The subtext here is that "Bzeek, a quiet, devout Libyan-born Muslim" would not be allowed to immigrate to the United States today given the "Muslim Ban" Executive Order.
Another one that most people overlook in that category are "affirmative action" quotas. They're always sold as "temporary" for the brief time it'll take for their effects to manifest and fix stuff. But alas, in the majority of cases, they are never repealed or "finalized".
One way of interpreting that is that it's easy to sell an unpalatable something as a temporary thing because it sounds "corrective" rather than a final decision.
So should temporary bans be...banned? It seems there could be use for a temporary ban in the general sense.
AFAIK, this was a good scenario for a temporary ban. More strict anti-terror regulations are announced to be coming, and to prevent people from trying to get in before that ban, you have a temporary ban.
It isn't. Syrian refugees are barred indefinitely. All immigration from countries on the famous list of 7 is suspended for 90 days, and then may be resumed if they are able to come up with adequate vetting procedures.
The entire refugee program, worldwide, is suspended for 120 days, and may be resumed on a country-by-country basis when the administration is satisfied that it is in the national interest.
So should temporary bans be...banned? It seems there could be use for a temporary bans generally speaking.
AFAIK, this was a good scenario for a temporary ban. More strict anti-terror regulations are announced to be coming, and to prevent people from trying to get in before that ban, you immediately announce a more strict temporary ban.
I think it's also horrible that the article went into it at all. We're just fighting here as a result of it.
If they had left it at the person's name and good deeds, then we'd probably all be here discussing/praising that such a wonderful individual exists. No matter their race, gender, religion or nationality.
Maybe, but note that he's been in the U.S. (apparently continuously) for almost 40 years -- he's likely a Permanent Resident, if not a dual citizen (the article doesn't say). Referenced events in the article go back to November at least.
How about you just don't engage with comments about politics if that's what you prefer? Don't ask people to silence themselves on perfectly relevant topics.
'dang summarized the results of the detox week and has made some recent comments. Here are some, with some identifiable snippets only so it's not a list of links. I encourage you to read the comments themselves. They don't all directly address this, but I think they all shed some light on the topic.
There's no satisfying anybody about this: not the readers who want more politics, not the readers who want less, and certainly not the partisans on an issue.
When there's a deluge of political stories, as in the last couple days, users heavily flag most of them. But there have still been plenty of major threads spending plenty of time on the front page. That's the status quo for HN: most politics are off topic, but not all. It's a delicate balance and an important one. Letting politics overrun this site would kill it.
Of course. News outlet conflates government policy with emotionally charged tear jerking story, in the hopes of swaying public opinion against said policy. Just because there exists such an angel of a man who would fall under this policy doesn't mean this policy is bad or should not be enacted.
Actually, I think you aren't wrong there. Of course, the argument in favor of the policy seems to rely on similar rhetoric. Except, rather than concrete examples of people who prove the benefits of the policy, there's just vague references to the kind of people who might exist in the target demographic, and references to emotionally charged tear jerking stories about people who fit that theoretical description, but wouldn't actually have been stopped by the policy.
Actually it does. This is a example story that illustrates in concrete the argument that you can't blanket ban people by nationality without barring entrance to millions of amazing people who did nothing wrong.
Then you're agreeing that this story can be countered simply by creating another tear-jerk story about how someone died because of a person from that country being let in. Doesn't even have to be a "terrorist".
That's the problem with emotional arguments; in a world of seven billion people, anybody's emotional defenses can be trivially overwhelmed in either direction on any topic. Every second you've been alive there has been incomprehensible-to-you amounts of joy and sorrow. It's not a valid argument to selectively scoop some of that out in a particular direction that someone happens to like, and you are being played every time someone does it to you.
I agree with you up tot eh bit about 'you are being played every time' someone makes an emotional argument. Quantitative methods are very important, but so are qualitative ones.
To take an example of the latter, conservatives frequently cite the case of Kate Steinle, who was allegedly murdered in San Francisco a couple years back by an illegal immigrant who had been repeatedly deported but kept coming back. (I say allegedly because the defendant claims he stole the gun in a simple crime of opportunity and the fatal discharge was accidental. No motivation for the shooting was apparent at the time, so arguably it was a case of manslaughter rather than murder. Anyway...)
Now this case is frequently mentioned to highlight the supposed danger of allowing illegal immigrants to wander about freely. A quantitative analysis reveals that immigrants, even illegal ones, tend to commit fewer crimes on a per-capita basis than their legal neighbors, so hyping up this case to frighten people is misleading.
On the other hand, all that quantitative analysis isn't much comfort to all those who suffer when someone is killed, and ignoring that (because we can't easily quantify how sad a given tragedy is) undermines credibility in the quantitative approach because it runs counter to the fact of human experience. Soviet-style communism is a good example of crushing individual life through an unyielding adherence to the quantitative data preferred by bureaucrats, and we could find many other tragic examples from other political systems without having to look very hard.
tl;dr only looking at the aggregate data throws the baby out with the bathwater because we are emotional animals and emotional experience matters too.
