Indian Students Are Deleting Social Media Posts, Accounts For US Visas: Report
Quick Read
Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed.
Indian students are worried about the Trump administration's new visa vetting process, which includes social media checks. Many are deleting posts or accounts to avoid misinterpretations of their views, fearing visa rejection over innocuous content.
Indian students are increasingly growing anxious over the Trump administration's plans to mandate social media vetting before approving visas for all international students seeking to study in the United States.
Social-media vetting is a process included by the Trump administration in the visa application course to assess their suitability to enter the United States. The platforms that go through this vetting are - Facebook, X, LinkedIn, and TikTok, among others.
This change comes amid pro-Palestine protests and anti-Semitic demonstrations on US college campuses last year after Israel launched a bombing campaign on Gaza after the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023.
Students are not just deleting posts, fearing that their political jokes, views and activism might be misinterpreted during visa interviews, but also entire accounts.
Applicants fear that even a casual comment or harmless posts could be taken into consideration to reject their visa applications. Visa counsellors warn that liking or sharing content deemed inadmissible by US authorities could also lead to visa rejections. They also inform that such sudden deletion could also raise eyebrows.
Mamta Shekhawat, founder of Gradding.com, told India Today, "Immigration authorities require student visa applicants to provide their social media handles for the previous five years, allowing them to make character evaluations and determine whether and how the applicant's professional and academic background matches the visa objectives.'
Speaking about humorous posts, she said that, "Such a casual approach would not be deemed appropriate across borders. Even the smallest hint of political or violent activism, or controversial remarks, can be counted as suspicious when piled together during the scrutiny of the visa application."
She also advised students to keep a check on their digital footprint. "However, experts warn that suddenly deleting content might raise red flags. Hence, the advice is to strive for a balance between authenticity and aspirational online behaviour," she further added.
The US government is using artificial intelligence to identify and cancel visas of foreign students who 'appear to support' terror groups.
"Don't like, comment on, or share posts that could be misinterpreted. Refrain from joining, posting about, or engaging with political movements online. Even sharing someone else's opinion can be viewed as an endorsement," Meenal Damani, an education consultant said.
Suraj (name changed on request) said that he was very vocal about politics on Linkedin, so he decided to delete his account after his visa counsellor warned that it could put him in trouble. 'One of the first things I did when I applied for my student visa was to delete my LinkedIn profile," he added. He has recently been selected for a master's programme at an Ivy League university. "As soon as I applied, I stopped attending protests. Even a single picture online could lead to my visa being rejected," he told the Indian Express.
Another PhD student at Jawaharlal Nehru University, wiped his social media account after a US university paused his post-doctoral appointment. The deleted posts include pro-Palestine content, Gaza casualty figures, and an article on rising right-wing authoritarianism, according to The Print. "You don't know what will offend them," he said. He had also uninstalled several apps from his phone.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Three-year legal practice rule for judicial services could deter the brightest minds
Written by Shailesh Kumar and Raju Kumar There is no doubt that judges ought to be trained in legal procedures, judgment-writing, evaluating evidence and assessing societal situations. This is particularly so in subordinate courts that are the final arbiters in a majority of cases, and which deal with factual questions, raw emotions, and engage mostly members of marginalised communities. The right question, therefore, is not whether aspiring judicial magistrates in India should have such training, but rather whether such knowledge and experience can only come from three years of practice as an advocate. Let's begin by acknowledging two public secrets of the Indian legal profession. First, a law graduate can obtain a certificate of practice without entering a courtroom. Second, it is still, primarily — and regrettably so — an institution run by caste-, class-, and gender-based networks, and not by merit per se. The 14th Law Commission Report (1958) said that subordinate judicial officers would benefit from three to five years' practice at the Bar, but made an exception for the proposed All India Judicial Services (AIJS) for the higher judiciary, where fresh law graduates could be recruited directly by subjecting them to post-selection training. In the All India Judges' Association I case (1992), the Supreme Court directed the central government to set up the AIJS and allowed fresh law graduates to apply for it with post-selection training. And in the All India Judges' Association II case (1993), the Court emphasised that three years of practice as a lawyer was essential for the subordinate judiciary. Soon after, the Justice Shetty