News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Reuters' position on covering Trump. Parent comment

Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump by spydum on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @04:26PM (#13545385)
I would point out, 9/11 hijackers were all here on legal visas[0] - so using that thinking is faulty. Our visa process seems to have faults, and I think this EO is a stop-gap to try to amend the issue. I don't particularly agree with ever choosing "religion" or "race" as a litmus test (which, as I have seen seems to be the underlying motivation, right from the horses mouth), but you have to agree there is justification at closer scrutiny of some sort for visitors coming from known hot-bed countries.

I think from certain angles, you could argue Trumps response hasn't been strong enough (why wasn't SA included in that list; everybody tends to agree that is completely absurd)?

[0] http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/911-hijackers-and-student-v...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump by nikdaheratik on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @06:13PM (#13546397)
I'm reminded of the old proverb: "Do not remove a fly from your friend's head with a hatchet". Banning thousands of people who haven't done anything and may actually help our cause, just to prevent a few dozen people who may be able to find other means to get in the country if they had to anyways, is not a smart policy.

There hasn't been anything like another 9/11 attack since and we've had 16 years, so maybe two Presidents and all of our allied governments with the same policy know more about what to do to keep the country safe than a two week old presidency.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump by masonic on Thursday February 02, 2017 @12:50AM (#13548419)
No, at least three were in the USA illegally on 9/11.[0] It's another example of Factcheck.org's unreliability.

[0] http://www.fairus.org/issue/identity-and-immigration-status-...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump by mikeash on Thursday February 02, 2017 @01:34PM (#13553121)
I don't think that contradicts the other comment. They said that the hijackers all entered legally. You're saying that some didn't have legal status on the day of the attack. Both are true. That some of them overstayed or didn't meet the terms of their visas after arrival is interesting, but not very actionable unless you want to set up an internal passport system or something.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump by masonic on Thursday February 02, 2017 @06:07PM (#13555848) 

  I don't think that contradicts the other comment.
Sure it does; "were all here on legal visas" is false.

  That some of them overstayed or didn't meet the terms of their visas
Even those that did have legal paperwork all obtained it via fraudulent means by lying on their applications as to purpose of visit; technically speaking, none was here legally.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump by mikeash on Friday February 03, 2017 @09:42AM (#13560058)
The point was that ignoring people with visas would not be compatible with a goal of keeping terrorists out. I (and I think the other commenter) don't think it's a good idea or worthwhile, but it does fit the stated goal.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump by bashinator on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @05:37PM (#13546097)
Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, who are not subject to the travel ban.
[ Parent | on HN ]