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 …

  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.

    3. 2StrokeRider

      Doesn't matter who they employ, they are anti-trump and against anything he does, even though it makes great sense to have a temporary ban on countries that export terrorists.

      He could say he opposes serial killers working in child care and the left would protest and big tech would file lawsuits. Whatever he does matters not, it's just that he is doing it, so they must oppose.

      Hopefully California will finally secede from the Union and do what they want. California is revenue neutral with the U.S. Gov by a study that cites it's sources. Delaware, Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio, Kansas, New York, Colorado, Utah, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Massachusets are revenue positive (they get more from US Gove than they pay in). The study was one on wallet.hub

      1. Haku

        "He could say he opposes serial killers working in child care and the left would protest"

        *cough*bullshit*cough*

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        2StrokeRider:

        "... it makes great sense to have a temporary ban on countries that export terrorists."

        So that should logically include Saudi Arabia, Belgium, Canada, the U.K. and the U.S. itself. Just ban people from travelling full stop, just in case.

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "it makes great sense to have a temporary ban on countries that export terrorists.

        He could say he opposes serial killers working in child care and the left would protest and big tech would file lawsuits."

        OK, let's try to compare those two statements rationally. Let's look at the second. Being a serial killer would be something you know about the person. Can you give any credible argument why "the left" and "big tech" would object to such a person working in child care? Really? Of course you can't.

        Now let's go back and look at the first statement. Most countries that "export"* terrorists (to use your hyperbolic description) are actually populated by people who are not terrorists. So you really don't know anything much about any particular person coming from there.** This is a very different case to limiting the activities of someone of whom you know a great deal on the basis of knowledge.

        It's sad that we have to give basic lessons on thinking to el Reg readers.

        * Let's not forget that the US "exported" terrorism to N Ireland by failing to stop individuals and organisations financing it.

        ** Except, for instance, that they're just a tourist trying to transit through a US airport on their way home from holiday.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "It's sad that we have to give basic lessons on thinking to el Reg readers." -- Doctor Syntax

          It's even sadder that those who need those lessons won't learn them.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "even though it makes great sense to have a temporary ban on countries that export terrorists."

        Speaking as someone from "rest of the world", the thing that seems wrong is for the order to apply to permanent residents (who I assume have been checked already..?) and actual refugees - on average someone applying for a refugee visa goes through 8-9 years of checks, undertaken by the UN and US government. If you can't weed out the undesirables with that amount of checking ...

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "He could say he opposes serial killers working in child care and the left would protest and big tech would file lawsuits. "

        On the other hand Trump is removing the restrictions on mentally ill people being able to buy guns. Would you say that the many mass shootings at schools in the USA are by totally sane people?

      6. Remy Redert

        He could say he opposes serial killers working in child care and the left would protest and big tech would file lawsuits.

        And he would try to stop this by banning a group of people that had no serial killers in recent history, in a way that violates anti-discrimination laws. He would then defend the ban by claiming that there's lots of serial killers in that group.

        And then he'd be surprised when people go to the streets in protest and file lawsuits against him and his order, just like you apparently are.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Uber probably loads, need taxi drivers who work for peanuts from somewhere no?

    5. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
      Boffin

      @ACs

      Not sure why you're posting AC...

      So here's the skinny.

      Its not about the 90 day ban from 7 countries that are currently exporting terrorism

      Iran - state sponsor of terrorism

      Libya - over 2000 fake passports and papers are estimated to have been created.

      Syria - ISIS controls city where they had access to all sort of documents and can make fake docs at will.

      The rest all have ISIS camps within their borders.

      Obama cut these same 7 countries from the Visa Waiver Program.

      90 days for BCP to get their act together? Sounds reasonable.

      But main stream media, and others are fighting it. Why? Because Trump did it. Had Obama done it. Nobody would have said boo. In fact he shut down immigration from Iraq for 6 months after two refugees in KY were tied to terrorism. No major announcements in the press.

      Its not about the order, but about something else. People protesting Trump.

      Then there's the Silicone Valley nutters. Why are they jumping in ... (Oh and lets not forget the bald nutter in Seattle. ) They want the H1B numbers raised. Trump wants to lower them and force them to pay more for an H1B. That's why they are protesting Trump.

      Also they want to score points with those protesting Trump.

      1. midcapwarrior

        Re: @ACs

        Philippines, ongoing Muslim insurgency.

        Pakistan, ongoing Muslim insurgency.

        India, ongoing ...

        Indonesia....

        Saudi Arabia, home of the 9/11 bombers.

        Not on the list and are on the list of places he's doing business.

        I'm sure that it was an oversight/coincidence.

  3. Adrian 4 Silver badge

    I'd be a lot more pleased to hear this if they actually cared about the politics and social issues, rather than a cheap source of workers.

  4. FuzzyWuzzys Silver badge
    Facepalm

    BREXIT...

    ..and from Britiain's point of view we've said ta-ta to the nice people next door and decided to be mates with the hamster-headed loony tune down the road who stands in his fenced garden shouting about invisible people who're out to get him!

