It makes no sense. Foreign scientists usually can't work on classified projects because they require clearance that is very difficult if not impossible for non citizens to obtain. Restricting foreign scientists from US labs is in my opinion a stupid move. What am I missing?
"What am I missing?"<p>That nationalism is the new state doctrin? Foreigners are inferior by definition, so they cannot really help with research anyway, all they want to do is steal secrets. If you think like that, then it makes sense.
God, maybe I could buy if it it came with significant work to repair US education and investment in a domestic science workforce, but unfortunately in the US, these nationalist waves have to also come with a strong air of anti-intellectualism.
"Foreigners are inferior by definition" - but USA approach says exactly the opposite. Foreigners are capable, so it is better not to share secrets and technology with them.
<p><pre><code> The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy. [0]
</code></pre>
[0] Umberto Eco, *Ur-Fascism* <a href="https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/</a>
I assume the reasoning is if they're so capable, why would they need to steal secrets and technology?<p>I use "reasoning" in the broadest possible sense.
Exactly, why were these guys wandering around on nights and weekends?
There's a one-word shortcut for all that: fascism.
As an example of the likely future of science in the USA, read about Trofim Lysenko.
Got to love the fact that a large amount of users of HN still refuse to see the truth before their very eyes.
The issue is that when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning.<p>The US is definitely undergoing authoritarian <i>tendencies</i>, but it remains structurally constrained by separation of powers, federalism, and independent courts and media, features that fascist regimes systematically dismantle.<p>If you start calling everything fascism you are essentially helping those you call fascists because they can easily refute your thesis and gaslight you on the very realities of the authoritarian descent the country is going through.
Thank heavens for that separation of powers, otherwise the President would be declaring wars and levying tariffs willy-nilly, without even bothering to check with Congress first.
What do you call it when the authoritarians start, then? Are we not allowed to call it that until we’re not allowed to go to the courts or to speak about what’s happening?
You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies.<p>Democracy is not an on/off light bulb, it's a material under constant stress that can bend a lot before breaking.<p>But if you start calling it broken, while it's bending your thesis is easily refutable and you get called out for being a radical whatever.
> You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies.<p>Okay, but that's beating around the bush and a very milquetoast way to describe it.<p>> easily refutable and you get called out for being a radical whatever.<p>This is equivalent to being punched repeatedly by a bully and being scared that he'll cry "assault!" when you punch him back. At some point, you cease to exist if you don't act.
Authoritarianism? Dictatorship? Fascism is a specific form of those that doesn't necessarily map to current forms.
How does it not map? Read Umberto Eco and I don’t really see any point that is not present at all in trumpism. Or, in more words: <a href="https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-definition-of-fascism/" rel="nofollow">https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-...</a> .
Fascism is just a nationalism authoritarianism that is very hierarchical and believe in an "interior enemy" (for MAGA it's the deep state) that is the root cause of all their country isseus, and once it's purged the country can take its rightfull place at the top, and you with it.<p>I agree that US is not fascist yet, the hierarchy isn't set, and the economy isn't close to an extractive autarky, but philosophically, it's close, don't you think? I mean, ranting against traitors all the time is to me a very, very big point in favor of this being fascism.
> believe in an "interior enemy" (for MAGA it's the deep state)<p>It's their neighbors, not the "deep state". Renee Good and Alex Pretti were the enemy within. People in inflatable costumes or pussy hats are the enemy within. Uppity kids in high school who get thrown to the drown and put in a choke hold. People filming ice on public streets. They are the enemy within to MAGA. It isn't distant and abstract. It's personal.
> ranting against traitors all the time<p>And the "enemy of the people", rhetoric, and the vermin that corrupts the nation’s blood. I mean, these people are not exactly subtle.
Checks and balances have almost completely collapsed, we've got masked, lawless paramilitary forces executing citizens in the streets, kicking in doors without warrants, spending billions of dollars building concentration camps, ignoring habeas corpus, accelerating media capture by friendly oligarchs, the national security apparatus labeling anyone who criticizes this stuff as domestic terrorists, and you're here quibbling over semantics.
Then better stop them before it comes to that stage.
How?<p>I'm European, and from my point of view:<p>- despite the current executive and its lackeys clearly stating they were going to do exactly what's happening (the dismantling of institutions, the violent, word-wise, targeting of any criticism, the tariffs, etc).<p>- despite the open attack to US democracy on January 6th 2021<p>Americans <i>voted</i> for all of this to happen.<p>What's happening isn't exposing a fault in a particular individual, that's way too convenient.<p>Not only they <i>voted</i> all of this, but keep believing this paranormal constitutional nonsense where winner-takes-all elections where you rule under no oversight, you have no opposition, and don't even depend on your own party support is actually a sane democratic system.<p>Of all the countries that slid in authoritarianism during the last 4 decades (from the Philippines to Russia, from Nicaragua to Belarus, etc) not one was a parliamentary republic.<p>All of them, literally all, where presidential republics.
I didn't say anything about what steps to take. All I said is that the word fits and it's time to give suitable treatment to the magas by whatever means necessary before its too late.
> Not only they voted all of this, but keep believing this paranormal constitutional nonsense where winner-takes-all elections where you rule under no oversight, you have no opposition, and don't even depend on your own party support is actually a sane democratic system.<p>Honestly I’ve been filled schadenfreude with as the American civic religion collapse. Even the right is giving it up as they view it as too obstructionist.<p>The silver lining in all this is that the American people might come out a bit less retarded. It’s been fascinating to see the explosion of political thought amongst Americans in the last few years.
