4 ms·

- A ban is not needed while revising the rules. - Revision doesn't mean suspension of the ban. - Temporary can mean indefinitely. - The overwhelming number o

by cjslep 10y ago

- A ban is not needed while revising the rules. - Revision doesn't mean suspension of the ban. - Temporary can mean indefinitely. - The overwhelming number of terrorists that commit acts of terrorism on American soil come from people born in the United States of America.

bassman9000 10y ago
Holy shit, no one has actually read the text. Why do I bother. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli... > (c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas). > Revision doesn't mean suspension of the ban Doesn't mean not suspending it either. > Temporary can mean indefinitely. It can also mean temporary. > The overwhelming number of terrorists that commit acts of terrorism on American soil come from people born in the United States of America. I can also say, without sources, that, if you account immigrants and children of first generation immigrants, there's a disproportion of immigrant attackers vs the total US population, meaning, there's a far higher chance of a terrorist attack resulting of a poor immigration vetting process.
- briholt 10y ago
  > there's a disproportion of immigrant attackers vs the total US population There is a willful ignorance of this among some political groups here. Attack after attack, they refuse to acknowledge the problem and thus refuse to entertain basic preventative measures. We restricted Nazi immigration, we restricted communist immigration, and we should certainly restrict Muslim extremist immigration. There is difficulty in separating extremists from moderates (who are a welcome addition to our country), but in order to create a proper vetting process, we first need to recognize the problem and the need for a solution.
- dang 10y ago
  > Holy shit, no one has actually read the text. Why do I bother. Please don't be rude in comments here. The HN guidelines specifically ask you not to use the "you didn't even read the article" trope, and you've done that repeatedly in this thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - 010a 10y ago
    Wait. Did you just tell him to "read the rules" because he keeps telling other people to "read the article"? Why not try obeying the rules yourself, for once.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      He did, because (1) he's a moderator on the site, and (2) the rules, which you clearly haven't read recently either, specifically say not to insinuate that other commenters haven't read the article.
    - dang 10y ago
      Yes, but the more important point (and rule) is not to be rude.
  - nkurz 10y ago
    You may not have followed his link, but this isn't a standard case of "you didn't even read the article". By "the text", he means the actual executive order, which strangely isn't linked from Sam's piece. His frustration is that people are reading the blog post, but seem oddly disinterested in the primary source, which he feels contradicts (or at least complexifies) many of the points that Sam makes. I wonder if the discussion might be more productive if you switched the URL to the primary source: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3431228/Extreme-Vetting-EO.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3431228/Extreme-V....
- cjslep 10y ago
  I know you mean well. Perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy. I in fact did read the text. Specifically because you pointed it out, not in spite of. If your knee jerk reaction is to assume I'm that dumb (the insinuation I am getting), it's really difficult for me to be constructive. And makes me wonder just who you think reads these forums. All that being said, forgive me for not engaging in this any further.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Can I be the first person here to point out that armed toddlers killed more people last year than extremists of any variety, and that the armed toddler threat becomes even more terrifying when you factor out right-wing extremists (who represent a significant fraction of terrorist murders in the US) and attacks from US citizens? 21 people are killed every year by armed toddlers, compared to 2 from foreign-born Islamic militants. A threat that is not overstated is the risk to Muslim minorities in Syria and Iraq. Armed toddlers, lightning strikes, and even lawnmowers (a threat that dwarfs all previously stated causes of violent death in the US) are a trifling concern to a Yazidi in the path of Syrian civil war conflict, either from ISIS or from mortar shelling from the Syrian regime. And, of course, as we consider who's being harmed by this ban, it helps to remember that the ban also applies to lawful permanent residents of the United States. The spouses of many --- actually, 3 in 4 --- American citizens are LPR non-citizens; they've lived here for in many cases decades but can't return back (or, at this point, ever leave to visit family). No American can look at that situation and call it right or just or tolerable.
  - infinite8s 10y ago
    3 in 4 spouses of American citizens are LPR non-citizens?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      No, 3 in 4 LPR spouses of US citizens don't go on to get citizenship --- LPR status without citizenship is the normal case.
moomoo2 10y ago
If you accept the premise (that the visa system has holes) then of course you would want to suspend immigration from high risk areas while those holes are addressed. Of course, I'm sure you don't agree with the premise. But you should at least acknowledge that if you did, that a suspension would be needed while revising the rules. To do otherwise would be transparently stupid, since it would basically advertise the vulnerability while leaving it open, giving people a timeline to exploit it.

