27 ms·

First they came for the Iranians

1000 points by aaronyy 10y ago

HeavenBanned 10y ago
My father successfully brought over two of our relatives from Iran during the Obama presidency (thanks Obama). They were a doctor and a professional soccer player. However, the other application for his older sister and my mother's brother has been processing for nearly 20 years. She's nearing her 70s. And my mother's brother has all but lost hope. Looks like it's not going to ever happen under Mr. Trump. Oh well. I wouldn't say it's as urgent as having PhD-level brains here...but it's too bad. We're doing the process right. We're doing it legally. We're following all the proper procedure and making sure that nothing is overlooked or done to cheat the process. My father (who voted for Trump) is in complete denial: he thinks "The people around Trump told him to do that." Very sad.
- jasonmp85 10y ago
  That penultimate paragraph. Jesus Christ.
  - spiderfarmer 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment
  - moomin 10y ago
    I'm reminded of something I read by people who were in the cultural revolution. They always convinced themselves that Mao had bad advisers and they'd get purged soon. Took decades to twig that the problem was Mao himself.
    - coredog64 10y ago
      It isn't just Mao. "If only Stalin knew" was a popular refrain.
- exit 10y ago
  what motivated your father to vote for trump?
- Qwertious 10y ago
  With your father's thoughts: Does it matter? Policy is policy, who cares whether it's specifically Trump or just his aides, as long as your Irani relatives are being deported for bullshit reasons?
  - scott_s 10y ago
    Because they may continue to support that person, mistakenly thinking that the policies they disagree with are from people other than that person.
- ascagnel_ 10y ago
  One of the strangest moves during the election was that Trump stopped by Edison, NJ, to deliver a stump speech. Edison has a very heavy immigrant population, particularly from from south-east Asia. Which makes no sense, since the organization he was stumping for (an explicitly Hindu organization) would likely be very adversely affected by his immigration changes. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/us/politics/trump-modi-indian-americans.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/us/politics/trump-modi-in...
sb057 10y ago
Trump is Hitler!!!
- sctb 10y ago
  Let's please not comment like this here.
Breefield 10y ago
This is the strength we need. Respect.
guard-of-terra 10y ago
I come from a country which can't keep its le^Wborders closed in front of anyone. So I pity those students a bit, definitely, but otherwise I'm jealous for this policy. It would address my immediate pain had it been implemented here. And yes, I do care more about my own life in a country I am a citizen of, and safety of my relatives, than about people you call "aliens".
- EdHominem 10y ago
  Where did that come from? Who's a threat? If there really was a threat it would be reasonable for you to want less immigrants. But there isn't, that's straight up racism. You might as well say you don't want a jew stealing your baby.
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    Who decides for me what's a threat and what is not? Isn't there the same sort of people who during Communism decided whether I need any sausage or can go without?
    - pcwalton 10y ago
      This article is about the government deciding whether a professor can take on a student or not!
      - guard-of-terra 10y ago
        Admission to a country was never a professor's decision. I can't go to a country abroad and study because a professor has decided that I would be a good fit. At most, we can submit an application. Then, the decision is up to immigration officials.
    - Larrikin 10y ago
      You never defined a threat
    - EdHominem 10y ago
namirez 10y ago
This is the draft of the executive order. Section 3 explains how the US entry ban could be extended indefinitely. http://documents.latimes.com/read-draft-copy-president-trumps-executive-order-immigration-and-refugees/ http://documents.latimes.com/read-draft-copy-president-trump...
amasad 10y ago
I had trouble loading the page, here is a google-cache url: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3167 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...
redleggedfrog 10y ago
<sarcasm>Those PhD's should be for 'mericans, not furners.</sarcasm>
salimmadjd 10y ago
Trump is ostensibly using the 9/11 play card to justify banning few muslim countries [0]. This is obviously a lie, since most of 911 hijackers were Saudis and his executive order is not banning the Saudis. I'm guessing on the strength of the Saudi lobby in DC [1] AND/OR Trump's potential business conflict in Saudi Arabia [2]. [0] https://www.scribd.com/document/337545704/Draft-Executive-Order-To-Limit-Entry-of-Muslim-Refugees-and-Immigrants https://www.scribd.com/document/337545704/Draft-Executive-Or... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia_lobby_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia_lobby_in_the_Unit... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Saudi-Arabia http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/donald-t...
- devoply 10y ago
  Can't mess with the Saudis. But we sure can ban the people they are bombing to hell, you know the Yemenis with British made bombs no less. And ban all the other people whose countries we helped destroy, you know just to add insult to injury. Really the best way to make people think we the vanguards of freedom. I am sure though Trump has some business dealing with the Saudis, I think there is a Trump hotel in Dubai. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306990-trump-appeared-to-register-eight-companies-in-saudi-arabia http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306990-trum...
  - inopinatus 10y ago
    Dubai is not in Saudi Arabia. It's in the UAE. However his family have expressed interest in building hotels in Saudi Arabia. My guess though was the omission has more to do with energy price stability and/or arms exports.
    - tritosomal 10y ago
      Yeah, as this fiasco unfolds, the last thing we need is people lumping countries together while complaining about other people lumping countries together. Dubai is a city in a different country. Same peninsula, but there's like seven countries dividing up that chunk of land.
notgood 10y ago
The came for science agencies too: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2017/01/25/trump_issues_gag_orders_on_science_agencies.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2017/01/25/trump_is...
jekdoce 10y ago
Advice from a high-level staffer for a Senator: There are two things that everyone concerned should be doing all the time right now, and they're by far the most important things. You should NOT be bothering with online petitions or emailing. 1. The best thing you can do to be heard and get your congressperson to pay attention is to have face-to-face time - if they have town halls, go to them. Go to their local offices. If you're in DC, try to find a way to go to an event of theirs. Go to the "mobile offices" that their staff hold periodically (all these times are located on each congressperson's website). When you go, ask questions. A lot of them. And push for answers. The louder and more vocal and present you can be at those the better. 2. But, those in-person events don't happen every day. So, the absolute most important thing that people should be doing every day is calling. You should make 6 calls a day: 2 each (DC office and your local office) to your 2 Senators & your 1 Representative. Any sort of online contact basically gets immediately ignored, and letters pretty much get thrown in the trash (unless you have a particularly strong emotional story - but even then it's not worth the time it took you to craft that letter). Calls are what all the congresspeople pay attention to. Every single day, the Senior Staff and the Senator get a report of the 3 most-called-about topics for that day at each of their offices (in DC and local offices), and exactly how many people said what about each of those topics. They're also sorted by zip code and area code. Republican callers generally outnumber Democrat callers 4-1, and when it's a particular issue that single-issue-voters pay attention to (like gun control, or planned parenthood funding, etc...), it's often closer to 11-1, and that's recently pushed Democratic congressmen on the fence to vote with the Republicans. In the last 8 years, Republicans have called, and Democrats haven't. So, when you call: A) When calling the DC office, ask for the Staff member in charge of whatever you're calling about ("Hi, I'd like to speak with the staffer in charge of Healthcare, please") - local offices won't always have specific ones, but they might. If you get transferred to that person, awesome. If you don't, that's ok - ask for their name, and then just keep talking to whoever answered the phone. Don't leave a message (unless the office doesn't pick up at all - then you can...but it's better to talk to the staffer who first answered than leave a message for the specific staffer in charge of your topic). B) Give them your zip code. They won't always ask for it, but make sure you give it to them, so they can mark it down. Extra points if you live in a zip code that traditionally votes for them, since they'll want to make sure they get/keep your vote. C) If you can make it personal, make it personal. "I voted for you in the last election and I'm worried/happy/whatever" or "I'm a teacher, and I am appalled by Betsy DeVos," or "as a single mother" or "as a white, middle class woman," or whatever. D) Pick 1-2 specific things per day to focus on. Don't go down a whole list - they're figuring out what 1-2 topics to mark you down for on their lists. So, focus on 1-2 per day. Ideally something that will be voted on/taken up in the next few days, but it doesn't really matter - even if there's not a vote coming up in the next week, call anyway. It's important that they just keep getting calls. E) Be clear on what you want - "I'm disappointed that the Senator..." or "I want to thank the Senator for their vote on..." or "I want the Senator to know that voting in _____ way is the wrong decision for our state because..." Don't leave any ambiguity. F) They may get to know your voice/get sick of you - it doesn't matter. The people answering the phones generally turn over every 6 weeks anyway, so even if they're really sick of you, they'll be gone in 6 weeks. From experience since the election: If you hate being on the phone & feel awkward (which is a lot of people) don't worry about it - there are a bunch of scripts (Indivisible has some, there are lots of others floating around these day). After a few days of calling, it starts to feel a lot more natural. Put the 6 numbers in your phone (all under P – Politician. An example is McCaskill MO, Politician McCaskill DC, Politician Blunt MO, etc...) which makes it really easy to click down the list each day.
tabeth 10y ago
I abhor Trump, but something about this statement irks me: > To the Trump regime, I make one request: if you ever decide that it’s the policy of the US government to deport my PhD students, then deport me first. I’m practically begging you: come to my house, arrest me, revoke my citizenship, and tear up the awards I’ve accepted at the White House and the State Department. I’d consider that to be the greatest honor of my career. Given the pedestal that you (presumably, by the amount of points this has gotten) are on, there are more actionable ways to be useful, rather than be a martyr. No mention in the post on how to stop Trump. For example, telling your readers how they can take action to stop Trump. I'll share some of my own thoughts on how to do this. Feel free to respond to this if it's not exhaustive enough. To follow my own advice, if anyone sees this: 1. Call - Local congresspeople (http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/) - Senators (https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/) - Local officials (https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials) 2. Participate - Get involved in local elections (this is a decent start - to become informed locally http://www.npr.org/stations/) - Protest - Attend town hall and city council meetings (see npr) 3. Share - Tell your friends 4. Vote (https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote) 5. Volunteer 6. Stop reading and start doing one of the other things.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- cyberferret 10y ago