The right have always had racetardism in them, they are just more blatant about it now.
> The silver lining in all this is that the American people might come out a bit less retarded<p>I don't buy it, after January 6th and Trump getting re-elected, despite everything it will have to get much much worse before there's a conscious change.
>Americans voted for all of this to happen.<p>We did. And if anyone would stop to actually analyze it, instead of just insinuating that we're all yucky poopooheads for doing so (in the futile attempt to shame us into stopping), they might come to understand why. Whatever the alternative is to how we're voting, as exemplified by Europe, we don't want it. Maybe there are more options besides those two, but no one's offered those or even described what they could be. Europe certainly hasn't.<p>>not one was a parliamentary republic.<p>And thank god that we're not one then. We'd truly be hopeless.
> The issue is that when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning.<p>So, rhetorical question: was Hitler a fascist during the failed Munich coup? Or did he suddenly became one when he was appointed chancellor? Are we not allowed to see what’s in front of our eyes until they build gas chambers?
The US is not significantly constrained - the current SCOTUS is more like an agreived clerical council than serious arbiter of the Constitution, while Trump has clearly been hoping to do away with meaningful elections (and the failures are more so because of how oddly ineffective/silly his faction can be than real systemic resilience). Similarly, he has majorities in Congress, which are just enough to let him do whatever he wants. I will grant that these MAGATs haven't fully succeeded, but it's more like they're 2/3ds of the way there and oddly bad at parts of the game than separation of powers, the courts, etc., working.<p>On a different level I've been unsure whether it's<i>good</i> to call it facsism. But it's effectively at least a stepchild.
> If you start calling everything fascism<p>Ok, but who is calling everything fascism? He's talking about one particular country at a particular time.
Fascist mythos is simple: you're in the greatest nation, and the greatest "type" of human (genetics for the nazis, cultural for the Italian fascists, christian for some South american fascists early 20th century, your choice, but but beware one type of superiority easily bleed into others), but yet, inferior humans (neighbors) seems to have better lives. It's because of internal traitors(jews and communists mostly, "judeoblochevism" as a word exist for a reason, and it isn't because it was a material reality) that are bringing their own country down. We must purge them to finally take our rightfull place.<p>Fascism cannot exist without internal enemies, nationalist authoritarianism can. If your president/dictator is whining about internal enemies that infiltrated the government and capitalist society to bring it down, congratulation, it's not simple nationalist authoritarian tendencies, it's fascist tendencies.<p>Basically: if you add an "interior enemy" narrative to a right-wing authoritarism, you have fascism.
> when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning<p>The thing is, fascism has always been a bit of a loose term. It doesn't have a strict meaning. It was invented by one guy to <i>name</i> his government, not <i>describe it analytically</i>.<p>Mussolini invented the word "fascismo" to describe his movement, Fasci Italiani di Combattimeto.<p>So any use of "fascism" outside this one instance is by loose comparison to his government (because tight comparison would inevitably be unproductive: no government is exact the same as another).<p>The best we can do in a <i>literalist</i> manner is identify that the etymology is related to fasces, a bundle of rods tied together in Roman times (tying rods together make them far more difficult to snap in half), and recognize that the implication here is that a fascist government is focused on strength through unity.<p>It was then broadly adopted by Mussolini's adherents.<p>So, unless we only want to restrict "fascist" to an identifier for Mussolini's party and government, we have motivation to come up with elements of similar politics/government/partisanship by looking at the elements that made up Mussolini's movement:<p>- nationalism<p>- right-wing<p>- totalitarian<p>- violence as a means of control<p>etc.<p>Personally, I like Umberto Eco's delineation of what makes fascism (because he was an intellectual and grew up in Mussolini's Italy): <a href="https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism" rel="nofollow">https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...</a><p>He elucidates fourteen elements that make up fascism:<p>1. cult of tradition<p>2. rejection of modernism<p>3. cult of action for its own sake (i.e., intellectual reflection doesn't contribute value)<p>4. disagreement is treason<p>5. fear of difference<p>6. appeal to frustrated middle class<p>7. obsession with a plot (e.g., "there is a plot by foreigners to destroy us from within)<p>8. cast their enemies as both too weak and too strong<p>9. life is permanent warfare (i.e., there is always an enemy to fight)<p>10. contempt for the weak<p>11. everyone is educated to become a hero<p>12. machismo<p>13. selective populism<p>14. newspeak<p>I honestly feel like #11 is the only one we don't <i>definitely</i> have in the US right now. I wold prefer not to waste my time giving examples of the other thirteen, but if someone doesn't think it's obvious, I will respond at some point.<p>At its essence, if you take these fourteen points holistically, the vibe is "the 'right kind of' citizenry is in a constant state of hatred toward some other, and they should be pressured to take action without thought"
> You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies.<p>I think you misunderstand fascism. Fascism is not gassing certain minority group of people in concentration camps, that's called crimes against humanity. It might be an endgame to fascism if you are government that is allowed to commit those crimes without consequences, but the road to it is still fascism regardless whether you historically know how it ends. Calling press "the enemy of the people" as Trump did (also known as "Lügenpresse") IS a form of fascism. You don't need to push Democrats and immigrants into gas chambers to be full blown fascist. Overwhelming amount of actions taken by this democratic government ARE what most historians call fascism.
> I think you misunderstand fascism.<p>I think you're projecting.<p>Fascism, in political science, has some clear requirements: a government that controls all branches of power, lack of elections and effective ban of free speech and other political parties.<p>It also requires ideological aspects such as nationalism and far right politics, otherwise fascism would apply to far left dictatorships which didn't have these traits.
