[pg314]

> There is no good reason to allow entry of people from countries that are at (civil) war

There is a very good reason: a humanitarian one. I do not know how a nation where 70% of the population calls itself christian could turn away refugees from war-torn countries.

> there is no reason for non diplomatic personal Iranians to enter US at all.

Top US universities and tech firms beg to differ. The US got the best universities and leading tech firms exactly because of immigrants. Paul Graham's essay about this is interesting: http://paulgraham.com/95.html

[imron]

> There is a very good reason: a humanitarian one

Well, if we're going all humanitarian, the humanitarian thing to do would be to stop bombing these countries in the first place.

[pg314]

I agree that another humanitarian thing to do would be to stop bombing/droning other countries.

But you are presenting it as if you only get to do one humanitarian thing. That is incorrect. You can do both.

If you are trying to argue that a previous president's mistakes are a justification for this president's mistakes, I disagree.

[imron]

I am not trying to argue that, I am merely angry that the people protesting today were not protesting at the far worse things that happened before and that ultimately led to the situation we are in now. Your comment got caught in the crossfire of that anger.

[VLM]

What about the humanitarian goal of protecting your own people, your own family, your own culture? Surely they should come first before an abstract "other". Who is willing to kill a close family member to make space for a refugee?

[venomsnake]

In the world of realpolitik humanitarian is not a valid reason.

Educating the citizens of a country that you may have to go war with soon is also not a way to further your national interest - if we define US interest as unchallenged US might.

It all depends on the perspective in which you view the other countries.

[pg314]

> In the world of realpolitik humanitarian is not a valid reason.

You're moving the goalposts. First you say there is no good reason, then you reframe it 'in the world of realpolitik'. If you want to support your original assertion, you need to argue why realpolitik is the only valid worldview.

> Educating the citizens of a country that you may have to go war with soon is also not a way to further your national interest - if we define US interest as unchallenged US might.

Again, you're moving the goalposts by adding if we define US interest as unchallenged US might and by adding to further your national interest.

Even if you accept those premises, your conclusion would need more arguments. Educating citizens of a country might further the US national interest if they stay in the US after their studies or return to their country and oppose their leadership.

[venomsnake]

The reapolitik is the only valid view in international relations (outside of one pole empire, but it is impossible on the current scale of the planet with current state). We live in realpolitik world currently - case in point Saudi Arabia on the human rights council. This is possible only in realpolitik world. In any other type of world relations it will be impossible.

Also - any US leaning dictator getting a pass. Like Saddam, Noriega, Pinochett. Which met their demise after refusing to obey their CIA overlords.

For Iran - if Iran us enemy - which the current administration thinks so, giving their citizens education is bad unless you ban them from exiting US after getting said education. And prevent them from taking the know how there.

If Iranian people had the means to overthrow the theocracy they would have already done it.