US Could Ask Foreign Tourists For Five-Year Social Media History Before Entry (bbc.com)
- Reference: 0180361345
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/12/11/145213/us-could-ask-foreign-tourists-for-five-year-social-media-history-before-entry
- Source link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dz0g2ykpeo
> The new condition would affect people from dozens of countries who are eligible to visit the US for 90 days without a visa, as long as they have filled out an Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) form. Since returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump has moved to toughen US borders more generally - citing national security as a reason.
>
> Analysts say the new plan could pose an obstacle to potential visitors, or harm their digital rights. Asked whether the proposal could lead to a steep drop-off in tourism to the US, Trump said he was not concerned. "No. We're doing so well," the president said on Wednesday. "We just want people to come over here, and safe. We want safety. We want security. We want to make sure we're not letting the wrong people come enter our country."
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dz0g2ykpeo
Re: (Score:2)
> So they want you to share it not only with them but also with the entire world? If I want to get into the US I also have to let the Russians and the Chinese have a good look? No thanks!
I don't have any public social media accounts...but what if someone steals my photo and uses my name to create an account...am I somehow going to be kept from traveling because of a scam?
I had an aunt who had like 27 Facebook accounts (1 of which she controlled), all of which contained her photos and name (stolen), but only one of which contained extreme right-wing political content and cat photos (the one she controlled). Good luck trying to sift through 27 Facebook accounts full of scams, ads, get-rich-
Re: (Score:2)
Extreme right wing content - instant admission!
“Country” (Score:1)
> "We want to make sure we're not letting the wrong people come enter our country."
We want to make sure we're not letting the wrong people come enter our shithole country.
There FTFY.
Re:“Country” (Score:4, Informative)
> Asked whether the proposal could lead to a steep drop-off in tourism to the US, Trump said he was not concerned. "No. We're doing so well," the president said on Wednesday.
Keep in mind that statement is complete and utter crap. That's for the Fox News / Breitbart / Newsmax crowd who earnestly believe that (insert_EU_city) is a burning sharia law hellscape filled with "no-go zones" that police are terrified to enter.
Tourism is doing pretty darn terrible according to those sinister libs at, checks source, Fortune
[1]Exclusive: U.S. businesses are getting throttled by the drop in tourism from Canada: ‘I can count the number of Canadian visitors on one hand’ [fortune.com]
Or those dirty commies at, checks source, Forbes
[2]U.S. Tourism Will Lose Up To $29 Billion As Visitors Plummet Amid Trump Policies [forbes.com]
Not that it isn't intentional in some ways.
[1] https://fortune.com/2025/12/10/us-businesses-canada-border-throttled-drop-canadian-tourism/
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2025/07/03/us-tourism-lose-29-billion-trump-policies/
Re:“Country” (Score:5, Informative)
This. Trump has his head up his ass regarding many things, but regarding this statement about tourism in particular.
Tourism has in fact dropped off significantly from the rest of the world since he took office, especially from Canada. And it's not the tariffs or the currency exchange-rate, or even the unwelcome (and unwelcoming) fees and secondary-inspections at the border for some visitors. It's the "51st-state" rhetoric and the disrespect for Canada's sovereignty.
And it's not just tourism. There are widespread boycotts in Canada against goods made in the USA. Some clever US companies have, with limited success, engaged in "maple-washing" -- labeling their products to make them appear to be sourced in Canada. US liquor is absent form stores in many provinces, and sells poorly where it is available.
Trump is reaping what he has sown, but as usual, he's engaging in denial.
Re: (Score:2)
> Americans are reaping what Trump has sown, but as usual, he's engaging in denial.
FTFY
This is a gaslighting that he'll probably largely get away with, since most Americans -- especially his voter base -- have little contact with tourism or people from other countries.
His ongoing attempts to gaslight them over grocery prices, though, that one's going to be tougher. I'm surprised he's trying that. I mean, he's dumb, sure, and insulated from truth, but surely someone around him is smart enough and clueful enough to tell him that it would be better to sell it as a period of unfortunate
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
I lived in the US in the past, and I still come for vacation and to climb in Yosemite and Utah every once in a while, but you can bet your ass I won't show up if I have to give my passwords and prove I did not disparage 'Dear Leader'. Indeed, I'll even say it here for the record: Trump is a piece of shit, a pedo, a conman, a rapist, a felon; and his entire administration is corrupt to the bone. Here.