And how do you call someone who advocates for the advent of such a government? A fascist. Which Trump and the MAGA right clearly are.
I suggest to learn what projecting means.<p>You really going to say that Trump and his Administration does not control all branches of power?<p>During Third Reich neither press was banned nor elections. Look it up, Google is still free to research. Unless of course you want to endup at conclusion that Nazism and Third Reich wasn't fascism.
That word makes a lot of people uncomfortable and many will shut their brains off when they see it. It's a perfect word to describe what's happening, but sometimes describing the characteristics of it is better for engagement.<p>There are a lot of reactionaries in today's political landscape.
[flagged]
> You just don’t like anything else than your ideas, because you don’t like us. Sorry to be born.<p>Why do you think political ideology is an inborn trait? People don't like you because you actively choose to vote for things that bring about pain and suffering. Not because of your innate attributes.
You'll notice that The same dude was in charge in 2016 as 2026. The people warning about fascism were the ones who know what happens to the rhetoric and policies of 2016 when not countered.
Your usage of "Your side" is telling. It seems like this is a team sport for you and you've picked a side. Unfortunately you might have sided with fascists.
"Your side"
Yeah the other side doesn’t over use socialism or communism or terrorist. And conservatives haven’t been refusing to make concessions in Congress and the Senate for decades.
<i>Isn't this a delightful Catch-22.<p>If you forewarn about a developing Fascist movement, you're simply taking away the meaning from the word until it's too late and the Fascists take power.<p>You cannot call anything Fascist, for there may be something more Fascist that may need the power of the word.<p>But ah! We couldn't call out their fledgling movement full of dog whistles and double speak so no one was aware enough to stop them as a fledgling movement!</i><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45349597">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45349597</a>
Ah, yes, let's concede just a bit of fascism, not a lot.
[flagged]
No man, that's called an oligarchy.
Sounds like you're not a fan of socialism.<p>How's it working out for you, spending a third of your income on rent but not actually having any rights to stay in the property you rent, and a further third on "health insurance" that'll take your money and run, leaving you to choose between a lifetime of debt or just plain dying if you ever get ill?
> Government interference in people's lives is socialism.<p>No, that's called 'governance'. Literally the whole job of government is interfering in people's lives.
The irony is that almost every single one of the countries these foreigners come from would do exactly the same thing were the shoe on the other foot. If running government-funded research to maximize the opportunities for native born people is “fascism,” then every country in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East is “fascist.” Borderless universalism is a niche idea even in the west, and virtually non-existent outside it.
Trump hates science anyway, so why not fire all scientists? Problem solved. /s
Isn't what they're basically doing with the massive funding cuts and cover-ups?
I don't think its about hate, its more like he doesn't believe in taking away something he cannot see with his own eye. Here his idea is that research and development will still continue happening even if overwhelming majority of people responsible for it in the past, will be gone.<p>Take COVID for example. We were fine with minor breakouts prior to Trump administration. They came in and Trump saw we are spending $3.7 million on safety measures in Wuhan Lab, fund designated by Obama (here comes first red flag right?) By his standard you could not SEE the protection so he wanted to look like Champion and save tax payers 3.7 million by removing that protection. We all know what came next and boy was damage more financially painful than mere 3.7 mil?<p>Its like a person who doesn't wear a seat belt because they never been in a car accident so they don't see the point. If given power they would remove mandates to wear seatbelts and have insurance companies deal with the outcome.
[flagged]
[flagged]
"It’s fair to Americans and that’s what counts."<p>Well, let's talk in some years how this worked out for you. If you don't want to anymore, we in europe are mostly happy to welcome smart talents.
> I think the world got used to us being patsies where we spend our money on R&D paying foreigners<p>I can tell you're not in the business of training / employing people.<p>The <i>best</i> ROI is getting someone who is already trained (read you didn't pay for their K-12, their parents' teaching/maternity/healthcare) and just deriving value from their labor.
Leading a nation is not a business. In order to have a successful and self sustaining population we need to develop our own human capital. You want to take shortcuts —those are fine when you’re playing catch up, not when you’re in the lead. Also, it’s a governments responsibility to support and cultivate its own population and not dispose them for another population.
Absolutely true about creating talent. That does not mean you shouldn't take advantage of the easy talent available to you.<p>Please don't pretend like hiring scientists for a national lab has <i>any</i> effect on the <i>colossal</i> waste of human talent our nation is perpetrating—the problems begin so much earlier, and holding out for another American scientist at a national lab is doing nothing to address the ridiculous state of our human capital development.
Quite the opposite. The US got the best of other countries, those countries paid for their education but the US got the benefits. The braun drain was to the US
Nazi scientists were brought in _after_ WWII, not during it.
A significant portion of the WW2 scientists were refugees from _before_ the US joined the war but after persecution had started. <a href="https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/scientist-refugees-and-manhattan-project/" rel="nofollow">https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/scientist-refugees-and-manhatt...</a><p>(later notable entry: Andy Grove, Intel CEO, was born Andreas Grov:<p>"By the time I was twenty, I had lived through a Hungarian Fascist dictatorship, German military occupation, the Nazis' "Final Solution," the siege of Budapest by the Soviet Red Army, a period of chaotic democracy in the years immediately after the war, a variety of repressive Communist regimes, and a popular uprising that was put down at gunpoint... [where] many young people were killed; countless others were interned. Some two hundred thousand Hungarians escaped to the West. I was one of them")
I think there is a difference between bringing in key proven talent at the apex that’s already proven itself and talent that needs to be developed. Both the US and USSR picked up proven talent from the Nazis, they weren’t siphoning up green talent on the hopes they’d develop into good scientists. We have our own population we often overlook and misdirect into Hollywood entertainment rather than achievement.
