Our laws and systems are so complex and convoluted that nobody can reasonably keep track of, or apply them all in any logical or reasonable fashion. Rules exist for the purpose of being enforced, and so someone has gone about enforcing rules here. The fact there is more information is completely irrelevant to the enforcement of one particular rule.
My family used to joke that we need the "Reasonable Police" who would be above literally everything, and intelligent people could sit there and see if something makes sense as a whole or not before a decision is made about anything.
EDIT: Yes, of course I know the "Reasonable Police" is fraught with danger. That's why we would joke about it.
Insofar as I'm aware, that's supposed to be our elected representatives. Unfortunately most seem to be self-interested or otherwise in the pocket of people paying them to not care.
To play the devil's advocate - a universe in which a country (and other countries) have been attacked by people allowed into the country on similar visas. If someone fits a profile of a potential risk against a country's citizens (as indicated by the friends who exhibit strong anti-country biases), deporting is the next step.
This is also one of the most benign cases of border entry issues we've heard lately.
Setting aside the advocacy, it is a lot of power for any one person to have, but someone needs to do the job, and neither you nor I are doing it. If we don't do it, and others who think the same way as us don't do it, someone who doesn't think the same way as us will do it.
To make a college admissions department a sole arbiter of who is good in the world is to place too much responsibility and power in a location unsuited for the task.
I agree that this shouldn't be happening, but question both the accuracy and utility of blaming it on Trump.
Maybe if we had a more correct diagnosis, we as hackers - as you say - could be a more effective force against this.
[0] https://www.axios.com/immigration-ice-deportation-trump-obam...
Policy simply does not matter in such situations. This is entirely about identity, signaling, and sending nativists messages from the top.
All I'm saying is without all the facts, we don't know that this wouldn't have happened under the last President either. The post-9/11 immigration policies have been rather harsh on a lot of people.
If the person is as smart as they say, there are plenty of good or better colleges they can likely go to in other countries and will be fine. It'll be our loss, not his.
How does this particular issue trace back to Trump exactly? It's not as if the US hasn't been known for capricious deportations, particularly as relates to the Islamic world, for the past decade or two.
It's also worth pointing out we have a one-sided explanation from the student himself. It's entirely possible that some rather damning evidence has been left out, so how about we pause for a minute before we jump on the outrage train?
I don't know this kid's particular case, but the travel ban has been directly mapped to stuff like this. It's ridiculous.
> so how about we pause for a minute before we jump on the outrage train?
Why, exactly? Can you give me an exact amount of time I should wait before reacting?
I find it pretty irritating that whenever people want to discuss a potential direct consequence of something a politician did, people immediately act like it's unfair to start talking about things until we have "all the facts". Even if this particular case is an outlier, and that the kid is secretly the next Ted Bundy, does that mean we shouldn't be discussing potential negative consequences of bad legislation?
Perhaps it's best to withhold outrage until you do.
> I find it pretty irritating that whenever people want to discuss a potential direct consequence of something a politician did, people immediately act like it's unfair to start talking about things until we have "all the facts".
I find it irritating when someone takes a one-sided account of a developing situation and reflexively uses it to attack their villain du-jour.
> does that mean we shouldn't be discussing potential negative consequences of bad legislation?
You weren't discussing bad legislation, just calling the sitting President a racist for the deportation, for which we don't have full details, which has also been a common feature of a number of prior administrations.
You're not discussing anything, you're ranting and attacking.
Well, I'm feeling lucky, so I think I'll pick; 'The increase in frequency directly following his election campaign promises and attempts as President, to institute a ban on muslims travelling to the US.', for $200.
Brazil also has massive income inequality. They have rising crime and a failing economy which lead to the rise of Bolsonaro. Reading about Bolsonaro and his rise to power is quite illuminating. A conservative authoritarian wave has been building since the 1970s world wide. Also his electorate where mainly influenced millennials which is really troubling. They basically responded to an idea/ideology without thinking things through.
In the US the border crisis is largely manufactured. Yes, people are coming here. They are escaping worse situations at home, seeking a better life for themselves and their kids. The previous policy was "catch and release" sounds bad but 90% of the undocumented immigrants continued to appear and processed through the system. Families were not separated and these people mostly went to family and friends already in the US and had support. Some could work pending their court appearances. That is the most American response to have, let people work! Putting them in cages helps no-one but the for profit prison industry.
We also see large examples of whole industries where immigrants are necessary to keep food prices low. The examples here are restaurants and food processors as well as in farming. So if there is a demand for these workers we should have a work visa system where people can earn their way in. We could say hey no more, but you will get inflation (if you raise wages... but even then there are no Americans who want to do the work) or a contraction. New businesses won't be able to develop at all. My guess is that industry will demand that the prison labor population be used to maintain competitiveness. The problem with the work visa approach though is that over time these folks will want representation (either unionization). So there is a lot of pressure to keep people undocumented.
Brexit is also about immigration and housing costs as well.
One thing I have been saying to those here in the UK who are against migration is that firstly, nobody in the UK gets to complain about migration. Not until the last vestiges of the largest empire the world has ever known, have finally faded from view, at the very least. Though we are working on that. But still, the British diaspora is ridiculous in scope and it would probably be wisest not to mention it, in case somebody notices. And secondly, if you think the refugee problem from our middle eastern adventures is bad, wait till you see the one that will result from all the oil we are burning.
If someone has managed to get into Harvard, isn't that someone that we want in the US? It baffles me the level of cognitive dissonance that must be happening in the brains of the people that support the Trump administration and how much they have to repeat to themselves that this nationalistic moron is somehow not a racist.
While I understand that HN doesn't like people engaging in political discussions, I have to think that inaction from educated people is not a neutral position. Shouldn't hackers (and wannabe intellectuals like me) be the force that is actively discussing these dangerous positions?