>A quantitative analysis reveals that immigrants, even illegal ones, tend to commit fewer crimes on a per-capita basis than their legal neighbors
I'd be interested in the source on that. I'm also curious if they're taking a blanket average, or if they account for the fact that a huge proportion of American crime occurs within a few square miles of blighted urban terrain in Chicago, DC, LA and Baltimore. For most people, such 'average' crime stats are irrelevant in the same way that skydiving death stats are irrelevant to someone who never skydives.
>we are emotional animals and emotional experience matters too.
But which emotional experience matters?
There are millions of relevant emotional experiences being had. You can't relate to all of them on an emotional level. So, the only question becomes which emotional experiences you choose to privilege above all the others and synchronize your own emotions to.
As parent indicated, this ultimately means surrendering your own motivational choices to whoever has the power to put emotional imagery in front of your monkey brain.
You become a slave to power, used to fulfill the goals of others, tugged blindly toward the beliefs they choose by the leash of your own pathological empathy.
You can easily find stats on this issue on your own if you're interested, I'm tired of doing all the research work for other people and getting nothing in return.
As for which emotional experiences matter, you should evaluate a variety of them, including ones that make you uncomfortable. If you're not in a constant state of mild-self doubt or can't easily articulate opponents' line of reasoning then you're in a bubble.
As parent indicated, this ultimately means surrendering your own motivational choices to whoever has the power to put emotional imagery in front of your monkey brain.
No it doesn't. You are perfectly free to seek out other points of view and emotional experiences that you find unpleasant or distasteful. In the context of politics, one obvious reason to do so is to avoid being put on the defensive by an argument you haven't encountered before. I'm pretty far left but I probably spend more time reading conservative forums and blogs than liberal ones.
Just because there exists such an angel of a man who would fall under this policy doesn't mean this policy is bad or should not be enacted.
True, but the policy should be judged on its real costs and benefits. So far, the administration has consistently emphasized and exaggerated the supposed security risks of the status quo to make an argument from necessity for drastic changes. I'm trying to be neutral in describing this but I think it's fair to say that the claim that bad people are 'pouring in' to the USA is an exaggeration.
| So far, the administration has consistently emphasized and exaggerated the supposed security risks of the status quo to make an argument from necessity for drastic changes. I'm trying to be neutral in describing this but I think it's fair to say that the claim that bad people are 'pouring in' to the USA is an exaggeration.
You're being kind. As far as I can understand, the legal argument (i.e., the 'official' argument) is that they don't need to justify their actions in any way to a court.
Yeah. For every anti-ban anecdote about an exemplary human being who happens to Muslim, the pro-Muslim ban side can point to an anecdote like the Bowling Green massacre.
Jesus. To not only be a child with a terminal disease, but to also lack parent(s)... I can't imagine the pain and sadness these kids feel. Thank you to this man.
It's horrifying. I can't even imagine what it's like to have to confront your own mortality at such a young age. Especially without the love and support of a caring family.
> without the love and support of a caring family.
Isn't that exactly what Mr. Bzeek is giving to them? I would not dare to tell him his love and care is any less than of a biological parent, and I believe it does not make any difference to the children either.
It is amazing to me that there are people out there like this (Mohamed Bzeek). The amount of emotional strength and selflessness that I believe it would take to live in this man's shoes is nothing short of extraordinary. Thank you submitter for putting this on HN.
And on the other side - it's hard enough being a parent and seeing your kids grow up and not need you. Harder still to be a foster parent and constantly become attached only to have them torn away from you, seeing them go on to situations that may be subjectively worse than the home you gave them.
You give up a part of yourself to raise a child. I simply can't imagine the sort of emotional strength it would take to bury 10 children and show such love to dozens more.
Foster parents always have the option to adopt. Not to be a negative Nancy, but the system is pretty terrible and many, MANY foster parents act more as halfway houses for kids than any sort of "parent".
The goal is usually to reunite the child with their parent, but circumstances often intervene. Children have a larger network of caregivers (aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, even church members and family friends) that also play a large role.
Your "Foster parents always have the option to adopt" statement is absolutely not true.
Of the ~408,000 children in foster care in the United States,
only an estimated 107,000 are eligible for adoption[1].
At the same time, there are also about 600,000[2] women in the United States who are actively seeking to adopt.
Of course, the vast majority of those parents looking to adopt are looking for a newborn or infant, and only 6% of the children in the foster care system are under 1-year old[3].
The foster system is designed to get children back to their birth families, not adopted out. If it becomes clear that's not an option, then the system works to get the child adopted by a close relative.
Only after it becomes clear those two options aren't, in fact, options, does an unrelated foster-parent have the potential option to adopt. Even then, it's a challenging process fraught with bureaucracy and serious difficulties for the potential adoptive parents.
I'm not railing against the system, I'm just addressing your specific comment. We have several close friends and family members who have have tried, and failed to adopt a child through the foster care system in the United States.
