Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Iranian MIT student goes home over break, denied return for spring semester (whitehouse.gov)
599 points by obi1kenobi on Jan 28, 2017 | hide | past | web | favorite | 359 comments

How this is happening, the exact trajectory of how much worse these things are (and its potential to worsen) is somewhat terrifying, especially when you consider the cavalier disregard and easy ignorance that this policy represents. I know classmates and colleagues and friends who are discussing, in their groups and communities, how to best help people stranded, whether or not vacations and returns to see ill family members must be postponed or canceled, and how future plans to stay, live, and work in the U.S., or abroad, must be changed.


While it's been easy to think about many possible negative outcomes in the proceeding days, weeks, months, another subtle aspect of this policy's ramifications is how it weakens trust and faith in the concept of stability for future American policy — the likelihood of future government actions, executed with little to no foresight, warning, or serious consideration, with serious consequences. How this effects this country's current reputation as a place to study, travel, find work, and start families + settle down can't be understated.

> executed with little to no foresight, warning, or serious consideration, with serious consequences

I think it is easy to underestimate the ugliness and disorder such a reckless executive order can unleash unless you start to think about the details or put yourself in the shoes of the people affected.

NBC News reports[0]:

The Trump administration also has yet to issue guidance to airports and airlines on how to implement the executive order. "Nobody has any idea what is going on," a senior Homeland Security official told NBC News.

As James Gleick put it on Twitter[1]:

And how was it communicated to Customs and Border Protection? Or have they just gone rogue?

And then there is the gross conflict-of-interest reflected in this map:


The event marks a horrible landmark. It's the first time I can point to the tangible harmful impact of Trump's executive policy on actual people. Up to this point, it has been possible for supporters and apologists to waive away his vague or careless remarks during the campaign as political rhetoric, jokes, or leverage for future negotiation. Now we start to see the mean (in every sense of the word) instinct that informed them and the harm they can do.

[0] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump-travel-restrictions-...

[1] https://twitter.com/JamesGleick/status/825380079526146048

I'm against this order and generally agree with you, but the conflict-of-interest article is BS. The list of countries is the same as was targeted under Obama for extra screening:


This needs more emphasis.

These countries were already hard for US citizens to do business in (hence no Trump holidings). I don't think Trump cares much about money - he is interested in Power.

"Corruption" is a distraction. I also think the thing about his tax returns is the same.

While I agree with your point, I disagree with this:

> I don't think Trump cares much about money - he is interested in Power.

It's hard to know what his true interests are. But based on his actions, and his lack of desire for publicly stating his net worth or tax returns, I think he is very interested in maintaining not only his worth but also his companies'.

Trump is the first President in a long time that can directly be influenced by foreign governments through his business and property holdings.

This is true to some extent of course. But it seems to me - based on the amount of debt his businesses carry - that it is the prestige and power that is associated with money that drives Trump.

I think that his tax returns are a huge distraction. When they leak, what will change? Everyone already knows he doesn't pay much tax. His fans see that as a good thing.

The only thing that could change out of it is if there is a line item "Russian bribes". But that's unlikely, especially since I tend to think his ties with Russia are philosophical, not financial.

I think your president has figured out a way to

1)piss everyone off except his core vote base

2) be forced out of office

3) launch a movie/book/tv show

4) profit

I don't think his original plan was to win the election.

Not my President.

(For real: I'm not from the US)

I agree with your comment though.

Oh, c'mon. The scope and impact of the EO is totally unprecedented; the President obviously felt unconstrained by precedent, unintended consequences, and arguably even the Constitution.

So, let's not pretend that he was constrained by some list from the Obama administration. It's an executive order, and President Trump owns the whole thing.

I don't think that the parent comment disagrees with you. It's just pointing out that the business links thing is a distraction. This is a purely evil policy, unconstrained by financial concerns.

Eh conflicts of interests. The US has long been “allied” with exactly Turkey (NATO), Egypt and Saudi specifically.

"Allied" in the sense that the Saudi crime family can sponsor 9-11 and their catspaw the Bush administration can exploit the occasion to supplicate even more to them.

And the opposition and the media are so deep in Saud pockets, they can't even call Bush out for it.

And in the sense that when KSA fighters sortie to bomb Yemen, US forces are right there to refuel them. That's a military cooperation.

See https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/08/08/us-a...

Up to this point, it has been possible for supporters and apologists to waive away his vague or careless remarks during the campaign as political rhetoric, jokes, or leverage for future negotiation. Now we start to see the mean (in every sense of the word) instinct that informed them and the harm they can do.

If you poll this issue, you'll find at least 80% of Americans don't care how inconvenient our immigration policy is for those countries affected. And a very large majority wants no immigration whatsoever from any of those nations affected nor from any of their neighbors save Israel. Probably a majority of Hillary voters would approve if they could be reassured it would go no further than that.

A majority of Americans want to allow refugees from Muslim countries, including Syria: http://www.voanews.com/a/poll-americans-divided-along-party-...

Democrats (who voted 89% for Hillary) are strongly in support.

Overall 59% of Americans believe immigrants make the country stronger: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/15/americans-vi...

Since the actual facts seem so starkly in opposition to 'WildUtah's point, I'd be really interested in seeing what evidence he expected to use to support his argument --- if only to see whether I'm misunderstanding his point.

The facts being some polls? Because those don't lie, right?

I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Which specific poll are you referring to and what specific problem do you have with its methodology? What poll more accurately describes public opinion, or is public opinion on this subject either "unknowable" or in some other way clear?

How are these polls unlike all the other polls that e.g. predicted Trump will lose by a large margin?

Most polls are quite vague approximations, when they aren't just lying with statistics. And you can easily frame them in all kinds of ways by how one asks the questions and how they present an issue.

Those polls were broadly accurate, as has been heavily reported. In particular, the outcome tracked the national polls, and upsets were targeted and involved very narrow margins.

But, of course, none of your comment answers the questions I posed. I'm less interested in litigating abstractions and more in the specifics. Care to take a whack at addressing them?

>Those polls were broadly accurate, as has been heavily reported.

The polls about The Donald losing were also heavily reported: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/26/polls-shatter-myth-pr...

In any case, unlike you, I'm more interested in abstractions based on large historical body of evidence (for not trusting pollsters in general) than in specifics (evaluating a particular poll, especially in hot political and partisan issues, which presupposes that I can trust what those that created it say, that is not only trusting the methodology as they describe it, but also that they followed it -- and we obviously have no way of knowing the latter).

How did you verify the poll? Because this is not some scientific paper where one can retract the steps and redo the numbers. Just trusting the methodology reported (a meagre page with a 10-mile high view of the procedure and no specifics in the case of Pew Research Center, for example?) and having faith that no poll and/or research center would ever misreport or falsify?

Maybe my mistrust is wrong, but I don't see the trust as being any better, especially with so many off the mark polls that been shown in practice to be so (the actually verifiable and falsifiable ones, like the ones on voting preferences).

I'm really sorry, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here, but I am confident that you're pursuing a different argument than the one I was, and I'm just not interested in it.

Which polls were so far in error? The presidential vote polls were ~2% out and I think most in this thread on this topic will concede a 2% error either way.

>And a very large majority wants no immigration whatsoever from any of those nations affected nor from any of their neighbors save Israel.

American immigration policy towards Israelis is essentially the same as towards anyone else. My (Jewish Israeli) coworker from grad-school wanted to work for Google in Mountain View, but the company couldn't swing him a visa. He stayed at Technion to do a PhD.

He now says that he doesn't want to come to the USA with Trump in power.

You tell me how a Jewish Israeli computer scientist poses a threat to the United States. And if you think you can, be aware that I'm such a person, on top of being American, so you had better explain to me how I'm a foreign threat to my own home country.