  Who knows? It may actually help. The news footage of a middle class white man being dragged away by jack booted thugs may elicit much more attention, sympathy and outrage than a "Middle Eastern looking" man undergoing the same, one would think? And in this current world awash in pithy slogans, short attention spans and social media generated activism, it may actually be more effective.
- matthewbauer 10y ago
  This is the executive's power. There is literally nothing that can be done about it for the next 4 years besides try to change Trump's mind (or pray he does something impeachable).
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
Does the President have the power to unilaterally impose exit-visa requirements?
- curuinor 10y ago
  This is an extremely important question. Empirically, exit visas seem like an extremely good feature for having a fucked-up country (North Korea, USSR, Warsaw Pact, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy all had them, Saudi Arabia does for foreign workers, and very few others have them)
- grey-area 10y ago
  This is a good question. Obama claimed the president has the power to assassinate american citizens without trial and Trump is claiming further powers over immigration, science and the media. None of these things should be the sole purview of the president, this is why rule via executive orders is so dangerous. It would lead to the end of the republic. The American republic now resembles the late roman one, complete with populist consuls and rioting factions.
  - davedx 10y ago
    Hah. I was thinking this morning that Trump could be the US's Nero.
  - guildwriter 10y ago
    This is being exacerbated by the increasing factionalism within the US itself. I'm starting to understand better and better why Washington warned us of political parties in his farwell address "Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
threeseed 10y ago
Such a cynical yet poorly thought out policy. Firstly, many people involved in terrorist incidents are natural born citizens of allied countries. So are we going to ban all French or Belgium citizens given they have been shown to harbor terrorists ? It's clear that Trump/Bannon desperately want a Muslim ban as opposed to a Iran/Iraq/etc ban. Secondly, this is going to alienate moderate Muslims who Western intelligence agencies have unanimously and categorically stated are the only people capable of solving this problem of radicalisation. It's often their children or friends or community members who are being radicalised. Why should they help the US government when they are encouraging the public to hate them purely based on their religion ?
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  If you has Muslims in your country, then yes you might need to work with moderate Muslims in order to be suppressing problem of radicalization. Not sure how well it works tho. But if you do not have Muslims in your country, you don't have to care about this at all, just cross this issue off your whiteboard in a broad stroke. No Muslims - no Muslim radicalism. I don't think this is the solution for USA, but otherwise - it's often easier not having a problem instead of solving it.
  - danso 10y ago
    Which countries don't have Muslims?
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      Come to think of it, I don't think e.g. Estonia has too many of them. You can probably fit them all in one train.
      - threeseed 10y ago
        Estonia doesn't have too many people in general. From 2011 census Muslims made up 0.14% of the population. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Estonia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Estonia
mistermann 10y ago
This is obviously extremely unfortunate for those involved, I predict it will be very short lived but we'll have to wait and see. One thing I like about this sort of controversy though is perhaps some day, some people might start wondering who these mullahs are and how they came to be. Now that type of conversation would be rather uncomfortable, and I suspect is somewhat of an underlying cause of a lot of the hand wringing we're seeing from various government agencies. EDIT: Interesting I've got two downvotes already, do people think the interesting history of the leadership of Iran is some sort of a conspiracy theory?
- steveax 10y ago
  Conspiracy theory? No. Conspiracy? Yes. I often wonder what the Middle East and Iran would look like today if the CIA and the Brits had not overthrown the democratically elected Mosaddegh government.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    I wonder what the world would like like if western nations hadn't meddled so much in other's affairs. That would actually make a really good TV series: "What the World Would Have Looked Like - Episode 3: Germany Wins World War 2". Of course there are numerous theories for each, but that's ok, just state that at the beginning and say this is just one of many possible theories, it's just for fun. I'd watch that type of show for sure.
    - dummkopf99 10y ago
      Germany is a western country.
      - mistermann 10y ago
        As is Sweden.
  - selimthegrim 10y ago
    As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Mosaddeq had scant respect for democratic norms - look into how he conducted his parliamentary votes.
aphextron 10y ago
This is completely unacceptable, and truly crosses the line. I have many Iranian coworkers and friends here in the bay area. The thought of branding them as terrorists and revoking their work or student visas is absolutely unbelievable. I think the Trump administration and the GOP are in for a rude awakening if they think these policies are going to stand.
- danenania 10y ago
  "I think the Trump administration and the GOP are in for a rude awakening if they think these policies are going to stand." I hope you're right, but at least for the next 2 years, who/what is going to stop them?
  - agumonkey 10y ago
    Not once in history has there been a quick office reboot ? No way to amend the constitution, to change the planning ? I'm counting days until impeachment, seriously.
  - aphextron 10y ago
    >I hope you're right, but at least for the next 2 years, who/what is going to stop them? The courts. It's our only option. There are multiple pending lawsuits against Trump already. A civil rights group filed suit against him on day one for breaching the emoluments clause of the constitution. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/liberal-watchdog-group-sues-trump-alleging-he-violated-constitutional-ban/2017/01/22/5e8b35c2-e113-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/liberal-watchdog-gro...
- helpfulanon 10y ago
  Trump's base right now are people who have never met an Iranian, and would probably be quite happy to see your coworkers sent to Guantanamo. Trump's policies will stand because his base stands by them, and because the GOP rank-and-file fear Trump, and his people in the midterm elections. If you want to do something, use your political awakening to help change some minds. At both the top and bottom of the power chain, doesn't matter. Steer the conversation
amasad 10y ago
The ban on Iranians has nothing to do with terrorism. I might be wrong but I don't think there are any real Shiite terror group. And yes I don't think it's fitting to call Hazbollah as a terrorist group -- the same label that you'd give Al Qaeda or ISIS. I honestly can't think of a time where a Shiite group was responsible for indiscriminate killing.
- thowfaraway 10y ago
  Hmm, Iran actively supports ~100 Shiite terror groups in Syria and Iraq. If you speak Arabic, here is an article in Al-Hayat. http://www.alhayat.com/Articles/9542195/ http://www.alhayat.com/Articles/9542195/ And of course Hezbollah in Lebanon.
  - amasad 10y ago
    Al Hayat has a pro Saudi bias. But even if we left that aside the article opens with the claim that Iran sponsored militias equal in atrocities that is of ISIS -- which is obviously false. Not sure if you speak arabic or if you're from the middle east but hate for Shiites from Sunnis are more extreme than their hate for Israel -- in fact many clerics actively ask for genocide against them.
- pknerd 10y ago
  >I don't think there are any real Shiite terror group. Hezbollah is a banned Shia outfit that is involved in killing in many countries including Syria.
  - mars4rp 10y ago
    Killing is different than terrorism, US military is involved in killing in many countries as well!
    - guildwriter 10y ago
      Are you seriously equivocating the US Military which has specific RoEs and people who deliberately target civilians as a means to achieve their goals? That argument does not pass the smell test. Iran has been sponsoring and supplying if not actively participating in terrorist attacks going back decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force#Activities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force#Activities Anyone saying Iran does not participate in terrorism either has not read enough or is willfully blind.
andrewclunn 10y ago
I can see the point of a broad stroke policy that does not make exceptions, in that it makes enforcement that much easier. Of course whether there's an actual goal here or this is just posturing to make good on the "tough on immigration" campaign talk is anybody's guess.
- jacobush 10y ago
  You make it sound like that goal would be good?
- chillacy 10y ago
  If anything it would shine light on how our laws are for the most part unreasonably strict and don't reflect reality. Like speeding laws (autodriving cars are programmed to break them) or drug laws in some states. https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
throwaway2131 10y ago
I am an Iranian CS student. I had a fully funded PhD admission at one of the US universities. I was admitted for the Fall 2016 semester. I am currently in Iran due to my visa not being issued despite the 7 months I have waited for it. I was able to defer my admission to Spring 2017 semester, but then _this_ happened. I am quite sure that I will never be able to attend this program. I had very high hopes for my future because of this admission. I was very sad today after hearing this news. I have to come up with a new plan for my life, since it never occurred to me that I would not be able to attend. Edit: Thanks for all the support from the HN community.
- dannylandau 10y ago
  This might sound like a crazy idea, but why not try applying to a few Israeli universities: Tel Aviv University, Weizmann Institute, Hebrew University and Technion are considered to pretty top notch for Computer science and have a few Turing award winners. You'd be surprised that Israeli academics tend to be very welcoming of students from all over the world.
  - digitalengineer 10y ago
    That is not without danger, I believe. Having Israeli stamps in your Iranien passport...
    - Gustomaximus 10y ago
      Wrong. Israel will stamp a separate piece of paper to leave in your passport during your visit for exactly this reason.
      - notahacker 10y ago
        Having records of a their Israeli degree all over the internet is probably a bigger problem for somebody intending to return to Iran at some point in the near future, even if only just to visit.
      - 10y ago
helpfulanon 10y ago
What's more worrisome is how fervently anti-science the new administration is. Academics may eventually be persecuted in the US across the board - as they are already at the EPA, USDA etc - and regardless of citizenship. I firmly believe anyone with a brain should begin making contingency plans to regroup somewhere like Australia or Japan, outside of the reaches of far-right populism. An Erdogan-style academic purge may be on the agenda and sooner than we think
- cavisne 10y ago
  when it comes to Islam Japan goes well past "far right populism". It's not a coincidence there's less than 70k Muslims in Japan.
  - endisukaj 10y ago
    Well, you can't say that Japan is anti-intellectualism at least.
