Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

cloud.app.box.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 221 posts

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#91

Post by downandout »

deanCommie wrote: post #85
downandout wrote: post #73

While I disagree with the travel ban, let's remember that the primary objection that the tech industry has to it is that it will disrupt the flow of cheap talent that it uses to boost its multi-billion dollar profits at the expense of US-educated engineers that would demand higher salaries and benefits. This group of companies may not garner much sympathy.

I don't know where you get your information, but at the kind of top-tier tech companies that are being discussed here, H1B employees are not getting inferior benefits. And as someone that does a lot of hiring I can guarantee you that the interviewing costs, relocation costs, and language barrier trade-offs do not make up for any salary differences that may or may not occur. We're not talking about some low-tech banks…

>Furthermore, your whole implication that the companies care about this from primarily a financial point of view is deeply cynical.

Having dealt with senior executives at more than one of the companies on the list, I can tell you that my cynicism is justified. With regard to the rest of your comment, many of these companies do an end run by hiring consulting firms that abuse the H-1B system as a business model, some abuse it directly, and some actually use the system as intended. But to imply that virtually no abuse is occurring is absurd.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#92

Post by fennecfoxen »

jahnu wrote: post #80
chx wrote: post #47

> If this approach were upheld, future orders might apply to any nation, and suddenly and unexpectedly bar its nationals from entering or returning to the United States. Aye, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I have a plane ticket from Canada to Europe in August, transiting in the USA and I have already contemplated changing my routing because who knows whether I will be admitted? Yes, the chances are heavily…

I really really wish the U.S. would implement some sort of transit facilities and regulations for airports. Needing a visa just to pass through without ever needing to leave a secure section of an airport is ridiculous and anachronistic.

- At many smaller US airports, this is more convenient overall. There is no overhead from running a special "international" section, detached from the rest of the terminal facilities like restaurants and lounges and toilets, and US-border-style security for people going back and forth between the two: you just have everyone go through immigration straight after getting off the plane and you're done with it. Unlike Europe, there are relatively few surrounding nations, so more international travellers end up arriving in the US instead of connecting. Canada-to-Mexico and Europe-to-South-America traffic is small in comparison to non-Schengen-zone traffic heading through, say, CDG.

- This would still make sense to have at many hub airports (NYC and Atlanta come to mind) - but as the Wall Street Journal points out in this lovely article, "American airports are typically run by politicians in conjunction with the dominant airlines, which help finance the terminals in return for long-term leases on gates and facilities. The airlines use their control to keep out competitors; the politicians use their share of the revenue to reward unionized airport workers. No one puts the passenger first." -- https://www.wsj.com/articles/third-world-u-s-airports-that-i...

- In the case of New York especially, you'll note that the Port Authority runs ALL the airports: JFK, LGA, Newark. Yep, these are the same people who run the world's most favorite bus terminal ever. And (as the same article above notes), "Federal law generally requires that airport revenues be spent on aviation, but that statute, passed in 1982, contains a grandfather provision excluding the Port Authority." So your landing fees are subsidizing the fancy over-budget new World Trade Center PATH terminal, among other nonsense, instead of keeping your airports from falling apart, let alone making improvements for international passengers.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#93

Post by mschuster91 »

coldtea wrote: post #48
mschuster91 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe Elon Musk is playing (once again) the ultra-long game. He is betting that the court system as well as Congress will limit Donald Trump and his cronies from doing something that is grounds for impeachment - and so Donald Trump will be in office for the entire term. Given this, it makes sense to be in a position that has at least a tiny bit of influence on Trump. Amazon has a similar position: they need large…

> He is betting that the court system as well as Congress will limit Donald Trump and his cronies from doing something that is grounds for impeachment - and so Donald Trump will be in office for the entire term. If somebody doesn't believe Trump will be in office for the entire term, they are deluded.

I certainly hope that Trump won't serve his full term, but I believe he will.

The problem is that it would take a really epic scandal to get Trump formally impeached - you need a 2/3 majority, and even the stuff Trump has done already was not enough to organize an impeachment.