Commission (1999) found that the rule had not drawn the 'best candidates': The most successful ones were nearing 30, while top law graduates chose corporate roles or academia instead. Acting on these findings, the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association III (2002) struck down the rule to make subordinate judicial careers accessible to fresh law graduates. We must mention here that the first five National Law Universities (NLUs) had already been established, with several batches of NLSIU having graduated by then. After more than two decades, the matter resurfaced on May 20, when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gavai, reinstated the three-year legal practice requirement — this time citing High Courts' opinions and without the support of any empirical evidence. The assertion that appointing law graduates without Bar experience has failed in the past is largely anecdotal. The Court mainly relies on the opinion of the High Courts, but there are no research findings to back this broad generalisation. Without empirical evidence, such sweeping policy decisions may do more harm than good. Back in 1999, the Shetty Commission had advised against this very requirement. Its reasoning was straightforward: The new five-year integrated BA LLB (Hons) programme already includes practical training components, such as internships, moot courts, and simulations. So, the Supreme Court should have enquired about the demography and institutional background of graduates who entered the subordinate judiciary since 2002, and whether these were the 'best talent' sought, by outlining certain criteria, to assess if the Shetty Commission's objective remained unfulfilled. Reinstituting the three-year Bar requirement not only disregards that recommendation but also ignores how legal education has evolved to bridge the very gaps this rule claims to address. Many top-performing students from NLUs regularly secure roles at leading law firms or express strong interest in public service. Yet they are now told to wait for three years, regardless of their readiness or aptitude. This delay wastes potential and may discourage some of the best minds from pursuing judicial careers altogether. What about the financial reality? A (discretionary) monthly stipend of Rs 2,000 to Rs 20,000 — where a senior advocate might earn Rs 20 lakh for a single hearing in a higher court — is a severe pay gap and is barely enough to get by, especially in tier-1 and tier-2 cities. For many students — particularly those from SC/ST/OBC communities, economically weaker sections, rural areas, women, or those with caregiving responsibilities — this rule effectively shuts the door on a judicial career before it can begin. After five to six years of education, it unintentionally pushes them into other fields where they can earn a living straight after graduation. The rule favours those who can afford to wait — in other words, the elite class. India already faces a chronic shortage of judges, especially at the district level. By restricting who can apply, this rule reduces the eligible talent pool even further. Fewer recruits mean higher caseloads for sitting judges, longer delays for litigants, and declining public trust in the system's ability to deliver timely justice. Under this new rule, aspiring judges must wait three years, possibly juggling low-paying work or uncertain prospects in the meantime. The alternative should be to invest in what happens after selection, or during the course degree itself. Legal education should incorporate daily courtroom exposure in the final year — similar to the clinical internships followed in medical colleges — as an integral part of the curriculum. In the past, there was a two-part training structure: One part involved real-world learning under experienced judges, while the other focused on classroom-based judicial instruction. This method was not perfect, but it worked — and with some updates, it could serve the purpose well again. Rather than holding people back, the system should focus on preparing them thoroughly once they are in. Let us not assume that the 'best' law students come only from (expensive) NLUs; perhaps the most trained ones do, because of the structural benefits NLU students have in India's several-tier legal education system. Moreover, the learning process for a judge should not end once they take an oath. Like other professionals, judges need to stay updated. One way to do this is by requiring newly appointed judges to undergo structured training — perhaps approximately 200 hours — within their first year and a half on the bench. The goal is to make continuing education a normal part of the job, not a one-time event. The Supreme Court must also examine the quality of training the High Courts provide for probationary magistrates. Research findings from one of the authors, albeit in a specific context, suggest that judicial training has mostly been poor, and there has been resistance — particularly from district judges — to undergo training. This is a serious policy issue with severe implications for the future. Considering that the problems outlined exist, is this the right medicine? The Supreme Court ought to have relied on solid evidence rather than opinions, even if they came from the High Courts. Shailesh Kumar is a Lecturer in Law at Royal Holloway, University of London and a Commonwealth Scholar. Raju Kumar is a legal consultant at Prohibition & Excise Department, Govt of Bihar, and a graduate from Chanakya National Law University, Patna
Time of India
