Why is restricting our borders considered so inhumane as to cause an Internet-wide outcry, while killing people for years hadn't?
I can think of several reasons. I don't necessarily think they are all good reasons.
1) U.S. bombings are seen as a good-faith effort to stop terrorism, based on intel etc.
The current executive order seems more like a rash decision based on xenophobia and poorly implemented (in the early hours, border officials were giving confused and contradictory info on whether green card holders were affected, etc.)
2) The collateral damage from the bombings, added up over a decade, has probably been hundreds of innocent civilians' lives in some of these countries. This is upsetting but distant.
On the other hand, the collateral damage from this executive order is that 500,000 expats living in the US can't leave the country, or are stranded outside the country. For American "coastal elites", myself included, these are not remote people but our friends, coworkers, professors. Everyone in my social circle seem to have at least a second-degree connection to someone from Iran.
3) The current executive order threatens the standing of the communities "coastal elites" are part of: top American universities, Silicon Valley, the medical community, etc. These institutions are world-class due in no small part to how welcoming they are to foreign talent. That could change if the smartest around the world start heading to universities, hospitals, and companies in Canada or Germany instead...
The core word here is mistakes. No one knows what the right way to react to a international crisis is (though the argument for complete military non-interventionism gets stronger every time a military intervention just makes things worse...).
You have to distinguish between decisions made in good faith that backfire (or perhaps the alternative would have been even worse?), and malicious decisions like what Trump is doing
How not? Just the fact that it made news in outlets like nytimes and guardian means that people did care and feel outraged. Things that people don't care about aren't read.
But you're correct the outrage wasn't aimed at Obama. Why? Because there's a difference between a president that acknowledges there's complexities to immigration and refugees, and works on a compromise, and one that seems to treat anyone from the Middle East as of no moral value.
How did Obama make that decision not to follow his promise on crossing "red line" by Assad? What were the pros and cons for that decision? How can we be sure that it were not purely U.S. internal politics arguments for giving up? Questions like that do not allow us to forgive mistakes: they force us to hold the governments to account.
And questions like that are asked and answered? Obama had good reasons for not following up on that threat. Read, for example, theatlantic's 'Obama Doctrine' article. It was never obvious that a heavier US intervention in Syria would help the people in Syria at all - in fact, history suggests that the opposite.
On the other hand, it's hard to imagine how the US refusing refugees would make the Syrian situation worse.
Drone strikes stats can be seen at https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/dron...
It is completely another to attack your own country.
Right now American liberties and values are under attack from a rightist presidency. I'm selfish, give me the latter over the former any day of the week.
I really can't judge why we do stuff abroad, but I can totally see what is happening in front of my face.
At the same time the Democrats wanted my vote for Clinton against Trump (I voted for neither). One of the lesser reasons Trump is President, is that vast hypocrisy by the left on civil liberties. It does matter. Clinton was a war hawk that supported bombing only Muslim countries (she supported bombing something like eight different Muslim nations in the last 15 years; but I'm to believe she's not anti-Muslim) and overwhelmingly anti-privacy, she isn't getting my vote on the argument that she's the lesser of two devils. Sanders by contrast, has historically been very consistent on civil liberties for decades, and I'd have considered voting for him.
Shit in my yard, I care a lot about that. There is nothing hypocritical about expecting your country to look out for your interests, while other countries can look out for the interests of their own citizens and residents.
This is nothing about "party". Bush would have never done this, neither would McCain and Romney have been so stupid if they were elected. No, this transcends republican and democrat to a new level of damaging politics unseen since the 1930s.
You only care because of who's doing it.
The mass immigration problem is there because of the consistent, bad, misguided, systematic intervention the US committed in the last 30 years in the middle east. Most of the immigrants this executive action is screwing over are leaving their country because of the results of US intervention.
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/us...
Well, from the point of view of Trump's supporters, that's what Trump is doing - making things difficult for people who are not American citizens.
not even an ability to understand what the problem is
Do you really, honestly believe that so many people are completely unreasonable? If so, what do you think the path forward is? Do you write all of these people off? What do you do with them then?
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I think Trump is the problem. I think the problem is that people aren't willing to look beyond some of their differences to work towards the goals they have in common.
Though from you comment, it's not clear to me what you consider the problem to be. Would you elaborate?
Once you're at the point where you no longer consider others reasonable, you're effectively stuck. You can't reach them, nor are you open to being reached by them. This is a position from which no civil progress can be made. I'm willing to accept such a position with only the greatest reluctance.
You're putting words into my mouth.
I completely agree with your assesment:
"About a little of a year ago, when I worked in a lab, some of my colleagues routinely laughed and mocked Trump and boasted how he had no chance in hell (as well as fueling fire with continued patronage of sites and news that gave them more of the same "entertainment" [in their words]), and no amount of me pointing out to them the environment that enabled a such a persona to exist/rise to fame/power should be the topic of conversation rather than on the team $x circus ring leader de jour."[0]
>Anyone who is out there protesting now but would have been cool with Clinton doesn't get it.
