[abusoufiyan]

If your values and ideas aren't so convincing and inherently good and right that people voluntarily moving to your country don't want to adopt them and you need to resort to banning them rather than accepting them into your country and proving with your way of life how much better your values and ideas are, then how good are those values and ideas really?

Free speech but when free speech doesn't work ban the other speakers and live in a bubble. Awesome.

[Banthum]

You really think that your beliefs are so obviously superior to every other belief system ever - even millennia-old self-reinforcing super-memetic religious ideologies - that everyone will just automatically start thinking like you if given the chance? Really?

This strikes me very much as a classical cognitive failure: An inability to understand that other people actually, truly think differently than you do. E.g. Other people actually believe that God is real. Actually, truly, like he's really there. And they'll act like it.

[oh_sigh]

You're completely wrong on this entire thing. The ban is not about values, it is about not being able to acceptably vet who is entering the country when they originate from certain areas.

And to your point, even though it is an incorrect analysis of the situation - what makes you think that people just do what is inherently good and right? Prisons exist in every country for a reason.

[miracle2k]

> The ban is not about values, it is about not being able to acceptably vet who is entering the country when they originate from certain areas.

My spouse is an Iranian national and affected by the ban. I'm from Germany, where we live. Why can't the Trump administration vet her, given that previous administrations could and did?

[Banthum]

Because they don't trust the Iranian government to provide accurate and complete information about her.

Previous administrations may have extended that trust, but that doesn't prove they were correct to do so.

[abusoufiyan]

They also said it would take 90 days to implement "extreme vetting". If it was just about trusting other governments, they wouldn't have promised that at all.

Why haven't they done it nearly a year later? Probably a good indicator not to blindly trust autocrats who run election campaigns on xenophobia.

[miracle2k]

What kind of information? How is this presumed information exchange supposed to work? Is the idea that if I travel to the United States, or apply for a visa, that the US will query my government / my government's secret agencies for information about me, and my government will comply? Because (hopefully) that isn't really how it works.

[oh_sigh]

The question isn't about vetting one person - it is about laying out a general rule that we won't accept people from countries where terror cells are common and the rule of law and record keeping is weak.

[miracle2k]

We are both long-time German residents. What kind of records do you need?