4 ms·

A little OT, I guess, but the WaPo's story about this repeats a map I've seen that shows the seven countries. Conspicuously absent are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE

by a3n 10y ago

A little OT, I guess, but the WaPo's story about this repeats a map I've seen that shows the seven countries. Conspicuously absent are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Lebanon, which is where the people who hijacked the 9/11 planes, the worst, and most logistically complex, terrorist act against the US ever, were from. Where's the logic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#FBI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#FBI I don't at all think that this order should be in effect, but I don't see the logic in its implementation.

hyperpape 10y ago
I have yet to see anyone try to justify the choice of countries. I know I live in a bit of a bubble with regard to the particular Trump brand of conservatism, but I usually see people arguing the opposite side, even if it's just being quoted by people who agree with me.
- sveiss 10y ago
  The choice of countries actually dates back to a 2015 Act of Congress restricting access to the Visa Waiver Program to nationals or prior recent visitors of certain countries. These people will have had to apply for a visa instead, and presumably are subject to more stringent checking than most. The list of countries wasn't defined by Congress beyond Iraq and Syria (presumably thanks to those being specifically called out in the name "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria"). It did include provision for the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to designate additional countries. My gut feeling is that the current administration didn't choose to target the same countries deliberately, but rather chose to incorporate the prior legislation by reference as a defence against legal challenges. The EO wording is that "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". The referenced legislation is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187#a_12 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187#a_12 .
- grzm 10y ago
  I haven't seen this list referenced by the administration as the rationale, but the list of countries is the same as those included in a question added to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) application in June 2016, which addresses countries DHS considers at higher risk: Have you traveled to, or been present in, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011? https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program/visa-waiver-program-improvement-and-terrorist-travel-prevention-act-faq https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waive... Please note that I really don't understand the details of the visa process in general or this program in particular, or how DHS arrived at this list of countries. I'm just submitting it as an pre-existing list of countries the DHS has expressed concern about with respect to immigration and visas. Nor do I have any reference that this list was used for the Executive Order. That said, it does seem reasonable to imagine that similar reasoning was used in choosing the countries listed in the Executive Order.
  - hyperpape 10y ago
    Thanks, that is very helpful.
Laforet 10y ago
Not that I agree with the EO, but the logic behind it was that 6 of those 7 countries have ongoing insurgencies involving the IS, and Iran was dragged in there due to either existing prejudice or more likely their involvement in Syria and Iraq. If this was entirely driven by religion they'd better put Bosnia and Albania on the list too.
- ardit33 10y ago
  Albania is actually mostly atheist/agnostic country. It has three religions on paper but most people are not religious at all. It is a staunch US ally and part of NATO as well. That logic doesn't hold water. If the rule was banning any country that has any muslims then it would ban 98% of European countries, as all have a %percentage of practicing muslims. This rule seems more like a childish fit, to appease to the base voter that voted out of fear of muslims in general.
  - a3n 10y ago
    Yeah, there was an article on HN today from a Venezuelan writer (which HN flagged away ...) describing Chavez's and Trump's tactic, which is to paint a group with the bad guy label, and whip people up to hate that group, and in turn love the guy who says only he can save them.
- gozur88 10y ago
  Plus the most populous Islamic country, Indonesia.
- davedx 10y ago
  > Iran was dragged in there due to either existing prejudice or more likely their involvement in Syria and Iraq. Definitely the latter. They are directly opposed to Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism. [1] Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States. It is a kind of Middle Eastern Cold War (war by proxy). [1] http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/proxies-and-politics-why-iran-funds-foreign-militias-2124504867 http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/proxies-and-politics-why...
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
olalonde 10y ago
This was discussed quite extensively in a previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13508220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13508220
- zaroth 10y ago
  There's no need for wild theories. The list of countries was previously chosen by the Obama administration. The EO specifically orders for additional research into amending the list of countries in the future. [1] - https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/annotating-trump-immigration-refugee-order.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/annotating... ". . . 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 . . . 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."

by a3n 10y ago

hyperpape 10y ago

I have yet to see anyone try to justify the choice of countries. I know I live in a bit of a bubble with regard to the particular Trump brand of conservatism, but I usually see people arguing the opposite side, even if it's just being quoted by people who agree with me.

sveiss 10y ago
The choice of countries actually dates back to a 2015 Act of Congress restricting access to the Visa Waiver Program to nationals or prior recent visitors of certain countries. These people will have had to apply for a visa instead, and presumably are subject to more stringent checking than most. The list of countries wasn't defined by Congress beyond Iraq and Syria (presumably thanks to those being specifically called out in the name "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria"). It did include provision for the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to designate additional countries. My gut feeling is that the current administration didn't choose to target the same countries deliberately, but rather chose to incorporate the prior legislation by reference as a defence against legal challenges. The EO wording is that "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". The referenced legislation is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187#a_12 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187#a_12 .
grzm 10y ago
I haven't seen this list referenced by the administration as the rationale, but the list of countries is the same as those included in a question added to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) application in June 2016, which addresses countries DHS considers at higher risk: Have you traveled to, or been present in, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011? https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program/visa-waiver-program-improvement-and-terrorist-travel-prevention-act-faq https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waive... Please note that I really don't understand the details of the visa process in general or this program in particular, or how DHS arrived at this list of countries. I'm just submitting it as an pre-existing list of countries the DHS has expressed concern about with respect to immigration and visas. Nor do I have any reference that this list was used for the Executive Order. That said, it does seem reasonable to imagine that similar reasoning was used in choosing the countries listed in the Executive Order.
- hyperpape 10y ago
  Thanks, that is very helpful.

Laforet 10y ago

Not that I agree with the EO, but the logic behind it was that 6 of those 7 countries have ongoing insurgencies involving the IS, and Iran was dragged in there due to either existing prejudice or more likely their involvement in Syria and Iraq. If this was entirely driven by religion they'd better put Bosnia and Albania on the list too.

ardit33 10y ago
Albania is actually mostly atheist/agnostic country. It has three religions on paper but most people are not religious at all. It is a staunch US ally and part of NATO as well. That logic doesn't hold water. If the rule was banning any country that has any muslims then it would ban 98% of European countries, as all have a %percentage of practicing muslims. This rule seems more like a childish fit, to appease to the base voter that voted out of fear of muslims in general.
- a3n 10y ago
  Yeah, there was an article on HN today from a Venezuelan writer (which HN flagged away ...) describing Chavez's and Trump's tactic, which is to paint a group with the bad guy label, and whip people up to hate that group, and in turn love the guy who says only he can save them.
gozur88 10y ago
Plus the most populous Islamic country, Indonesia.
davedx 10y ago
> Iran was dragged in there due to either existing prejudice or more likely their involvement in Syria and Iraq. Definitely the latter. They are directly opposed to Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism. [1] Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States. It is a kind of Middle Eastern Cold War (war by proxy). [1] http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/proxies-and-politics-why-iran-funds-foreign-militias-2124504867 http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/proxies-and-politics-why...
nikdaheratik 10y ago

olalonde 10y ago

This was discussed quite extensively in a previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13508220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13508220

zaroth 10y ago
There's no need for wild theories. The list of countries was previously chosen by the Obama administration. The EO specifically orders for additional research into amending the list of countries in the future. [1] - https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/annotating-trump-immigration-refugee-order.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/annotating... ". . . 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 . . . 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."