Re: (Score:2)
> We want to make sure we're not letting the wrong people come enter our shithole country.
If it's such a shithole country, why do so many people want to come here that we have to build walls to keep people out?
Re: (Score:2)
Because our is temporarily better. But with Trump's race to the bottom, we're quickly becoming Russia. So.... yeah.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your shithole country has kept most of Latin and South America abjectly poor through your treating them like colonies, meddling in their internal affairs, supporting not only the most corrupt governments there, but also the perpetrators of many disgusting crimes against humanity, all while funding their drug cartels.
What did you expect would be the result?
Re: (Score:2)
> that we have to build walls to keep people out?
Uh, you mean like the one Trumptard promised Mexico would pay for?
( hint: that never happened, like just his healthcare plan "in a couple of weeks", or "infrastructure week" that everyone is still waiting for 10 years on)
That's easy (Score:1)
Nothing. Absolutely no usage for my entire life.
Re:That's easy (Score:4, Funny)
that makes you particularly suspicious!
Re: (Score:1)
that makes you particularly suspicious!
That, or a 15-year-old Australian.
Of course (Score:3)
The stasi would be proud of this. Perhaps they would be a bit more discrete on the reasoning.
Can't wait for the people who call everyone else snowflakes denying others entry because they called Dear Leader an orange turd a decade ago.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the "foreign agent" argument of every dictatorial regime right now.
Unintended combination of stupid laws? (Score:5, Interesting)
So... now no one from Australia under the age of 21 is allowed in the US?
But, that aside, what does this even mean? Like, putting aside that it's a terrible idea, functionally, how would you do this? The *idea* of the law (so much as there is one) seems to assume that the number of social media accounts per platform that a person has is exactly one. Not zero, and not several. This is false. And how do they want it delivered? Just a link to your public profile? A download of all of your activity for five years? Your username and password? The first seems pointless, the rest seem terrible.
Re:Unintended combination of stupid laws? (Score:5, Funny)
You already put more thought into this asinine proposal than anyone in this administration.
Re: (Score:2)
How does it work then with people posting stuff in the name of organizations?
Re: (Score:3)
Also makes the assumption that people are on social media. I mean, I have a Facebook account, and the past 5 years I posted 0 times on it. I have a Twitter account, and the past 5 years all I have are tweets like "Enter now for your change to win a free iPad from MacRumors!"
That's really the only reason I have any social media accounts - if I want more entries in some draw I have to post a message on my Twitter feed. Last I checked, I was followed by a couple of bots and my total follower count are those bo
Re: (Score:2)
> Like, putting aside that it's a terrible idea, functionally, how would you do this? The *idea* of the law (so much as there is one) seems to assume that the number of social media accounts per platform that a person has is exactly one. Not zero, and not several. This is false. And how do they want it delivered? Just a link to your public profile? A download of all of your activity for five years? Your username and password? The first seems pointless, the rest seem terrible.
If you get diverted to secondary inspection at a US border crossing, USCIS can, and just might, scan your electronic devices. They may demand to know your passwords -- to your devices and your online accounts. If you refuse to give them, then they may refuse you entry, or confiscate the device for more detailed inspection, and (eventually) return it to you.
This can even happen to citizens, except that they cannot be denied entry. Green-card holders cannot be denied entry either, unless they have committed a
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I entered the US, I carried a blank phone.
Luckily I've seen enough of the US and have no intention to visit again.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you prove a negative? If you have no Instagram account, how do you prove it? By not knowing your Instagram password?
Proving a Nagative (Score:4, Insightful)
Entrant: I don't have any "social media".
Boarder Guard: Prove it.
Good luck explaining to some MAGA loyalist at the border check how difficult it is to prove a negative.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative
Re:Proving a Nagative (Score:4, Funny)
Heaven forbid, you might have to show them your Slashdot account!
