Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Afghan Girls Robotics Team Allowed To Enter U.S. For Competition (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the sense-prevails dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A team of Afghan girls are on their way to compete in an academic robotics competition in the United States after American officials agreed to allow them to enter the country despite initially denying them visas. The reversal reportedly came at the request of U.S. President Donald Trump, Reuters reported.

24 of 50 comments (clear)

  1. Perfect by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 1

    Deemed not a threat... exception granted... not a big deal.

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
    1. Re:Perfect by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      This is what a little bad publicity will do in the face of a typical government bureaucratic snafu. It's the same thing with other giant corporations. Nothing happens to resolve your issue until your issue becomes an embarrassment to them, and someone high enough up the food chain takes action.

      Anyhow, best of luck to those young women. I hope their experience visiting the US is a positive one, despite the initial circumstances, and that they can make a positive impact on the future of their country.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Perfect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Deemed not a threat... exception granted... not a big deal.

      The only reason they got through was because it became world news.

      A lot of people aren't that lucky and are wrongfully rejected.

  2. Special Exceptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Deemed not a threat... exception granted... not a big deal.

    So all you need is the personal intervention of the President of the United States?

    Our officials were crying in government offices when the immigration ban went through. Because they had to leave people in abject misery who had done everything right. Political posturing is the stupidest way to make immigration decisions.

    1. Re:Special Exceptions by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That's nice except it has nothing to do with Afghanistan, which is not one of the 6 countries in Trump's ban.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re: Special Exceptions by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Get the fuck out the country you fucking terrorist. You have your own country,

      Until here you had me confused whether you're an American talking to an Afghan or an Afghan talking to an American.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Re:So what by freeze128 · · Score: 2

    What kind of robots will they be using? We nerds want the news! It matters to us!

  4. Any reason why? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone know why they got rejected in the first place? That country isn't even on Trump's "list". TFA: "While officials did not comment on the reasons for initially denying the girls visas, the United States often denies visa requests from Afghans over fears that they will refuse to return home." Honestly, when it comes to the US wanting "the best and brightest" these girls are pretty high up on both lists. It would also seem, from TFA, that this allowance is probably from Ivanka appealing to Donald.

    1. Re:Any reason why? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I have nothing to base this on, but if I were a betting man, I'd say it goes something like this: To build a robot and travel to the US from Afghanistan means these girls come from some means. Having money in Afghanistan by purely savory means cannot be easy, given the recent turmoil. My guess is that one or more of their daddy's has either done some unsavory things, or has dealt with some pretty sketchy characters. That doesn't necessarily make them "bad" or dangerous, but it is probably what happened... bureaucrats are good at playing CYA.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Any reason why? by jandersen · · Score: 1, Troll

      Anyone know why they got rejected in the first place?

      No, but I think it is possible to make a reasonable guess: When a populist leader has been making these kinds of radical statements - in Trump's case promising to ban all Muslims from entering the US - then there will be a large number of his followers who are more than willing to implement his words, even if the actual travel ban doesn't cover it. The fact of the matter is that nobody has a right to enter any country - it is up to the discretion of the staff at the embassies, the border agents etc., and they know that in most cases, ordinary people won't challenge a decision they've made. In my experience, the American visa staff are in general extremely arrogant - I remember helping my Chinese wife apply for visa to the US; they were more than willing to take the money, but then they dragged the feet for 6 months (by which time it was no longer relevant), and in the meantime, we got treated like suspects for daring to ask how things were advancing. I think we paid something like £300 for even applying, and would probably have had to go to court in order to make a complaint that wouldn't simply have been ignored. In such a setting, it isn't hard to imagine how and why these girls were denied visas.

    3. Re:Any reason why? by cahuenga · · Score: 1

      No, the original story stated there was no cause given.. Of course here at Slashdot the prevailing excuse from Trump apologists was the risk that they might do "something", which somehow made sense to these people. Do we now form policy around your-out-of-your=ass fantasies?

      Interesting times

    4. Re:Any reason why? by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Having money in Afghanistan by purely savory means cannot be easy, given the recent turmoil

      Ah yes, the "all Americans are gangsters" thing shifted to another place and time.
      You probably don't even know you are doing it.

