Hacker News Reader

Comment by ihsw | Hacker News Reader

It's not just Peter Thiel but anyone of sound mind -- the top 5 countries by Muslim-majority population are not included.

* Indonesia 204,847,000 (87.2%)

* Pakistan 178,097,000 (96.4%)

* India 172,245,158 (14.2%)

* Bangladesh 145,312,000 (90%)

* Nigeria 75,728,000 (47.9%)

If Indonesia suddenly became plagued by radical Islamic terrorism then it would be on the list too.

The seven countries targeted by the immigration ban have been either failed states or antagonistic to the US for the past 30 years, it is quite plain to say that it makes sense for Trump's companies -- and various other companies across a wide swath of industries -- to refrain from conducting business there. To say that other Muslim-majority countries aren't on the list due to conflict of interest is to deny this simple logic.

Plenty of other Muslim-majority countries have kept a lid on their populace by maintaining adequate internal security within their borders and providing valuable counter-terrorism intelligence to to the US, meanwhile the seven "countries of concern" have not.

View on HN

You think Indonesia doesn't have problems with terrorism? (Edit: also, Pakistan?). The idea that this is a reasonable counterterrorism measure by any means is a farce that doesn't stand up to the lightest of scrutiny. It's a test of executive power, perhaps for something more sinister [1].

[1] https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e...

Or Nigeria?

Not terrorism problems affecting the US - only Indonesia and Australia.

The countries that were banned also do not have terrorism problems affecting the US.

Then why is US bombing them?

Excellent question many of us have been asking for the past decade or so.

A long history of internal conflicts turned into messy proxy wars.

This comment is increadable.

So explain Pakistan and Saudi Arabia being left out?

Key American allies

1. Saudi = Oil. Also Trump's real estate customers

2. Pakistan = the only way US troops can get into Afghanistan.

Looking for "justice" in US foreign policy (or any country's foreign policy) is naive.

It's a list inherited from the Obama administration. The best time to argue about whether this list stands up to scrutiny or not was years ago.

Edit: I'm not making comments about Trump's actions (specifically, I'm not defending what he did). As for whether this particular list stands up to scrutiny, that question should have been asked a long time ago.

And signed by Obama himself.

The second best time is today.

Trump's use of this measure, unlike his predecessor, signals an intent that wasn't there in the prior administration. That's why people are concerned.

Well, sort of. Obama was president when the list was created, but it was forced through by a Republican-majority Congress.

http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/

Obama had veto power. How did republicans force it through?

What happened was Obama signed the bill imposing exceptions to the Visa Waiver Program in December 2015, and then his own DHS added the current list of middle eastern nations in February 2016.

It is the most tenuous argument to act like that was the work of the GOP.

It was a rider on the omnibus funding bill. If that bill doesn't pass, the government shuts down. It's effectively veto-proof.

The list was for increased border scrutiny and travel restrictions, created by a republican congress and passed as a string attached to a much larger bill. It was not an outright ban. And especially not a ban whose appeal priority would go to christians.

Bannon is a genius. The fact that he can co-opt partisans in the deflection of criticism with facile ideas like "Obama did it" is terrifying.

They do this constantly. See: Trump's tweet about imprisoning flag burners for a year and fining up to $100,000.

That was taken directly from a bill Hillary Clinton co-sponsored years earlier (though obviously with far less context or nuance).

They're very mindful to use some sort of liberal precedent when fanning their flames, giving them (and their flock) plenty of retaliatory talking points.

Half the entries on the list are from Congress, the other half were added by the Obama administration which was given the power to add to the list as it saw fit. Any strange omissions are therefore entirely on Obama's head. Also, if I'm reading the congressional record correctly the original, non-consolidated version that was not attached to anything else passed the House of Representatives with a substantial bipartisan majority, 407-19 - see https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158/...

One reason this is interesting is that there there were some very widely-circulated - and of course false - claims on social media that the choice of countries was somehow influenced by Trump's business interests, and that the fact no-one from countries on the list had killed in the US proved Trump was inspired by racism or even an outright fascist. https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/825473088758374400 was typical of the genre. Snopes decided to show an uncharacteristic lack of interest in online rumours by not mentioning them. Naturally, the same people who were spreading those claims are now spreading the debunkings about how no, Trump's ban is nothing like Obama's.

Pakistan and Indonesia maintain good relations with the US and they are able to provide reassurances that radical members of their Muslim populace won't try to spread Jihad across the world.

If Trump had found a way to ban muslims from those countries, he would have.

