Nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen that do not currently hold dual nationality with another country, an existing visa, or another document permitting entry. No hysteria there.
I imagine the main concern here is uncertainty, though. The original travel ban was introduced with no warning and affected people who already had plans, who already had visas, and even who were already in flight. There's no telling if and when they might do something like that again. That kind of uncertainty tends to discourage people from trying to make plans in the first place.
And beyond that, who knows? When insane people are in power, anything is possible. Maybe some big attack is carried out by a radicalized Muslim from France or Sweden, and the response is to ban entries from there. I'd have called this idea absurd not too long ago, but now I consider this kind of thing a serious, if small, possibility.
This is an inflammatory comment, and not a given.
> When insane people are in power, anything is possible
Also inflammatory.
>Maybe some big attack is carried out by a radicalized Muslim from France or Sweden, and the response is to ban entries from there. I'd have called this idea absurd not too long ago, but now I consider this kind of thing a serious, if small, possibility.
This is plausible, and a good point.
Sorry to spend most of my comment criticizing your comment but I really cant stand this kind of rhetoric.
Describing them as "insane" I'll grant you. But it doesn't matter whether or not they really are: a lot of people think they're insane, and that drives how people make plans. Trump might be the sanest person on the planet and might be ironclad in never doing any sort of visa ban again, and what I described would still be accurate as to why people might not want to make plans to interview with YC in the US.
Part of that is not trusting their admissions of "guilt", the same way that I don't trust their admissions of "innocence".
Airline stewards want me to turn off my cellphone. I can't think of a good reason, but that doesn't mean I'll believe the reason they state, when it makes no sense.
If planes were in danger because of turned on phones they would check for them much more thoroughly and also check lugagge for turned on phones.
I do not believe that he will be able to do all of those things. At least in some cases, either Trump or his trusted advisers know this, so he won't actively try. I suspect (but don't know) that prosecuting Clinton is in this category.
What you can't do is object to facts that are simply on the record. Trump said early in the election cycle that he supported a ban on Muslims, and then after the election Rudolph Giuliani looked straight into a TV news camera and said that the travel ban was an effort to put that kind of ban into practice.
There's easy inflammatory versions of this observation. For instance: someone could accuse you of supporting bans on Muslims for debating the substance of the travel ban. But that's not what 'mikeash wrote, and it's not fair for you to take him to task for that.
And as far as trump supporters go I'm hardly one, but I probably fall more on that side of the spectrum.
(Another way to be inflammatory would be to introduce the Muslim ban unbidden as a distraction in a discussion about something else; for instance, if I said "rent control is a bad idea" and someone else said "if you believe that you might as well believe the Muslim ban is OK". But as you can see that's not what happened here.)
Either way, thanks for the chill response.