back to article Big Tech files anti-Trump brief: Immigration ban illegal and damaging to business

The world of Big Tech has joined the legal showdown over Donald Trump's immigration ban, with a joint filing that argues the ban is not only illegal but would damage their businesses. Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft as well as another 94 tech companies including Netflix, Dropbox, Uber and Twitter have coordinated on the …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

    It has been talked about in parts of the state.

    As CA is a nett contributor to the Federal Budget it might make the new resident of the White House think for a moment or two before issuing another decree or three.

    1. 2460 Something

      Re: time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

      The guy behaves like a malignant narcissist, they just don't care about logic or well reasoned argument. He just wants to crush anyone that doesn't fawn all over him and blow beautiful smoke rings up his proverbial.

      1. Malignant_Narcissism

        Re: time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

        I resent that remark.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

      As CA is a nett contributor to the Federal Budget it might make the new resident of the White House think for a moment or two before issuing another decree or three.

      Ha! NOTHING can make him think for a moment or two! Trump smashes.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

      Yes, but CA still has debts owed to the feds. A petty, narcissistic person who suddenly finds himself in a position of power may take advantage of the fact that states like CA need the feds more than the feds need any state, but thank God our country is being run by (alt right Bannon) 'smarter' people with cooler heads and longer term objectives.

      Please understand I'm posting anonymously because I fear my government when the new administration starts taking names of people who don't agree with their point of view within the first days in office.

    4. John 104

      Re: time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

      Good riddance. They can leave all they want. The rest of us will just start charging more for the power and water they import....

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

        well, if California decides to exit, I might head for the nearest military base and ask what I can do to help defend the USA. There are several bases in my area. The Miramar jets fly over my house sometimes, and I occasionally hear Ospreys and helicopters.

        As for the "howler monkey pile-on" from all of these tech companies (with well known political ties to "the left") jumping on the "it hurts me" bandwagon, let's consider which countries are involved, for which immigration is being TEMPORARILY banned (until such time as potential immigrants can be PROPERLY vetted), in order to help prevent the *kinds* of terrorism we're seeing in Germany and other places, and see JUST how many people they're hiring from IRAN, or SYRIA, or YEMEN, and so on that would actually AFFECT their ability to do business. ZERO did you say? *EXACTLY*!

        How about we RE-PHRASE what they're up to in more relevant terms: They want *CHEAP* *LABOR* and to UNDERCUT the CITIZEN employees with LOWER wages, so THEY can INCREASE their PROFIT. [this kind of collusion is not new, it's been well documented within the last few years, RIGHT GOOGLE?] (In some contexts, this kind of thing is referred to as 'hiring scabs')

        Now: Isn't THIS the *kind* of thing that LABOR UNIONS were formed over? Don't you think that Donald Trump is *PRO* *EMPLOYEE* and *ANTI* *EXPLOITATIVE* *MANAGEMENT* in this case?

        I mean, *SERIOUSLY* now, when the tables are turned, HOW! CAN! YOU! LEFTIES! SUPPORT! THOSE! COMPANIES! AND! THEIR! POLICIES!!! They're like the *EVIL* corporations you so often DESPISE, except when they're "anti-Trump".

        And now, I'll just SIT BACK and LAUGH at the hypocrisy!

    5. BillG Silver badge
      Angel

      Re: time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

      As CA is a nett contributor to the Federal Budget ...

      California is going to need a massive bailout in the next two years. And you'd be surprised how many Americans would not miss CA if it left the Union.

      The world of Big Tech has joined the legal showdown over Donald Trump's immigration ban, with a joint filing that argues the ban is not only illegal

      Unfortunately, the travel ban IS legal. First, the United Nations admits that no country is obligated to admit a non-citizen. Second, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 gives the President broad powers to block non-residents coming in from another country by limiting visas as long as they do not specifically target a race, religion, or national origin except where public safety is concerned. Every European country except Greece has the exact same law. There is also the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which grants the President the authority to suspend Visas from countries deemed a threat to the USA. It was modeled on a then existing British law.