  - Vintila 10y ago
    Genuine question, is there an anti-muslim immigration policy in japan or some other force at play?
    - gspetr 10y ago
      That does not seem to be the case: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16347/is-islam-banned-in-japan http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16347/is-islam-b...
- thowfaraway 10y ago
  An Erdogan style academic purge already happened. By the left in this country. http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518 http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-her...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
thowfaraway 10y ago
It would be healthier for everyone if there was less speculative outrage. This doesn't affect anyone in the country. It just says if you are trying to get a visa from a country where we think there is a terrorism risk, that country needs to be able to provide screening info on the person, or else we won't provide a visa. It is targeting Syrian refugees, not Iranian PhDs.
- mars4rp 10y ago
  My brother's fiance is iranian and studying in Italy, this will definitely affect them! Tell this to my brother!
- ebspelman 10y ago
  >It is targeting Syrian refugess, not Iranian PhDs. There are seven countries targeted in this edict. Why the other six if it's actually focused on a single one?
- scrollaway 10y ago
  That's a really loose interpretation of what this is. It must be comfortable not being affected. You get to speak on everybody else's behalf and tell them they're not affected either.
- Grangar 10y ago
  Yeah except that you might not be able to re-enter the country if you leave to visit family or something.
- TorKlingberg 10y ago
  People often need to exit the country they live in and apply for a new visa from outside. It doesn’t make much sense, but many visa/residence permit types can only be applied for from outside.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tvural 10y ago
In case anyone else didn't know, this is what the title references: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
pknerd 10y ago
>not Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Wahhabist terrorism. I read it and it seems Author was OK with it if KSA was banned by Trump. Author is biased or innocent as he has no idea of terrorism promoted by Iran in Syria and Iraq.
- tobltobs 10y ago
  Cheap strawmen
Gargoyle 10y ago
There is this section in the draft order, which presumably could allow for phd students to enter the US as being in the national interest. (g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) ofthis section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
fowlerpower 10y ago
What I don't get is, it is obviously against everything we stand for and for sure not in line with our constitution to discriminate based on religion. After all, religious freedom was one of the reasons they founded our country. Given all of that I don't understand why we can't sue? Take this to the Supreme Court? They didn't use any religion in the executive action but it is so clearly targeted at one individual religion that it could easily be struck down...
- guildwriter 10y ago
  The argument that it's clearly targeted at one individual religion doesn't stick that well. If that were true there were a lot of countries that are predominantly Muslim that were left off the list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country Arguing a racial thing is a bit difficult as well as there were plenty of Arab countries that were left out. An interesting commonality is this: "What all seven countries also have in common is that the United States government has violently intervened in them. The U.S. is currently bombing — or has bombed in the recent past — six of them. The U.S. has not bombed Iran, but has a long history of intervention including a recent cyberattack." https://theintercept.com/2017/01/25/trumps-muslim-immigration-executive-order-if-we-bombed-you-we-ban-you/ https://theintercept.com/2017/01/25/trumps-muslim-immigratio... Therefore I think it's easy to argue that the common factor isn't necessarily race or religion, but considered hostile status with the US.
  - turc1656 10y ago
    Great point, guildwriter. To extend that thought - it never ceases to amaze me the expectations people have regarding America. For example, if we were at war with China, Russia, whoever - no one would be shocked if those countries denied our citizens entry until the conflict was over. But reverse it and there is outrage. Similarly, I have no expectation that I would ever be able to, for example, travel to another country on "vacation" and just stay indefinitely after my visa expired. I would never think that would fly. I fully expect that at some point I would be facing either serious charges or a quick deportation, possibly with the stipulation that I was never allowed to return - or that violating the visa a second time would mean a jail sentence. Yet here in America, that's just people "trying to live the American dream", rules and laws be damned. Violating the sovereignty of a nation should always be taken seriously.
corndoge 10y ago
"Today, we learned that Trump is suspending the issuance of US visas to people from seven majority-Islamic countries, including Iran (but strangely not Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Wahhabist terrorism)." And yet, from the very source linked in the article-- "Details about the forthcoming executive orders are still unconfirmed. But here’s what we can say with high confidence." If you trust AP, then sure, it's likely that it will happen. But it's still important to draw a distinction between "has done" or "is doing" and "is expected to do". Articles like this, posted before any official announcement, are merely adding to the Trump hysteria.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
  > adding to the Trump hysteria Shh, they're having a grand old time with that, don't spoil it. (They should hand the man some sort of prize for making so many people feel so righteous. I suppose a Nobel is out of consideration ...)
- matt4077 10y ago
  I'm not sure why AP is the subject of your scorn here. They're accurately reporting the document that was leaked, and it's in the publics' interest to learn about such actions as soon as possible. Such leaks are sometimes intended as trial balloons, for example, and the reporting may stop the worst from happening by allowing the public to react at a time where the administrations still has a face-saving way out. That may actually be what is happening with the similar leak of Trump's intended reinstatement of torture as official US policy. The uncertainty expressed in the piece does not mean that the AP is unsure if the document is real. They usually get such material from sources they know, and have experience with. They are firstly hedging against the possibility of the administration changing its mind, and – specifically for the current flurry of executive actions – there is a lot of legal uncertainty because it isn't always clear how they are to be interpreted, if they fall within the executive branches' authority, and how they fit into existing laws.
  - 10y ago
wyager 10y ago
It always surprises me how countries don't offer automatic citizenship for people either working towards or who have already received advanced degrees in scientific/engineering fields. Surely there are few better ways to achieve technological superiority, either for economic or military reasons. It also tends to filter out religious extremists, if that's your justification for immigration restrictions in the first place.
- selimthegrim 10y ago
  False - many of the 9/11 hijackers had engineering degrees. Engineering education especially in a lot of those countries actually makes one less of a critical thinker and more vulnerable to accept dogma without objecting.
  - wyager 10y ago
    Interesting, I did not know that. Thank you. Interesting argument wrt educational dogma in the Middle East. I know it's a problem in Indian higher education.
spangry 10y ago
I think this is the most troubling part of the draft order, given it seems unlikely the Iranian government would be predisposed to co-operating (especially if the 'requested information' is designed to pander to a xenophobic constituency, rather than protect the US from the communists/terrorists/lizard people): (d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notiﬁcation. (e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, and C- 2 visas for travel to the United Nations) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this order until compliance occurs. EDIT: In Section 3
soheil 10y ago
This is part of the game that must be played to win against the government of Iran, people of that country have been treated like pawns in a chess game for long, certainly this is not something new. While the outrage is understandable, policy should not be made based on how it makes people feel. Iran is a country that deserves so much more, but it is seized by a ruling elite that does not share its values. I wish people who show so much outrage against Trump would acknowledge the above and in that new light instead show their support for the people of Iran in this unfortunate situation that they find themselves in.
- panic 10y ago
  What exactly is being won here?
  - soheil 10y ago
    The Iranians right to freedom and the control of the region and its resources.
    - Grangar 10y ago
      Just how does this weaken the Iranian government?
- EGreg 10y ago
  They used to have a democracy until they tried to nationalize their oil industry. Then the CIA and British intelligence engineered a coup and installed a Shah that gave good oil prices. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
  - soheil 10y ago
    Yes, but we find ourselves in this situation now, the current U.S. administration certainly had nothing to do with the coup. Bad decisions maybe were made but we cannot continue to blame U.S. policy as a whole over those mistakes.
danans 10y ago
The strength of this professor's protest comes from that fact that he puts skin in the game via his request to be deported himself before his students are. Self-sacrifice sends a powerful message, and in my recollection, many consequential protests from history have been grounded in it.
- cronjobber 10y ago
  It's cute signaling. It won't happen. Even if it would, he'd settle in nicely into his new professorship at Technion.
ordbajsare 10y ago
More communist propaganda
Lucadg 10y ago
Every country is a platform. When it attracts the best users it succeeds. When it doesn't, or even worse rejects them, it's bound to fail.
CptJamesCook 10y ago
People seem more upset that Trump is not letting people into the country than that Obama has been dropping bombs on 6 of these countries. I'm not wild about the Trump immigration ban on these countries, but I really, really hope he ends these wars.
- PopsiclePete 10y ago
  You can be mad at both things, or none. You don't have to pick or choose one over the other. I can be hungry and thirsty at the same time, or I can be tired and also have a mean sun-burn. The two issues are pretty unrelated.
  - CptJamesCook 10y ago
    I agree. But I am far more outraged at our government getting involved in foreign wars and dropping bombs all over the world than I am in them not letting people into the country from countries we are bombing. I think most people would have the same feeling if they thought about it carefully.
dmode 10y ago
It's amazing that some nations are deemed terrorist by American government, which itself is responsible for the deaths of most innocent civilians over the last century. Starting with dropping the atomic bomb in Hiroshima, funding Mujhadeen on Afghanistan, installing Shah in Iran, toppling Saddam Hussein, Indirectly funding terrorism in Kashmir, and all the mess in South America. What's the best guess ? 10 million innocent civilians killed ?
- guildwriter 10y ago
  Still not as many as Russia did during the same time period. Stalin alone blows that total right out of the water. Mao and the Khmer Rouge are right behind him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_... None of this takes away from the morally questionable actions of the US. But saying the US is responsible for the most innocent civilian casualties in the last half century is not true.