I wish it were that easy. I am an ex-foster parent, and the thought of losing my children when I had them as foster children tore me up. It takes months and months of waiting, courts, CPS visits, parent visits; and, all the while, you (the parent) are living in a limbo. Should you plan the Christmas vacation for 3 people or 4? Should you buy birthday gifts a few months out if a gift is on sale? Every single one of the families in my foster placing agency felt the same way.
I am sorry, but your statement just doesn't hold true at all. I think that when people report facts like those, it makes it that much harder for foster parents, and for the system to recruit parents and volunteers.
I think it's hard to "leave politics out" when the article is written specifically because he was muslim. If he was christian nobody would care. This is pro-muslim propaganda, and it's hard to "leave politics out" when discussing propaganda.
It's amazing how you can read an article about an absurdly selfless person and his awe-inspiring, humbling tale, and can only think about how this is a propaganda piece about muslims, because he happens to adore a different abrahamic deity than you. And yes, the unconstitutional executive order leaving people like him barred from entry is inhumane.
I guess it's true what they say. When you can't argue the substance, dismiss it as propaganda.
A semantic correction for you, there is only one Abrahamic deity. Christians and Muslims of course made some changes to the religion surrounding the deity. However, all three religions are based around the same deity that originally spoke to Abraham. Hence the adjective "Abrahamic". I point out this correction because people often try to draw hard lines between them as entirely different religions when in actuality their teaching share more in common than they don't. And strangely enough, it seems the people who spend the most time engrossed in those teachings are the most in need of that reminder.
>It's amazing how you can read an article about an absurdly selfless person and his awe-inspiring, humbling tale, and can only think about how this is a propaganda piece about muslims
I see that more as a testament to their lack of faith in humanity and that it isn't beneath people to do this. The side effect of the story being the actual story, rather than politics.
Even in a pointless political flame-thread this stands out as ideological and ranty. We've asked you before not to post like this to Hacker News. It's not what this site is for, and we eventually ban accounts that use it this way.
Funny thing is that I'm neither ideological, nor ranty or political about it. But if pointing out the obvious gets me a ban here than I will gladly take it. Wouldn't want to participate in any anti intellectual forum where everyone pretends politics and propaganda doesn't exist anyway.
If you don't like politics as much as you claim you do, such stories wouldn't be allowed here. This is not hacker related, not news and not tech related in any way. The only purpose of this story is to improve image of muslims. It doesn't even matter if this is real or not - the fact that it is published is what matters , clearly showing intent. And the fact that you leave the story up while removing harmless comment which was just a hint that the article is likely political, means you, and probably HN in itself, is willingly participating in the propaganda.
I knew HN was overwhelmingly pro muslim, but I had some hope you would at least stay away from actual political propaganda. Good luck on your censor job. HN won't be missed.
What a bizarre phrase to see here. That is not a thing; it exists in the minds of people who believe they're in a religious war—and presumably want to be, since that's the only reason to think it. No one is welcome to conduct religious war on HN.
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines and ignoring our requests to use the site as intended. If you change your mind, you're welcome to let us know at hn@ycombinator.com.
I know a lady that works on the cancer ward of a childrens hospital. Strongest person I know, but after reading this I'm not even sure how to feel. Having children comes with the risk of losing them, having children with the full knowledge that you will lose them is on another level entirely.
Hats of to this man, I know I could never do this.
He lost his wife, his son was born with significant disabilities and all these kids are dying in his care. I just don't know how he does it. I'd just have nothing left after all of that.
I read this article when it was first published and was very moved. I was able to donate to him here, if you are interested: https://www.gofundme.com/bzeek/
Another side story is that the girls condition was caused by her mother breathing a pesticide . The mother was probably an immigrant her self that we want to throw over a wall. Also if breathing this pesticide caused this how can it be safe to eat?
if breathing this pesticide caused this how can it be safe to eat?
Because something going into your lungs and something going into your digestive system has two very different effects.
I'm not saying its good or healthy to eat pesticides, but that's a separate issue than "breathing it in is poisonous, so all forms of administration must be poisonous" isn't necessarily true. For example, your stomach acid often breaks down things.
Having said that, I am of the general opinion that we shouldn't be consuming pesticides.
My sister worked in an ICU ward for babies as a nurse and she would often cry for days after one of the babies died. Shortly after me and my partner had a son my sister decided to quit her job because she felt even more attached to the babies. She couldn't bear it more.
Just saying this because it must be horrifying to watch your kids die again and again. I guess this man finds solace in the fact that he is making their short lives much better. My respects.
One of my children spent the better part of two weeks in such a location. Please thank you sister on my behalf, it's the ones that live that hopefully somehow relieve some of that burden and mine did and I'll be forever grateful to the people that do such work. One day when we came there to feed our child the atmosphere was quite changed and I didn't have to ask anybody what was up. And still, nobody so much as dropped a stitch on that shift or said a bad word. Super impressed.
reply