10 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘He's very welcome': EU woos Elon Musk after explosive split with Donald Trump, promotes ‘Choose Europe' initiative
The has opened its doors to following his dramatic public fallout with US President , a break-up that has rocked the political and business worlds on both sides of the Atlantic. "He's very welcome", European Commission spokesperson Paula Pinho said with a smile on Friday when asked if the billionaire had expressed interest in moving or expanding his businesses within the EU. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Speaking during the Commission's daily briefing, Pinho's comment came just a day after Trump expressed rare 'disappointment' with Musk, sparking a bitter exchange between the two on social media. "Everyone is very welcome indeed to start and to scale in the EU," added Thomas Regnier, the Commission's tech spokesperson, referencing the bloc's "Choose Europe" initiative that encourages startups and business expansion. The rupture between Musk and Trump had been building for weeks but erupted into full view on Thursday after Musk slammed Trump's flagship legislation, nicknamed the 'Big Beautiful Bill', as an 'abomination.' Trump hit back publicly, accusing Musk of going 'crazy' over the EV subsidy cuts in the bill and threatened to strip his companies of $18 billion worth of US government contracts. The backlash triggered a selloff in Tesla stock, wiping out more than $100 billion in market value. In retaliation, Musk vowed to shut down his company's vital Dragon spacecraft programme, though he later appeared to walk that back, replying 'OK, we won't decommission Dragon' on X. The feud turned personal fast. Musk alleged Trump was mentioned in documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, without providing evidence and endorsed a post calling for Trump's impeachment. Trump, in turn, accused Musk of 'wearing thin' and claimed he had asked the billionaire to leave his cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) just a week earlier. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Musk, who had donated $300 million to Trump's 2024 campaign, said the president would not have won the election without his support. 'Ingratitude,' he wrote on X. The clash has far-reaching implications as Musk's companies, like Tesla and , rely heavily on government contracts, and the fallout could impact legislation, tech funding, and even the broader Republican political landscape. A White House call with Musk was reportedly scheduled for Friday in an attempt to cool tensions, according to Politico. Still, with Trump threatening to terminate all government support—'The easiest way to save money in our Budget is to terminate Elon's government subsidies and contracts,' he posted on Truth Social—the rift appears far from over. For now, Europe may be waiting with open arms.
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
US stock market today: Wall Street steadies as Tesla bounces back from $150bn rout, all eyes on payroll data
US stock futures edged higher on Friday as markets awaited key labour data, while shares of Tesla rebounded following signs of de-escalation in the high-profile spat between CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Tesla's stock jumped 4.2% in premarket trade, clawing back some of the steep 15% loss it suffered on Thursday after Trump threatened to pull federal contracts from Musk-led companies. The selloff had erased around $150 billion in Tesla's market capitalization, shaking investor sentiment across Wall Street, reported Reuters. Aides close to the White House have reportedly scheduled a call between the president and Musk on Friday, according to Politico, a move expected to ease tensions after the public feud rattled both markets and the administration's industrial policy. All eyes on non-farm payrolls Investors are now focused on the US Labour Department's May payrolls report, due at 8:30 a.m. ET, to assess the strength of the job market and its potential influence on the Federal Reserve's next rate decision. 'Whether it's the ISM surveys, the ADP figures, or the jobless claims, the tone is clearly one of a weakening economic momentum,' said Julien Lafargue, chief market strategist at Barclays Private Bank. This week's soft economic indicators have stoked worries of a slowdown, as trade uncertainty continues to weigh on business sentiment. The Fed is widely expected to hold interest rates steady at its next meeting, but traders are now pricing in two rate cuts by year-end, with the first anticipated in September, according to LSEG data. Markets stabilise after volatile week At 7:00 a.m. ET, Dow futures were up 112 points (0.26%), S&P 500 futures rose 20.5 points (0.34%), and Nasdaq 100 futures gained 72.25 points (0.33%). The broader market was also buoyed by gains in most megacap and growth stocks. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Amazon shares climbed 0.9%, while Broadcom slipped 2.9% after its AI chip revenue guidance missed investor expectations. Among other major movers, Lululemon shares plunged 21.1% after the sportswear brand slashed its annual profit forecast, citing rising costs linked to Trump's tariffs. Nike stock was down 1.3% in early trade. DocuSign tumbled 19.2% after disappointing Q1 results. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq both posted their best monthly gains since November 2023 in May, lifted by a softer trade stance from Trump and solid earnings across sectors. However, the S&P 500 remains about 3.3% below its all-time high set in February.