  - junto 10y ago
    I'm not sure we should make it a competition!
- adventured 10y ago
  > American government, which itself is responsible for the deaths of most innocent civilians over the last century Oh geez. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, broadly the Empire of Japan, among others would like a word with you. > Starting with dropping the atomic bomb in Hiroshima An entirely appropriate act to stop a rampaging war machine that had slaughtered millions in a war of conquest in east Asia, and joined with the Axis powers in declaring war on the United States etc. Dramatically more Japanese would have died, had the US simply invaded instead of using nuclear weapons. More importantly, far more Americans would have died in the process of trying to stop the aggressor: Japan. > toppling Saddam Hussein The US lost thousands of soldiers, and a trillion dollars, trying to keep the Iraqis from killing each other in a civil war after making the mistake of removing Saddam. You're obviously being intentionally disingenuous about what actually happened: the Iraqi factions declared war on each other, the extreme majority of all civilian deaths were Iraqis killing each other. > funding Mujhadeen on Afghanistan Something that didn't kill nearly as many civilians as the vast Soviet genocide / invasion it was meant to interrupt.
cancancan 10y ago
The more things change, the more they stay the same.[1] In his 2007 interview[2,3] general Wesley Clark spoke about the plan to take out 7 countries in 5 years (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran). Bush went to war with Iraq. Obama ravaged Libya and Syria. Six of those seven countries are on the Trump's visa ban list. At least he has no plans for new wars, for now I guess. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd6vR1J0_6A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd6vR1J0_6A [2] interview transcript: https://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/gen_wesley_clark_weighs_presidential_bid https://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/gen_wesley_clark_weigh... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfx2vtq_HDM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfx2vtq_HDM
mmrezaie 10y ago
How come this post went from "the top" to "where I cannot find it anymore"!?
- stefantalpalaru 10y ago
  The people in charge use algorithms for hiding "controversial" threads. Controversy is bad for business and this is a business, regardless of how 99% of us use this forum.
- dang 10y ago
  Users flagged it heavily, and a moderator downweighted it.
  - mmrezaie 10y ago
    Why flagged it? Something this important!
misingnoglic 10y ago
I really can't believe this. First the US goes into Iran, and destabilizes the popular government (see: 1953). Now, after literally no threat from any Iranian immigrants, they ban them. Good thing my parents came here before, I guess??
- turc1656 10y ago
  The threat isn't directly from Iranian immigrants but the the nation itself. I would like to remind you that the Obama administration's state department declared Iran to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism. That's not something to take lightly.
  - misingnoglic 10y ago
    Obama's position clearly states that the Iranian government is the issue. Trump's clearly says "We don't want your kind in our country"
misingnoglic 10y ago
This is the first time in my life that I don't feel safe in my own country. There is literally no difference between me (someone born in the US whose parents came here from Iran in the 90s), and people my age living in Iran right now who want to come to the US for a better education.
fdschoeneman 10y ago
It's unclear what Trump is trying to accomplish here. It seems stupid and I feel bad for the people whose lives it diverts or puts in hold. But the Nazi comparison either trivializes the Holocaust or unfairly hitlerizes Donald Trump for what may be a legitimate concern over technology transfer to a country that actively opposes US interests. There are plenty of countries that suspend student visas without going on to murder millions of people, and indeed we did exactly that under Jimmy Carter for much longer than thirty days. Standing up for students and education and science is an important duty for a professor, and I hope he'll continue with it, but this kind of hyperbole doesn't seem helpful.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  > But the Nazi comparison either trivializes the Holocaust or unfairly hitlerizes Donald Trump for what may be a legitimate concern over technology transfer to a country that actively opposes US interests. It does neither. Warning that "that's how Germany started" doesn't mean that banning visas is as severe as burning people, or saying that trump will burn people. It means that one should be careful because these are warning signs, and one should act cautiously and nip them in the bud. You don't see doctors saying "you probably have a cold, but it might be pneumonia, but I won't prescribe strong medication because that will trivialize pneumonia or unfairly characterize your cold". Just be careful with what's going on, and protest all these changes that bode ill in addition to writing blog posts.
  - fdschoeneman 10y ago
    Meh. Hyperbole bothers me. But as long as you're using a healthcare analogy, allow me to suggest the possibility of negative side effects to the strong medicine. For example it is widely accepted that antibiotics are currently overprescribed, making them less of a strong and powerful weapon against disease over time.
    - guildwriter 10y ago
      To take the metaphor further, the really strong antibiotics have a chance to destroy the kidneys, making you a permanent dialysis case.
zeroer 10y ago
"This time, it’s taken just five days, since the hostile takeover of the US by its worst elements" Really? This is they way you see it?
aussieguy123 10y ago
If the worst happens and students get deported, the universities should find a way to at least allow the students to finish their degrees remotely over the internet. Then they can gift Australia or another country their skills.
finid 10y ago
Including Iran on that list baffled me, too.
mikeash 10y ago
Holy shit: > U.S. permanent residents (green card holders) who are outside of the United States may be barred from reentry. That's huge. I don't mean to diminish the importance of banning new immigrants and visitors on a religious basis, that's bad too. But banning people who have already legally immigrated from re-entering the country is completely nuts. There are no doubt people who have lived in this country for decades who happen to be abroad at the moment and are now stuck away from their homes for an unknown period. There will be people who have lived in this country for decades who will be faced with an illness or death in the family and will have to make a choice between going to visit or retaining their ability to stay where they live.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  I'm trying really hard not to be cynical, but...these measures aren't made with logic in mind. They are shiny objects thrown to the voter base which primarily lives segregated lives away from immigrants, H1Bs, or anyone else affected by this idiotic action. It is also likely that headline-grabbers like these are used as cover for more insidious schemes, and to quiet down constant claims of blatant corruption.
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    nothing about this last election is logical.
- KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
  But this is not new. If you leave the US for more than 6 months, you can potentially lose your green card at the discretion of CBP regardless of where you're from.
  - smpetrey 10y ago
    But to be barred re-entry for less than 6 months is new.
  - guptaneil 10y ago
    OP is not talking about people away for 6 months. These are American residents who might be traveling for a week and suddenly find themselves homeless. If you think that can't happen to you, I have a bridge to sell you.
csomar 10y ago
Wow. This is more hostile than I ever imagined. Banning 70 million people from Iran when there is no terrorism link for the country is, at best, idiotic. (Iran is anti-ISIS and apart from its conflict with the US has no precedent of terrorism) I'm really speechless.
- coredog64 10y ago
  Other than them supporting the Iraqi insurgency and being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, right? http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/07/14/iran-linked-to-deaths-of-500-us-troops-in-iraq-afghanistan/30131097/ http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/201...
  - csomar 10y ago
    That's definitively an act of war but I would not call that a terrorist act. I think to qualify as a terrorist act it needs to be directed at: 1. Civilians and 2. Time of peace.
- gspetr 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#State_Department_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro... In July 2012, the United States State Department released a report on terrorism around the world in 2011. The report states that "Iran remained an active state sponsor of terrorism in 2011 and increased its terrorist-related activity" and that "Iran also continued to provide financial, material, and logistical support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia." This is not a report from a Republican administration but Obama's administration.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    That is likely for theirbsupport of Hamas for their role in trying to expand their hegemony in the Middle East and their conflicts with Saudia Arabia and Israel. Iran is not a part of global jihad.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
akssri 10y ago
This is just too sad. Iranians at grad school often struck me as incredibly smart - be it students or faculty. The recent breakthrough in TSP approximation was due to an Iranian; the woman who won the Field's prize earlier was one too! They are a tiny nation but are very well represented. They were already at the receiving end of the stick under Obama, having to deal with the sanction and single entry student visas. These policies make no sense considering their distinctions as immigrants; it's an affront to one's humanity TBH.
jlarocco 10y ago
> This time, it’s taken just five days, since the hostile takeover of the US by its worst elements Stopped reading there. I don't agree with his immigration policy at all, but we voted and Trump won fair and square.
stefantalpalaru 10y ago
This is bad, but the alternative was worse: https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks/comments/5945ho/hillary_justified_bombing_iran_in_a_june_2013/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks/comments/5945ho/hillary_ju... [remember not to vote on Reddit if you land with an external HTTP Referer or you risk being banned for 3 days on the whole site for participating in a "voting brigade"]
throwaway883443 10y ago
> First they came for the Iranians No, first they came for the immigrants, muslims, women, and leftists with this guys good conscience. Then Trump was elected on those premises and came for the Iranians. But somehow he's surprised when it affects him personally?
- gspetr 10y ago
  Following your logic: they literally came before Trump was elected, so they must have done so during Obama's term. Was Obama the one who came for "immigrants, muslims, women, and leftists with this guys good conscience"?
bratchen 10y ago
I only like Iranians who call themselves Persians. The rest of you can sod right off.
bratchen 10y ago
I only like Iranians that call themselves Persian. The rest of you can sod right off.
mrprtkngse 10y ago
All you Iranian terrorists are not and should never be allowed to get into the US and other western countries!!!! You are all despicable scums of the earth and should be totally and completely exterminated and wiped out of existence. One day your nuclear bombs will explode and wiping every Iranian Shiites including all of your ayatollahs, an earthquake of Intensity 10000's or a million times will surely bury you all wherever you all are including your oil!!!!!!!!! Ok so get with program, and eat shit and you all die!!!!!!!!!!