      This was the Boston decision.

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-03/boston-judge-unblocks-trump-travel-ban-asks-where-does-it-say-muslim-countries

      The Seattle judge failed to give "full faith and etc." to the Boston decision. This is going to go to the Supreme Court who will settle the argument.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge

        Re: time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

        "This is going to go to the Supreme Court who will settle the argument."

        which is why "the left" will attempt to block all of Trump's supreme court judge nominations. Hopefully only the one will be needed.

        1. DougS Silver badge

          @bombastic bob

          If you're hoping a guy who is supposed to be an 'originalist' in the mode of Scalia would uphold Trump's executive order, you're going to be in for a disappointment. The conservative justices are generally against efforts by the executive branch to expand its power, and it is the liberal justices who are for it. Remember not that long ago when Obama tried to essentially grant amnesty to all the illegal aliens currently in the US, provided they hadn't committed any crimes - go look at how they voted there.

          I hope you don't think that conservative justices will be a rubber stamp for Trump because he's a republican - and you shouldn't want that, because powers attained by the executive branch are never given up, so when a democrat is back in the White House you'll have one with greater latitude for executive orders, courtesy of Trump.

          What Obama tried to do and what Trump is trying to do are basically two different flavors of the same thing - attempting via executive order to legislate something that is clearly in the purview of congress to decide per the Constitution.

          Anyway, there is no way the new justice will be seated by the time the Supreme Court reviews this case, even if the democrats offered no resistance. The case is moving way too fast for that - being heard in the appeals court tomorrow. The ruling will probably come mid week and Trump will have filed his appeal with the Supreme Court before the end of the week (unless he asks for an 'en banc' appeals court ruling first, which is unlikely)

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @dougS

            "What Obama tried to do and what Trump is trying to do are basically two different flavors of the same thing - attempting via executive order to legislate something that is clearly in the purview of congress to decide per the Constitution."

            Well, that was certainly Obama's play. In the specific instance of the Trump OE on restricting people from 7 countries assessed by the previous administration as problematic wrt vetting/terrorism, POTUS clearly has the legislative power to do this. While it may be more broad reaching than previous executive uses of this particular part of US Code, it is by no means outside presidential power.

            For the "rights" apologists, refugees and potential immigrants not in the USA do not have any rights afforded to them by the US constitution last time I looked - but correct me if I'm wrong.

        2. smartypants

          Re: time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

          I begin to wonder about people who describe people against Trump as being "the left". You see it here in the UK with people against Brexit.

          It isn't left wing to be incredibly concerned by people (Trump, and our own prime minister) who peddle bare-faced lies almost as policy.

          When May claims that 65 million support Brexit (as she did in her Brexit White Paper), or when Trump claims that americans are threatened by islamic terrorism (which is in fact one of the rarest ways to die as an american), it is not that these people are making a mistake. They intend their lies to change minds.

          If you think this is wrong, you are not a "left winger". You are a decent human being. That's all.

          For FFS.

          1. Champ

            Re: time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

            > If you think this is wrong, you are not a "left winger". You are a decent human being. That's all.

            <applause>

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

          They will need to block for 2 years at a minimum. There is a strong likelihood that another justice will be named in that time as well. It is questionable whether the Democrats will be able to keep their power in the supreme court by obstruction.

          There is real fear that the "stacked deck" that Democrats have had for so long is about to come unstuck and they are in a panic.

          1. DougS Silver badge

            What stacked deck?

            Before Scalia died, five of the justices had been named by republicans, four by democrats. Kennedy was appointed by Reagan, but because he thinks for himself and doesn't automatically vote with the conservative side (though he often does) a lot of republicans like to pretend he was appointed by a democrat.