    5. Re:Any reason why? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'm fully aware how politically incorrect that statement is, and I even was very upfront with how I have no information at all to support my bias.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Any reason why? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      When I see that one of my posts has been downgraded like this one, with no follow-up comments, it seems clear to me that I have hit a nerve with some individual, who is unable to explain why he/she disagrees with my comments. I know some will try to claim that I'm just suffering from hurt pride, but not really - if anything, it shows that my comments provoked a response, and seeing that the 'score' is now "1, Troll", it means that there must have been at least 1 other person who felt I should be bumped up. However, I'd much rather see myself challenged by intelligent arguments; the absence of it is what worries me, since what any nation needs, especially at this time, is intelligent people, who care enough about what goes on to contribute to the debate.

  5. Re:Thank you Donald! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    LoL. You're thanking Trump for cleaning up a mess that he himself created. Way to go Scooter.

  6. Re:Thank you Donald! by idji · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't welcome this - this is not a good development. In a functioning democracy there are appropriate channels to get permissions and make things happen. In a dictatorship lobbyists, diplomats and sycophants try to get the dictator's ear and his yes to get whatever they are seeking for. The US is turning this way. Companys already know that the way to get Donald's attention is to make Fox talk about it or be the last person in the room before he makes a decision. This is not going well. These Afghan girls should not have needed a presidential intervention to get in to the USA - it is a sign that the rule of law is falling apart.

  7. Re:Thank you Donald! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    If he actually watches the news. Often he's watching some conspiracy outlet disguised as news.

  8. Magnanimous Emperor grants favors by jandjmh · · Score: 1

    His whim, his rule

    1. Re:Magnanimous Emperor grants favors by colinwb · · Score: 1

      I guess maybe in hindsight it wasn't such a great idea to let Obama go wild with his "pen and phone" and expand the power of the Executive Branch/POTUS like we all tried to warn you about at the time, those warnings that you helped shout-down instead of heed because it suited your agenda at the moment, eh?

      Arguably Obama was the USA President who in recent time made the least use of executive orders(*). It's piquant that the President making least use of executive orders since 1945 is a Obama, a Democrat; that the President making most use of them is Truman, also a Democrat; and that the President currently with the second most frequent use of executive orders is Trump: but is he a Republican?

      Executive Orders 9538-10431 number 894; 2.2 per week in 7.78 years Truman
      Executive Orders 13765-13803 number 39; 1.56 per week in 0.48 years Trump
      Executive Orders 11967-12286 number 320; 1.53 per week in 4 years Carter
      Executive Orders 10914-11127 number 214; 1.4 per week in 2.84 years Kennedy
      Executive Orders 11798-11966 number 169; 1.3 per week in 2.45 years Ford
      Executive Orders 11128-11451 number 324; 1.20 per week in 5.17 years Johnson
      Executive Orders 11452-11797 number 346; 1.19 per week in 5.55 years Nixon
      Executive Orders 10432-10913 number 482; 1.15 per week in 8 years Eisenhower
      Executive Orders 12287-12667 number 381; 0.91 per week in 8 years Reagan
      Executive Orders 12834-13197 number 364; 0.87 per week in 8 years Clinton
      Executive Orders 12668-12833 number 166; 0.80 per week in 4 years GHW Bush
      Executive Orders 13198-3488 number 291; 0.70 per week in 8 years GW Bush
      Executive Orders 13489-13764 number 276; 0.66 per week in 8 years Obama

      (*) I'm aware - oh, all right, I've just found out - that there are also Presidential memoranda ("closely related [to executive orders and also] have the force of law on the Executive Branch"), determinations, proclamations, notices and Sequestration Orders, and that, for example, Obama issued 644 Presidential memoranda, but I'll it to someone else to make a comparative table of those.

  9. How times change by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In old /., we'd have gotten a story about the robots they made and what the competition had to offer, what the challenge is and maybe an interview with them on their strategy, with a tacked on foot note that they may finally enter the country.

    In new /., we get a story about them being now allowed to enter the country. No, nothing about the actual robots, why are you asking?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Re:Thank you Donald! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Odds are they would never have had a problem getting into the country before Trump.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Robots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why are people now calling remote control devices robots? THEY ARE NOT ROBOTS.

  12. Re:Thank you Donald! by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

    The president has the constitutional power of clemency, and you think this minor intervention in an entirely internal bureaucratic affair (in a department which his office administers) heralds the breakdown of the rule of law? That's a hell of a stretch.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  13. cant wait for the group photo by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    you know trump is going to want his photo taken with them as proof it was his âoespecial requestâ lol those girls are really gonna enjoy that.