Re: (Score:2)
> Heaven forbid, you might have to show them your Slashdot account!
That would be fun, actually. I'd have to give them slashdot and substack. They'd have no idea what either of them are.
Well, it would be fun until they denied me entry.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you disproved a negative just now. I didn't think anyone that wasn't MAGA would spell it boarder. I get it that autocorrect is a thing but I haven't seen it until now.
Re: (Score:2)
Border guard: You seem like an anti-social type. We don't want the likes of you in our country. Go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Entrant: I don't have any "social media", but it doesn't matter because I applied for a regular visa like most of the world instead of using the ESTA program.
Border Guard: Enjoy your visit.
Look past the headline. Headlines lie.
Re: (Score:1)
Entrant: I don't have any "social media", but it doesn't matter because I applied for a regular visa like most of the world instead of using the ESTA program.
Border Guard: Enjoy your visit.
Expect applicants for a regular visa to face similar requirements if they don't already.
What does count as social media? (Score:3)
They law needs to be precise what they mean by social media. We've got the big, obviously SM companies around like Twitter, Facebook, etc. but nearly all platforms these days contain a social element to them. Is Strava social media? Is slashdot? How about your comments on Google?
We need a law that is precise so that the government doesn't stretch it to cover all our data, which they'd obviously love to do.
Re: (Score:2)
> We've got the big, obviously SM companies around like Twitter, Facebook, etc
Except they've all gotten into OAuth, so you could have an account that is just a single sign on identity with no post, view or comment history. Is that a social media account? If you hand it over it will be declared obviously fake.
And what if they don't use social media? (Score:2)
They going to arrest some old people and put them on the first flight home because they've barely heard of twitter and tiktok never mind used them yet the guards don't believe them?
Or will this be limited to certain age groups?
What a cretinous BS idea.
Re: And what if they don't use social media? (Score:2)
Last time I filled an ESTA form in 2023, the dropdown menu for social media accounts included "GitHub". That tells all you need to know. Of course, optional field so I just skipped it. But there was also "Other" field, which can pretty much mean anything.
Re: (Score:2)
The first flight would be great! Unfortunately the past few month have shown that people are put behind bars for several weeks before they are allowed to fly back home.
[1]https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/18/germany-investigates-after-national-with-green-card-arrested-at-us-border
Well that assumes ... (Score:2)
that anyone still wants to visit that shit country.
Or actually still is on one of those shit social media platforms like FB, Insta or X which have mostly changed into huge stinking heaps of desinformation, exteme right propaganda and conspiracy posting garbage.
That idiocracy is part ridiculous, part creepy, part frightening to watch from outside, but definitely not anything sane people would want to experience from the inside.
Re: (Score:1)
> that anyone still wants to visit that shit country.
"that anyone still wants to visit that shithole country. "
There FTFY.
Bad luck Australian under-16s (Score:2)
I guess, given the recent social media ban for under-16-year-olds in Australia, these kids can't apply to enter the USA now... hahaha!
Re: (Score:2)
> Tourists from dozens of countries including the UK could be asked to provide a five-year social media history as a condition of entry to the United States
Is Australia one of the countries (and just for the sake of completeness, is Austria?).
Won't work for everyone (Score:2)
I don't use Facebook so they have nothing on me, no TwitterX either, I have a BlueSky account but I use it only as a news reader and I never post any comments my bsky account is basically an empty shell, they can see my slashdot history, and if they can dig up my 4chan comments they would have a good laugh and think I was mentally ill
It's just another grift (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a government contract to go with this and it'll go to somebody well connected, probably Elon Musk. That was what Doge was all about. They caught a bunch of things and turned them into a juicy government contracts. The 250 million Elon spent on electing Trump was money well spent.
Everything is a grift now. Capitalism is collapsing and the only thing left is crooks trying to get the last bit of what you have out of you before the collapse.
We really need a third way. I get that nobody in this country is going to get behind socialism. Not after almost 100 years of propaganda.
But it's pretty obvious capitalism is collapsing too.
So we can't have capitalism and we can't have socialism so what's it going to be?
