Transcript of the above video:

As the title of this media suggests, we are discussing a reminder from the US Embassy here in Thailand regarding K-1 Fiancé(e) Visas. I thought of making this video, initially the first time I saw it was on Twitter, and I saw it over on Thai Enquirer, @ThaiEnquirer at X. Quoting directly, we will throw this on screen: "US Embassy in Bangkok reminds Visa applicants to set social media accounts to public as screening rule expands. The U.S. Embassy in Bangkok has reminded applicants for a wide range of Non-immigrant Visa categories to set all social media accounts to "public" as part of identity and security screening requirements, a policy that has been gradually expanded over the past year."

Yeah, all of this stuff, if you go back into the first Trump Administration, when the Trump so-called "travel ban" happened, regarding the "Muslim travel ban", so-called, I told people at the time, I remember making the videos that, "hey, this type of thing it's never limited; it always expands." Whatever the ostensible reason for it was or it would be limited to certain things, that's never how it works. Bureaucracy always grows, that's how it works, and that's what we have seen happen here. Even at the time - I can't remember the exact bureaucratical wording - but they were saying it was a Muslim ban and then if you read like the fine print, there were different issues in different regions where if there was a preponderance of suspicion regarding the possibility that there were issues associated with something, they would put folks through enhanced vetting procedures - I think that was the terminology they used at the time. Well now we are seeing more of this. Again, for those who ever sort of cheer on a lot of like bureaucratic overreach because it's going after somebody one perceives is their enemy, always understand, it ends up applying to everyone. That's always something to sort of keep in mind. 

That said, quoting further: "The requirement covers a broad set of Visa types, including diplomats' domestic staff and transit cases (A-3, C-3 and G-5), skilled workers and their families (H-1B, H-3, H-4), students and exchange visitors (F, M and J) as well as fiancé(e), cultural exchange, religious worker, law-enforcement related, and humanitarian visas (K, Q, R, S, T and U categories). The Embassy said the measure is intended to support mandatory vetting under U.S. law to verify identity and assess admissibility to the United States. Officials warn that failure to comply could result in delays in visa processing. The reminder reflects a broad rollout of enhanced social media screening by U.S. authorities. The policy was first applied to limited categories such as students and exchange visitors before being expanded in stages during 2025 and early 2026 to cover a much wider range of applicants." Going back on this again - and I'll get into the specific immigration ramifications here in a minute - but just generally speaking, this is how it always works. They always roll out something that is kind of onerous and nobody really is in love with it, again I think this stuff is Orwellian, but that said, we are talking about applicants to the United States for visas; they don't have any rights under our constitution. Now the spirit of the law in my opinion would say that, "hey those rights and liberties that we enshrine in our foundational documents, that we're so proud of, perhaps bringing the fruits of providence’s bounty perhaps to the people in the world, it's like a sign of good faith and belief in Liberty; maybe not so much. I do understand the notion that you do need to vet people coming into your country, don't get me wrong about that, but the levels this has gone to, it's really getting crazy. 

Now that said, also, social media didn't exist when they created the INA, so there's that as well; the Immigration and Nationality Act. And again, we are talking about people that don't have any actual rights under the American Constitution - they are asking for admission to the United States - I understand it, but again the Orwellian nature of this stuff it really rankles. On top of that though, the phenomenon of, "oh well, it's just for these limited categories", again, we've seen the fallacy behind that many times to date. 

Quoting further: "The latest notice reinforces an already expanded system of online presence review rather than introducing a new requirement." Yeah, I always love that too. It's all of this like "well we just changed something that already exists" except it's changed in such a way that was never sort of contemplated by those who initially put in the original regulation, but we'd rather do that than actually change the rule. Perhaps because going through the rulemaking proceedings would actually lead to things like due process, where people can chime in and say this is a terrible rule or maybe we should be rethinking this. Again, I'm not going to go out of my way to be too critical of this in terms of, there are no rights being particularly violated. I also understand sort of the response, "well if you don't like it, don't go to America." Yeah, except that's really not what America has ever been about; that's not what we were founded on. So again I understand the need for security to perhaps maybe need this type of thing, but at the same time I find it again very eerie just from a liberty standpoint.

Notice I mentioned in there that K-1. As we have talked about in other videos, the K Visas, although they are a dual intent visa insofar as one can have a K Visa with the intention of going to the United States to marry and then seek a Green Card and therefore have immigrant intent, it is a Non-immigrant category because the Visa itself is only issued with a 90-day validity. So Trump recently initiated a "visa pause" - I put that in quotes because it looks a lot like a ban or it's a ban by other name - it's based on the notion that we are retooling the Public Charge rule here and we're coming up with a way to ascertain whether or not folks are in violation of the Public Charge rule. Again, I am having some trouble believing that especially in light of the fact that they are issuing 221gs and things that have an imprimatur of permanence even though that's not what 221g says, and it can actually be remedied. At the same time, if they're not actually going to put out a new framework for adjudicating Public Charge, then just saying, "well this is part of the pause, we'll get back to you". That doesn't constitute a denial because if there's never actually been an adjudication. 

So leaving the pause stuff aside, with regard to the K-1 Visas, yeah, be prepared going into interview to set your social media accounts and things, to set them for "public" so that the folks that are adjudicating you at the interview phase can do so utilizing your social media accounts. That's what's going on here in the context of K-1 visas emanating from the Kingdom of Thailand.