You're actually right, I misread the first post.<p>Speaking of unutilized talents, other than Hollywood, I'd also add a whole bunch of folks in tech who could be useful for defending their own homeland (hence, their own & their kids' future) but are busy doing the generic commercial stuff.
Every time I see something specific like this I wonder if there was something very similar and specific happening in Berlin ~90-93 years ago.<p>I've tried reviewing online archives of German books/newspapers but it's obviously very time consuming. The large LLM:s don't seem to index this area sufficiently.
It is often asked what an actual foreign agent would do differently if he were trying to destroy the country.<p>I don't think that's entirely valid. Nonetheless, there is enough overlap that the question keeps getting raised.<p>So... perhaps that's what you're missing?
Or, as the Canadian press wonders, right now, today and continuously, how can we tell if he’s lost his mind?
It's easy to pin this all on a foreign enemy, but this "theory" is completely invalidated by noticing that Trump receives support from <i>all</i> the most powerful person of the country: Musk, Zuckerberg, Thiel, Ellison, Bezos... America doesn't need foreign adversaries to destroy itself.
Their goal is to destroy science in the US because it comes up with results that are inconvenient for them.
You're missing the preparation for WW3.
The goal is the grift + outrage. If you can get both, great. If you can get just one, a very solid win. Each time something is thrown into full chaos there stands a private actor or dozens to make 7-8 figures.
> What am I missing?<p>The age of counter productive selfishness which escalates to national and international politics.
The administration has done nothing but be loudly and proudly racist and ant-science.<p>It mades all the sense in the world. It is terrible, but it makes sense.<p>They have brought incalculable shame and future suffering on the US.
USA does not want to train scientists from other countries, who come home and can use that knowledge against interest of US companies, as a competition, or security. There are vast areas of science that are "double use". Will it help to keep stuff out of range of unwanted foreign actors? Hard to tell. Does it hurt USA soft power, sure. So the net result is to be seen.
You’re missing nothing. This is just another boneheaded footgun by this admin. What a time to be live and be an American. I’m ashamed to be one and living internationally. Everyone is either pitying me or laughing at me because my government is so corrupt, stupid and incompetent.<p>More problematic than my own ridicule is what this will portend for US science and the US for leading science research. We must fight to keep the US a destination for cutting edge science and research and one way to do that is to attract the best and brightest from all parts of the globe.
Did you miss who was elected president?<p>There isn’t much rationality since then.
[dead]
[flagged]
So that foreign nationals think it's a smart idea to move to the US and do research for us. So that when they complete their PhD they want to stay permanently and continue doing research that benefits the US. So that despite country humanity gets the smartest people together doing work that might benefit the entire world?<p>A full scholarship to somebody that decides to move back to their country because of racism and xenophobia still directly benefits the US if that research was done here. The smartest students in the world passing on the US does not help the US. With more policies like this the smartest students in the US might move to other countries so they can work with a larger pool.
because you get to keep most of them with a really small investment. isn't that obvious?
These are not PhD students; they're already credentialed (either postdocs or full-time staff). We pay them to do research that aligns with our strategic goals <i>so that we get the science</i>.
Yeah, let's look at it through the national lense. For every researcher who defects to the US to make their PhD there and most likely stay, taxpayers of the country they came from have paid for the education of hundreds of students. Because they don't come from America where graduating essentially means a life of indentured servancy for all but the dynastically wealthy.<p>It's called brain drain, and doing the rest of the world the favor of putting on the brakes is something that would be quite far out on the spectrum you'd call "woke" if it was done for the reasons one would arrive at when really thinking it through (which clearly has not happened)
The fact that there are many American citizens willing to do that work
The American citizens with top academic performance are already getting those jobs.<p>What you're effectively proposing is to prefer Americans with mediocre academic performance over top-tier international talent.
Used to be that America was great because the smartest researchers in the world wanted to come here, often escaping oppressive regimes to do so, and become American citizens (e.g., Albert Einstein)<p>So now all the world’s best and brightest scientists will move to China where they’ll be welcomed in open arms, enjoy living in a modern society with affordable electric cars, the world’s premier high speed train network, glimmering new subway systems, and ample affordable housing.<p>They’ll work on cutting-edge research projects that receive ample funding and support while American scientists wrestle with a federal government torn apart by anti-intellectual strongmen.<p>You ever see a Tesla robot demo like this? <a href="https://youtu.be/mUmlv814aJo" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/mUmlv814aJo</a><p>Are we tired of winning yet? It sounds like we are beyond tired of winning, we’d rather lose from here on out.<p>Seems like Russia and the USA are hell-bent on destroying themselves fighting forever wars to allow China and the EU to take the reins as the beacons of global stability and strength.
I've seen a much more impressive Tesla robot demo: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8vsTNFUFJEU" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8vsTNFUFJEU</a><p>Large scale movements are much easier.
The language is still a barrier to that so it will happen slower than one would think. Top scientists from everywhere outside China generally know English and not Chinese.<p>That said, China is sponsoring lots of foreign students from belt and road countries to come there and learn Chinese, so its a work in progress.
><i>So now all the world’s best and brightest scientists will move to China where they’ll be welcomed in open arms</i><p>They'll also get to experience as much or more racism than they would have in America, but likely far more racism. In America you find racism in some (usually rural) areas, and people who are very accepting in other areas (big cities where most science research is typically done). I'm not sure China is going to be the easiest place to build a life for foreigners.