by cjslep 10y ago

bassman9000 10y ago

Holy shit, no one has actually read the text. Why do I bother. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli... > (c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas). > Revision doesn't mean suspension of the ban Doesn't mean not suspending it either. > Temporary can mean indefinitely. It can also mean temporary. > The overwhelming number of terrorists that commit acts of terrorism on American soil come from people born in the United States of America. I can also say, without sources, that, if you account immigrants and children of first generation immigrants, there's a disproportion of immigrant attackers vs the total US population, meaning, there's a far higher chance of a terrorist attack resulting of a poor immigration vetting process.

briholt 10y ago
> there's a disproportion of immigrant attackers vs the total US population There is a willful ignorance of this among some political groups here. Attack after attack, they refuse to acknowledge the problem and thus refuse to entertain basic preventative measures. We restricted Nazi immigration, we restricted communist immigration, and we should certainly restrict Muslim extremist immigration. There is difficulty in separating extremists from moderates (who are a welcome addition to our country), but in order to create a proper vetting process, we first need to recognize the problem and the need for a solution.
dang 10y ago
> Holy shit, no one has actually read the text. Why do I bother. Please don't be rude in comments here. The HN guidelines specifically ask you not to use the "you didn't even read the article" trope, and you've done that repeatedly in this thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- 010a 10y ago
  Wait. Did you just tell him to "read the rules" because he keeps telling other people to "read the article"? Why not try obeying the rules yourself, for once.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    He did, because (1) he's a moderator on the site, and (2) the rules, which you clearly haven't read recently either, specifically say not to insinuate that other commenters haven't read the article.
  - dang 10y ago
    Yes, but the more important point (and rule) is not to be rude.
- nkurz 10y ago
  You may not have followed his link, but this isn't a standard case of "you didn't even read the article". By "the text", he means the actual executive order, which strangely isn't linked from Sam's piece. His frustration is that people are reading the blog post, but seem oddly disinterested in the primary source, which he feels contradicts (or at least complexifies) many of the points that Sam makes. I wonder if the discussion might be more productive if you switched the URL to the primary source: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3431228/Extreme-Vetting-EO.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3431228/Extreme-V....
cjslep 10y ago
I know you mean well. Perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy. I in fact did read the text. Specifically because you pointed it out, not in spite of. If your knee jerk reaction is to assume I'm that dumb (the insinuation I am getting), it's really difficult for me to be constructive. And makes me wonder just who you think reads these forums. All that being said, forgive me for not engaging in this any further.
tptacek 10y ago
Can I be the first person here to point out that armed toddlers killed more people last year than extremists of any variety, and that the armed toddler threat becomes even more terrifying when you factor out right-wing extremists (who represent a significant fraction of terrorist murders in the US) and attacks from US citizens? 21 people are killed every year by armed toddlers, compared to 2 from foreign-born Islamic militants. A threat that is not overstated is the risk to Muslim minorities in Syria and Iraq. Armed toddlers, lightning strikes, and even lawnmowers (a threat that dwarfs all previously stated causes of violent death in the US) are a trifling concern to a Yazidi in the path of Syrian civil war conflict, either from ISIS or from mortar shelling from the Syrian regime. And, of course, as we consider who's being harmed by this ban, it helps to remember that the ban also applies to lawful permanent residents of the United States. The spouses of many --- actually, 3 in 4 --- American citizens are LPR non-citizens; they've lived here for in many cases decades but can't return back (or, at this point, ever leave to visit family). No American can look at that situation and call it right or just or tolerable.
- infinite8s 10y ago
  3 in 4 spouses of American citizens are LPR non-citizens?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    No, 3 in 4 LPR spouses of US citizens don't go on to get citizenship --- LPR status without citizenship is the normal case.

moomoo2 10y ago

If you accept the premise (that the visa system has holes) then of course you would want to suspend immigration from high risk areas while those holes are addressed. Of course, I'm sure you don't agree with the premise. But you should at least acknowledge that if you did, that a suspension would be needed while revising the rules. To do otherwise would be transparently stupid, since it would basically advertise the vulnerability while leaving it open, giving people a timeline to exploit it.