    1. Redstone

      Re: BREXIT...

      Hey - leave Jeremy Corbyn alone.

    2. fruitoftheloon
      Stop

      @FuzzyWuzzys: Re: BREXIT...

      FW,

      speak for yourself matey....

      1. strum Silver badge

        Re: @FuzzyWuzzys: BREXIT...

        Speaks for me, too.

    3. stu 4

      Re: BREXIT...

      I think it's most of his cabinet that believe in the invisible people - the supernatural faeries that made the world 6000 years ago and hid dinosaur bones to 'test our faith'... and my favourite (from Ben 'The fuckwit' Carson), that Joseph made the pyramids to store grain (possibly made a big cloakroom for his coats too?)...

      astounding as it is that these guys now hold some of the most powerful positions on earth, what I find most astounding is that they managed to evade natural selection and grow to adult size...

  5. Neil 44
    Devil

    Trump companies?

    I wonder how many citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria or Yemen are employed by the various Trump companies - hotels, casinos etc - in America or in other countries?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Trump companies?

      Are you implying that DT created the list by reference to the employment records of his various companies?

      Since that is provably untrue, could you explain your point, troll?

      1. Big John Silver badge

        Re: Trump companies?

        There's no point, it's a troll.

  6. Baldy50

    Interesting read, Taaa!

    Never heard of him.

    But from my perspective working years ago for a machinery/removal company and if you remember the 'knicker' outrage from M&S and the loss of sales it caused them, I know to this day people that sowed those knickers at 55 pence an item and cost £9.99 a pair at least at the checkout, when those greedy gits at M&S wanted them produced for a measly 5 pence less and the company producing said no and all of it went out of the UK, I personally shipped two weaving plants from my area alone.

    So depressing to work alongside a former employee of the plant at the village of Manlleu Spain, now doing security as we packed it all up to ship to another country, all those jobs lost and the company was Platt Saco Lowell if any want to fact check, was a major employer of local people with families to support, nuff said!

  7. WonkoTheSane
    Facepalm

    It's only a matter of time...

    I'm waiting for the judge The Donald insulted on Tw*tter to find him in "Contempt of Court", and thus start the impeachment train...

    1. Big John Silver badge

      Re: It's only a matter of time...

      Yes, let the judge try to strike down the Presidency. Let the Democrats try to start up that impeachment train. The Left has this delusion that they are the majority, and even their near-complete banishment from positions of power have not shaken that belief. So let them try.

      We've had it with the trust fund kids and the welfare crowd dictating how we are to behave. We have voted your leaders out of office and we're gong to ignore your shrieking, no matter how loud and irritating you become.

      But if you continue to employ violence as a political weapon, you will be dealt with as the terrorists you are.

  8. Bogle

    The beginning of the end for President Snowflake

    Couldn't have come soon enough.

  9. BigLJ

    Fake News

    Trump wants to protect American jobs. The big tech companies want to cut costs - they fire Americans and hire poor people from other countries on close to minimum wage. They also steal the cleverest and hardest working people from poor countries - highly unethical. So report both sides of the story please?

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Fake News

      Have you checked the salary levels of Google? Certainly high enough to make most native Californians envious.

    3. Hollerithevo Silver badge

      Re: Fake News

      I think Trump is trying to square a circle: to support Big Business but also to bring jobs back to the USA. Big Business wants cheap labour easily from wherever it needs to get it. Americans want work that pays a living wage. So what will happen? Big Business will be be forced to pay more in wages? Americans will be forced to take salaries measured by the peanut? Or will Big Business simply change their HQs to, say, Singapore?

    4. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken Silver badge

      Re: Fake News

      Nope. Just, you know, capitalism.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What has really got the firms concerned

    is that the ban seems arbitrary. It's "look I am doing something" window dressing only. It's not really the countries involved, only the lack of facts supporting it as an idea and a lack of thought to it's implementation.

    I don't believe for a second hundreds of (extra) "bad dudes" could suddenly get into the USA even with a few weeks notice of a ban.

    On top of this, the failure to identify the scope of the ban, brief departments on its enforcement and any possible appeals process makes it near unworkable and certainly unpredictable.

    Business have to work to rules, they reasonably want to know what the rules are so that they can plan their business.

    What if tomorrow he decides he doesn't like Christian terrorists (look at Northern Ireland) or ETA from Spain, or groups from south America. Things could get really tricky and would require a more precise definition of "bad dude".

    The anger shown that there is a system that stops him from being a dictator is also disturbing. USA is supposed to be a democracy in spite of all its faults. Is he going to prevent the next election if he thinks he may not stay another term just because he doesn't like the constitution?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What has really got the firms concerned

      What has really got the firms concerned is that the ban seems arbitrary

      Nonsense. What has really got these companies concerned is that Trump is touching their God given right to extort people that work at wages that a US citizen would not be able to live on unless they hocked together 4 to a room.

      Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should be paid a decent wage irrespective of where they come from, but because immigrants are not really in a position to complain without being replaced by a more compliant victim they basically end up in the modern equivalent of slavery, at the detriment of decent wages for everyone.

      Now, I personally don't see myself as a bleeding heart liberal, but abuse is abuse. It's an abuse of economic position to draw these people in to turn them into both victims and hate figures, and it's an abuse of the immigration process to throw locals out of a job (and the demand to train their replacement whilst facing unemployment or lose payment should frankly rank under emotional torture).

      In other words, don't believe for a second that the fight is about anything to do with humanity - in the best of US traditions it is all about hard cash.

      I'm not clever enough to come up with immediate suggestions, but it's quite a complex mess that you can't just fix by banning or allowing immigrants. Both sides have rights. What I can say is that only sensible debate can offer a route towards a solution, and the way this "president" acts is not exactly conducive to that. Frankly, if I look at especially Bannon's history it appears war is his explicit aim, and they're well underway.

  11. Tikimon Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    And the system works, as intended. Stop panicking already.

    Goodness, from the panicked raving about Trump you would think he's the Emperor of the World with unlimited power. He's personally going to do do all these terrible things and kill us all!

    No, he's not and we just proved it. As flawed as our government is, this is the Checks And Balances provisions doing their job. The President cannot pass legislation directly, Congress has to do that. This is why he's using Executive Orders (as have all the recent ones) in an attempt to bypass the process. Having done so, the Judicial Branch exercises its power to say "this is bogus, and will not be enforced." If he keeps trying to use EO's to make himself a dictator, the Judicial and Legislative branches will make it routine to block him.

    Trump is finding out that his word isn't automatically law. So to all the Chicken Littles screaming that the sky is falling, please settle down. He's not a godlike figure with legions of dewy-eyed Congressmen slavishly waiting to do his bidding, and he can't do much alone.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: And the system works, as intended. Stop panicking already.

      Actually, POTUS has the explicit right and obligation to act as DT has done.

      No government lawyer has faced a judge yet, so the injunctions have heard only one side of the argument (that is what emergency injunctions are for). When a judge comes face to face with US Code that explicitly allows POTUS to do what DT's EO has done, I expect this will be overturned. Lots of other people expect so as well.

    2. John 104

      Re: And the system works, as intended. Stop panicking already.

      @TIKIMON

      Sort of...

      Yes, checks and balances are in place to prevent crazy crap from happening. In this case, however, the president is within his power, as enacted by law, to do what he did. The judges who put a ban in place know this. They aren't stupid. They are playing a political game for points. Ultimately this will end up in the supreme court, be overturned, and we'll move on. By the time it is heard and goes through the lower courts, the 120 days will be over and it will be a moot point. They will have won a political victory by snubbing the POTUS, the law be damned.

      As for the tech companies doing what they did, of course they did. They are in a panic because they know legislature modifying the H1B visa program is on the way. It means they won't have cheap labor on deck any more. Realize that these employees are bound to their employer. So, you WILL work 80 hours a week for the base pay you were hired on. Don't like it? Here is the door. Next. It's a shame for both the foreign workers and for domestic ones. I've seen it first hand and it is ugly.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "[...] and he can't do much alone."

    Can he declare war without anyone else's approval? IIRC he can do that - then get the Congress and Senate to approve it later. If he says "gimme the codes" - who will stop him - the Praetorian Guard? Even the 25th Amendment takes time to execute.

    1. John 104

      @ AC RE War

      Nope. He can't. Only congress has that power. The president can initiate other actions that closely resemble it, but aren't. Strangely, he CAN order the launch of ICBMs. Weird.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Which is why we haven't had a war since Korea, we have had a whole bunch of not-wars almost conitnually

  13. Howard Hanek
    Linux

    Right

    ....and their knowledge of explosives will be very helpful......or something.

  14. EnviableOne Bronze badge

    The 7 countries listed, may be of raised risk, but why just the 7, Egypt, Saudi and UAE have had proven links to actual terror attacks, turkey have an active war against a terrorist organisation. Morocco and Algeria have ISIS / al-Qaeda affiliates active in their countries.

    The list of countries that should have been on the order but weren't lines up with where Trump enterprises either have or are trying to get projects off the ground (specifically a conflict of interest.)

    H-1B visa holders are some of the best paid people in the US, and these are the majority of high tech employees within Silicon Valley. Like trump, they want good people, The best People, wherever they come from.

    All Americans are originally immigrants from somewhere, and some of Americas biggest success stories are second Generation immigrants (Steve Jobs)

  15. HurdImpropriety

    Hi Tech hypocrites !

    Got to love the big Hi Tech companies.... crying because they wont be able to go offshore for cheap labor, then try to disguise their pseudo-outrage in the wrapper of "diversity". What a bunch of phony money grubbing pandering idiots.

    Hey Facebook/Zuckerburg, why don't you NOT try to steal 700 acres of land around your Hawaii'n compound from the natives, you hypocrite!

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