I believe that we're seeing the result of an extreme cover-your-ass mentality.
There is a chance, even though incredibly small, that the person in question really will commit some act of terrorism. What are the payoffs to the individual making this decision of all the possible options?
Not a terrorist, deport him: no cost.
Not a terrorist, let him in: no cost.
Terrorist, deport him: no cost.
Terrorist, let him in: lose your job, your career, get to testify before a hostile Congress, become a national scapegoat, etc. etc.
As far as I know, there are no consequences for deporting someone in a situation like this. Thus, even if the chances that he's a real terrorist are incredibly small, the fact that they're nonzero, and the fact that knowledge of this tweet would inevitably result in massive fingerpointing in that remote event, means that deportation is the obvious best choice. There's no benefit to letting him in, and some benefit to deporting him.
You see this sort of thing pop up in any large bureaucracy. There are rarely penalties for "better safe than sorry", even when taken to an absurd degree, but there are huge penalties for a failing to take that approach in the event that you miss something.
My wife just finished a thorough government background check, including an in-person interview about all of her international travel activity for the last X years, several calls for followup questions about relatives and their jobs and potential ties to foreign governments, etc. The job they're checking her for? Web designer at the Smithsonian. Not exactly a repository of national secrets here.
That background check makes no sense from a cost-benefit analysis, but makes tons of sense from a cover-your-ass bureaucratic analysis. Looks to me like the exact same thing happened with this tweet.
Well put.
It is unfortunate that there is no way to have these folks accountable for their actions. I agree the public sentiments will be with them in this case though, but its one step closer to the Orwellian society.
Note: I am not a USA citizen or reside in USA - just so that my perspectives are understood as an outsider.
There is a chance, even though incredibly small, that the person in question really will commit some act of terrorism. What are the payoffs to the individual making this decision of all the possible options?
Not a terrorist, deport him: no cost.
Not a terrorist, let him in: no cost.
Terrorist, deport him: no cost.
Terrorist, let him in: lose your job, your career, get to testify before a hostile Congress, become a national scapegoat, etc. etc.
As far as I know, there are no consequences for deporting someone in a situation like this. Thus, even if the chances that he's a real terrorist are incredibly small, the fact that they're nonzero, and the fact that knowledge of this tweet would inevitably result in massive fingerpointing in that remote event, means that deportation is the obvious best choice. There's no benefit to letting him in, and some benefit to deporting him.
You see this sort of thing pop up in any large bureaucracy. There are rarely penalties for "better safe than sorry", even when taken to an absurd degree, but there are huge penalties for a failing to take that approach in the event that you miss something.
My wife just finished a thorough government background check, including an in-person interview about all of her international travel activity for the last X years, several calls for followup questions about relatives and their jobs and potential ties to foreign governments, etc. The job they're checking her for? Web designer at the Smithsonian. Not exactly a repository of national secrets here.
That background check makes no sense from a cost-benefit analysis, but makes tons of sense from a cover-your-ass bureaucratic analysis. Looks to me like the exact same thing happened with this tweet.