1000 points by aaronyy 10y ago

My father successfully brought over two of our relatives from Iran during the Obama presidency (thanks Obama). They were a doctor and a professional soccer player. However, the other application for his older sister and my mother's brother has been processing for nearly 20 years. She's nearing her 70s. And my mother's brother has all but lost hope. Looks like it's not going to ever happen under Mr. Trump. Oh well. I wouldn't say it's as urgent as having PhD-level brains here...but it's too bad. We're doing the process right. We're doing it legally. We're following all the proper procedure and making sure that nothing is overlooked or done to cheat the process. My father (who voted for Trump) is in complete denial: he thinks "The people around Trump told him to do that." Very sad.

jasonmp85 10y ago
That penultimate paragraph. Jesus Christ.
- spiderfarmer 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment
- moomin 10y ago
  I'm reminded of something I read by people who were in the cultural revolution. They always convinced themselves that Mao had bad advisers and they'd get purged soon. Took decades to twig that the problem was Mao himself.
  - coredog64 10y ago
    It isn't just Mao. "If only Stalin knew" was a popular refrain.
exit 10y ago
what motivated your father to vote for trump?
Qwertious 10y ago
With your father's thoughts: Does it matter? Policy is policy, who cares whether it's specifically Trump or just his aides, as long as your Irani relatives are being deported for bullshit reasons?
- scott_s 10y ago
  Because they may continue to support that person, mistakenly thinking that the policies they disagree with are from people other than that person.
ascagnel_ 10y ago
One of the strangest moves during the election was that Trump stopped by Edison, NJ, to deliver a stump speech. Edison has a very heavy immigrant population, particularly from from south-east Asia. Which makes no sense, since the organization he was stumping for (an explicitly Hindu organization) would likely be very adversely affected by his immigration changes. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/us/politics/trump-modi-indian-americans.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/us/politics/trump-modi-in...

sb057 10y ago

Trump is Hitler!!!

sctb 10y ago
Let's please not comment like this here.

Breefield 10y ago

This is the strength we need. Respect.

guard-of-terra 10y ago

I come from a country which can't keep its le^Wborders closed in front of anyone. So I pity those students a bit, definitely, but otherwise I'm jealous for this policy. It would address my immediate pain had it been implemented here. And yes, I do care more about my own life in a country I am a citizen of, and safety of my relatives, than about people you call "aliens".

EdHominem 10y ago
Where did that come from? Who's a threat? If there really was a threat it would be reasonable for you to want less immigrants. But there isn't, that's straight up racism. You might as well say you don't want a jew stealing your baby.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  Who decides for me what's a threat and what is not? Isn't there the same sort of people who during Communism decided whether I need any sausage or can go without?
  - pcwalton 10y ago
    This article is about the government deciding whether a professor can take on a student or not!
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      Admission to a country was never a professor's decision. I can't go to a country abroad and study because a professor has decided that I would be a good fit. At most, we can submit an application. Then, the decision is up to immigration officials.
  - Larrikin 10y ago
    You never defined a threat
  - EdHominem 10y ago

namirez 10y ago

This is the draft of the executive order. Section 3 explains how the US entry ban could be extended indefinitely. http://documents.latimes.com/read-draft-copy-president-trumps-executive-order-immigration-and-refugees/ http://documents.latimes.com/read-draft-copy-president-trump...

amasad 10y ago

I had trouble loading the page, here is a google-cache url: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3167 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...

redleggedfrog 10y ago

<sarcasm>Those PhD's should be for 'mericans, not furners.</sarcasm>

salimmadjd 10y ago

Trump is ostensibly using the 9/11 play card to justify banning few muslim countries [0]. This is obviously a lie, since most of 911 hijackers were Saudis and his executive order is not banning the Saudis. I'm guessing on the strength of the Saudi lobby in DC [1] AND/OR Trump's potential business conflict in Saudi Arabia [2]. [0] https://www.scribd.com/document/337545704/Draft-Executive-Order-To-Limit-Entry-of-Muslim-Refugees-and-Immigrants https://www.scribd.com/document/337545704/Draft-Executive-Or... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia_lobby_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia_lobby_in_the_Unit... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Saudi-Arabia http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/donald-t...

devoply 10y ago
Can't mess with the Saudis. But we sure can ban the people they are bombing to hell, you know the Yemenis with British made bombs no less. And ban all the other people whose countries we helped destroy, you know just to add insult to injury. Really the best way to make people think we the vanguards of freedom. I am sure though Trump has some business dealing with the Saudis, I think there is a Trump hotel in Dubai. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306990-trump-appeared-to-register-eight-companies-in-saudi-arabia http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306990-trum...
- inopinatus 10y ago
  Dubai is not in Saudi Arabia. It's in the UAE. However his family have expressed interest in building hotels in Saudi Arabia. My guess though was the omission has more to do with energy price stability and/or arms exports.
  - tritosomal 10y ago
    Yeah, as this fiasco unfolds, the last thing we need is people lumping countries together while complaining about other people lumping countries together. Dubai is a city in a different country. Same peninsula, but there's like seven countries dividing up that chunk of land.

notgood 10y ago

The came for science agencies too: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2017/01/25/trump_issues_gag_orders_on_science_agencies.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2017/01/25/trump_is...

jekdoce 10y ago

Advice from a high-level staffer for a Senator: There are two things that everyone concerned should be doing all the time right now, and they're by far the most important things. You should NOT be bothering with online petitions or emailing. 1. The best thing you can do to be heard and get your congressperson to pay attention is to have face-to-face time - if they have town halls, go to them. Go to their local offices. If you're in DC, try to find a way to go to an event of theirs. Go to the "mobile offices" that their staff hold periodically (all these times are located on each congressperson's website). When you go, ask questions. A lot of them. And push for answers. The louder and more vocal and present you can be at those the better. 2. But, those in-person events don't happen every day. So, the absolute most important thing that people should be doing every day is calling. You should make 6 calls a day: 2 each (DC office and your local office) to your 2 Senators & your 1 Representative. Any sort of online contact basically gets immediately ignored, and letters pretty much get thrown in the trash (unless you have a particularly strong emotional story - but even then it's not worth the time it took you to craft that letter). Calls are what all the congresspeople pay attention to. Every single day, the Senior Staff and the Senator get a report of the 3 most-called-about topics for that day at each of their offices (in DC and local offices), and exactly how many people said what about each of those topics. They're also sorted by zip code and area code. Republican callers generally outnumber Democrat callers 4-1, and when it's a particular issue that single-issue-voters pay attention to (like gun control, or planned parenthood funding, etc...), it's often closer to 11-1, and that's recently pushed Democratic congressmen on the fence to vote with the Republicans. In the last 8 years, Republicans have called, and Democrats haven't. So, when you call: A) When calling the DC office, ask for the Staff member in charge of whatever you're calling about ("Hi, I'd like to speak with the staffer in charge of Healthcare, please") - local offices won't always have specific ones, but they might. If you get transferred to that person, awesome. If you don't, that's ok - ask for their name, and then just keep talking to whoever answered the phone. Don't leave a message (unless the office doesn't pick up at all - then you can...but it's better to talk to the staffer who first answered than leave a message for the specific staffer in charge of your topic). B) Give them your zip code. They won't always ask for it, but make sure you give it to them, so they can mark it down. Extra points if you live in a zip code that traditionally votes for them, since they'll want to make sure they get/keep your vote. C) If you can make it personal, make it personal. "I voted for you in the last election and I'm worried/happy/whatever" or "I'm a teacher, and I am appalled by Betsy DeVos," or "as a single mother" or "as a white, middle class woman," or whatever. D) Pick 1-2 specific things per day to focus on. Don't go down a whole list - they're figuring out what 1-2 topics to mark you down for on their lists. So, focus on 1-2 per day. Ideally something that will be voted on/taken up in the next few days, but it doesn't really matter - even if there's not a vote coming up in the next week, call anyway. It's important that they just keep getting calls. E) Be clear on what you want - "I'm disappointed that the Senator..." or "I want to thank the Senator for their vote on..." or "I want the Senator to know that voting in _____ way is the wrong decision for our state because..." Don't leave any ambiguity. F) They may get to know your voice/get sick of you - it doesn't matter. The people answering the phones generally turn over every 6 weeks anyway, so even if they're really sick of you, they'll be gone in 6 weeks. From experience since the election: If you hate being on the phone & feel awkward (which is a lot of people) don't worry about it - there are a bunch of scripts (Indivisible has some, there are lots of others floating around these day). After a few days of calling, it starts to feel a lot more natural. Put the 6 numbers in your phone (all under P – Politician. An example is McCaskill MO, Politician McCaskill DC, Politician Blunt MO, etc...) which makes it really easy to click down the list each day.

tabeth 10y ago

I abhor Trump, but something about this statement irks me: > To the Trump regime, I make one request: if you ever decide that it’s the policy of the US government to deport my PhD students, then deport me first. I’m practically begging you: come to my house, arrest me, revoke my citizenship, and tear up the awards I’ve accepted at the White House and the State Department. I’d consider that to be the greatest honor of my career. Given the pedestal that you (presumably, by the amount of points this has gotten) are on, there are more actionable ways to be useful, rather than be a martyr. No mention in the post on how to stop Trump. For example, telling your readers how they can take action to stop Trump. I'll share some of my own thoughts on how to do this. Feel free to respond to this if it's not exhaustive enough. To follow my own advice, if anyone sees this: 1. Call - Local congresspeople (http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/) - Senators (https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/) - Local officials (https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials) 2. Participate - Get involved in local elections (this is a decent start - to become informed locally http://www.npr.org/stations/) - Protest - Attend town hall and city council meetings (see npr) 3. Share - Tell your friends 4. Vote (https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote) 5. Volunteer 6. Stop reading and start doing one of the other things.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
cyberferret 10y ago
Who knows? It may actually help. The news footage of a middle class white man being dragged away by jack booted thugs may elicit much more attention, sympathy and outrage than a "Middle Eastern looking" man undergoing the same, one would think? And in this current world awash in pithy slogans, short attention spans and social media generated activism, it may actually be more effective.
matthewbauer 10y ago
This is the executive's power. There is literally nothing that can be done about it for the next 4 years besides try to change Trump's mind (or pray he does something impeachable).