If you're one the best and brightest abroad, why would you trust staking a future in this country anymore? Even if what we're seeing now recedes and fades. Huge damage to our future of this country, beyond just the "temporary"-so-far order.

I agree, and that's what I have to say to my former (I graduated) coworker. I'm very much inclined to pack bags, ship my possessions, and leave this country myself. If this is how this government behaves one week in, violating human rights and the Constitution already, what can I expect as a minority who was born here?

And what about the people I know without second passports? Should a certain friend refuse to visit China with her parents because Trump might decide to ban her (with an American passport!) from returning home over some spat about trade policy?

The Department of Homeland Security should have refused this order.

> Trump might decide to ban her (with an American passport!)

Trump can't do that. That would take something way beyond an executive order.

Given that Steve Bannon actively wants us in a shooting war with China, I'd say your friend should make up Plans B,C,D and E immediately.

A patriotic American can simply renounce a foreign passport.

Some countries do not allow renunciation of their passports.

I'm not sure it's that easy. For one, it might not be a lot better where you're from. But more importantly, your presence also can influence (small impact on an individual's level of course) where things are going. There's also the issue that depending on your field there's simply more interesting jobs available locally in the US than in a lot of other countries.

I moved to the US ~a year ago, now as a permanent resident. Debating on what to do if things continue going down along the current course.

I believe Google would be happy to have him in London, Zurich, or Canada. We have solid engineering teams in all of them.

However, my view on that is a bit different - if he can avoid, working on his own for his own future instead of a big corp is the way to go.

PS: goog emp.

> I believe Google would be happy to have him in London, Zurich, or Canada. We have solid engineering teams in all of them.

As I understood it, he had gone through the interview process and been offered a specific role in Mountain View, for which they then couldn't get the visa. This was back in 2015, so no Trump craziness yet then, just the ordinary bureaucratic stuff.

And just to express my butthurt, Israelis don't even get visa-free tourism to the United States.

The h1b cap is crazy, unfortunately. If he has a phd he could have gone through eb1 route, but i am not an expert on that.

That said, it looks like it's past now. Good luck to your friend.

I doubt a Jewish Israeli computer scientist poses a threat. But posing a threat isn't the criterion. We don't just take anyone that isn't especially dangerous.

America is a nation and only those that further the aims of the existing nation should come. Even then it should be very few of those because America is already full.

We can't build enough space to live and infrastructure for the people that are already here. And our natural environment is already threatened by overdevelopment.

What do you mean "America is full?" Our population density is 182 of ~250 on a global scale. We have more space, money, and food per person than almost every other country on the planet.

The world is ridiculously overfull and Americans didn't make it that way. And the rest of the world is headed for rapid population increases to make it much worse. Americans shouldn't have to suffer for that; we've got a little space left and we should guard it jealously.

And just try driving in any major prosperous city at rush hour or riding the subway. Or renting an apartment in SF or NY. We can't expand housing or infrastructure in those cities and we're admitting millions of foreigners overfilling them even further.

if they could be reassured it would go no further than that.

We're 6 days in. At this point, can anyone really assure them of that?

It may also be illegal: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-immigrat...

The Hart-Celler Act abolished the national origins quota system that had structured American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants' skills and family relationships with citizens or residents of the U.S.


Executive Orders are there to fill in the implementation details that congress leaves out.. they can't override laws entirely.

Every year it seems what presidents can get away with using executive orders gets more expansive.

Democracy is not a stable form of government in the long term. There are a lot more former democracy's than current ones, and the US seems to be heading down a very dark path.

So what are the Democrats doing about this. The silence from that group is deafening.

Lol, blame the Democrats for not doing what? The Rs control the White House and both branches of congress.

That's the interesting thing, maybe Trump won because he was a smooth talker but why did the Democrats lose all those seats in the legislature? Does it just mean Dems never even voted? I guess why bother putting the shoes on when CNN and NBC have been showing a solid blue map for months on end and experts discussing grabbing of genital parts for days and days.

In all the discussions I heard so far on Facebook and media I noticed a lot blame, name-calling, despair and so on. But I haven't seen enough solid self-reflections. Specifically focusing on why did the Democrats stay home that day. Without it we will have another Trump and then another ...

The rational thing to do for any single voter is to not bother voting; and the US doesn't make it easy for people to vote, especially with election day not being a weekend or a public holiday and requiring most of the day.

In the US the "blue map" does really matter except psychologically since everyone votes in a specific state, but the predictions from the media probably didn't help.

Hopefully Trump will drive democratic midterm voter turn out.

I don't think the OP was blaming the Democrats, but rather asking the legitimate question of whether (and how) they are planning to resist.

So far, their actions have been rather dismal. For instance, they've voted for most if not all of Trump's cabinet appointments.

Yes, if a Democratic President was doing this, the din from the other camp would be very load. Not a beep from Chuck Schumer or Nancy Peloci?

Yes, the Republicans complained incessantly every time Obama broke the law with EOs. Nobody cared. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you're wondering why Republicans aren't leaping to help you?

Chuck Schumer made a statement yesterday. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-tears-are-running-...

Media might not be covering their response more? But, I don't know what they could do in Congress.

Well, that site is bad. Clicked on the search button because the link does not exist, and got taken to another site

There's already been a "tit-for-tat" response from Iran. US citizens are banned from travelling there.

Not like they made it easy before but still we can expect similar responses to the proposed 20% border tax with Mexico.

Edit Some people seem to think US citizens cannot visit Iran. From the horse's mouth:


US citizens have been banned from Iran for almost 40 years. That's a mighty swift response to US policy in 2017.

Not sure where you got that information, but it contradicts everything I've ever heard.

Cuba's been for a long time the only country the US won't allow its citizens to visit (head, meet desk); North Korea is, so far as I know, the only country that actively prevents US citizens from visiting, although that may be a misrepresentation of the facts on the ground.

Anyway, http://uncorneredmarket.com/american-travel-iran/ has more information.

US tourists visit North Korea; Vice magazine did an interesting doco on their experience. Tourists are chaperoned and experience cartoonish levels of propaganda, but they're not blocked.

If you actually watch that video, Vice had to bribe a Russian border official to gain entry to the country. It's generally known as the only means of getting in with a reasonably high odds of success.

The typical experience for Americans who have applied for visas to visit North Korea is a very long wait, with only gaining approval (sometimes after years of applications), only to have the approval revoked sometimes as late as hours before their flights depart. Some people report having had their travel visas revoked three or four times before finally being granted entrance.

"Not blocked" doesn't seem like the right term for whatever that is.

I didn't recall their issues getting in, but watching it again, there were no Russians involved. They ended up going to the North Korean consulate in Shenyang, China. No other embassies would help them get in.

US citizens can visit Iran—at Iranian discretion—with a state minder the same way US citizens can travel to North Korea. You can't travel freely and you can't travel without personal scrutiny ('extreme vetting') from Iranian officials.

Citation? I know from personal experience that this is not the case for non-US citizens.

Start here: http://triphackr.com/how-to-travel-to-iran-as-an-american/

TL;DR: Visa applications take longer (but still usually <30 days) and you must be accompanied by a guide at all times, but other than that you're free to travel around.

It's worth noting that this is considerably looser than North Korea, where you not only have a guide, but can only go to the places that have been agreed in advance and your guides permit you to go to.

Wow. None of that is true.

Trump is terrible, I wish someone else had been elected, this is clearly xenophobic crap, etc.

But we do this shit all the time. The US' immigration system is byzantine at best.

We deport "illegals" who have lives in the US routinely whose lives are no less worthwhile; Obama did something similar to Cubans coming here right before leaving office, leaving those moving to the US with the expectation that "wet foot dry foot" policy would continue stranded at airports.