    6. bleedinglibertarian

      Re: time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

      I hope they do. I wonder how they would like having their own country but not owning the waterways surrounding it. No more imports their for certain. lol no military to speak of. lololol... poor misguided liberals screaming new world order but finding themselves completely isolated.

      1. Hollerithevo Silver badge

        Re: time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

        If they were a separate country they would have the territory out into the ocean. And they would have the military bases and ports, unless Trumpistan decided to blow these all up upon exiting. The USA doesn't own the headwaters of, say, the Columbia river. If CA went with OR and WA (and possibly NV), the USA would cease to have a Pacific border. So who would be hurt more? Pacifica could trade with Asia very easily, not to mention Canada and central and south America. NM might want to be a non-contiguous part or re-join Mexico,

        I don't think any of this will happen, but remember that a lot of Brits laughed at the idea of the American Colonies as a viable separate entity and looked what happened with that..

        1. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

          Re: time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

          There is case Texas vs the US from the Civil War era where the Seniles decided that the US was indivisible and no state has the right to unilaterally secede. So a Calexit would be an open rebellion against the US per the Seniles. In other words a civil war. Anyone with any sense would realize a civil war even localized would be very traumatic and disastrous for many beyond the direct casualties.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

            My thoughts exactly. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea or could be achieved peacefully is more of an idiot than that idiot they are all complaining about.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

        ...not more Californication of other states, no more Pelosi, ...

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: time for CA to CAEXIT from the Union?

      That was tried in 1861, didn't turn out well for those involved....

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ok, so Trump has imposed a 90-day ban on travellers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

    So how many from those countries do these firms employ? They must employ thousands from those countries if it will be damaging to business.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      ...

      I think it's more for the principle than anything else... I too highly doubt these firms employ tech talent from those countries...

      1. kierenmccarthy

        Re: ...

        So based on what companies have said so far - this current ban has affected several hundred individuals working for tech companies. Microsoft said 78, I believe, Google said something like 30-40.

        But, yes, I think the bigger issue is the principle. If the president feels he can stop people from getting into the country - even when they have valid visas - based on whatever he feels is a problem, it is a dangerous and destabilizing precedent.

        In the past, presidents have done this but always on the basis of specific events or intelligence. And not just a general and instant ban based on nationality. They also tend to go through a much longer process rather than just sign something one morning.

        1. 2StrokeRider

          Re: ...

          It's not what he feels is the problem. This is based on the recommendations of studies performed by all of Obama's security advisors. CIA, NSA, Justice, FBI, DHS. Obama chose to ignore their advice. Trump didn't.

        2. DailyLlama
          Mushroom

          Re: ...

          "is a dangerous and destabilizing president"

          FTFY

        3. BillG Silver badge
          Go

          Re: ...

          But, yes, I think the bigger issue is the principle.

          No, the bigger issue is about the law. Courts don't make decisions based on what they "feel is right", because that is widely subjective.

          "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

          - The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).

          The above is the crux of the argument. You may not like it, but that's the law. That's what was cited in the Boston decision.

          Oh, the above law was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson.

          1. Philip Lewis

            Re: ...

            Precisely.

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

            And if you are wondering why the airlines went into a major tizzy, read the last bit.

            (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

            Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

          2. John 104

            Re: ...

            @BillG

            Don't confuse the argument with facts.This isn't about facts or law! This is about stopping that madman!

        4. bombastic bob Silver badge

          Re: ...

          "If the president feels "

          I doubt FEELINGS have ANYTHING to do with this. This is a decision to stop a SERIOUS security problem for the United States' borders, allowing foreign nationals into our country from nations that either have NO government (through which they can be verified), or a PRO-TERRORIST government, and STOPPING people that might be coming into our country to perform TERRORIST ACTS (like they have in the EU), or in any way endanger the USA. It's a TEMPORARY ban. It's supposed to be OVER after the immigration policies have been re-structured properly to deal with this, although immigration from countries like Iran and Syria may NEVER be restored.