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

Does the President have the power to unilaterally impose exit-visa requirements?

curuinor 10y ago
This is an extremely important question. Empirically, exit visas seem like an extremely good feature for having a fucked-up country (North Korea, USSR, Warsaw Pact, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy all had them, Saudi Arabia does for foreign workers, and very few others have them)
grey-area 10y ago
This is a good question. Obama claimed the president has the power to assassinate american citizens without trial and Trump is claiming further powers over immigration, science and the media. None of these things should be the sole purview of the president, this is why rule via executive orders is so dangerous. It would lead to the end of the republic. The American republic now resembles the late roman one, complete with populist consuls and rioting factions.
- davedx 10y ago
  Hah. I was thinking this morning that Trump could be the US's Nero.
- guildwriter 10y ago
  This is being exacerbated by the increasing factionalism within the US itself. I'm starting to understand better and better why Washington warned us of political parties in his farwell address "Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

threeseed 10y ago

Such a cynical yet poorly thought out policy. Firstly, many people involved in terrorist incidents are natural born citizens of allied countries. So are we going to ban all French or Belgium citizens given they have been shown to harbor terrorists ? It's clear that Trump/Bannon desperately want a Muslim ban as opposed to a Iran/Iraq/etc ban. Secondly, this is going to alienate moderate Muslims who Western intelligence agencies have unanimously and categorically stated are the only people capable of solving this problem of radicalisation. It's often their children or friends or community members who are being radicalised. Why should they help the US government when they are encouraging the public to hate them purely based on their religion ?

guard-of-terra 10y ago
If you has Muslims in your country, then yes you might need to work with moderate Muslims in order to be suppressing problem of radicalization. Not sure how well it works tho. But if you do not have Muslims in your country, you don't have to care about this at all, just cross this issue off your whiteboard in a broad stroke. No Muslims - no Muslim radicalism. I don't think this is the solution for USA, but otherwise - it's often easier not having a problem instead of solving it.
- danso 10y ago
  Which countries don't have Muslims?
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    Come to think of it, I don't think e.g. Estonia has too many of them. You can probably fit them all in one train.
    - threeseed 10y ago
      Estonia doesn't have too many people in general. From 2011 census Muslims made up 0.14% of the population. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Estonia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Estonia

mistermann 10y ago

This is obviously extremely unfortunate for those involved, I predict it will be very short lived but we'll have to wait and see. One thing I like about this sort of controversy though is perhaps some day, some people might start wondering who these mullahs are and how they came to be. Now that type of conversation would be rather uncomfortable, and I suspect is somewhat of an underlying cause of a lot of the hand wringing we're seeing from various government agencies. EDIT: Interesting I've got two downvotes already, do people think the interesting history of the leadership of Iran is some sort of a conspiracy theory?

steveax 10y ago
Conspiracy theory? No. Conspiracy? Yes. I often wonder what the Middle East and Iran would look like today if the CIA and the Brits had not overthrown the democratically elected Mosaddegh government.
- mistermann 10y ago
  I wonder what the world would like like if western nations hadn't meddled so much in other's affairs. That would actually make a really good TV series: "What the World Would Have Looked Like - Episode 3: Germany Wins World War 2". Of course there are numerous theories for each, but that's ok, just state that at the beginning and say this is just one of many possible theories, it's just for fun. I'd watch that type of show for sure.
  - dummkopf99 10y ago
    Germany is a western country.
    - mistermann 10y ago
      As is Sweden.
- selimthegrim 10y ago
  As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Mosaddeq had scant respect for democratic norms - look into how he conducted his parliamentary votes.

aphextron 10y ago

This is completely unacceptable, and truly crosses the line. I have many Iranian coworkers and friends here in the bay area. The thought of branding them as terrorists and revoking their work or student visas is absolutely unbelievable. I think the Trump administration and the GOP are in for a rude awakening if they think these policies are going to stand.

danenania 10y ago
"I think the Trump administration and the GOP are in for a rude awakening if they think these policies are going to stand." I hope you're right, but at least for the next 2 years, who/what is going to stop them?
- agumonkey 10y ago
  Not once in history has there been a quick office reboot ? No way to amend the constitution, to change the planning ? I'm counting days until impeachment, seriously.
- aphextron 10y ago
  >I hope you're right, but at least for the next 2 years, who/what is going to stop them? The courts. It's our only option. There are multiple pending lawsuits against Trump already. A civil rights group filed suit against him on day one for breaching the emoluments clause of the constitution. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/liberal-watchdog-group-sues-trump-alleging-he-violated-constitutional-ban/2017/01/22/5e8b35c2-e113-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/liberal-watchdog-gro...
helpfulanon 10y ago
Trump's base right now are people who have never met an Iranian, and would probably be quite happy to see your coworkers sent to Guantanamo. Trump's policies will stand because his base stands by them, and because the GOP rank-and-file fear Trump, and his people in the midterm elections. If you want to do something, use your political awakening to help change some minds. At both the top and bottom of the power chain, doesn't matter. Steer the conversation

amasad 10y ago

The ban on Iranians has nothing to do with terrorism. I might be wrong but I don't think there are any real Shiite terror group. And yes I don't think it's fitting to call Hazbollah as a terrorist group -- the same label that you'd give Al Qaeda or ISIS. I honestly can't think of a time where a Shiite group was responsible for indiscriminate killing.

thowfaraway 10y ago
Hmm, Iran actively supports ~100 Shiite terror groups in Syria and Iraq. If you speak Arabic, here is an article in Al-Hayat. http://www.alhayat.com/Articles/9542195/ http://www.alhayat.com/Articles/9542195/ And of course Hezbollah in Lebanon.
- amasad 10y ago
  Al Hayat has a pro Saudi bias. But even if we left that aside the article opens with the claim that Iran sponsored militias equal in atrocities that is of ISIS -- which is obviously false. Not sure if you speak arabic or if you're from the middle east but hate for Shiites from Sunnis are more extreme than their hate for Israel -- in fact many clerics actively ask for genocide against them.
pknerd 10y ago
>I don't think there are any real Shiite terror group. Hezbollah is a banned Shia outfit that is involved in killing in many countries including Syria.
- mars4rp 10y ago
  Killing is different than terrorism, US military is involved in killing in many countries as well!
  - guildwriter 10y ago
    Are you seriously equivocating the US Military which has specific RoEs and people who deliberately target civilians as a means to achieve their goals? That argument does not pass the smell test. Iran has been sponsoring and supplying if not actively participating in terrorist attacks going back decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force#Activities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force#Activities Anyone saying Iran does not participate in terrorism either has not read enough or is willfully blind.

andrewclunn 10y ago

I can see the point of a broad stroke policy that does not make exceptions, in that it makes enforcement that much easier. Of course whether there's an actual goal here or this is just posturing to make good on the "tough on immigration" campaign talk is anybody's guess.

jacobush 10y ago
You make it sound like that goal would be good?
chillacy 10y ago
If anything it would shine light on how our laws are for the most part unreasonably strict and don't reflect reality. Like speeding laws (autodriving cars are programmed to break them) or drug laws in some states. https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

throwaway2131 10y ago

I am an Iranian CS student. I had a fully funded PhD admission at one of the US universities. I was admitted for the Fall 2016 semester. I am currently in Iran due to my visa not being issued despite the 7 months I have waited for it. I was able to defer my admission to Spring 2017 semester, but then _this_ happened. I am quite sure that I will never be able to attend this program. I had very high hopes for my future because of this admission. I was very sad today after hearing this news. I have to come up with a new plan for my life, since it never occurred to me that I would not be able to attend. Edit: Thanks for all the support from the HN community.

