[tempestn]

Of course people entering the country from some places require more scrutiny than others. But, it's not like that hasn't always been done. People coming from the countries on Trump's travel ban list face extreme scrutiny to get US visas. What Trump decided to do was ban anyone coming from those countries altogether. Including people who had already gone through that vetting process and obtained visas. Even including permanent residents of the US, initially! Even people fleeing from countries like Iraq, because their lives were in danger due to helping the US. There was already a common sense policy in place; Trump employed a policy sledgehammer. (With little to no evidence that it would even achieve the stated goal of increasing security.)

I would debate your other points as well, but I don't want to get too far into the weeds here. My main point is that often what is sold as a "common sense" policy is in fact an overly simplistic one—the policy already in place may have had a great deal of sense behind it, but the world is complicated, and so, so are most sensible policies. Taking rash actions like barring all travel from a list of countries is more likely to do harm than good. (As would an extreme policy on the other side, like opening borders completely. Again, the world is complicated, and difficult problems require thoughtful solutions.)

[andromedavision]

> Even people fleeing from countries like Iraq, because their lives were in danger due to helping the US.

Well obviously this isn't very useful and may need to be rethought if true. I don't know much about this claim though so I'll read more on it.

> Trump employed a policy sledgehammer

Look, these things aren't easy. May be it is a disproportionate response but I've lived through a period of fear when muslim terrorists bombed/shot up malls and universities in my country. In one incident, two armed civilians (an Israeli and a native) were able to shoot some terrorists and save some innocent lives. A once safe country ended up with us having to lock our offices during the day when business should be conducted. I am a lottle biased on the issue and that's why I took such a hardliner position on it.

[tempestn]

I'm sorry, that sounds terrible, and certainly does help explain the position. In a way, I see this as a mirror to our freedom vs security discussion down thread. In this case, I feel what's being given up in the name of security is too great. Most people in the world are decent. It does us harm if we learn to fear whole groups of people—or in the extreme case, all people who we consider outsiders to our group—due to the radical acts of a few. While there certainly are people who society needs to be protected against, and it certainly does make sense to carefully vet people coming from countries that are known to harbor terrorists or other enemies, I feel heavy handed policies like the iterations of the travel ban both encourage these feelings of fear and distrust in members of the population, and worsen feelings about the country from people on the outside (and even citizens who identify with people in the targeted groups). Ill will is increased on all sides, to everyone's detriment. Perhaps that would be justified if the security threat was sufficient, which obviously many Trump supporters feel it is. But the evidence doesn't support that. For example, here's an article from the Cato Institute demonstrating that the travel ban would not have prevented the entry of any terrorists since 9/11: https://www.cato.org/blog/new-travel-ban-wouldve-prevented-e...

[andromedavision]

> Most people in the world are decent

This Rousseauian vantage point on the general nature of people is something that's debatable to me. I think that under specific conditions this rings truer (or more false depending on how you look at it) than in other conditions. This whole debate leads to an even deeper rabbit hole that entails things such as the necessity of religion(not to be conflated with fundamentalism / fanaticism). I am more of a Maistrean in my view of humans i.e. that people aren't good at first but under the right conditions, people can behave in a desirable manner that ensures chaos is staved off.

> Cato

I no longer believe Cato represents true conservative ideology and it is not necessarily the most authoritative source on matters conservative policy. It is weak on a lot of issues and infiltrated by people who don't necessarily embody its founding principles. When it was formed by the Kochs, they eventually broke away from another group who thought that they(Kochs/Cato) had sold out their mission for more mainstream appeal. This group was led by Murray Rothbard, and I guess I could say I left with them(Miseseans).

Just concluding the book, Sons of Wichita, and despite the Kochs being viewed as the embodiment of conservative/libertarian ideology in America, I don't think they take it far enough. They're weak on immigration. Very weak. They've built an amazing corporation that their father, Fred, would have been proud of (despite the family feuds) but he most certainly would have disapproved of their politics. He of course came up in the era of communism and saw it as the greatest threat that existed at the time.

Anyway, Tempestn, been a great discussion. I'd like to continue this later via mail as per your profile so I'll be reaching out. You've been great; typically these discussions tend to get out of hand with a lot of name calling but there was none of that here. Kudos for the survivalist initiatives you've undertaken - I don't even know what to say about that except I hope you never need to employ them. :)

[tempestn]

Thanks, I was going to suggest continuing by email as well. I agree that it's nice to have a civil conversation with someone who comes from a very different point of view.

Regarding Cato, I'm more interested in the statistics themselves than the source. The travel ban obviously speaks to a real fear people have, and it's one I understand. My perspective though is that the policy itself, while it may serve to assuage those fears through bold action, doesn't actually do anything to reduce the risks that it is theoretically intended to target. I think the evidence given in that article (and others) supports that view. In fact, my belief is that if anything it increases them due to encouraging anti-US sentiment among targeted groups. It's a good thing that it makes people feel better and safer, but I feel that could be done in more positive ways, which wouldn't cause such hardship to good people planning to come to the US, and which might avoid the potential negative consequences in terms of anti-US sentiment as well.