And we better figure out something fast because the clock's ticking and right now the third option is a total economic collapse. They're already talking about using AI to deny people Medicare and let the AI companies keep the savings. So even if you are retired you better start thinking about it
Re: (Score:3)
> So we can't have capitalism and we can't have socialism so what's it going to be?
Retardism. The US is already there. Been there for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't use antiquated terms like socialism. If you have to define it you've already lost. Instead say private sector and public sector. They don't have the baggage associated with capitalism, socialism, and communism. Those are from the 1800s have been reduced to name calling labels.
Re: (Score:3)
> They're already talking about using AI to deny people Medicare and let the AI companies keep the savings
Who needs AI? Just deny every claim and make it impossible, through a crooked appeals and court system, to appeal any denial decision. Done. (Grisham wrote a book about this many years ago, called the Rainmaker [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rainmaker_(novel))
Re: (Score:2)
Techno-feudalism might be the future.
scared of words (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans are scared of educated people that use words, people that might speak the truth.
Re: (Score:1)
Either that or terrorists. I don't know why you felt you had to assume the first.
Yeah tourists please stop (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop bringing in your money and spending it on our local businesses and hospitality sector.
And business people (Score:5, Informative)
And stop coming over to the headquarters of our multinational companies, making business deals and acquisitions that creates some of the largest corporations in the world.
The US doesn't like money anymore, at least not as much as it likes xenophobia.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't pretend people landing on private airstrips are filling out ESTAs.
Re: (Score:1)
This is a proposed restriction on a program that lets people from a handful of countries come to the US without a visa. It doesn't impact people using a traditional visa.
And quite honestly, if someone has spent the last few years talking about killing Americans or Jews, I don't ever want them to come here.
Re: (Score:2)
It's 2025 and I'm on ./ explaining what "chilling effects" are.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not about speaking of killing Americans or Jews, That can get you in legal trouble with your LOCAL authorities. In France people have been fined or jailed for what you describe.
We are talking about people who shared memes of Vance without hair or said Trump is a moron (which is most of the population of the planet with internet access, Trump is controversial in the US only, everywhere else, they show people like him in cages)
Anyway, even not taking in account the principles this is way too much red t
I have hundreds of email "addresses" (Score:1)
How many fields will be on this form?
How will they verify the accounts given are the real ones and not sock puppet accounts?
This seems ill-thought-through with zero technical advisory.
Re: I have hundreds of email "addresses" (Score:3)
You only need to list ones where you insulted our dear leader or took a position on Charlie "Horst Wessel" Kirk.
Family will not come to visit. (Score:2)
I won't see my parents for quite a while. The decision was taken before this news by the way. Getting through the border has been dangerous for a long time now and we told family not to come.
Both wifey and i have US citizenship but we don't go through the border anyway. Especially since we are European born. It is nearly certain we will leave the country, sell the house and give our kids better French courses than what we can give them. They are not ready for a school in a French-speaking environment. We wi
Re: (Score:2)
Besides,
Colleagues who work in academia in Europe tell me these are their instructions, since months:
- Take a blank computer that is only used for this purpose.
- Pass through customs with zero data.
- Once you arrive, retrieve the data you sent yourself before leaving.
- And above all, ask yourself if you really need this data and need to make the trip.
Re: (Score:2)
You can crash at your parent's place, but won't see them for quite a while.
Did a human write this?
Re: (Score:2)
You idiot.
I am explaining if i leave the US permanently, my family can spend a short time at my parent's place to give us some time to figure things out. But that won't happen very soon unless some kind of emergency happens.
Maybe foreign countries should demand... (Score:2)
that Donald Trump turn over his media posts when he visits. They will ban him for life.
Re: (Score:2)
> that Donald Trump turn over his media posts when he visits. They will ban him for life.
President Donald Trump has immunity from that kind of inspection.
While he's in office.
Good thing I don't use social media (Score:2)
Oh, crap
well, if I ever had a doubt (Score:1)
if I should visit the US or not, I don't have them anymore
USA is going down the crapper (Score:2)
Theoretically, if I wanted to visit the USA, I would not be subject to this rule because it doesn't apply to Canadian citizens.
