Presumably, the reason that so many Kafkaesque stories crop up is because these people are not required to tell you why you are being detained if asked.
It's also possible you could file an FOIA with the DoD, Army, DHS, etc.:
Did you get the hidden meaning at that point ?
> Before arriving in the U.S., every refugee case receives a white plastic bag from the International Organization for Migration (I.O.M.), in which they should keep their important identification and other official documents.
Wow, no wonder government agencies salivate at the idea of being able to monitor the whole Interwebs.
I know they now have orders of magnitude more data to process but still... that manual process must have been expensive and boring as hell.
I guess as an agent you would need to convince yourself that this was actually a very important task of defending your country or something. Otherwise I can imagine going crazy just doing this stuff for nothing...
Another quote I found amusing:
"The friendlier one eventually described how much it had cost to investigate another recent case where a person was reported to have pulled down an American flag and stepped on it. Only after the investigation was well under way did they learn that the perpetrator of this nefarious act was only four years old."
If you see someone (an adult presumably) stepping on a flag, and then days or weeks later you see them being taken away, you may start thinking those FBI guys know about everything you do. Kinda like with Santa Claus and kids, so you better not do anything wrong.
Or so I thought until I searched a bit more and found this :
18 U.S. Code § 700 - Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties:
(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
So I guess if you stepped on a flag the FBI could in fact arrest you.
Though, the author says that this is during WW2, so I wanted to clarify to any foreign readers that this isn't the case anymore in our modern judicial system.
I've had passive/aggressive managers saddle me with nonsense before, and sometimes they were just in a mood but if a pattern develops, it's because they can't find a way to fire you.
But, goodness gracious! Toying with people's lives, investigating random nobodies as if they might be criminals, as a side effect of interpersonal difficulties in the workplace? It's more likely than you think.
Also, nobody has actually pointed out an instance of this happening. The FBI has had several extremely high profile cases in the last year; if they are incompetent, they have managed not to be totally useless.
How many violent crimes are occurring while cops investigate some guy who wants to put drugs in his own body in his own house?
The involvement of the school officials, even the parents, is also cute. Modern law enforcement doesn't hesitate to go strait to the kids. It is not unusual for a cop to pull a kid out of a class for a "chat" that could see them jailed. Parents often only hear about such things long after the fact.
The image of FBI agents in a black limo is precious. That is intimidating FBI man 101. They still do the 'parked in the driveway reading notes' thing today, but only where they don't feel under any threat. If there is any potential for a firearm at the location, or any hint that the suspect is in any way dangerous, they don't hang around as potential targets. If you see them doing the parked thing, wave. Say hi. Or don't. To intimidate they must first be seen. They will keep up the act until someone notices them. If you really want to make their week, get in your car and drive away. They love a good slow speed "chase" before confronting you somewhere out in the world.
Do you know of any evidence of that sort of thing? While it certainly doesn't make your life easier, people bounce back and have fruitful careers even after outright federal convictions for computer-related crimes. Do you know of anyone being denied a passport for something they did as a juvenile?
hmmmmmmm. This guy sure seems to have a ridiculously specific and detailed understanding of what it's like to be surveilled by the FBI...
My experience has been the opposite. During college, I had an internship at a defense contractor and I was the only Asian intern there (out of maybe 20 people). There were a couple of black guys and the rest were caucasian. IME, people of color had the hardest time obtaining a clearance. It took around 2.5 years for me and around 2 years for one of my black coworkers. The turnaround time for the white guys was a lot smaller.
I think this experience was for the best though - I left shortly afterward, because I won't stay where I'm not wanted.
Like, if I apply for a job in Nigeria that needs clearances, if the other guys are all from Nigeria then investigating their backgrounds are consistent, talking to their neighbours, etc., is relatively easy. Especially if they all have parents who already have files with identity info.
If I'm from Kenya, then first up you're going to need translators, then you're going to need political accord or covert operatives, birth records in rural Kenya possibly don't exist.
Also you want to leave me for a while on observation to see if I do anything suspicious; that needs time.
It doesn't matter if the Nigerians want me, to do the same level of investigation would take far longer.
