I will ask that you reconsider what happened in Myanmar. Before the military took complete control, they practiced on the Rohingya because nobody cares about the Rohingya Muslims. China abuses the Rohingya, as well. Aung San and his daughter are Bamar. She was only concerned for her people and had no regard for the Rohingya. Then once the military perfected their methods on the people who did not matter, they took full control.
President Trump is using a similar strategy. Once the network is in place for the people nobody cares about. A simple false flag incident, and the rules now apply to all Americans. You have to factor in that our legislators are weak. They will not stop him.
My understanding is that this process is now in the public comment phase;
“How would a member of the public respond to Trumps proposal during the comment phase, if it is allowed?”
Great question — during the Federal Register comment phase, any member of the public (U.S. citizen, resident, or even foreign national affected by the rule) can submit a formal response. Here’s how that typically works and what a response might look like:
📝 How the Public Can Respond
- Method: Comments are submitted electronically via Regulations.gov, or by mail to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
- Timing: The proposal is open for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
- Format: Responses can be short statements or detailed legal/technical arguments. They become part of the public record.
- Impact: Agencies are required to review and address substantive comments before finalizing the rule. Strong, well‑reasoned objections can delay, modify, or even block implementation.
📣 Example of a Public Comment (Opposition)
A member of the public might write something like:
Code
I oppose the proposed requirement for visa waiver travelers to disclose five years of social media history.
This rule would:
1. Violate privacy rights by forcing disclosure of personal communications unrelated to security.
2. Chill free expression, as travelers may self‑censor online activity to avoid misinterpretation.
3. Harm U.S. tourism and business, especially ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, by discouraging visitors from allied nations.
4. Provide little proven security benefit, as malicious actors can easily create new or false accounts.
I urge DHS to withdraw this proposal and instead pursue targeted, evidence‑based vetting measures.
📣 Example of a Public Comment (Support)
Alternatively, a supporter might write:
Code
I support the proposed requirement for visa waiver travelers to disclose social media history.
This rule:
1. Enhances national security by allowing DHS to identify potential extremist affiliations.
2. Aligns with existing vetting practices for visa applicants, ensuring consistency across entry programs.
3. Provides transparency and accountability in the screening process.
I encourage DHS to adopt this proposal to strengthen border security and protect U.S. citizens.
[remember, the government belongs to the people. similar to how any court document can be filed by an ordinary citizen, or a lawyer]