is 17-4. Florida has a 2-1 record in games decided by 3 points or fewer.

Auburn averages 9.1 made 3-pointers per game, 2.4 more made shots than the 6.7 per game Florida gives up. Florida has shot at a 47.3% rate from the field this season, 6.7 percentage points above the 40.6% shooting opponents of Auburn have averaged.

The teams meet for the second time this season. The Gators won 90-81 in the last matchup on Feb. 8.

___

Republished with permission of the Associated Press.


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.