We're just all more sympathetic to the MIT student.

Maybe I'm just overly cavalier, but it feels no different from the arbitrariness I have experienced in the US immigration system where random officials may make decisions with no relationship to the law with no grounds for appeal.

This country already makes it ridiculously hard for skilled workers to move here; the optics sure do look shitty though.

I do feel truly sorry for the refugees though, they have nowhere to go back to and are truly in a world of hurt. It saddens me that every country I have called home is so callous to them.

I think it is a little naive to think the effect on the country's "reputation as a place to study, travel, find work, and start families + settle down" wasn't considered by those pushing for this policy. Damaging this reputation and therefore reducing overall immigration was most likely considered a positive effect of the policy.

Hopefully this will lead to a change in direction from delegation to the executive, to deliberated by congress.

I do think that would be a good outcome, but even if Congress were interested in revising legislation to delegate less authority to the executive (and are they?), it seems like Trump wouldn't be interested in signing such legislation. Is a veto-proof supermajority interested in it? I think so far, no.

It's possible we may get some useful legal precedents, though, if some of this ends up in the courts. A good number of conservative judges are already skeptical of both excessive executive delegation and federal-government overreach, and were making moves in that direction during Obama's administration. Will Trump cause some liberal judges who have traditionally had differing views to wake up to the danger of such an executive, without an equal-or-greater number of conservative judges suddenly having a change of heart in the opposite direction? And will good test cases arise, with standing, etc.? Maybe, maybe not, but it's possible.


Three things:

1. It's not what "half of you wanted". It's what a portion of the portion of those that voted in a 55% turnout election wanted. A tiny and vindictive portion, that lost the popular vote.

2. Even if it were what "half of you wanted", it's also what half of you did not want. This is not a kid's game where you count up the points and call the clear winner. If half of your population's will is being disregarded and worked against, there is a problem.

3. This is plain and simply abhorrent. Even if these were popular policies, they are reprehensible. The majority can be misguided.

PS: Your twitter feed is worse than an angry child's. Seriously, get a hold of yourself. Applauding Trump's targeting of the free press and minorities? "Civilizational cancer"? Are you seriously surprised that people dislike you and your ideologies?

In the absence of information from that 45% it is not unreasonable to assume the 55% represent their view. Also some Democrats are anti-immigrant. So not such a tiny portion are anti-immigrant. It will be interesting to see what repercussions are from this executive order.

> If half of your population's will is being disregarded and worked against, there is a problem.

Then it seems to me there has been a problem in the US for many years now.

(Good news everyone! There's now a problem in the UK, too!)

Yes, there has been a big, big problem in the US for many, many years now, but it got especially bad with the gerrymandering in 2010.

I don't think you'll find many people arguing against that. It's one of the main reasons why Trump won.

Really, we wanted the President to break U.S. law in the first week and to mess up people's lives without any good reason besides bigotry and fear? I think you don't even understand the majority of the Republicans own base if you believe that.

> In fact, it's what half of us wanted

First, it's 46% of the people who voted (i.e. less than half). Second, it's quite disingenuous to suggest that all of those people would support this hamfisted immigration restriction, as-is; in case you were oblivious to your surroundings for the last year, vast numbers of voters -- if not the majority -- were merely voting for the person they despised less. It's more than a tad delusional that there's a mandate here to go and fuck over people's lives because of the happenstance of where they happen to come from.

I think a lot of people voted for Trump only because they thought Clinton was even worse. AFAICT most of the GOP didn't want Trump either, they just couldn't unify behind one of the alternatives. It's safe to say most of the country is unhappy about this crap.

Your callous disregard for the lives of others who are legal residents of the US appalls me.

Just because half of votes wanted it doesn't mean it's not terrifying. That this sort of ideal is taking hold is extremely unsettling.

I remember people telling me incessantly that it was just about illegal immigration and trump really wasn't going to change legal immigration.

It was obviously poorly planned.

And it is pretty capricious.

But yeah, he did repeatedly say he would do it.

Which is why people were protesting the day after the inauguration.

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

Birtherism, the Central Park Five, etc. The blatant bigotry is either desired, or all too easily diminished and dismissed or he would not be president. As much as it implicates Trump, keep in mind the U.S. Speaker of the House agreed with this specifically signed policy yesterday, as has the Vice President.

It is a trap to think this is about just Trump.

History will judge you harshly.

It was 46% of voters in a roughly 58% turnout election. So, roughly 26.7% of eligible voters wanted this.

And you think 26.7% of eligible voters, after you've suppressed and disenfranchised so many people, entitles you to violate our laws, our Constitution, and the boundaries of morality?

No. "President" Trump and his neo-Nazi advisor Stephen Bannon can shove this fascist crap where the sun don't shine.

"President" Trump and his neo-Nazi advisor Stephen Bannon can shove this fascist crap where the sun don't shine.

Regardless of how strongly you feel, how heated the discussion, or how others are behaving, you're doing yourself and your argument no favors with the name-calling. Even if you feel that you're just calling a spade a spade, you're just providing others with ammunition to dismiss you and anything you say as just an angry, unreasonable rant. And if you're not actually addressing the people who you don't agree with (which means you're addressing the people who already agree with you, or at best, people who are on the fence), is it really worth saying?

You make a lot of good points at the beginning of your comment. These figures need to be kept in mind, on all sides of these discussions.

>Even if you feel that you're just calling a spade a spade, you're just providing others with ammunition to dismiss you and anything you say as just an angry, unreasonable rant.

I think the problem here is that I genuinely feel I'm calling a spade a spade. Trump himself is probably not ideological enough to be a devoted neo-Nazi. Stephen Bannon, on the other hand, makes Republicans allude to fascism[1].

>“The racist, fascist extreme right is represented footsteps from the Oval Office,” said John Weaver, a Republican strategist who ran the presidential campaign of Gov. John Kasich of Ohio and previously advised Senator John McCain of Arizona. “Be very vigilant, America.”[2]

[1] -- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/14/steve-bannon-who-...

[2] -- https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/donald-trump-...

Like I said, it doesn't matter if it's justified or not. All that matters is whether you're able to appear as a legitimate voice. I'd love for everything to come down to rational facts and discourse. That's just not how human psychology works in the even the best of circumstances. And when people are actively choosing to act in bad faith, you need to take that into account even more so.

People have tried to take this "we're better than them" approach. The problem is that the other side isn't playing nice. Gandhian non-violence only works when the other side has a smattering of conscience; it is not so for Trump's administration.

Please don't misunderstand me as thinking this is a "better than them" type of thing. It actively denies opponents ammunition. I'm in full agreement that it's not enough on its own. People need to be engaged in political action as well. (Edit to add: And engaged as good, upstanding members of their own local communities.) I strongly believe one of the reasons the election was as problematic as it was all around is that there was too much name-calling and misrepresentation. It allowed people even more room to filter things to align with their own biases, which is going to happen anyway.

How many people strongly supported the candidate they ended up casting their ballot for? Both Trump and Clinton had historically low favorability ratings. If people think they're being attacked by one side or the other, it makes it all the harder for them to listen to reasoned debate, and much more likely that they'll be actively voting against a candidate.

Even this "other side" language is problematic, in my opinion. How are you going to find allies among those you don't already agree with when you think of them as "other"? How do you expect them to listen to you? People dig in, get defensive, when they feel they're being attacked. They're no longer listening. There are some people who will never listen to you, or even if they do listen to you, aren't going to end up agreeing with you. But that's not necessarily everyone you don't currently agree with. If you've already written off everyone who voted for a different candidate than you, then you're stuck with very few options. People are more complex than the effectively binary option that was the 2016 US Presidential Election admits.