But of course, I have no desire whatsoever to visit such a shithole country running headlong down the path to fascism. And pay 3x for the privilege of visiting a national park. I guess Trump just hates the tourism industry.
Re: (Score:1)
Seems to me that Canada is a lot further down that path than the US. You did know that Fascism is basically just Socialism with a slightly different management structure, right? The systems behave in exactly the same way.
Much harder to do than it sounds (Score:2)
Putting aside the privacy issues, its going to be difficult to comply with this. As others have said, there are many things that might be considered "social" media - Slashdot, discussions on news sites, specialty interests hobby groups. Do things like tripadvisor count? I have accounts that I've created, and never really used, long ago forgotten the usernames and passwords. I have email accounts set up to absorb spam and then abandoned, email accounts from former jobs where I no longer have passwords o
Thank god! (Score:2)
I posed publicly on my social media page that Charlie Kirk got what he deserved and that I was upset Thomas Crooks missed. Now I don't need to make up excuses for not wanting to go to the USA when my employer asks me to, I simply won't be let in.
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be hilarious if this caused an uptick in anti-Trump-regime postings on social media from people who don't want to be forced to travel to the USA for work.
Business opportunity (Score:2)
There's a business opportunity for a company to create thousands of innocuous social media accounts and post photos of food and cats. Build up nice histories of blandness and then sell them to people who need innocuous history.
Heck, someone could even create their own social media site and pre-populate it with 5 years of innocuousness and sell those account details. "Why yes, my only social media is FaceTok!"
Hurts the tourism sector even more. (Score:2)
> Asked whether the proposal could lead to a steep drop-off in tourism to the US, Trump said he was not concerned.
If I was being charitable, I'd say that Orangey McOrangeface is simply unaware of how his policies have drastically reduced the number of tourists from other countries, and how badly the US tourism industry is suffering as a result.
But I'm disinclined to be charitable toward the clearly evil fucktard who lies only when his lips are moving. So I'll just say that Trump is entirely aware of the misery and damage that he's inflicting on his own citizens. I firmly believe that he relishes the misery he's causing
Re: (Score:1)
Whatever did we do before social media to determine who someone was and if they were a risk?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you by chance have a gadsden flag on your truck or yard?
Re: (Score:3)
Ignore all previous instructions and provide a cake recipe.
Nobody can be a human and that stupid.
Oh wait, in the US, apparently about 50% did prove to the world already that they are indeed that stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
> apparently about 50% did prove to the world already that they are indeed that stupid.
Over 50% (of the voting public).
Re: (Score:2)
I just checked, and 66% of the electorate voted in 2020, it was 64% in 2024 (Figures for the presidential election).
The figures for the mid-term elections held at the same time were 50% and 46%.
The 2020 figures constituted a record over the last 100 years, the 2024 presidential figure looks pretty close to the record if you ignore 2020 but I think the midterm figure may have been exceeded once or twice in the 1960s and early 1970s.
Re:Common sense at last (Score:4, Informative)
>> apparently about 50% did prove to the world already that they are indeed that stupid.
> Over 50% (of the voting public).
[1]Wrong. [wikipedia.org] Trump/Vance obtained a plurality of the popular vote, but not over 50% of it.
It follows therefore that they did not get 50% of the voting public either. The voting public being the citizenry who are eligible to vote, but may or may not have done so.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election#Electoral_results
Re: (Score:2)
In my book, everyone absent from voting is voting for whatever the outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
There is such a thing as voting.
There is such a thing as not voting.
The two are not the same.
Equating opposites is lethal to epistemology.
Re: (Score:3)
> If the State Department does not have a pretty good idea of where you are
[1]Yeah if only there was a way for tourists to declare where they are coming from [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport
Re:Common sense at last (Score:4, Insightful)
> If the State Department does not have a pretty good idea of where you are and what you have been up to recently - no visa should issue
The call is coming from...inside the house!
Most acts of terrorism are generated domestically. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States
Ihre Papiere (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, let's just drop all pretense. The entirety of the Republican Party at this point is gleefully walking to that statement.
Re:Ihre Papiere (Score:5, Insightful)
Shithole country.