> Used to be that America was great because the smartest researchers in the world wanted to come here, often escaping oppressive regimes to do so, and become American citizens (e.g., Albert Einstein)<p>By this measure, America is now greater than ever.<p>Of course, it's convenient to pretend that Trump is building a racist dictatorship with a Gestapo, and that's why no one wants to move to the US. But the true is that the number of people around the world who would like to move to the US is higher than ever. Especially when the current administration is trying to purge society of foreign criminals.<p>> So now all the world’s best and brightest scientists will move to China<p>Yes, of course. It's practically the same thing. The only reason scientists go to China is because they are not allowed into the US.
The one that couldn't afford a decent education? The ones that will be in debt for life (bribery risk)? The ones that paid money to be handed a degree, and wouldn't do an honest days work if their life depended on it?
[flagged]
Yeah, before this restriction was imposed, the USA was the worst country in the world in terms of scientific research and advancement.<p>Now that they have these restrictions in place, the USA will go from worst to best with the help of highschool-dropout equivalents who fudge their way through the interview and then complain about more than 2-3 hours of hard work per day (and demand 2-3 times the pay for the privilege). #winning !!!<p>By the way, would you mind linking to some of your research scientist job postings, so such folks can apply to work for you? I'm sure you can't wait to hire them, just like everyone else, right?
> AI might not be good, but it’s at least as good as 90% of them and it works 24x7<p>Sure. It's cheaper - now. Might not continue being that cheap. What prevents Anthropic from jacking up prices once the field is consolidated.<p>Plus, you're forgetting that anyone on an H1B visa still has to buy their food in the USA. While in the US, they contribute for good and for bad to the economy.
No offense but born-in-the-US citizens are... not great at the most demanding knowledge work. The ones that are have all been hired. Our education system is trash and normalizes getting Bs/Cs.<p>I see so many people complaining about H1Bs at tech jobs. At least the H1Bs pass the interviews!<p>Disclaimer: born and raised in the US myself.
Not quite right. The US doesn't normalize getting Bs and Cs, it just gives As to everyone.
I don’t think that’s an entirely accurate classification (as a former H1B and a naturalized citizen).<p>The leetcode nature of the whole process doesn’t lend itself to be motivating for people who aren’t really hungry for a job. As a US citizen you can say fuck it, I don’t need to deal with this shit. As an H1B you’re forced to deal with it otherwise you need to leave the country.<p>I’ve hired plenty of sharp and talented folks who were born here.
[flagged]
>What am I missing?<p>I will answer this question honestly. I used to be friends with a group of PhD students work worked in labs. Every week I heard their complaints. One relayed a story in which a Chinese lab mate / co-worker was refusing to following their boss (PI) directions or request, and shared secret results with another Chinese student in a competing lab.<p>- Their boss (the PI) had asked the Chinese student to train other labmates on some specific testing methods, they refused.<p>- The Chinese PhD student would simply ignore the PI emails.<p>- Then magically their study results end up leaked to another Chinese PhD candidate.<p>Chinese PhD types can 'buy' their way into labs. They have so much money no one wants to turn them away. Only the government can force it.<p>Most people have no idea what day-to-day life is actually like in PhD life / labs. It's a lot less "science" and way more "human drama" than you could imagine.
Are we supposed to generalize your third-hand anecdote about one Chinese PhD student to all Chinese PhD students?<p>> Chinese PhD types can 'buy' their way into labs. They have so much money no one wants to turn them away.<p>The way it works in the US is that labs pay the PhD students, not the other way around. I have never heard of a student paying the lab, ever.
> Scientists from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Syria are considered “high risk.”<p>I think this makes sense from a national security perspective (although I doubt there is any scientist coming from these countries who are working on sensitive projects, maybe except China). Since there is too much trouble to figure out who is a spy, might as well ban all of them for the moment.<p>I do feel a strong nostalgia about the globalization era between the 90s and the 2010s, when I spent most of my life. But I understand it comes to an end, and I'm going to spend my second half of life in a much more splintered world.
This list of high risk countries is not new (with the exception of maybe Venezuela being recently added, I’m not sure). Researchers with these citizenships have faced extra security review before joining NIST for years, and last year the lab increased the level of security review for everyone (not just this list)<p>I can understand a clearly communicated need for additional security requirements. But NIST operates almost totally in open science mode, with the main exceptions of being industry cooperative agreements. I don’t think this move to shed international researchers by reneging on commitments from the lab has been at all justified from a security standpoint.
It doesn’t make sense from a national security perspective actually.<p>A better plan would be to encourage skilled immigration and offer compelling benefits and stability like family visas, free movement, and so on. That way, the best people would make their contributions to science and society here. It’s actually a masterstroke because it deprives other countries of their best people.<p>The current administration is filled with weak men and therefore chose policies that look “strong” but are actually rooted in personal insecurity
So as to not mislead anyone who didn't read the article, the section following your quoted text is:<p>> Researchers from lower risk countries have been told they could lose access beginning in either September or December if at that point they have been at the lab more than 2 years or, under a waiver, 3 years.<p>In other words: they're also looking to bar foreign nationals outside of that quoted list, which to my mind is less understandable.
There have been many cases of US born citizens selling secrets to foeign powers (same here in UK).<p>As a side note (tangentailly related) I wonder if the US would have gained nuclear capabilities if it wasn't for foreign scientists.