          NOTE: if we want to TRULY help refugees, then we do whatever Trump's people recommend after their 30 days' time to "come up with a plan to defeat ISIS". Then they can stay where they are and NOT have their lives threatened. Isn't that the best way to deal with it?

          1. MrDamage

            Re: ...

            > "come up with a plan to defeat ISIS"

            Step 1 would be getting the fuck out of their country so the Daeshbags can no longer make comparisons to the crusades and call upon the "faithful" to engage in a jihad against the foreign invaders.

            Step 2 would involve immediately ceasing to fucking about with the domestic political landscape.

            Step 3 would involve telling the oil and mining industry lobbyists to STFU.

            But none of this would happen, because profit.

            The US exported terrorism to the middle east (and central America, and Ireland) long before the middle east exported terrorism to the US.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: ... @Bombastic Bob

            "If the president feels "

            I doubt FEELINGS have ANYTHING to do with this. This is a decision to stop a SERIOUS securit ..."

            That is a misquote from the law. "finds" not "feels". Don't get your knickers in a not. Try research.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: ...

        " I too highly doubt these firms employ tech talent from those countries..."

        Syria, Iran, and Iraq are countries which have had advanced education systems - not sure about Libya.

        That means they will have sent students to university in Europe and the USA - who may have moved into research and industry there afterwards.

        Their political systems will also have produced political "refugees" from their higher educated classes who have moved to Europe or the USA.Those families would have brought with them the motivation for their kids to reach a high level of education too.

      3. Redstone

        Re: ...

        It seems like the only principle at work here is: cause enough trouble and maybe we can bully him into leaving the H-1B's (and our super-cheap, imported slave labour) alone.

        The flip side of this argument is that the Obama administration identified these countries as places from which it is impossible to get any kind of verification information for visa applicants. There is also a lot of terrorist related activity in each of these countries. Some caution on folks arriving from there would seem reasonable.

        1. Cereberus
          Mushroom

          Re: ...

          There is also a lot of terrorist related activity in each of these countries. Some caution on folks arriving from there would seem reasonable.

          Leaving out the likes of Daesh are all these 'terrorists' actually terrorists? Not trolling here but a genuine question. When we went to Iraq we were fighting terrorists, when we went to Afghanistan it was the same.

          No doubt there may be some terrorist groups but how many? To put it another way how many groups are freedom fighters, fighting for their country but unable to do so in massed face each other across an open field manner because of lack of resources, training, equipment etc.

          You could argue they are being misled but just because when we invade their country they hide and use guerilla tactics it does not follow they are terrorists.

          One other question - how many of these terrorists (assuming they are) have gone to America, or Britain, or elsewhere and how many of the terror acts have been performed by home grown people who have been radicalized?

          It seems to be to easy to say you don't agree with me so you are a terrorist and I can therefore do anything I want to you and am totally justified. This will of course teach you a lesson, and not help you want to fight against my tyranny of your country using terror or guerilla tactics. Oh by the way it is only guerilla tactics if I agree with you, because then you are obviously fighting on behalf of good whereas if you disagree with me you are obviously evil.

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: ...

            There is terrorist activity in these countries now. His ban affects people born in those countries 50years ago.

            Iranians who have lived in the USA since 1979 are unlikely to have moved there after the revolution because they were fans of a future anti-Iranian Sunni extremist terrorist group.

            1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
              Boffin

              Yo! Anon coward... Re: ...

              Do you actually know something about the ban?

              Do you actually know something about Persians who came to the US prior to 1979 in order to flee the revolution?

              Free clue. Most of those Persians who came are now US citizens. (At least 100% of the few that I know did just that. ) Most of those have never returned to Iran. (For some obvious reasons).

              Now with respect to Trump's ban... does it ban US citizens who are of Persian descent ? NO.

              The confusing part was who was banned even if they have a valid green card?

              Then ask yourself who gains from spreading FUD?