It's not a "better than them" thing. It's a "what's actually going to make a difference" thing. Language alone isn't going to solve this, of course. But language used poorly can drive needless wedges between people.

A few weeks ago I agreed completely with this "be pacific, be understanding, be calm, be kind" strategy. And yes, it's nice to be all those things.

All your statements about trying to make people understand, to make them feel equal and not defensive, I was 100% on board with such an approach. And then you realise it's futile.

India did not become independent because Gandhi won; India became independent because it became unfashionable to have colonies, and the British were pressured into letting their empire dissolve.

Correction: less than half of the voters. Not half.

Less than half

I refuse to believe that most of the people voted for Trump because of his immigration policy, especially since all of the policy details he provided were vague at best. It was about jobs and hating the Clintons and the Dems more than anything, but immigration wasn't the core issue of the election.

Cracking down on illegal immigration was definitely a major plank in his platform. I think the wall is stupid and a waste of money but, at the end of the day, it is in service of existing immigration laws, so it's not abhorrent to the same degree as the Muslim ban, which uses executive power to capriciously deny entry to people who were previously legal immigrants, visitors, and tourists.

Roughly half. The point is still valid and it's important not to disregard the momentum of that segment of the country

Nazism should be swiftly kicked in the ass whenever it rears itself.

This is naked white supremacism. For as much bullshit as we've heard about political correctness, why not just come out and say this is straight up religious and racial discrimination?

The easy time to do this was the election. It is much harder to deal with now.

The president's Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor is a white nationalist, who used to run Breitbart.com, where there is a distinction made between white supremacists and white nationalists (I cannot explain the distinction, for I don't see one). A site all about how awful multiculturalism is, separation of races is necessary for the survival of a country, etc.

Without letting down your guard or concern, my advice is to moderate it with another possibility. The U.S. has much better insulation geographically than European countries, and a history that involves worse rhetoric and divisiveness and we've survived. There might be a pro where the whole world sees what even a little bit of white nationalism does to a country, and all those European countries flirting with their own far right nationalists, and have elections coming up soon, might just have an "OH FUCK NO" moment.

And that's probably better than if Europe were electing far right governments before the U.S. Europe has a history of conflagration. Maybe Europe gets cold feet and starts taking far right nationalist politics more seriously, and rejects it more concisely and clearly, at election time. It's much easier, safer, more stable, to squash this at an election.

This is a wise and sensible comment. Having said that, I'll caution that in the long term we are all dead anyway.

I hope you are right. Would not bet on it.

The trouble is that you can't convince someone that their own beliefs or policies they support are racial or religious discrimination. People can and do support these policies, and they can and do insist that the reasons for them are genuine concern for America's safety.

Voter turnout was a record low 55%, and Trump lost the popular vote by between three and five million votes, a fact he still refuses to recognize. Trump is not supported by a majority of the US population, and his constant and willful disregard of material fact is reckless.

I find this comment utterly disgusting, and entirely reprehensible.

You should be ashamed. Imagine being unable to go to work after a short vacation - because someone didn't like where you were born, and in the meantime, on a whim, decided not to let you go.

For absolute shame.

Half? You use this word twice. Where are you getting this figure?


It's shameful HN doesn't flag posts calling Trump and his supporters nazis, homophobic and other names. While any dissident about liberals is flagged/downvoted to oblivion.

Every group on HN notices things that appear to be against them. It's normal human bias. I've seen plenty of flagging/down-voting going on all sides of various issues.

If you legitimately are interested to dig into this more, there are at least two different HN APIs available for you to mine the comments on the site. I'd be interested in the results if you chose to do so.


I did not downvote you myself but Trump, as a political movement, is really close to fascism. Look yourself at the definition of fascism: http://www.favreau.info/misc/14-points-fascism.php, Trump checks almost all the marks there and it makes a lot of people afraid. It does not mean anything bad is going to happen and it does not mean anything either on Trump supporters, but it's still very concerning.

I agree that it's not right or helpful to mislabel people or call names. Please don't read my comment as supporting that in any way. What I was addressing is the perception that it's one-sided.

I don't think looking at a single submission is adequate in dealing with the perception issue, but for the sake of argument, I looked at all of the references for "nazi" (as it was the first on your list) in the comments for the submission you referenced. Only one of them in my opinion can be construed as name-calling, and that is nuanced in that it explicitly says "not all". Still not great, admittedly, but not the blanket name-calling you imply.

This is all the effort I'm willing to do for you on this front. I think this shows good faith. I encourage you to take a step back and look at everything as a whole as objectively as you can. I know this is hard (it's hard for me), but it's increasingly important lest we increase the polarization we already have. We can't control how other people behave directly. All we can do is do our best to control our own behavior to encourage others to do likewise and move forward constructively.



popular support for Nazism has been purged from German culture.



Trump voters are not 100% made up of nazis, in essence.



Germany wasn't 100% made up of Nazi supporters either. That didn't stop disaster.



I've sen a lot of angst over the last week about people on the left expressing approval for 'punching nazis' following Richard Spencer suffering a whack on the ear during a TV interview. It's true, someone, probably form the left, carried out an act of physical violence while he was just standing there talking.



I am even wiling to defend the concept of free speech for people like neo-nazis and the kkk - but only up to the point where they endorse violence against others as opposed to merely asserting their own superiority.



Punching nazis is OK. The left gets to decide who is a nazi.

Punching commies is OK. The right gets to decide who is a commie.



We restricted Nazi immigration, we restricted communist immigration, and we should certainly restrict Muslim extremist immigration.



If you mean Nazi Germany, my opinion is that there aren't actually that many parallels.



For some reason I'm thinking of a parable that goes like: "First they came for the Nazis"...



And Obama was the biggest nazi of all times



I'm not saying it has not errupted (it has) I'm saying violence and the glorification if it (as in people sharing the punch a Nazi video) is a dead end and will definitely strengthen trump support.



It is not possible to really invoke Godwin's law regarding Trump, he already opened this door when he accused the CIA of being like NAZIs for reporting he facts.


You don't appear to be engaging in good faith yourself. You accuse HN members of name-calling, yet when presented with evidence that the first name you list wasn't actually being used in the way you imply, you backpedal and say "oh, no, look at this other one". And you still use the nazi example as the majority of your comment.

Good faith means doing that work upfront to ensure that what you're saying has some basis, and in the case of contentious issues, strong basis. Good faith also means backing down when you're called out on something and found to be lacking that strong basis, not continuing to push it forward.

Most people's good faith doesn't extend infinitely. They're fools if they do continue to extend it when repeatedly shown that the people they're engaging with aren't doing so as well.

And you still don't seem to have gotten my original point: I agree that name-calling is uncalled for and actively unconstructive and uncivil. The perception that "your side", whatever that may be, is being treated unfairly pops up on all sides of contentious issues here on HN. Go out and do some real stats work if you think there's something pernicious about some particular behavior. The data is out there. Just anecdotes don't cut it. Your bias (and mine, and anyone's) isn't going to let you see the picture clearly on its own. And when you're done, share the data, methodology, and results with the rest of us. I know there are a lot of people besides me who would be interested in seeing it, regardless of the actual results.

Hey, thanks for writing these comments. I think these are great examples of how to talk about these topics without inviting more conflict or devolving into condescension.

People (re-)coming in with green cards, or the Iranian PhD student mentioned in TFA are hardly without knowledge of who they are. They've been vetted by the INS and already live in the country.

Even for those strongly against Muslims, or immigration in general, it seems difficult to believe that this kind of lame-ass shit is what they had in mind when voting Trump.

And for those few with enough animus to want to screw over some innocent PhD student because of where she was born? Fuck those guys.

Get enough karma to downvote and flag, and then flag what you think needs to be flagged. That's how the process works.