Trump tried to find a way to institute this ban such that it wasn't blatantly a muslim ban. He decided that if he used a country list from the Obama administration, he could use that as a defense. This is generally how people try to create racist laws in modern times. The Voting Rights Act wasn't created because states created laws saying "minorities should be discouraged from voting". It was created because politicians came up with laws that targeted minorities without explicitly naming them.

Thiel went to Stanford Law, he knows this, he is just trying to recover because he still doesn't know what to do about the fact that Trump was talking literally, despite Thiel's insistence repeatedly that Trump was talking symbolically. If this isn't a muslim ban, Thiel can continue to insist that Trump's promise of such a ban was not literal.

I think it's correct to say this executive order is not a, "global Muslim ban," but it's clearly focused on specifically stopping Muslims from coming to the US.

The "logic" for the countries selected is that they were already "countries of concern." [1] However, the executive order is written in such a way as to allow religious minorities in, even though they're from a "country of concern." The implication is that what makes the countries, "of concern," is their Muslim majorities. Otherwise, it would be unsafe to let in other religious groups as well.

There are all kinds of explanations for this, of course. The administration may have wanted to ban everyone, but didn't want the heat from the Christian right. They may have wanted to specify Christians instead of minorities, but they would look even more anti-semitic than they already do [2]. They may have written a sloppy executive order and not forseen how it would play.

They may also have used a list of countries from the Obama era as cover and written the order such that it would focus on Muslims with plausible deniability about that focus. They've already said they can add more countries to the list.

I think pointing out that the executive order could have banned more Muslims is worth saying but somewhat misses the point. The people who wrote this clearly think adherents to Islam are more dangerous than other believers. The fact that most Muslims can still get to the US does not change the nature of the order.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-adminis... [2] http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/28/team_trump...

The people who wrote this clearly think adherents to Islam are more dangerous than other believers.

I think it would be more exact to say that the writers believe some self-identified Muslims are sufficiently dangerous that it justifies temporarily banning anyone associated with certain Muslim-majority countries from coming into the US until we can distinguish those who wish to cause harm from those who do not. And since it's difficult to imagine how one could ever distinguish between these groups perfectly, and since other countries can be added to the list, it seems possible that this will lead to a permanent ban on Muslims entering the US.

I find their precept reasonable: there are individuals from these countries who claim to be Muslim and who intend to enter the US and cause us harm --- possibly because we bombed their cousin's wedding, killing half their relatives and maiming half the rest. It seems likely that our current approach to immigration is not sufficient to prevent these harmful individuals from entering the US.

So what should we do? Personally, I think we should stop killing people with drones, since I can't see how this is actually helping the situation. But given that previous administrations have killed a lot of people, and given that some of their surviving relatives are likely to seek revenge, is there anything we can do to protect ourselves? Or is the threat overblown, and any attempt at mitigation is worse than the damage the these (potentially non-existent) terrorists can do to us?

I understand the point you're making about the difficulty of the situation, but I go the other direction.

If someone wishes to come to the US, we'll need to ask if they're a religious minority. I'm sure that anyone wishing to attack the US (Muslim or otherwise) would be willing to lie to the US so they appear to fit the requirements.

To deal with that possiblitiy, the US would have to do research on that person's background. If it can conclude with satisfaction they actually are of that religion, they can come. Otherwise, the US denies the application with "not enough evidence."

If the US can do the research on their religious background, why can't the US do research on their political affiliations? On their views on the US?

Even from a, "damn the morals, let's be practical," perspective religious belief strikes me as a very weak indicator. Its confounded by all kinds of personal factors. Especially in muslim majority nations.

To your question: A mix of both. I think one of the "disadvantages" of a free society is that it's easier to commit terrorism. Yet we have few attacks. I think it's sensible to check that someone is not an active member of a group that wishes a country harm, but I think we need to consider the cost in lives to that filtering. If we double the time spent checking someone's background and they die after the halfway point, is that moral? If we half the number of people we can process to lower the risks, is that moral?

If nothing else, I think the executive order is totally divorced from a reasonable and adult conversation about risk and morality.

Well there was that thing about Trump calling for a total Muslim ban a little over a yer ago: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-...

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. [...]

It's entirely reasonable to consider a politician's stated aspirations as well as their more limited actions in office, since the latter are often incremental steps towards a larger goal.

Please don't argue but trying to bury people in irrelevant facts. That tactic is called a Gish Gallop and makes you look like you're arguing in bad faith. Considering the administration's on-again off-again relationship with basic concepts of truth and fact, nitpicking arguments are best avoided.