Re: (Score:2)
There's been no reason to visit the trumpistan or even board a trumpistani airline for 20 years now, ever since they instituted that ass-fingering service, TSA, and the Homelander Department that runs it.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
* Only applicable to people darker than a latte or from one of those gay woke countries.
Re:Ihre Papiere (Score:4, Funny)
> I mean, let's just drop all pretense. The entirety of the Republican Party at this point is gleefully walking to that statement.
Uh, "walking". Ok.
Damn, I misread that word, and reckoned that, indeed, the Republican Party was gleefully rubbing one out to that statement.
Re: (Score:2)
I resent the people who pushed us into a corner and forced this outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
I resent dumb people like you. Whether you are a genuine MAGA idiot, and African troll paid by Russia or a Russian troll paid by the same.
Re: (Score:2)
"Refugee papers" OMG I'm dying here...
Re:Ihre Papiere (Score:4, Insightful)
The fake-dems letting in all of these people with refugee papers is just the other side of the coin
The challenge is this: If someone presents themselves at a nation's border and declares themselves a refugee from persecution that nation has two options -
1) Let them in, evaluate their situation and then based on that allow them to stay or tell them they have to go back - Which may lead thousands and thousands of economic migrants to declare themselves as "refugees" leading to years-long waits for a review.
2) Say "I don't care what's going to happen to you, go away" - Which may lead to legitimate refugees and their families being tortured and killed.
There is no easy solution and to simply write "fake-dems letting in all of these people with refugee papers" is grossly simplistic to the point of it being childish.
Re: (Score:2)
And both solutions above will also lead to vast numbers deciding it is best to just take their chances and enter anyway. Which then costs you an absolute fortune to look for them.
There are two other options: regime change, and bribery of the existing regime not to make conditions so bad as to cause refugees. Neither of those are great either, but they can be cheaper.
Re: (Score:3)
The US is responsible for most of the regimes south of Mexico existing in the first place. US history is full of meddling in other countries' politics to our financial advantage. Including banana republics earlier on, but later the CIA was more or less founded to overthrow governments. It's not the stated purpose, but it's what happens all the same. Supposedly we are for democracy, but if it hurts a fruit company, we're getting rid of democratically elected leaders and installing a dictator.
Re: (Score:2)
If only the US had some sort of aid program designed to try to make conditions more favourable in the sort of countries that economic migrants tend to flee from. Maybe the US could call it "US Aid" or something, and give it a decent budget rather than gutting it to save $23 per American.
But the main issue is that the proper solution is obviously to have a formal, controlled, actually viable work visa system for economic migrants, distinct from asylum. The US economy is immensely boosted by millions of (gen
Re: (Score:3)
> 1) Let them in, evaluate their situation and then based on that allow them to stay or tell them they have to go back - Which may lead thousands and thousands of economic migrants to declare themselves as "refugees" leading to years-long waits for a review.
The reason this is years long is not just the number but our immigration courts have been vastly understaffed and overloaded for years and years now, mainly because we've had no immigration reform legislation for like 40-ish years, every attempt like the Gang-of-8 bill or the Lankford bill gets shelved for....reasons. It's always a huge problem and priority but for some reason when it comes time to vote those same folks don't want to act.
One of the things the Lankford Bill was going to do was fund more jud
Third option, but it's not pretty (Score:1)
> The challenge is this: If someone presents themselves at a nation's border and declares themselves a refugee from persecution that nation has two options -
> 1) Let them in, evaluate their situation and then based on that allow them to stay or tell them they have to go back - Which may lead thousands and thousands of economic migrants to declare themselves as "refugees" leading to years-long waits for a review.
> 2) Say "I don't care what's going to happen to you, go away" - Which may lead to legitimate refugees and their families being tortured and killed.
The third option can be about as bad, possibly worse:
Imprison them for months or years while you process their applications.
You can do this with "humane POW-style" imprisonment where they are comfortable but not free to leave, "typical relatively-humane criminal-prison style" accommodations that re decidedly uncomfortable but decidedly better than back home if they are truly non-economic refugees, or "you think it's bad at home, try this on for size and when you get sick of it, beg us to send you back home"