How this effects [sic] this country's current reputation as a place to study, travel, find work, and start families + settle down can't be understated.

That's the intention. The USA is more than a convenient incubator for foreigners. It's a nation responsible for its own future. Quite a lot of Americans don't want foreigners to make plans expecting that the USA will just always be there to fulfill their whims.

A little unpredictability goes a long way in changing your national reputation as an easily exploited doormat.

I think that being a student here is hardly catering to their whims. She was let in by the University, works there, and studies there. It seems fair to let her continue to do that.

Also, why do you think immigrants are always going to be non-American? My father has lived here for nearly 40 years, pays taxes, pays into SS, and raised my family here. Is he just fulfilling his whims?

I have hired 70 people for my corporate overlords in multiple countries, and our national policies are pretty much the opposite of exploited doormat.

What I am trying to say is, if you believe USA is "an easily exploited doormat" you need to step out of the echo chamber and diversify your news sources.

You're just being xenophobic. You do realize that all of America was built up by immigrants, right?

What's scary is the new immigration ban affects legal, permanent residents. US legal, permanent residents that have firmly rooted their lives in the US, only to be told they can't come home.

This. I am from Turkey, and i will be nervous every passing day from yesterday on, watching news to see if Turkey is added to the list. I am still years away from naturalization, and it saddens me to think about relocating, after having left where i was born for a better and productive life.

Nobody chooses their birthplace, but these are the people that decided to make a change, and in a way that historically benefited the us.

What makes Donald Trump's action so sickenly selfish is that a better life is why his grandfather Friedrich Drumpf immigrated from Bavaria.

Though one could argue 3 generations later that act of immigration is not benefitting the US.

Let's just spell it out. They were white Christians and therefore are welcome. Statue of Liberty weeps with sorrow.

Actually, per a snopes article (http://www.snopes.com/donald-drumpf), the Drumpf to Trump transition may have occurred because the former was more German sounding, and there was a good bit of anti-german hatred at the time.

This is what all the anti-immigration people don't get. Chances are, when their ancestors came to this country they likely weren't wanted by the current residents. Basically every American racial/cultural slur you can think of arose during the time when that group was the majority immigrant group. Every group was discriminated against (Irish, Germans, Italians, Chinese/Japanese).

So what? America's history is overwhelmingly white and Christian. The vast majority of immigration to the US has been from white, Christian nations, even more so at the time when the Statue of Liberty was erected. Is the US a nation of Yemeni immigrants? It's silly to simply treat all potential immigrants as if they are the same. Also, it's disingenuous to reference the Statue of Liberty as some kind of justification for unlimited immigration from all nations of the world. The USA is not a dumping ground for the world's poor.

“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”


You can make your immigration policy tighter for residency/naturalization, it's within country's right, but tying that to where people are born is pretty sad.

Sadly, this justifies what trump was/is doing.

Eh if you look from a narrow angle, he is providing employment through his business. I think that's a benefit to the country.

It's too early to say what benefits the country will have after his presidency.

Are you kidding me? Benefits like regressing on clean energy, blocking PhD students and scientists, and in general violating laws? He's been awful just a week into his presidency. The next 4 years are not going to magically get better.

Going around and shooting people with jobs would be opening up employment for other people too, doesn't make it good policy.

Barring employment and immigration to an ethnic group is absolutely disastrous for the country.

He's safe now. Who knows about next week?

You think Donald will sell his stake in projects in Turkey?

What happens when some terrorist group makes the extremely tactically-obvious decision to attack the Trump Towers there? It's not like there's any shortage of US-hostile terrorists with the ability to reach Istanbul.

(Honestly, what happens when any Trump property around the world gets attacked? They've got giant signs advertising that the president of the US cares about them, and they don't have anywhere near the protection that US soil does.)

Tbh I'm surprised this hasn't happened yet. All the countries that dislike him/US && have Trump property.... Seems like those are easy targets especially considering how sensitive he is to his brand image it would make the attacks all the more alluring.

It could be anything, right? The political environment in Turkey itself is not stable (hasn't been for quite some time now). There have also been multiple bombings in the country that citizens lost track of, and it became an ordinary part of life.

I don't want to speculate on how Trump might behave when it comes to his business now that he's the POTUS, but even without that, there are enough reasons for him to add Turkey to the list.

I think one of the few reasons it hasn't happened yet is probably because Incirlik base, but it's also been a long tension point between two countries.

Selfishly, I was hoping greencard holders would be exempt, and thinking we already go through thorough background check as part of the application, but it turned out futile.

Yeah, I wonder. Is the President allowed to send troops to protect his personal property or investments?

Would sovereign nations like Turkey accommodate such requests that hurt their sovereignty and open them to public outrage and probably civil unrest?

I don't think so.

It could happen, it's business after all. He might also be forced to sell by the turkish government. We don't have a stable political environment, and I wouldn't be super surprised if something happened there.

Tax laws come to mind, for example, when Turkish government wanted extra tax money, they started going after American companies.

Edit: Added last para.

Erdogan already said some stuff about removing Trump (just the name) from Istanbul in 2015 [1]. That said, Erdogan says a lot of things.

[1] http://presstv.com/Detail/2016/06/25/472171/erdogan-trump-to...

i didn't realize it was a licensing deal, instead of trump owning the business there.

What most people don't realize is that most things with Trump's name on them are just licensing deals.

Also, i feel like there is a chance where Trump can have his cake and eat it too - I am not entirely sure how a ban for Turkish nationals would immediately affect his business. The dynamics is very different in Turkey - i don't even try to understand.

He didn't seem to worry about his investments in Saudi Arabia when he made his ignorant comments about Muslims during his campaign.

At this rate naturalized citizens will be next. And just remember that the US govt can already lock forever on terrorism charges.

Yes thanks to Obama orders, citizens in time of war OR NOT, outside of US soil, OR ON IT!

The only recently new things is a guys in Washington recklessly driving car while DUI that is being officially called terrorist.

Next coming: jaywalking might be terrorism too.

That law predated Obama.

There is some light at the end of tunnel, but the news still requires some verification.

Greencard holders will require additional screening at an embassy/consulate before they are allowed entering to usa.


Overall, I don't see this as such a bad thing... But every major decision is going to have its outliers.

This is a temp 90-day ban on non-reciprocating countries (and countries of concern), which the FBI said they are not able to properly vet (because those countries will not provide background info on the applicant, and some other reasons). It only affects non-citizens such as visitors, students, or employment visas holders - from leaving the country and coming back, and there seems to be a waiver process to help them.

They already have something like a 7 month backlog of applicants to process. 90 days is going to give them a chance to catch up and look for ways to improve the situation... Such as getting the "Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs" part of the order up and running.

> This is a temp 90-day ban on non-reciprocating countries (and countries of concern), which the FBI said they are not able to properly vet (because those countries will not provide background info on the applicant, and some other reasons). It only affects non-citizens.

The EO affects ALL legal immigrants from these countries like H1B visa holders and Green Card holders too.

Looks like it also affects dual citizens of those countries as well. per http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38783512

I doubt it will affect anyone with a US passport at the border, but it's about time for the USA to adopt the Japanese policy and simply ban all dual citizenship. If you hold a foreign passport or any kind of documents from a foreign country for its citizens, your US citizenship should be revoked and you should be deported.

Japan is not the only one, I believe China does it too. There is a merit to this, and even though i can see many people would be unhappy to give up their citizenship (basically, you'll be required to have a visa to visit your family, which is big inconvenience), if it's part of the deal, I think many people would still take it.

Most of these though, I feel, should not happen retroactively. In other words, if they are already naturalized citizens and now have two citizenships, they should remain so. US shouldn't go after all the generations who naturalized. It's fair if they require you renounce your former citizenship going forward.