It cannot be that the administration gets to decide when to cite facts and figures or when to make sweeping and inaccurate generalizations; if critics are to be held to a different standard of truth from the administration, then we have a government that asserts exclusive domain over the notion of truth itself. Are you sure that's something you want to support?

until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on

What do you feel about the argument that we've "figured out" that Muslims coming from these larger countries are not a significant threat, but that our visa and refugee policies are not yet sufficiently reliable for us to say this about the countries that we've recently been bombing?

Do you think there is a legitimate threat, but the measures in the executive order are insufficient to prevent it? That there is a threat, but that there are no positive steps we can take to mitigate it? That the best way of countering the threat is to embrace potentially dangerous immigrants from these countries? Or that there is no particular threat and there is no need to change the current system?

I feel it's kind of bullshit because we already perform exhaustive checking on applicants for refugee status, and while it's certainly harder for someone coming from a war zone to provide official documentation of the risks they face, there is abundant detailed guidance for consular officers and other immigration-focused employees of the government to assess risk factors. Unverifiable claims can frequently be validated through circumstantial evidence like medical inspections.

If you don't mind legal reading, most large cities have law libraries and most large law libraries keep copies of Bender's Immigration bulletin or Interpreter Releases, two professional journals which chronicle legal proceedings in immigration cases. You may find it instructive to study some in order to get a better idea of the quality and weight of evidence offered in such proceedings.

Our Visa and refugee policies are the product of over a century of operational and historical experience. It's not as if we've never been faced with such complexities before and can't figure out where to begin. The claim that we can't figure this out right now is literally an appeal to ignorance. The reality is that we have tough and elaborate screening procedures in place already, and abundant data on the risk factors.

Why were Saudi Arabia and Egypt left off the list? That's where most of the 9/11 hijackers and planners hailed from.

I think you're hearing echoes in your "sound mind."

Because Saudi Arabia and Egypt have kept a lid on their populace by maintaining adequate internal security within their borders and providing valuable counter-terrorism intelligence to to the US, meanwhile the seven "countries of concern" have not.

Six of the seven countries are failed states and the other openly calls for the US' destruction.

Yes, adequate internal security like with Metrojet Flight 9268, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrojet_Flight_9268

Should the US block immigration from France?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

To be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of any of these blanket bans. But yes, that is a question that someone who is in favor of them would have to answer.

You mean the Saudi Arabia that was so complicit in 9/11 that Republicans in Congress passed a law saying private citizens could sue the government of Saudi Arabia for damages caused by 9/11?

That's your definition of "keeping a lid" and "maintaining internal security"?

I don't know, but the list of countries was inherited from the previous administration.

Maybe somebody should ask Obama's DHS head?

Maybe the list doesn't have any reasoning but was picked to distract you into posting this comment.

You mean "to distract the person I was replying to", I presume - my entire point here is that the list is nothing to do with the new administration, and we should be focusing on the stuff that they're actually responsible for, since frankly that's rather more horrifying than the particular list of countries they're doing it to.

They implemented the list, and the fact that you've found an argument why it could be reasonable is enough reason for them to use it - to slow you down. It doesn't matter to them if it's effective or sensible or not.

One theory: the curiously missing countries have Trump properties.

It's entirely possible for a leader to be simultaneously corrupt and motivated by hate.

The seven countries have been either failed states or antagonistic to the US for the past 30 years, it is quite plain to say that it makes sense for Trump's companies -- and various other companies across a wide swath of industries -- to refrain from conducting business.

the rational is that the ban is for places where its hard to do background checks

so its places where there are currently insurgent wars going on

or places that are considered state sponsors of terrorism

------

both situations complicate the ability to do background checks,

neither situation applies to most of the countries brought up when wondering why those places were left off the list

You might want to ask Obama why he left them out in 2011.

But considering the existing bullshit rollercoaster, you ask why MORE countries weren't banned ?

This video presents all points of hypocrisy : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNu4xU9qOEM

Why should anyone ask President Obama why he left them out in 2011? The list was a list of countries that wouldn't or couldn't provide the enhanced background data we requested. People on those listed countries were scrutinized more, absent extra information from their home countries.

I'd rather ask Congress, since they were the ones who wrote the list.

http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/

Sec-State under the previous administration was tasked by Congress and they came up with the list.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187

See section (12) Not present in Iraq, Syria, or any other country or area of concern

It is unbelievable how bad the media is now at doing their job of informing the public.

the countries chosen were done so by the Obama Administration and already had travel restrictions in place since 2015. Trump's EO merely put a 90 day ban on such travel.

so the truth is down voted? what is HN, a political hackivist site now?