It makes sense to stop poaching talented scientists and instead let them continue working for your adversaries? I don't understand how this improves national security. The proposed rule is actually worse than this:<p>> The changes are part of proposed rules aimed at increasing security that would limit, to 3 years, the maximum length of time visiting international researchers can work at NIST.<p>If researchers know that they cannot stay in the US permanently and will be forced to return to their home country in a few years, it guarantees that they must maintain ties to that home country and dramatically increases their incentive to spy. What would you do if your government asked you to spy during a temporary stay abroad, and threatened you with arrest upon your return if you refuse?
>makes sense from a national security perspective<p>Does it? AFAIK NIST doesn't work on national security relevant research.
Oh my god the national security! Someone make up the hypothetical situations the national security might be compromised without proof of any of it! Let me pull out my wallet and take out my national security detector…yep it’s lower than before! Quick pile on the propaganda!
[flagged]
That was indeed the logic then. Keep in mind though that the internment was based on 'race' and 'ethnicity'. This action is based on citizenship and it's a job limitation not a forcible relocation into an open air prison.
I think the same method might be used again in a future conflict with China, when the question of life and death becomes serious. Not saying that I LIKE it, but I think it is at least plausible, and with a non-insignificant (note the double negation) possibility.
Man, if there were only something more reasonable... something in-between letting them spy at will and concentration camps. Hmmm, maybe we will think of something eventually.
Ok, then let them spy continuously I guess and then carry the know how home. Even countries openly hostile to you.<p>I mean it is unfair for sure but it's not your given right. If for example Chinese are literally breaking their law when they refuse to spy what else can you do?
But aren't they happy you bring them democracy? I am confused..
> <i>NIST researchers do not carry out classified research. As a result, Gallagher says, “It’s very difficult to see the security benefit this might have.”</i>
Here in Canada when the new CPC took power its leader PM Harper muzzled scientists from speaking about most things but most of all anything about climate change. It also destroyed climate data claiming the ledgers were old fashioned, but they were the only copies.<p>The CPC political are the old centre-right PC party that combined with more right secessionist and (evangelical) Christian political parties.<p>Harper is still lurking in the shadows and pulling strings decade after being ousted as Prime Minister.
> Sources at NIST contacted by ScienceInsider say they have yet to see any written versions of the proposed rules, which have been conveyed in meetings. Patrick Gallagher, a former NIST director now at the University of Pittsburgh, says the lack of clear communication and the short notice being given to foreign scientists is creating a sense of chaos. “I’m as disappointed as to how this is unfolding as to what is unfolding,” Gallagher says. “At the very least NIST owes an explanation to the country. If there is a good reason for what they are doing, they should flat out say what it is.”<p>This is the sort of "high agency", not waiting for permission mentality that works great for a startup thats making tinder for cats, but is really bad for foundational institutions that provide a critical service to not just the nation but humanity in general. I feel like musk and his DOGE initiative infected the government with this move fast and break things bullshit. Or they were at least correlational with it
not only that but they leveraged the 'compliance' mindset that comes with government institutions to do so.<p>This was first reported at least a week or two ago and only now are they getting aroun dto thinking about making it an actual rule (which takes time and process). The rules that aren't really rules for plausible deniability serve several purposes including normalizing compliance in advance.<p>I'll set aside opinions of the rule because people can really feel differently about the long and short term balance of security and soft power...but not rule rules is an approach to government I really struggle to see both sides of.
Read about the administrative state vs prerogative state. This is what the latter looks like.
Probably the most direct way to kick out the people they're actually worried about without invoking legal process for each one specifically, not least because if they did it on a case by case basis there would likely be an undeniable ethnic/national signal that right now is getting hidden in the noise. In other words, instead of targetting researchers for being Chinese nationals, and then subsequently having to defend ethnic discrimination in court, they're just going to throw the baby out with the bath water.<p>That's my guess anyway.
It’s the trump admin. They don’t care about the decorum you’ve described. They would have no qualms about looking racist. Have you not seen what ICE has been doing? Racism is a badge of honor, and so is flipping off the courts and public opinion. No I believe this is simply paranoia and racism driven by Miller and his cronies.
It's not about "looking racist"; or at least, it's not about public opinion. A racially targeted measure would violate specific laws and would be challenged in court, likely successfully.
It could also be a signal that they intend to take on the world; so they could technically not be racist if "everyone else is a threat".
The Kavanaugh rule specifically permits it. If you’re taking odds that this Supreme Court will challenge the Kavanaugh rule, I’ll wager 1:1 against.
Not sure if you noticed, lower courts ruled against administration many times ... they were ignored.<p>And as a bonus upreme court practically ruled president can be lawless as he pleases.
That was so years ago, this is the point we're at now.<p>SCOTUS: Nothing Trump does is illegal.<p>Trump: "does illegal things"<p>Courts: You can't do this, it is illegal.<p>Trump: "ignores courts"<p>Courts: "shocked pikachu face"
There have been cases of British, Bulgarian, Canadian, German and Irish nationals also gotten in their claws. Seems pretty race agnostic to me.
[flagged]
Researchers from "low risk countries" will be thrown out later this year.
Are ethnic Chinese from Taiwan still allowed? If so it's probably just about the US' geopolitical rivals not being allowed perceived competitive advantages.
I don't find any materials on ethnic prohibitions. There are a lot of problems with that. Among them, it would either fail to achieve the goal. For example, let's say there was a Turk born and raised in PRC and totally aligned with the CCP: prohibiting Han from working in labs doesn't work.
The problem with China anyway is that during the many decades when China was badly lagging, they already stole every secret they could. But now China has a very serious education system, motivated and intelligent people, lots of universities and researchers and China isn't lagging behind anymore.<p>So even if the goal was to prevent chinese from spying on US companies, it's too little, decades too late, because China is now at the very top too.