Part of me thinks that, just some (most?) people never will. It seems like there will always be those who are quick to believe those who will pander to them only to be sold out for later tbd date or possibly in the same transaction!
Faux diametric ideological battle field lines are being drawn stateside (and arguably globally) and led by the same people that have benefited and continue to do so from the status quo, and we are expected to Coke and Pespi this and most take up such role willingly…
I'm taking the wait and see approach: if people are as fired up and eventually willing to fight and kill each other, might as well take the practical route as P&G did during the civil war and sell metaphorical glyceryl trinitrate to both sides and wait for the dust to settle while lurking in the shadows of the madness.
When he ran, he ran on a platform to do good by America and Americans --none of the world shaping vision other presidents had (which then led them to foreign interventions which then lead to people calling America imperialistic and other tangling messes). So, it should be of little surprise he does not care very much about non-Americans (I think he takes that belief literally) and will try to deliver on it.
When the ACLU gets involved, I don't even see the "American" part of the civil liberties in there. I mean, good on them for caring, but at the moment it's doing work on behalf of foreign nationals, rather than Americans, directly.
While this may affect some friendships and relationships for Americans the impact is indirect.
Where is this policy affecting the civil liberties of American citizens? Obviously it's affecting some foreign nationals negatively.
> "The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...
In that particular case the court was referring to illegal aliens, not permanent residents, who logically would be at least as protected.
Arguably Saudi Arabia and Pakistan need to be added to this list.
This order wouldn't have prevented 9/11 or any of the recent attacks. This order isn't designed in any way to protect our security. Frankly, I have no idea what it was meant for, but our country feels like it is under attack from the Trump administration.
I don't think Trump is doing stuff at random here.
>But among the jackals, the panthers, the bitch hounds,
>The apes, the scorpions, the vultures, the serpents,
>The yelping, howling, growling, crawling monsters,
>In the filthy menagerie of our vices,
>
>There is one more ugly, more wicked, more filthy!
>Although he makes neither great gestures nor great cries,
>He would willingly make of the earth a shambles
>And, in a yawn, swallow the world;
>
>He is Ennui! — His eye watery as though with tears,
>He dreams of scaffolds as he smokes his hookah pipe.
>You know him reader, that refined monster,
>— Hypocritish reader, — my fellow, — my brother!
The trouble that strikes at home always feels more important than the trouble that strikes far away.
Many people have friends who are immigrants or are immigrants themselves. Few people have friends living in those countries.
What worries me personally is what if this border closing stuff escalates further and further. I'm here on a visa and my country is not on the list, but who knows what they might come up with.
Especially considering the rumors that they're asking questions about allegiance to the regime and checking social media.
Hello future border agent waves
If you're fine with the Executive Order, fine, but please engage more constructively and civilly.
I think his point stands, these refugees didn't appear in a vacuum. It is not a natural disaster or act of God. It was mostly due to destabilization efforts from the West. Wonder what the historical record is of these CEOs lobbying Obama to stop bombing or supporting "rebels" in those parts. I think it is worth having that discussion...
Now I think it a pretty bad decision to prevent Green Card holders to re-enter. I was one for many years, I can imagine how it feel being denied entry.
As for the historical record, we can't do anything about what has happened in the past now. We can learn to do better. I know I'm not perfect and have things I can improve, which means I'm going to have to change and as a result be inconsistent with my past actions. It's true that some people are insincere and continue to be inconsistent and fair weather civil libertarians or what-have-you, but it's also the case that sometimes it takes a serious kick to mobilize people, and once mobilized they remain so. And if those that aren't consistent happen to align with me on an issue I care about, I'm not going to turn them away if it means that a temporary alliance helps a cause I care about. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt as long as is reasonable.
You might disagree with the logic above, but I don't think you'll be winning any arguments by pointing out that it's just "a rhetorical technique".
One thing I want to get out of the way: I personally don't align very well strictly Democrat or Republican. I actually think it's unlikely that anyone aligns perfectly with one or the other. I also find this type of bucketing problematic because it reinforces this us versus them polarization that, among other things, prevents people from seriously considering that they may actually agree with some of the things people on the "other" side might believe.
As for deflecting criticism, as you call it, I'm not sure what realistic alternative there is. One would be to say, for example "oh, you're right! I was so wrong all those years! I should have been doing more!" That's tough for anyone to come out and say. How often do you hear someone actually say that? More likely people will shift their stance and act on it. It would be great if people would come out and say this. Accusing them of hypocrisy (as opposed to more constructive encouraging a change in behavior) makes it even harder for people to do so.
Another alternative could be to flip it around and point out where those who are accusing them of hypocrisy are themselves hypocritical. And assuredly there are cases of this. No one, much less a party, is so self-consistent to be immune from such criticism. But would that be constructive? I don't think so. That would only further polarization and increase the divide, each side thinking the other all the more unreasonable.