The other obvious solution might be that someone kills or maims Trump, but no one wants that. No matter how evil Trump is, murder is NOT a solution. Actually, it might even cause civil war if Trump or one of his cronies is assassinated, and the consequences are unimaginable.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#95

Post by toyg »

belorn wrote: post #45

> The Order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United States for more than fifty years Can I derive from this that the 97 tech companies accepts the classified Terrorist Watch List (2mil people), Selectee list, and no fly list? The statement would hold more credibility if the companies acknowledged and denounced the pr…

Those lists were implemented with a bit more runway than 5 minutes. The outrage is not just at what the ban does, but how it's been introduced: suddenly, capriciously, with no preparation or discussion with involved parties, and resulting in all sorts of collateral damage that could have been easily avoided.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#96

Post by aub3bhat »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #92
jahnu wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really really wish the U.S. would implement some sort of transit facilities and regulations for airports. Needing a visa just to pass through without ever needing to leave a secure section of an airport is ridiculous and anachronistic.

- At many smaller US airports, this is more convenient overall. There is no overhead from running a special "international" section, detached from the rest of the terminal facilities like restaurants and lounges and toilets, and US-border-style security for people going back and forth between the two: you just have everyone go through immigration straight after getting off the plane and you're done with it. Unlike Eu…

The WTC PATH Terminal is brilliant infact unlike the boring Penn Station/ Port Authority Bus Terminal, its a piece of architecture fitting to the reputation of the city for next century. You can't complain about Port Authority and then deride the new PATH station in same argument.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#97

Post by return0 »

Ensorceled wrote: post #70
return0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that argument won't fly well: "Bunch of rich guys want to go against the will of the people"

Didn't Trump actually lose the popular vote? The USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic.

still, those 97 companies do not represent a majority

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#98

Post by _delirium »

richardwhiuk wrote: post #53
belorn wrote: post #45

> The Order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United States for more than fifty years Can I derive from this that the 97 tech companies accepts the classified Terrorist Watch List (2mil people), Selectee list, and no fly list? The statement would hold more credibility if the companies acknowledged and denounced the pr…

The outrage expressed by the public is the large driving factor here - the tech companies are saying 'our potential workforce is outraged so we need to oppose this / be seen opposing this'

I'm not sure it's only the outrage, also that this impacts their business more than past decisions. Rather than "fairness" (which I agree they don't really credibly care about) I think the key for the companies is the "predictability" part, in that imposing a travel ban for people who already had valid visas and work permits is unwelcome from a corporate-planning perspective. Especially because the initial version applied to even green-card holders, which includes large numbers of people in the tech industry, such as Iranian-Americans. Though the administration seems to have backed down from enforcing the no-entry order in the case of green-card holders.

If green-card holders had been exempted from the start, it's possible opposition wouldn't have been galvanized in the same way, because including them brought in opposition from all kinds of people who don't usually see themselves as being impacted by the immigration debate (essentially: affluent, well-integrated immigrant communities with legal residency). The cynical take on it is that Trump screwed up by not confining his hawkish immigration enforcement to the powerless & poor types of immigrants that immigration hawks usually stick to harassing.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#99

Post by aerovistae »

Contrary to my jubilation at this progress, a cynical friend of mine does not take any reassurance from the power checks the judicial branch has brought against the administration. He believes the administration will just find subtler and less obviously illegal ways to slowly move things in the direction they want. I hope this is not so. It is true that you only seem to see this kind of massive reaction to huge, broad-stroke actions like the travel ban. The quieter legislation passes by unnoticed and (by comparison) unprotested.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#100

Post by coldtea »

mschuster91 wrote: post #93
coldtea wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He is betting that the court system as well as Congress will limit Donald Trump and his cronies from doing something that is grounds for impeachment - and so Donald Trump will be in office for the entire term. If somebody doesn't believe Trump will be in office for the entire term, they are deluded.

I certainly hope that Trump won't serve his full term, but I believe he will. The problem is that it would take a really epic scandal to get Trump formally impeached - you need a 2/3 majority, and even the stuff Trump has done already was not enough to organize an impeachment. The other obvious solution might be that someone kills or maims Trump, but no one wants that. No matter how evil Trump is, murder is NOT a sol…

>No matter how evil Trump is

Evil is a theological assessment.

Do people really believe Trump (or other politicians) are some kind of evil incarnate, constantly thinking about how to do harm?

It's just people with different values and different approaches on the world. Of course not all approaches are equally valid, and some can be said to be evil or harmful etc, but nothing Trump ever did can warrant the person is particularly bad -- or that different from most politicians and businessmen for that matter.

Post reply on HN