I’m not seeing any ambitious people trying to get into Chinese undergrad universities.<p>I know a handful of folks who worked at them, and then found a more permanent position in the US.
Comes in stages. Used to be ambitious Chinese people wouldn’t go to Chinese universities for grad school (undergrad Chinese university to overseas grad school was a usual route). Now they definitely do. Next there might be foreign grad students in Chinese universities, then foreign undergrad students. Though you would have to learn Chinese I imagine, so that barrier is there.
Virtually nobody who isn't ethnically Chinese will be able to become a naturalized Chinese citizen, no matter how sincerely they dedicate their life to productively fitting into Chinese society. On paper it's legally possible, but in practice it just doesn't happen. There is also the matter of global comprehension of the English language vs Chinese. I think these factors together severely limits the number of foreigners trying to get into Chinese universities.
> I’m not seeing any ambitious people trying to get into Chinese undergrad universities.<p>If you mean internationally, there are some, mostly from Africa.
This has been happening for decades.<p>China spends a lot of money on international Chinese education. According to some , the top schools are now Chinese.<p><a href="https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2025/06/18/are-chinas-universities-really-the-best-in-the-world" rel="nofollow">https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2025/06/18/...</a><p>Honestly the best thing about America, historically has been diversity. Mei can come here and become American within a few years. That’s only possible in America( and probably Canada too).<p>But now we don’t want international students. The world’s smartest will go elsewhere.
In geopolitics you are forced to make deals with the devil. We armed and supplied the USSR to defeat Germany in WWII. In the 90s we gave an out of work China a wold franchise so we could make a few extra bucks with cheap labor and one billion consumers. Our blu collar workers would put down their dangerous and heavy machinery on the dank shop floor so they could take snazzy white collar jobs that were healthier and paid better because they use their American education to skill up their brains.<p>People were sold on that and many bought it. And now here we are living in the aftermath of us propping up systems incongruous to our own and living it down. It comes down to jockeying politicians like J Kerry and company who pretend they work for the people but in all honesty only work for themselves (remember Kerry never threw out his own war medals but rather reproductions he bought in the PX). Jane Fonda, her vanity sunk the nuclear energy industry for fifty years.
> kick out the people they're actually worried about without invoking legal process for each one specifically<p>Why are we assuming either/both good faith and competence here? Is there <i>anything</i> about the policymaking of this administration that lends credence to that hypothesis? Are there pre-existing policy proposals you're imagining that have weighed pros and cons about this? Existing abuses you're imagining that this curtails?<p>No, let's be real here: this is yet another impulsive idea that some crank sold the president/cabinet on.
> <i>Why are we assuming either/both good faith and competence here</i><p>There is obviously a breakdown in either communication or understanding here. I have assumed neither good faith nor competence. On the contrary, the strategy I supposed above would be in bad faith and a symptom of incompetence.<p>Deporting researchers from every country to make it look like they aren't ethnically targetting people is in bad faith, and resorting to such measures instead of simply identifying and deporting the problematic individuals demonstrates their incompetence.
Stephen Miller is a racist xenophobe. If you aren’t a white “westerner” (or the “help”) he wants you out. And shockingly currently has the power to do so, since we’re run by the incel administration
History rhymes. The same happened in the 30s to Albert Einstein, Max Born, Lise Meitner, Hans Bethe, Edward Teller, Leo Szilard, etc.
This is part of a plan to bring back inches, pounds, and the quarter-twenty.
Reminds me of this one :D <a href="https://www.b4x.com/android/forum/attachments/usteam-jpg.114031/" rel="nofollow">https://www.b4x.com/android/forum/attachments/usteam-jpg.114...</a>
I am noting two extremes in the comments which miss essential truths.<p>The first extreme begins with a true premise, but arrives at a false conclusion. The premise: as with manufacturing, the US should be minting more of its own scientists.<p>This is true. The US should have a more robust manufacturing base of its own. It should be educating more scientists.<p>However, the conclusion does not follow, namely, that the US should ban collaboration with, invitation, or employment of foreign scientists.<p>You don't build such things by going cold turkey. You cannot rebuild American manufacturing overnight, and you can't increase the number of home-grown scientists overnight either. This takes time and requires deeper shifts in the culture.<p>The second extreme is one that denies the premise above, or at least seems to deny its importance.<p>Collaboration with foreign scientists is good. That is unquestionable. There's also nothing wrong with attracting scientists. The problem is not collaboration or attracting talent, but rather a kind of parasitism that tries to make up for a country's own deficiencies in this manner as a permanent policy.
That’s not what the headline says. Changing headline is a violation of hackers news rules
This whole thing feels like a troll. We should assume any new HN account created in the last 18 months is much more likely to be a bot, and now we got OpenClaw to worry about. Nothing stopping our true adversary or troublemakers from giving OpenClaw a plausible new identity and telling it to argue about given world view. Or pass whatever false information it can to try to change public opinion. Can you tell which replies in this thread are real vs propaganda?
Misleading headline. They are moving specifically to restrict high risk countries like China, Syria, North Korea, etc. Not all foreign countries, as the headline threatens.
Isn't this the same sort of thing that the Nazi's did?
