Well, that would be the problem, right? This is knee jerk. For example, because of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the later Hostage Crisis, the anti-Iranian mood in the U.S. was so high that many Iranians changed their names, went by "Persian," or moved to create small communities for security. It didn't matter that these Iranians were fleeing what Americans were angry about. It didn't matter that the first wave of the exodus carried between thirty and forty billion dollars to the United States. In 2000, Iran reported that self-exiled
Iranians had invested between two and four hundred billion dollars in the United States, Europe, and some in China, but next to nothing in Iran. This was measure not only in cash, but in educational capital. Many of Tehran University's graduates haul ass to the U.S. for economic and social opportunity. Their individual success benefits the U.S., not Iran.
The problem with knee jerking over an incident is that it makes us wrong-headed. In the case of Iran, hurting Iran means that we should be encouraging Iranian immigration. In terms of Uzbek, we don't know who we are going to get from around the world. For all we know, there's an Uzbekian university student who will one day be the next Einstein. This nobody in Uzbek is to be denied access because a turd entered the U.S. eight years ago and only now has decided to worship IS? Uzbek or France or the UK gets to benefit instead?