          2. fruitoftheloon
            Happy

            @ Cereberus: Re: ...

            Cereberus,

            I am not trolling, would you be so kind as to remind me who the terrorists were you were fighting against in Iraq?

            I thought there was a particularly unpleasant dictator in situ...

            Kind regards,

            Jay

          3. Will code

            Re: ...

            Liked your comment, just a clarification on this one:

            "When we went to Iraq we were fighting terrorists, when we went to Afghanistan it was the same"

            Iraq was to depose a dictator that was thought to have weapons of mass destruction rather than fight terrorists. After the invasion it was spun to be about terrorism and that spinning has succeeded. In reality it created many more terrorist by inspiring people against the 'west'.

            The invasion of Afghanistan was about terriorism.

            1. strum Silver badge

              @ WIll Code

              >Iraq was to depose a dictator that was thought to have weapons of mass destruction rather than fight terrorists.

              It was inescapable that many Americans thought that Afghanistan & Iraq were payback for 911 - even though Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

        2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: ...

          "There is also a lot of terrorist related activity in each of these countries. Some caution on folks arriving from there would seem reasonable."

          OK, let's use the same logic on a different attribute. A lot of rapes are committed by males. Caution on males arriving would be reasonable. Does it still make sense? If not, why not? Assuming you got as far as answering the second question go back and review the original version in light of what you've just worked out.

          1. Redstone

            Re: ...

            If you are talking about Sweden where 77% of rapes are comitted by a certain 2% of the population, then yes.

            1. midcapwarrior

              Re: ...

              Rapes are committed relatively infrequently in most Western countries.

              So I would not be surprised that a statistically small % commit a statistically large % of those crimes.

              It's an outlier in an outlier.

          2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
            Boffin

            @Doctor Syntax ... Re: ...

            You raise a valid point.

            I'm sure Sweden is rethinking just that policy. Had they had it in place... there's this guy Julian who would never had been allowed in their country and there were two women who would have been safe.

            But you didn't want to hear that, so lets clear the issue. The POTUS as any world leader has an obligation to keep their country safe. I suggest you see what Trump's immigration and illegal immigration issues are and why they exist. Then you can rethink your position. There isn't an easy answer and your silly example doesn't help.

        3. Shaha Alam

          Re: ...

          "Some caution on folks arriving from there would seem reasonable."

          if you're going to be making your argument on the basis of risk/safety, please note that on the whole, the risk profile of allowing people in from those countries using existing processes is less than american citizens face from other citizens going on shooting rampages. that's even if you include the unstable nature of those countries in you risk calculations.

          this argument exists in the absence of common sense and independently verifiable data.

        4. John 104

          Re: ...

          @Redstone

          The flip side of this argument is that the Obama administration identified these countries as places from which it is impossible to get any kind of verification information for visa applicants. There is also a lot of terrorist related activity in each of these countries. Some caution on folks arriving from there would seem reasonable.

          Reason is in short supply when it comes to anything that the left sees as not on their agenda. If it doesn't line up, its hate speak, no matter if it makes perfect sense.

        5. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: ...

          "Some caution on folks arriving from there would seem reasonable." Such as, for example, background checks, personal interviews, fingerprinting and DNA scans? I'm not certain about the DNA checks, but all of the other checks are already done (which is why it takes so long for the few refugees we do accept to be approved for immigration), and there isn't a lot more that can usefully be done. This may be why there haven't been any terrorist acts by immigrant nationals from the affected countries; the existing system ALREADY WORKS.

          Anon because, well, you figure it out.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: ...

        "I think it's more for the principle than anything else..."

        Principles? From these companies - surely you jest!!

      5. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

        Re: ...

        They are more worried about H-1B reform which would force them to stop running an indentured servant shop by abusing the H-1B visas.

    2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Not relevant

      Ok, so Trump has imposed a 90-day ban on travellers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

      Not relevant. Why - read Martin Niemöller.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019