Most of the countries banned by the president were determined by the Department of Homeland Security. Read the order itself: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/execu...

Your ad hominem attacks are not welcome here.

Where are you seeing ad hominem attacks?

And if that's true, either the DHS is doing a spectacularly awful job, or we're not hearing the full story of what they did and did not recommend.

Questioning whether someone else has a "sound mind" is obviously ad hominem.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are allies in that region with functioning governments that we don't have emigration issues with and can vet anyone coming over from.

Of the 7 nations on the list, Iran has the only functioning government, but is a huge state sponsor of terrorism against our allies in the region and we are not allied with them.

To claim this is a bigoted move by Trump because of Islam is a simple and narrow minded view and shows a clear lack of factual information and first rate thinking.

ooooooooookay.

Its known and documented in intelligence reports Saudi government supports terrorists. Here's a quote from one of intelligence reports, "it was well-known in intelligence circles that the Islamic affairs office functioned as the Saudis’ ‘fifth column’ in support of Muslim extremists."

9/11 commission report documented the terrorists meeting with Saudi intelligence officers on US soil and they were partly funded by Saudi royalty. Also lets look at Pakistan. They were harboring Osama Bin Laden.

I don't disagree, but the chaos from Trump declaring Saudi Arabia, a current strategic ally in the region both for material resources and military cooperation, would be on a scale that no one here would like to pick up the pieces from.

We deal with a lot of countries around the world that do things we don't like, we don't have to like it, but diplomacy and politics are messy and require compromise in situations where it's a better choice versus the alternative.

Round and round you go with circular logic and rationalizations. This is at best security theater and a dumb executive order designed to appeal to emotion rather than reason. That's putting aside any ethical considerations. You can keep trying to sell it, but nobody with a brain is buying it.

Banning Iran, Boeing will probably lose a $16 billion contract over it. Ban doesn't seem to be well thought out.

How does banning Iranians from coming over fight state sponsored terrorism? Has there been a single instance of an Iranian traveling or immigrating to the US and committing an act of terrorism?

"Why were Saudi Arabia and Egypt left off the list? "

The nations on the list have vast regions of lawlessness and they've lost control of their populations.

Egypt, Tunisia, Kuwait etc. have functioning governments that are very actively engaged against terrorism.

Remember that ISIS/AlQueda wants to take out the House of Saud before they go after the USA :)

The 'Islamic countries not on the list' are much more afraid of terrorism than the US is.

Just today a Saudi ship was hit by a missile from Iranian backed terrorists in Yemen, off the coast.

The only country that is on the list that has a 'sound government' is Iran - but they are state-sponsors of terror, and are actively trying to destabilize the region - and pushing hard to topple Saudi, as well as supporting Assad. I suggest that one is a little more political because Iran does not itself produce terrorists of the kind we are afraid are going to come and 'bomb America'.

I don't agree with Trumps policy - but 'the list' is quite rational.

12/17/2015 “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-...

1/28/16/ Spicer: “Trump is doing what he said he would do”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316730-spicer-tru...

(also, Trump retweeting various people saying he's keeping all his promises in this regard)

1/29/16 Trump: “This is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting.”

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/29/14432362/tr...

Sure, it's not targeted at Muslims, it's a ban for people from certain Muslim-majority countries with exceptions for non-Muslims.

And then you have Giuliani saying Trump asked him how to do a Muslim ban legally, and Flynn Jr. calling it a necessary Muslim ban

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9GKL6i38pI

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michael-g-flynn-delete...

Gonna go out on a limb and say anyone 'of sound mind' as you say would say, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Consider:

(1) this could be just a trial balloon

(2) there are no other war torn countries on the list (and there are many)

(3) many of the stated reasons for this ban appear to be total nonsense, so people will start looking for alternative explanations.

Why did you leave out saudi Arabia? nearly 100% muslim, home to over 50% of the terrorist who have attcked the US.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

The pattern is looks like number of people, and 30 million is less than 75 million.

Would you be OK with calling it a "partial Muslim ban"? While it's true that it doesn't ban all Muslims, it seems obvious that it was crafted to ensure that the vast majority of the people it banned would be Muslims.

An incomplete Muslim ban is still a Muslim ban. He's not banning any other religions as far as I know.

> Pakistan

They were the homes for Osama bin Laden(s), weren't they?

"...have kept a lid on their populace..."

Did you really mean to say that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com