I'm sure I'm missing other alternatives here. Feel free to suggest your own.
I completely agree with you regarding the level of disbelief and bad faith that's currently abundant. How do we get beyond that? At some point if you're not willing to believe people at their word, can you at least believe their actions? You may, for a while, think they're insincere while they go about doing things that you might actually agree with, but if they continue to do so, even if you don't believe their sincerity, does it make sense not to work with them, at least on the projects that further your goals and don't require you to compromise on any of your other goals?
As for virtue signaling, 'tptacek had a very insightful comment on this today (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13512522):
Serious question: have you noticed how there's no way to level that accusation without feeling like a jerk? It's because it's hard to accuse someone of doing something good for the wrong reason without behaving like a jerk.
There's more, and I think the whole thing is worth reading.
I honestly don't know how to bridge the gap, to reduce the polarization we're now experiencing. I do believe that continuing to act in bad faith, to obstruct and name-call is definitely not going to help.
If you don't think this gap can or should be bridged (and I don't mean "convince everyone to agree with me"), feel free to dismiss everything I say. If there were a way on HN to hide all comments from a particular member, I'd encourage you to block me, as that's really all I'm about.
For one, there's genuine concern now that the next step will be action against "internal dissidents" or "malcontents" or "nonconformists" - or whatever language this administration decides to use against people who protest actively, or even just on FB and Twitter.
There's already an internal no-fly list. How happy will voters be when friends and family start appearing on it because they criticised the administration?
For another, freedom of movement - within the limits of immigration and the visa system - is a basic human right. With this action Trump has crossed the line from party politics to an attack on human rights in general. That's a protest-worthy step change in itself.
Finally, there has actually been quiet but steady agitation against foreign wars all the way back to 2003. (If not before.) It's never been as high profile, and it's been considered a "far left" effort.
The Democrats in the US are an unfortunate amalgam of incompatible interests, and there's always been a solid pro-war core of financial and political opportunists in the party who are consistently at odds with the ethical position of many mainstream D voters.
If "people see this as virtue signalling" that's up to them. I don't think they do, because this level of protest is unusual.
And also, to point out the glaringly obvious, it's not as if talk of building a wall or locking out people with green cards can't be even more easily dismissed as virtue signalling itself. For some reason the right seems to believe virtue signalling is purely a left wing pastime - which is a curious conceit, and is clearly incorrect.
I think we as commenters on HN should hold ourselves to a higher bar.
Pointing out hypocrisy changes the conversation in a way that avoids discussing the relative merits of an argument. It doesn't invalidate the original argument - it's just that, rhetoric.
For example, I'm sure there were other hypocritical posts today. Isn't it hypocritical to try and fight hypocrisy by commenting on specific political points in a discussion but not others? (please dont take this argument seriously as I'm just offering it as an example of rhetoric)
It's like a game theory problem. Rhetoric becomes meaningless: there needs to be a track record that shows that you cooperate.
That's why hypocrisy is invoked in the debate; rather than an argumentative tool, I see hypocrisy accusations as "flags" that say "I can't cooperate because of your low credibility"
If this sounds harsh, I sincerely apologize.
I did suggest we are all smart enough here that we can have rich discussions without committing clear logical fallacies. HN is special in that the majority cares about thoughtful discussions and reasoning. Because of this I often read the comments in HN before the article, where historically the signal to noise ratio is quite high.
There are plenty of other forums for rhetoric or fun conversations.
But demonstrating against Trump when he proves their worst fears (including being anti Muslim in the dumbest of ways possible) is "virtue signaling" somehow?
I think you need to take a break and work on your Logic 101.
Proof?
"...If we kept the oil you probably wouldn't have ISIS because that's where they made their money in the first place. So we should have kept the oil, but OK. Maybe we'll have another chance."
This is whataboutery, and you're also trying to reduce serious issues to the shallow dichotomy of American political parties. Don't do that.
We could spend endless hours debating the the gray areas of warfare, but that discussion aside, that is essentially the answer to your question.
If I invite someone to live with me and they stay for ten years, it is not evil for me to kick them out afterwards.
> If I invite someone to live with me and they stay for ten years
If you sign a contract saying they're allowed to live with you for ten years, and kick them out after 3 years, I would argue that it is evil (not to mention illegal).
---
Where were they during the 2006 Secure Fence Act? [1] Where were the vast protests when Obama pushed through the NSA data sharing policy during his last days in office? Violate the liberties of hundreds of millions of people, and they don't bat an eyelash.
It's not very productive of course, to only point out that so many liberals are extreme hypocrites on civil liberties. Democrats won't get my vote until they can act consistently on such, including against their own President. The effort now should be on encouraging the left to remold itself strictly when it comes to protecting civil liberties again, rather than turning a blind eye when it's convenient. There needs to be consequences for Dem politicians that support/ed the abuse of civil liberties, whether now or in the recent past (as so many of them have).
[1] https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/01/27/in-2006-demo...