dannylandau 10y ago
This might sound like a crazy idea, but why not try applying to a few Israeli universities: Tel Aviv University, Weizmann Institute, Hebrew University and Technion are considered to pretty top notch for Computer science and have a few Turing award winners. You'd be surprised that Israeli academics tend to be very welcoming of students from all over the world.
- digitalengineer 10y ago
  That is not without danger, I believe. Having Israeli stamps in your Iranien passport...
  - Gustomaximus 10y ago
    Wrong. Israel will stamp a separate piece of paper to leave in your passport during your visit for exactly this reason.
    - notahacker 10y ago
      Having records of a their Israeli degree all over the internet is probably a bigger problem for somebody intending to return to Iran at some point in the near future, even if only just to visit.
    - 10y ago

helpfulanon 10y ago

What's more worrisome is how fervently anti-science the new administration is. Academics may eventually be persecuted in the US across the board - as they are already at the EPA, USDA etc - and regardless of citizenship. I firmly believe anyone with a brain should begin making contingency plans to regroup somewhere like Australia or Japan, outside of the reaches of far-right populism. An Erdogan-style academic purge may be on the agenda and sooner than we think

cavisne 10y ago
when it comes to Islam Japan goes well past "far right populism". It's not a coincidence there's less than 70k Muslims in Japan.
- endisukaj 10y ago
  Well, you can't say that Japan is anti-intellectualism at least.
- Vintila 10y ago
  Genuine question, is there an anti-muslim immigration policy in japan or some other force at play?
  - gspetr 10y ago
    That does not seem to be the case: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16347/is-islam-banned-in-japan http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16347/is-islam-b...
thowfaraway 10y ago
An Erdogan style academic purge already happened. By the left in this country. http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518 http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-her...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

thowfaraway 10y ago

It would be healthier for everyone if there was less speculative outrage. This doesn't affect anyone in the country. It just says if you are trying to get a visa from a country where we think there is a terrorism risk, that country needs to be able to provide screening info on the person, or else we won't provide a visa. It is targeting Syrian refugees, not Iranian PhDs.

mars4rp 10y ago
My brother's fiance is iranian and studying in Italy, this will definitely affect them! Tell this to my brother!
ebspelman 10y ago
>It is targeting Syrian refugess, not Iranian PhDs. There are seven countries targeted in this edict. Why the other six if it's actually focused on a single one?
scrollaway 10y ago
That's a really loose interpretation of what this is. It must be comfortable not being affected. You get to speak on everybody else's behalf and tell them they're not affected either.
Grangar 10y ago
Yeah except that you might not be able to re-enter the country if you leave to visit family or something.
TorKlingberg 10y ago
People often need to exit the country they live in and apply for a new visa from outside. It doesn’t make much sense, but many visa/residence permit types can only be applied for from outside.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

tvural 10y ago

In case anyone else didn't know, this is what the title references: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

pknerd 10y ago

>not Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Wahhabist terrorism. I read it and it seems Author was OK with it if KSA was banned by Trump. Author is biased or innocent as he has no idea of terrorism promoted by Iran in Syria and Iraq.

tobltobs 10y ago
Cheap strawmen

Gargoyle 10y ago

There is this section in the draft order, which presumably could allow for phd students to enter the US as being in the national interest. (g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) ofthis section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

fowlerpower 10y ago

What I don't get is, it is obviously against everything we stand for and for sure not in line with our constitution to discriminate based on religion. After all, religious freedom was one of the reasons they founded our country. Given all of that I don't understand why we can't sue? Take this to the Supreme Court? They didn't use any religion in the executive action but it is so clearly targeted at one individual religion that it could easily be struck down...

guildwriter 10y ago
The argument that it's clearly targeted at one individual religion doesn't stick that well. If that were true there were a lot of countries that are predominantly Muslim that were left off the list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country Arguing a racial thing is a bit difficult as well as there were plenty of Arab countries that were left out. An interesting commonality is this: "What all seven countries also have in common is that the United States government has violently intervened in them. The U.S. is currently bombing — or has bombed in the recent past — six of them. The U.S. has not bombed Iran, but has a long history of intervention including a recent cyberattack." https://theintercept.com/2017/01/25/trumps-muslim-immigration-executive-order-if-we-bombed-you-we-ban-you/ https://theintercept.com/2017/01/25/trumps-muslim-immigratio... Therefore I think it's easy to argue that the common factor isn't necessarily race or religion, but considered hostile status with the US.
- turc1656 10y ago
  Great point, guildwriter. To extend that thought - it never ceases to amaze me the expectations people have regarding America. For example, if we were at war with China, Russia, whoever - no one would be shocked if those countries denied our citizens entry until the conflict was over. But reverse it and there is outrage. Similarly, I have no expectation that I would ever be able to, for example, travel to another country on "vacation" and just stay indefinitely after my visa expired. I would never think that would fly. I fully expect that at some point I would be facing either serious charges or a quick deportation, possibly with the stipulation that I was never allowed to return - or that violating the visa a second time would mean a jail sentence. Yet here in America, that's just people "trying to live the American dream", rules and laws be damned. Violating the sovereignty of a nation should always be taken seriously.

corndoge 10y ago

"Today, we learned that Trump is suspending the issuance of US visas to people from seven majority-Islamic countries, including Iran (but strangely not Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Wahhabist terrorism)." And yet, from the very source linked in the article-- "Details about the forthcoming executive orders are still unconfirmed. But here’s what we can say with high confidence." If you trust AP, then sure, it's likely that it will happen. But it's still important to draw a distinction between "has done" or "is doing" and "is expected to do". Articles like this, posted before any official announcement, are merely adding to the Trump hysteria.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
> adding to the Trump hysteria Shh, they're having a grand old time with that, don't spoil it. (They should hand the man some sort of prize for making so many people feel so righteous. I suppose a Nobel is out of consideration ...)
matt4077 10y ago
I'm not sure why AP is the subject of your scorn here. They're accurately reporting the document that was leaked, and it's in the publics' interest to learn about such actions as soon as possible. Such leaks are sometimes intended as trial balloons, for example, and the reporting may stop the worst from happening by allowing the public to react at a time where the administrations still has a face-saving way out. That may actually be what is happening with the similar leak of Trump's intended reinstatement of torture as official US policy. The uncertainty expressed in the piece does not mean that the AP is unsure if the document is real. They usually get such material from sources they know, and have experience with. They are firstly hedging against the possibility of the administration changing its mind, and – specifically for the current flurry of executive actions – there is a lot of legal uncertainty because it isn't always clear how they are to be interpreted, if they fall within the executive branches' authority, and how they fit into existing laws.
- 10y ago

wyager 10y ago

It always surprises me how countries don't offer automatic citizenship for people either working towards or who have already received advanced degrees in scientific/engineering fields. Surely there are few better ways to achieve technological superiority, either for economic or military reasons. It also tends to filter out religious extremists, if that's your justification for immigration restrictions in the first place.

selimthegrim 10y ago
False - many of the 9/11 hijackers had engineering degrees. Engineering education especially in a lot of those countries actually makes one less of a critical thinker and more vulnerable to accept dogma without objecting.
- wyager 10y ago
  Interesting, I did not know that. Thank you. Interesting argument wrt educational dogma in the Middle East. I know it's a problem in Indian higher education.

spangry 10y ago

I think this is the most troubling part of the draft order, given it seems unlikely the Iranian government would be predisposed to co-operating (especially if the 'requested information' is designed to pander to a xenophobic constituency, rather than protect the US from the communists/terrorists/lizard people): (d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notiﬁcation. (e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, and C- 2 visas for travel to the United Nations) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this order until compliance occurs. EDIT: In Section 3

soheil 10y ago

This is part of the game that must be played to win against the government of Iran, people of that country have been treated like pawns in a chess game for long, certainly this is not something new. While the outrage is understandable, policy should not be made based on how it makes people feel. Iran is a country that deserves so much more, but it is seized by a ruling elite that does not share its values. I wish people who show so much outrage against Trump would acknowledge the above and in that new light instead show their support for the people of Iran in this unfortunate situation that they find themselves in.

panic 10y ago
What exactly is being won here?
- soheil 10y ago
  The Iranians right to freedom and the control of the region and its resources.
  - Grangar 10y ago
    Just how does this weaken the Iranian government?
EGreg 10y ago
They used to have a democracy until they tried to nationalize their oil industry. Then the CIA and British intelligence engineered a coup and installed a Shah that gave good oil prices. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
- soheil 10y ago
  Yes, but we find ourselves in this situation now, the current U.S. administration certainly had nothing to do with the coup. Bad decisions maybe were made but we cannot continue to blame U.S. policy as a whole over those mistakes.

danans 10y ago

The strength of this professor's protest comes from that fact that he puts skin in the game via his request to be deported himself before his students are. Self-sacrifice sends a powerful message, and in my recollection, many consequential protests from history have been grounded in it.

cronjobber 10y ago
It's cute signaling. It won't happen. Even if it would, he'd settle in nicely into his new professorship at Technion.

ordbajsare 10y ago

More communist propaganda

Lucadg 10y ago

Every country is a platform. When it attracts the best users it succeeds. When it doesn't, or even worse rejects them, it's bound to fail.

CptJamesCook 10y ago

People seem more upset that Trump is not letting people into the country than that Obama has been dropping bombs on 6 of these countries. I'm not wild about the Trump immigration ban on these countries, but I really, really hope he ends these wars.