Why do you assume that non-white people are not "3rd/4th generation natives"? Black people have been in America since before the country even existed, whereas my own (white Italian) lineage has been here less than a hundred years.
The GP stated they were Asian, so presumably they at least have less establishment in USA than a person from USA.
Perhaps they meant their family at some point in the past came from Asia, but if they couldn't describe their heritage clearly that wouldn't really be my fault.
Asian is just used as a description of someone's race in the US. It doesn't imply that a person was not born there. The OP also mentioned black coworkers without saying anything to indicate that they were not from the US.
Does that not seem reasonable?
And for some clearances not having all four grandparents be natives is a big hurdle - it certainly use to be that way in the uk civil service when I started work
I'm not sure what the correct term would be though. "Natural born citizen" normally means someone who is a citizen through birthright, usually, but not always, because they were born within the US.
The phrase that I've most commonly heard is "Nth generation American", but does this require all members of N generations to be citizens? My daughter is eligible to be a "Daughter of the Revolution", but I'm not (yet) a citizen
Obviously there can be reasons in specific cases, but there should be no reason why it takes longer in general. At least, no reason that I can see. What are you thinking of?
It is no doubt overly simplistic to assume conscious racism, but as this thread demonstrates, Americans who are not KKK racists nonetheless have a lot of subconscious attitudes regarding race that can have an influence.
Cycling is one of the most cheating, dirty sports in the world. Sprinting is close, so is swimming. But talking about cyphers and codes and then somehow getting into a discussion about cycling just reminds me so much of Dr. Ferrari and Lance Armstrong.
If you're not cheating, you're not trying. If the FBI is on your tail, you've screwed up somewhere. The devil's in the details...
Oh, and he made the first social network: FINGER
Amongst other achievements, Les Earnest was an actor, basketball manager and inventor of the search engine.
Such a small section of this brief biography for such a valuable contribution.
I guess your most important life's work doesn't make as interesting a story as when you've gotten yourself into trouble.
I remember reading this decades ago and wondering what this might be. Now he's explained it! I'm glad I looked at this again.
 Courtesy of Northwestern University
Here's a decent review from 2013. There may be new research, so if you have a better source, please share.
To borrow from the recurrent discussions on this issue: if biking requires you to suit up for urban warfare in spandex and armor, it's a much greater hassle, making you less inclined to bike. Furthermore, you look like a weirdo to people who may have been thinking of biking but don't want to deal with that large barrier to entry.
So bike usage decreases, robbing us of the health benefits and probably making biking more dangerous because cars aren't looking for the rare cyclist like they ought to. Helmets in fast or competitive biking make loads of sense, though.
The article in question is about mandatory use in bicycle racing.
I haven't had a bicycle since the law was introduced - not because of the law, specifically, but I feel grouchy about the idea of being forced to wear a helmet while doing nothing more dramatic than tootling around my neighborhood, and the law has therefore helped reduce my enthusiasm for bicycling generally.
He seems to have created a YouTube account just to post the video, so I got the chance to become his first subscriber!
What an interesting person, and what a life he have lived!
Added to that, it's generally bad form to discuss the meta without adding to the conversation, which i suspect your post above picked up downvotes. I would expect to get downvoted for this reply too tbh.
It's not a smugness thing, it's too avoid conversations getting bogged down in this sort of tedious exposition.
For what it's worth, I didn't downvote your post, if it makes you feel any better.
"Is your position that immigrants should be expedited through the immigration process?"
Could be construed as a fairly challenging stance, given the very direct nature of your request for clarification and the endpoint you extrapolated.
Face to face, asking that with a raised eyebrow or a smile wouldn't seem overly challenging, but plaintext loses any nuance and much of its context.
Must've hit a sore spot or something...
Even without a degree in design one can see that this page is nearly unreadable. The easiest (but not the only) thing to fix is to limit the width of the column of text.
Why limit the width of the text? If I want it wider, I'll make it wider; if I want it narrower, I'll make it narrower. This is something I can do with a relatively plain text webpage.
Edit: Although I see sdiq below had a browser that apparently couldn't handle plain HTML without help from him. Perhaps something in your browser is making it unreadable.
You can resize your window to whatever size you want.