No, Nazis kicked out German citizens who they deemed to be Jewish<p>There are enough "enemies of the people" in the US at the moment that the MAGA leadership doesn't have to go after American citizens.<p>There's been rhetoric about how some Americans are not "real americans" but America seems a way off 1934 yet, and they're going about it in a different order. History never repeats, but it usually rhymes
><i>There are enough "enemies of the people" in the US at the moment that the MAGA leadership doesn't have to go after American citizens.</i><p>Tell that to any trans person that is an American citizen. They are literally trying to make "trans" into a terrorist designation.<p>Tell that to the many Latino American citizens who have been arrested by masked armed ICE agents, thrown into unmarked cars and taken away simply because of the color of their skin.
America loves Nazis they’ve been obsessing over them for decades to the point they’ve been romanticized. And if there’s one thing Americans love more than not-thinking it’s romanticism and propaganda.
Nothing that NIST produces can be trusted. In modern times, NIST is effectively an arm of the NSA. The job of NIST is to add vulnerabilities to everything for NSA to exploit. It's no wonder that they don't want foreign workers. Industry would be better off completely ignoring them.
Trumpers are the dumbest, most gullible people in society. The only good thing about them is they self identify.<p>They have shown you who they are, over and over and over... Makes it much easier to avoid them.
Some years ago I came to the conclusion that the US would ultimately consider it a security risk to employ mainland Chinese born people (or even just people who had family in mainland China still) in any classified or sensitive industry.<p>I think I've now reached the point where it doesn't matter. Capitalism itself has made maintaining any kind of technological or scientific edge impossible. You don't need to break into some lab or plant sleeper agents or even coerce someone who has family back in the home country. No, it's far simpler than that.<p>When the US developed the atomic bomb some in American policy and military circles thought the Soviets would never get the bomb or it would take 20 years. It took 4. The Soviet hydrogen bomb was detonated th eyear after the US detonated ours.<p>In that case, the Soviets did run a sophisticated operations but also a bunch of people just gave them stuff for ideological reasons.<p>Let's compare that to EUV. The US restricted both the export of EUV lithography machines from ASML to China as well as the most advanced chips. The second was a mistake (IMHO) because it created a captive market for Chinese alternatives and it became clear to China that it was in their national security interest not to be dependent upon the US for chipmaking or chipsd.<p>Now China doesn't need to do anything sophisticated. It just needs to throw a bunch of money at some key reserarchers and engineers from ASML and elsewhere and say "hey, come work for us". What are you going to do?<p>Also, the US likes to paint this picture that China engaged in industrial espionage. And maybe they did. But they did so with the full knowledge and cooperation of US businesses who outsourced to China <i>knowing this was going to happen</i> but hey, it increased short-term profits, so who cares?<p>At the same time as the US cuts science funding so Jeff Bezos can be slightly wealthier, Chinese universities are surging in global rankings for research [1].<p>There's no getting this genie back in the bottle. It's too late.<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/us/harvard-global-ranking-chinese-universities-trump-cuts.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/us/harvard-global-ranking...</a>
<i>>but also a bunch of people just gave them stuff for ideological reasons</i><p>Which was rather infamously not used in the actual research but was gatekept and used to verify the work of the domestic scientists.
>Also, the US likes to paint this picture that China engaged in industrial espionage. And maybe they did. But they did so with the full knowledge and cooperation of US businesses who outsourced to China knowing this was going to happen but hey, it increased short-term profits, so who cares?<p>At the same time as the US cuts science funding so Jeff Bezos can be slightly wealthier, Chinese universities are surging in global rankings for research [1].<p>This is the crux of the issue.<p>We've allowed extremely short term capitalistic interests of the wealthiest of the wealthiest to dictate our national policy in a great many areas, including taxation, academics, immigration, etc.<p>I liken the situation to a game of chess - on one hand, you have a team of Grandmasters and a supercomputer taking the time to evaluate each move and understand the positives and negatives of any possible move. On the other hand, you have a pigeon, who is there because someone who has already been the beneficiary of tremendous luck has convinced their side that putting a pigeon on the board is good for everyone involved.
[flagged]
>Citizenship laws in the West are hardly very robust.<p>Guess you don't pay much attention. The administration has been stripping citizenship from naturalized citizens left and right.<p>They simply don't give a fuck.
I couldn't believe the surrogate thing you mentioned but it's true.<p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/chinese-billionaires-surrogacy-pregnancy-7fdfc0c3" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsj.com/us-news/chinese-billionaires-surrogacy-p...</a><p>We really need to wake up. China, India, etc. are walking all over us and we're still acting like it's the 1950s.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
President Biden’s Executive Order 14117 is related<p><a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-03-01/pdf/2024-04573.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-03-01/pdf/2024-0...</a>
its real war time now, so makes sense<p>I know the administration was already doing that and largely xenophobic, it just also makes sense now that the same administration went to war
Last time I checked, only congress can declare a war.
The administration is doing what’s called “pragmatism”. Xenophobic will the reaction within society to justify it.
Not administration sympathizer but:<p>I think there are of course valid security concerns and this could be logical solution free of way more problematic issues of dealing on case by case basis.<p>On the other hand this will play more to people choosing some other country to advance their science aspiration and slowly but surely erode pool of talent for the US to help it stay dominant.<p>Practically the US have used people like Wernher von Braun on good scale and very sensitive areas and it worked just fine for the country. Qian Xuesen might of course have couple of words on the subject of course
Oh, we're the John Birch Society, the John Birch Society<p>Here to save our country from a communistic plot<p>Join the John Birch Society, help us fill the ranks<p>To get this movement started we need lots of tools and cranks<p><a href="https://youtu.be/pG6taS9R1KM?si=QqquYHFG2S7o7-73" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/pG6taS9R1KM?si=QqquYHFG2S7o7-73</a>