PopsiclePete 10y ago
You can be mad at both things, or none. You don't have to pick or choose one over the other. I can be hungry and thirsty at the same time, or I can be tired and also have a mean sun-burn. The two issues are pretty unrelated.
- CptJamesCook 10y ago
  I agree. But I am far more outraged at our government getting involved in foreign wars and dropping bombs all over the world than I am in them not letting people into the country from countries we are bombing. I think most people would have the same feeling if they thought about it carefully.

dmode 10y ago

It's amazing that some nations are deemed terrorist by American government, which itself is responsible for the deaths of most innocent civilians over the last century. Starting with dropping the atomic bomb in Hiroshima, funding Mujhadeen on Afghanistan, installing Shah in Iran, toppling Saddam Hussein, Indirectly funding terrorism in Kashmir, and all the mess in South America. What's the best guess ? 10 million innocent civilians killed ?

guildwriter 10y ago
Still not as many as Russia did during the same time period. Stalin alone blows that total right out of the water. Mao and the Khmer Rouge are right behind him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_... None of this takes away from the morally questionable actions of the US. But saying the US is responsible for the most innocent civilian casualties in the last half century is not true.
- junto 10y ago
  I'm not sure we should make it a competition!
adventured 10y ago
> American government, which itself is responsible for the deaths of most innocent civilians over the last century Oh geez. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, broadly the Empire of Japan, among others would like a word with you. > Starting with dropping the atomic bomb in Hiroshima An entirely appropriate act to stop a rampaging war machine that had slaughtered millions in a war of conquest in east Asia, and joined with the Axis powers in declaring war on the United States etc. Dramatically more Japanese would have died, had the US simply invaded instead of using nuclear weapons. More importantly, far more Americans would have died in the process of trying to stop the aggressor: Japan. > toppling Saddam Hussein The US lost thousands of soldiers, and a trillion dollars, trying to keep the Iraqis from killing each other in a civil war after making the mistake of removing Saddam. You're obviously being intentionally disingenuous about what actually happened: the Iraqi factions declared war on each other, the extreme majority of all civilian deaths were Iraqis killing each other. > funding Mujhadeen on Afghanistan Something that didn't kill nearly as many civilians as the vast Soviet genocide / invasion it was meant to interrupt.

cancancan 10y ago

The more things change, the more they stay the same.[1] In his 2007 interview[2,3] general Wesley Clark spoke about the plan to take out 7 countries in 5 years (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran). Bush went to war with Iraq. Obama ravaged Libya and Syria. Six of those seven countries are on the Trump's visa ban list. At least he has no plans for new wars, for now I guess. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd6vR1J0_6A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd6vR1J0_6A [2] interview transcript: https://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/gen_wesley_clark_weighs_presidential_bid https://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/gen_wesley_clark_weigh... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfx2vtq_HDM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfx2vtq_HDM

mmrezaie 10y ago

How come this post went from "the top" to "where I cannot find it anymore"!?

stefantalpalaru 10y ago
The people in charge use algorithms for hiding "controversial" threads. Controversy is bad for business and this is a business, regardless of how 99% of us use this forum.
dang 10y ago
Users flagged it heavily, and a moderator downweighted it.
- mmrezaie 10y ago
  Why flagged it? Something this important!

misingnoglic 10y ago

I really can't believe this. First the US goes into Iran, and destabilizes the popular government (see: 1953). Now, after literally no threat from any Iranian immigrants, they ban them. Good thing my parents came here before, I guess??

turc1656 10y ago
The threat isn't directly from Iranian immigrants but the the nation itself. I would like to remind you that the Obama administration's state department declared Iran to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism. That's not something to take lightly.
- misingnoglic 10y ago
  Obama's position clearly states that the Iranian government is the issue. Trump's clearly says "We don't want your kind in our country"

misingnoglic 10y ago

This is the first time in my life that I don't feel safe in my own country. There is literally no difference between me (someone born in the US whose parents came here from Iran in the 90s), and people my age living in Iran right now who want to come to the US for a better education.

fdschoeneman 10y ago

It's unclear what Trump is trying to accomplish here. It seems stupid and I feel bad for the people whose lives it diverts or puts in hold. But the Nazi comparison either trivializes the Holocaust or unfairly hitlerizes Donald Trump for what may be a legitimate concern over technology transfer to a country that actively opposes US interests. There are plenty of countries that suspend student visas without going on to murder millions of people, and indeed we did exactly that under Jimmy Carter for much longer than thirty days. Standing up for students and education and science is an important duty for a professor, and I hope he'll continue with it, but this kind of hyperbole doesn't seem helpful.

StavrosK 10y ago
> But the Nazi comparison either trivializes the Holocaust or unfairly hitlerizes Donald Trump for what may be a legitimate concern over technology transfer to a country that actively opposes US interests. It does neither. Warning that "that's how Germany started" doesn't mean that banning visas is as severe as burning people, or saying that trump will burn people. It means that one should be careful because these are warning signs, and one should act cautiously and nip them in the bud. You don't see doctors saying "you probably have a cold, but it might be pneumonia, but I won't prescribe strong medication because that will trivialize pneumonia or unfairly characterize your cold". Just be careful with what's going on, and protest all these changes that bode ill in addition to writing blog posts.
- fdschoeneman 10y ago
  Meh. Hyperbole bothers me. But as long as you're using a healthcare analogy, allow me to suggest the possibility of negative side effects to the strong medicine. For example it is widely accepted that antibiotics are currently overprescribed, making them less of a strong and powerful weapon against disease over time.
  - guildwriter 10y ago
    To take the metaphor further, the really strong antibiotics have a chance to destroy the kidneys, making you a permanent dialysis case.

zeroer 10y ago

"This time, it’s taken just five days, since the hostile takeover of the US by its worst elements" Really? This is they way you see it?

aussieguy123 10y ago

If the worst happens and students get deported, the universities should find a way to at least allow the students to finish their degrees remotely over the internet. Then they can gift Australia or another country their skills.

finid 10y ago

Including Iran on that list baffled me, too.

mikeash 10y ago

Holy shit: > U.S. permanent residents (green card holders) who are outside of the United States may be barred from reentry. That's huge. I don't mean to diminish the importance of banning new immigrants and visitors on a religious basis, that's bad too. But banning people who have already legally immigrated from re-entering the country is completely nuts. There are no doubt people who have lived in this country for decades who happen to be abroad at the moment and are now stuck away from their homes for an unknown period. There will be people who have lived in this country for decades who will be faced with an illness or death in the family and will have to make a choice between going to visit or retaining their ability to stay where they live.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
I'm trying really hard not to be cynical, but...these measures aren't made with logic in mind. They are shiny objects thrown to the voter base which primarily lives segregated lives away from immigrants, H1Bs, or anyone else affected by this idiotic action. It is also likely that headline-grabbers like these are used as cover for more insidious schemes, and to quiet down constant claims of blatant corruption.
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  nothing about this last election is logical.
KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
But this is not new. If you leave the US for more than 6 months, you can potentially lose your green card at the discretion of CBP regardless of where you're from.
- smpetrey 10y ago
  But to be barred re-entry for less than 6 months is new.
- guptaneil 10y ago
  OP is not talking about people away for 6 months. These are American residents who might be traveling for a week and suddenly find themselves homeless. If you think that can't happen to you, I have a bridge to sell you.

csomar 10y ago

Wow. This is more hostile than I ever imagined. Banning 70 million people from Iran when there is no terrorism link for the country is, at best, idiotic. (Iran is anti-ISIS and apart from its conflict with the US has no precedent of terrorism) I'm really speechless.

coredog64 10y ago
Other than them supporting the Iraqi insurgency and being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, right? http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/07/14/iran-linked-to-deaths-of-500-us-troops-in-iraq-afghanistan/30131097/ http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/201...
- csomar 10y ago
  That's definitively an act of war but I would not call that a terrorist act. I think to qualify as a terrorist act it needs to be directed at: 1. Civilians and 2. Time of peace.
gspetr 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#State_Department_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro... In July 2012, the United States State Department released a report on terrorism around the world in 2011. The report states that "Iran remained an active state sponsor of terrorism in 2011 and increased its terrorist-related activity" and that "Iran also continued to provide financial, material, and logistical support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia." This is not a report from a Republican administration but Obama's administration.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  That is likely for theirbsupport of Hamas for their role in trying to expand their hegemony in the Middle East and their conflicts with Saudia Arabia and Israel. Iran is not a part of global jihad.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

akssri 10y ago

This is just too sad. Iranians at grad school often struck me as incredibly smart - be it students or faculty. The recent breakthrough in TSP approximation was due to an Iranian; the woman who won the Field's prize earlier was one too! They are a tiny nation but are very well represented. They were already at the receiving end of the stick under Obama, having to deal with the sanction and single entry student visas. These policies make no sense considering their distinctions as immigrants; it's an affront to one's humanity TBH.

jlarocco 10y ago

> This time, it’s taken just five days, since the hostile takeover of the US by its worst elements Stopped reading there. I don't agree with his immigration policy at all, but we voted and Trump won fair and square.

stefantalpalaru 10y ago

This is bad, but the alternative was worse: https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks/comments/5945ho/hillary_justified_bombing_iran_in_a_june_2013/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks/comments/5945ho/hillary_ju... [remember not to vote on Reddit if you land with an external HTTP Referer or you risk being banned for 3 days on the whole site for participating in a "voting brigade"]

throwaway883443 10y ago

> First they came for the Iranians No, first they came for the immigrants, muslims, women, and leftists with this guys good conscience. Then Trump was elected on those premises and came for the Iranians. But somehow he's surprised when it affects him personally?

gspetr 10y ago
Following your logic: they literally came before Trump was elected, so they must have done so during Obama's term. Was Obama the one who came for "immigrants, muslims, women, and leftists with this guys good conscience"?

bratchen 10y ago

I only like Iranians who call themselves Persians. The rest of you can sod right off.

bratchen 10y ago

I only like Iranians that call themselves Persian. The rest of you can sod right off.

mrprtkngse 10y ago

All you Iranian terrorists are not and should never be allowed to get into the US and other western countries!!!! You are all despicable scums of the earth and should be totally and completely exterminated and wiped out of existence. One day your nuclear bombs will explode and wiping every Iranian Shiites including all of your ayatollahs, an earthquake of Intensity 10000's or a million times will surely bury you all wherever you all are including your oil!!!!!!!!! Ok so get with program, and eat shit and you all die!!!!!!!!!!