Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakelazaroff | Hacker News Reader

I really don't understand the logic that leads to decisions like this. The vaaaaaaast majority of recent terror attacks in the US have been committed by US citizens.

There really doesn't seem to be any reason for this decision except bigotry and xenophobia.

View on HN

It is just xenophobia and bigotry pure and simple. You rile up a bunch of people to be afraid of some group you can "other" (like Syrian muslims) then you stoke that fear with whatever happens, no matter the details. San Bernardino! Nice! Belgium! Xenophobia only requires the thinnest of threads of realism to become full blown.

Divide people into groups and then make certain groups the scapegoat for whatever problems your society has. A time honored tradition.

>except bigotry and xenophobia.

When those values win elections, they then become policy. We've seen it countless times in history.

There's no mastermind behind this. Its politics and very much a campaign promise 62m voters approved last November. I don't think we need to be in denial about who is behind this. Its straight from the top, not some TSA nobody writing new rules.

True. Also from the article:

   The Journal report said the DHS official working on the review said 
   questions under consideration included whether visa applicants believe in 
   so-called honor killings, how they view the treatment of women in society, 
   whether they value the “sanctity of human life” and who they view as a 
   legitimate target in a military operation.

Do they possibly think people won't figure out the right answers?

Well there was a time 15-20 years ago when you had to fill a form with questions such "do you come to America to kill the president?" and some people still managed to answer yes to that question and end up denied entry and added to a ban list if lucky.

What do you mean? You still have to answer these questions if you want the simplest of US visas. Source: I've done it.

What's the right answer to the last one? All men of military age?

>majority of recent terror attacks in the US have been committed by US citizens.

Is there like a list/spreadsheet/wiki/website of "recent terror attacks" with stats like this (i.e. Birthplace of perpetrator, citizenship of perp, religion of perp, number of injuries caused, number of deaths caused, immediate financial loss caused, etc.)?

It's not about logic, it's politics as usual. Sometimes it is about pushing an agenda.

It's security theater for those Americans who have been lied to that the world outside their town is significantly more violent or dangerous by the media at large (the whole if it bleeds it leads thing has finally become its own reality for the US newscast watcher). And it garners votes to a significant degree which bothers me. I'm thinking of leaving entirely since I can't imagine the domestic front being any more friendly if this cements a permanent trend. I don't want to pay for or be party to a government that sees enemies around every corner. I thought the cold war was fought and won on the basis that such ideologies don't work. I guess I was wrong.

What do you consider 'vaaaaaast majority'? And over what time range?

Also, the issue with homegrown terror is that you can't preemptively kick those people out. This vetting wouldn't stop 100% of terror attacks, but it could help prevent terror attacks that are preventable.

> What do you consider 'vaaaaaast majority'? And over what time range?

Since the most recent war in Iraq? Since 9/11? Since I was born? I don't think the time range really matters — it's still a notable exception when a terrorist is not a U.S. citizen.

> Also, the issue with homegrown terror is that you can't preemptively kick those people out.

But you can, you know, arrest them.

Security Theatre. Tsa Middleman X sells the idea to Tsa Boss Y who then sells it to Political Hack Z who sells it to Elected Narcissist K who sells it to the public as "we're defending you hard! Keep voting for us and you'll be safe!". Everyone in the chain has to justify his job and bonuses; "well, things look ok, we'll just keep doing what we're doing" is not a good strategy for that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com