China has a special visitors visa category for foreigners of Chinese ethnicity, which gives them multiple entries over some long time period (could by 1 year, I forget). It's not available to foreigners of Caucasian, African, etc ethnicity.


You can be a loyal citizen to only one country. Maintaining two passports is an open declaration of disloyalty and lack of solidarity.

And immigrants shouldn't get special privileges that natural citizens cannot, especially special privileges conferred by foreign princes and potentates.

There are many countries that don't require a pledge of allegiance for citizenship, so you can't really argue that being a citizen of those countries constitutes a conflict of interest with US citizenship.

Being a citizen of a country typically means that you have certain rights and privileges in that country that non-citizens don't. That's about it. "Loyalty" doesn't enter the picture unless one is a hardcore nationalist.

Choose who to love; Your father ... or your mother. Your father's uncle, but not your mum's brother

Nah, I don't buy the idea, Is plain BS.

Are US natural citizens denied the ability to get a foreign citizenship?

Not all permanent residents are citizens. Also, it looks like it'll be made permanent unless that country can guarantee that every single person isn't a terrorist. Which seems impossible.

If these countries are not reciprocating as you seem to suggest, why did the US DoS issue them visas in the first place?

Don't tell me that they don't reject visa applications at their diplomatic missions and for reasons related to national security because that's what they do all the time in the ME.

Permanent residents are non-citizens. That's what it means.

Obviously it doesn't affect citizens.

The problem is it affects legal, permanent residents. And innocent people.

Trump is already busy throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It affects citizens who want to get married to non-citizens.

And citizens who are already married to non-citizens.

I'm worried about this. My wife isn't from one of the banned countries, but who knows if that will remain the case in the future?

It gives them an excellent opportunity to move to their new spouses' countries and settle down there.


So your great-great-grandparents moved to America, killed most of the local population and now you think you own the place? The USA is made of immigrants.

The sad thing is, those with the most options, who pay the most taxes, will do just that. They'll take their expertise and productivity and contribute them somewhere else. And the racists will congratulate themselves on how smart they are while the country continues its crumbling slide into fascism.

> This is a temp 90-day ban

Is 90 days a hard limit, or could another order introduce a further 90 days?

It's an executive order, so outside a court challenge that rules this whole class of procedures on immigration unconstitutional, he can do this ad infinitum. But then of course he also frequently invokes Andrew Jackson, whom history remembers as the populist who told the Supreme Court to fuck off when he was behaving unconstitutionally and proceeded to commit genocide against Native Americans.

It's so easy to see the outcome of these policies. Intolerance begats intolerance begats violence. There can be no other outcome other than an increase in violence, both domestic and international. And what will Trump do when the violence increases? He will whip the masses up with frenzied speeches and double-down on the executive orders to limit immigration. But the violence will not abate but will worsen. So finally, he will institute orders to deal with the violence, not the immigration orders that are the cause, but the violence. Protests will be banned, people will be put in prison, violence will be quashed by even more violent means, and they'll need to clothe these violence-quashers and will decide that brown shirts are the appropriate colour.

  Protests will be banned, people will be put in prison, violence will be quashed by even more violent means
"Our country needs more law enforcement, more community engagement, and more effective policing. Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter. Our job is to make life more comfortable for parents who want their kids to be able to walk the streets safely."

- whitehouse.gov

what's your point? nowhere does that statement mention peaceful, legal, protesting. Rioting, looting, and acts of violence are all illegal.

And red hats.

... and start a war.

A friendly reminder from over the pond (that is Europe).


You need to speak up now, or one does not know where this will end.

> "First they came for the Socialists..."

Yep, and we are already all the way up to "arresting 6 journalists covering public protests against the unpopular ruler"

My understanding of that event is that protestors were starting fires and the police arrested 230 people near the incident. Of those 6 were journalists. I think that's somewhat different than police targeting journalists for their viewpoints, of which I don't see evidence.

You're right we are early into that event. It's still not clear how the arrest played out: (a) they were grabbed along with "rioters" and later turned out to be journalists on the side or (b) they were with media badges and video cameras clearly covering the riots on the ground, then still arrested as a sign of force. Sadly journalists get arrested relatively often, but it's important to insist that medics should be aimed at as rarely as possible, despite the heat of the moment.

um aren't you missing "or c) they were actively rioting along with hundreds of others"?

Some will speak (Hollande already has I think?), but no-one will do anything to risk their precious $$.

Researchers in our lab at MIT are also under pressure. One cannot return home for fear of losing his visa and the other is potentially stuck abroad.

The unfortunate fact is no-one who matters cares about this.

Who matters? Not the US public: von Clownstick & co know it will be forgetten in a month or three, and by the next election (if there is another election) enough red meat can be thrown to the know-nothing base to "win" again.

Who matters: other wealthy nation governments. That's it. And none of them, however loudly they profess civilised values, will risk a hair on their precious bankers' heads to protect distant low-status nonwhite humans. That's a plain fact.

We all know what ought to happen: civilised nations should band together and just say no to America. An escalating series of sanctions, starting with trade, going via targeted military cooperation downgrades, and ending with cancelling all visas to US citizens. Some nations have strong leverage over America, eg. Australia threatening access to Pine Gap would make the US tremble.

None of this can or will happen, and we will plunge into the abyss. WWI and II were prequels. RIP homo sapiens. You will be little missed by our once-glorious planet's other sentient beings.

> by the next election (if there is another election) enough red meat can be thrown to the know-nothing base to "win" again.

I think this is a very important point and pose a threat to democracy. I submitted a new word addition request in Merriam Webster's open dictionary and Oxford: demagogocracy - government by the demagogues

It's really hypocritical that you only start noticing this happening now. The same has happened under Obama. I have a friend who was denied going back to University of Chicago last year https://www.facebook.com/ridakoon/posts/10158098402210427?pn...

Individual injustices are not new. Wholesale bans of everyone from certain countries are. Both are bad, both deserve to be fought, but they are on completely different levels.

> Wholesale bans of everyone from certain countries are.

The actual 120 day ban is bad enough, there's no reason to lie about it. People with green cards/existing visas need to be re-approved, they're not "banned". There's no intention AFAICT to keep people who should be in the US out of the US.

FFS people, Trump needs actual opposition, not knee-jerk virtue signaling, hyperbole, and hashtag protests!

All those people being detained in Customs facilities at airports across the country must really be comforted that the intent isn't to keep anyone out who should be here.

You can say that, but I don't believe it. And you're not going to shut down my legitimate outrage and distress by pretending like it's not sincere.

> People with green cards/existing visas need to be re-approved, they're not "banned".

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, and it sounds like the administration is backpedaling as well, but it's important to note that in the mean time some people with a (previously) legal right to enter the US were turned away because of Trump's recent executive order.


I guess the tl;dr for that article is “She’s not going to be able to get a visa for at least 90 days”

Careers are sometimes fragile and international flights are expensive. It's not as if none of this idiocy matters.

> FFS people, Trump needs actual opposition, not knee-jerk virtue signaling, hyperbole, and hashtag protests!

This is a deeply stupid comment.

> but it's important to note that in the mean time some people with a (previously) legal right to enter the US were turned away because of Trump's recent executive order.

This is false. U.S. visas (regardless of type) are different from those issued by other nations. A US visa does not give someone the right to enter the United States, it gives them the right to go to a port of entry (like an airport) and ask for permission to enter the United States.

Trump's order added additional scrutiny for border agents for people with visas from the seven countries. Many (most?) of those people were admitted, and the ACLU suit forced border agents to keep people "in limbo" in the US while that determination was made (vs. sending them back and forcing them to get a new visa—IMO, this is the right decision and I'm happy the courts made it).

But your specific assertion, that they had a legal right to enter the US is false. At best, they had a reasonable expectation that once they arrived, they would be let in without any difficulty or delay.

Thank God we cleared that up.

> This is a deeply stupid comment.

The only opposition yesterday worth anything was the ACLU lawsuit, and it was the only thing that actually made any concrete difference in the lives of the people affected.

The rest was just people engaging in fantasy politics in the streets, who got what they wanted by appearing to care in front of their peers—without actually changing, literally, anything at all but their own perception of themselves.

Everything beyond the ACLU lawsuit was either pointless virtue signaling or flat out lies (c.f. #MuslimBan hashtag). But sure, carry on protesting and virtue signaling, we all enjoy Trump running roughshod over the US while idiots live out their fantasy of political action and #Resistance on HN and Twitter.

So, when we complain about stuff on the internet, it's pointless virtue signaling. When you complain about stuff on the internet, it's.... what? Are you just virtue signaling to your group, here?

I'm talking to people, like yourself, who are normaly sober and rational on HN (and presumably, other places—I like your Objective-C articles, for instance).

It's weird, Trump really has a lot of people "off their game" as it were, and it saddens me because the guy's kind of an idiot. I'd like to see people I respect get their shit together and mount and effective opposition.

Short of talking to them (like I'm doing here), I'm not really sure what else you would expect me to do given my goals.

I am personally not politically active, I don't blog, tweet, or any of that stuff. I rarely even comment on HN.

So yeah: I just want to see the middle/left mount effective opposition. If you don't value my comments, ignore them. :)

Could you explain how I'm not being sober and rational here, preferably without using the word "lie" (I'm not intending to deceive, so I am at worst mistaken) or the phrase "virtue signaling" (which is basically a slightly more polite way to say "fuck you" and is not productive)?

What else would I expect you to do? I'd expect you to stop complaining about imaginary slights and insulting people for talking about things that they dislike.

What do you think I should do? You haven't given me any suggestions, just virtually shouted at me for being such a lying asshole. So I should... what? You said the ACLU mounted the only effective opposition, maybe I should donate to them? Well, I did already. Hmm, if I were virtue signaling, wouldn't I put that front and center on everything I write? Hey everybody, look at how virtuous I am, I donated to the ACLU!

Sorry, my timeout kicked in and I couldn't reply quickly.

I apologize if my comments seem overly directed at you personally; that was not my intent and I should have made a top-level comment. You're a good guy and perhaps I've misunderstood how effective your approach will be over time.

Best, Erich

I was in an airport yesterday on business and encountered protesters who had organized via the internet and came out during a snowstorm. I don't know if that's what you meant by "hashtag protests," but the protests made the national news, and if enough people protest, maybe it moves the needle a little bit.

It is certainly a heck of a lot more effective than making pointlessly cynical comments like yours from behind a computer monitor.

Yes, but Obama was on our side, so certain things can be overlooked for the greater good.

False equivalence. Obama did not ban a country or religion wholesale. This is a substantial and disturbing step in the reckless anti-fact, anti-science, anti-truth administration of Donald John Trump.

False equivalence.

I never stated their were equivalent, but the silence pre-Trump about immigration issues was deafening.

If you think there was silence about immigration issues pre-Trump, you simply were not listening.

But yes, the current situation is several orders of magnitude worse, if you simply measure the number of people affected. Therefore, people's will be much more vocal.

Which immigration issues specifically? The net migration to Mexico is an outflow, and the US continues to have one of the longest and most extensive refugee/asylum vetting processes in the world. What specifically should change?

When I was in grad school, most of the grad students in virtually all the science and engineering depts were foreign students.

And what most people don't realize is that without grad students, most research will be severely impacted. So if this continues at the rate it's going, we begin to lose foreign grad students to other countries.

I hope this ends well, but I have my doubts.

>And what most people don't realize

Of course they realize it. White nationalism is building its own epistemology - we already have alternative facts, and soon we will have "American science" [0]. Eviscerating the liberal/globalist scientific/academic community isn't some sad unintended side effect, it's the core of what an electoral majority of this country believes with all its heart we should be doing with gusto.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

Let's remember that most people affected have far fewer resources and opportunity than an MIT student; most people's predicaments will not be on HN's front page or a Whitehouse.gov petition.

Please also remember to sign the petition, in addition to discussing it in the comments! 100k signatures is a lot, but not for HackerNews ;)

Question: Can people outside the US sign the petition as well, or does it have more validity if only US residents sign it?

I want to sign it, but don't want it to be used against the petition later if someone in the administration says it is a 'fake petition' because x% of outside the US jurisdiction signed it.

Don't sign if you're not a US citizen, exactly due to the reason you pointed out. We want the numbers as valid as possible, rather than as large as possible.

Well, Trump will just say it was rigged anyway and lots of fake signatures etc.

Is the site broken or delayed or something? There was 1 signature, I signed it (and verified my email) and it still says there is 1 signature.

The petition just got created under an hour ago, and the signature counter probably doesn't update in real time.

It is still at 1 signature.

I signed, too, but I didn't see an update in the signature count either. According to https://www.buzzfeed.com/blakemontgomery/signatures-on-the-w... We the People is experiencing technical difficulties at present; the Trump administration said it was "a question of high volume."


And share with others. This is only one poor guy, but there's plenty more like him out there who have done everything right and jumped through the USCIS hoops to get here legally with the goal of improving their (and potentially their family's) life. This is beyond wrong and now is not the time to sit on our hands.

EDIT: Link looks like it is currently broken for me too.

link is working for me but it only shows 1 person has signed it so far, which I think is just a software error

You know, it turns out only ONE, just ONE signed the petition. It was probably Hillary. You know, I going to create my own petition and it's going to be GREAT. It's going to be the best petition.

Proud to be Canadian, see our PM's latest tweets https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/825438460265762816

> Proud to be $nationality

I can't say I'm not proud of the Netherlands, but in this context... isn't this a big source of much evil? Us versus them? Ours vs. not ours?

There is nothing wrong with healthy pride (compared to egotistical pride). We all have things to be grateful for, hopeful about, and proud of, and that has never hurt anyone. Lack of healthy pride in oneself, one's identity and one's values is a sign of low self-esteem, a great source of suffering in the world. Black and white thinking on pride leads to fuzzy thinking and bad conclusions.

I agree, it's just that it's difficult to tell where the line is between a healthy self esteem about one's identity and it turning into an us vs them thing. In this thread, this comment might have turned into a discussion about the latter - or so I was afraid.

Just not if you are a single male from Syria


Or even if a member of your immigrate family has Autism, from anywhere in the world, due to the financial burden to the healthcare system.

Where is the outrage over THAT? But of course platitudes are dished out that give the appearance of openness. That is obviously the only thing that matters in these cases, for the leaders to give the public a warm, fuzzy, general statement whilst doing the exact opposite.

There is a huge amount of sanctimonious talk coming out of other leaders and the public at the moment. People do not seem to be aware just how restrictive most country's immigration policies are. This is all getting lost in the Trump hate.

Proud to be a permanent resident of Canada now. I left US (H1B visa) some months back.

You don't need a visa (H1B or otherwise), the Canadian border is just like the US border with Mexico: open. Anyone can migrate to Canada from the US, just walk across (or drive on up). If "caught", they won't send you back to the US (or wherever). You can get a job, get (free) healthcare, a driver's license, the works—you don't need documentation at all (or can fake it, just like in the US). Why people migrating from Mexico stop in the US is beyond me—Canada has a way better policy towards immigrants, they love undocumented workers! Canada even has sanctuary cities (like Toronto), and unlike the US, Trudeau isn't attacking them, he's praising them!

Canada completely rocks when it comes to immigration policy and is exactly how globalism in the US should be: welcome everyone, from anywhere—no papers, no problem! We're all people after all.

Canada has immigration and laws and will deport people. They aren't particularly fast or efficient about it, but don't spread false rumors that you don't need a Visa to live here. Further for off-continent arrivals the information is shared with the US in exchange for lesser restrictions at the US/Canada land border.

Undocumented workers specifically are a problem not because we don't want immigration - but because they are at risk of abuse by their employer.

> Canada has immigration and laws and will deport people.

Eh, technically, yes. But like anti-sodomy laws in many states in the US, they are rarely applied. Canada does not have a problem with immigration, "legal" or otherwise, no matter what the "laws" say.

Open borders is a human rights issue and Canada is on the right side of history. They do not preference their own citizens over other people, just because of where they were born or what nationality they are. Canada is compassionate to all people and a model for the United States.

> Undocumented workers specifically are a problem not because we don't want immigration - but because they are at risk of abuse by their employer.

Agreed, that's why I suggested undocumented immigrants just forge their papers; that's how it's done in the US and at least in California, works pretty well and tends to keep employers more honest.

Ideally Canada should just automatically give any undocumented worker (and their family) whatever papers/status necessary to make their de facto immigration to Canada legal, so they can stop being abused by their employer (and anyone else). Perhaps by setting up a center or something that undocumented workers can go to to get legal sanction. (California does something similar—anyone can get a valid drivers license here without any gov't papers.)

In fact, Canada not already just giving undocumented workers full rights and legal papers could reasonably be considered to be a human rights violation, since by not doing so, they are enabling inevitable abuse by Canadian employers. Same with visa grants, Canada IMO should just abolish visas entirely and let anyone who can get to Canada in, with full papers on arrival. It's probably some shit arrangement with the US gov't that's preventing them from doing so, now that I think about it.

I'm sure that over time, Canada will repeal all laws preventing foreigners from immigrating to Canada, establishing quotas, wait-lists, or anything else that takes away anyone's right to immigrate to Canada if they want to. Maybe even faster now that Trump is pissing everyone off in the US.

Like ending slavery, fully unrestricted open borders can't come soon enough. Future generations will judge us accordingly that we did not do so sooner, and at least Canada is on the right side of history, even if their laws have to catch up a bit to their hearts.

Will your brave PM institute any sanctions against the US? Tweets are cheap as.

Sanctions because... ?

Attacks on Canadian dual citizens; attacks on the international order for dealing with refugees.

> Proud to be Canadian,

I thought excessive chauvinism is what led to Trump at first place?

>I thought excessive chauvinism is what led to Trump at first place?

I have no idea how you equate him saying "Canadians will welcome you" with chauvanism. And if you're referring to Justin getting his shirt off, that isn't what chauvanism means. (He is actually the exact opposite of the definition of chauvanism).

> him saying "Canadians will welcome you"

He didn't say that, I quoted what he said. There is no need to be proud of anything, like a nationality would make someone "more virtuous" and people from other nationalities would be defacto "less virtuous". That's chauvinism.

>He didn't say that, I quoted what he said.

I was quoting what Justin said. I see you were talking about the OP instead.

>like a nationality would make someone "more virtuous" and people from other nationalities would be defacto "less virtuous"

Being part of a nation that welcomes people seems a good reason to be proud.

you have a (small but valid) point

Looks like he has it under control....

McCullom reassures Canadian women: low risk for sexual assaults by Syrian refugees[1]


Does the White House Petition website still work? I mean, I am surprised it is still up. Surely the new administration would A) not pay attention to it and B) simply scrap it to avoid maintaining it.

As far as I understand, there is no legal requirement for the White House to even entertain the petitions.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_(petitioning_sys...

It was an effort (at times, half hearted), at transparency by Obama, it has no legal weight, no. Do we have hope it will even be considered by Trump considering how they aren't even taking calls? No.

It's a cheap way to let political enemies identify themselves, though.

Yea I think continuing to use the wh petition site is futile at best and dangerous at worst, for reasons sibs point out. Would strongly disrecommed anyone from continuing to create, share or sign them.

Foreign students nearly always pay full tuition at US universities and help keep them afloat. Making the US undesirable for immigrants is going to make it harder for US colleges and universities to offer a great education.

Not just universities either. After the 2008 recession many private schools started to aggressively court international students, charging them as much as 2-3x base tuition plus room and board. 3 out of the 7 Catholic private schools in my area depend largely on a small group of Chinese students to be able to offer affordable tuitions to low income students. For every international student they lose, they'll lose 5-10 local students because their families can't afford the unsubsidized tuition and the schools will enter into a death spiral. This will happen while at the same time the Department of Education is slowly dismantled and opponents of public education cripple and profiteer off its privatization.

The far reaching and long term consequences the US will experience from this executive order are staggering.

Undergrad at MIT here, thanks for signing! Our community has been fairly troubled by this to say the least, and your outpour of support is incredibly helpful.


Double their chances? I seriously doubt that many MIT students are from Trump's list of countries, or that the "chilling effect" on other foreign applicants will be that great.

This policy is still an injustice, of course. And maybe I'm wrong about the chilling effect; we'll find out, unless the courts step in and thoroughly block or cripple this short-sighted executive order.

MIT undergrad is only 10% international students...

You need to be better at math if you want to go to MIT.

And if your gambit for getting in is this kind of cynical move, MIT will spit you right back out in short order.

This is another reason why I decided to move back to Europe after I am done studying than trying to work on H1B. I just really do not need the stress of having to worry if I'll be kicked out overnight or not. I would probably be fine, as I am not a Muslim, but still. No thanks. Trump could make "America great again" any minute and just decide to kick out any non-American.

Excellent. America shouldn't take any immigrants that just want to exploit our resources or wealth. Only those who believe in America and love the people and our land so much they would take all the risks of coming because no alternative is good enough should immigrate here.

I wish you the best of good fortune in everything back home.

Correct. America is not a giant shopping mall for the world, it's a country. "Love it or leave it" is an entirely appropriate and necessary statement.

This is the time to make as much noise as you can - protest, call your congress person, etc.

This is the time to follow the "no quarter given" tactics of the NRA - they get their members to show up at any legislation anywhere that even smells of Gun control and raise a massive ruckus - similarly the time to protest is NOW before Trump rolls out the really evil stuff.

Just so we're clear, 412 people have voted this up in 2 hours, with another 226 comments, but not one has signed the petition?

EDIT: I just signed the petition, and with email verification, and it's not showing up. Anyone else having that problem?

I am nto signing because I have absolutely no confidence that the petition will do anything about this.

We're in for a 4 year marathon of trying to save our country from Trump, and the first thing to do is to estimate what has more of an effect.

Comments and upvotes here are more likely to do some good than signing that petition.

I don't think it is by chance or coincidence that Trump's admin is targeting Iranians. What really is it with American government hating Iran and Iranians, when there are equal or even worse ethnocentric, human-rights-abusing, racially intolerant states in the Middle East?

Most Iranians in the US are the ones who can't stand the regime that runs Iran.

Nuclear weapons. And that's also the only reason why Russia is even relevant as a global power.

It is always hard to forgive nations whose democratic governments you deposed.

Conversely von Clownstick finds it remarkably easy to forgive nations he personally has no business with: http://www.smh.com.au/world/donald-trumps-muslim-ban-exclude...

Who hated whom? Here are some pertinent quotes from Iran's Supreme Leader[0] (repeating "Death to America!" less than 2 years ago) and President[1]:

[0] http://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-calls-death-to-america...

[1] "Saying 'Death to America' is easy. We need to express 'Death to America' with action. Saying it is easy."

"The beautiful cry of 'Death to America' unites our nation."


Why do they hate us so much??

Fewer that have a plausible shot at being nuclear powers.

Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact