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

161–170 of 221 posts

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#161

Post by hajile »

kevinmchugh wrote: post #155
hajile wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire "unreasonableness" is based on the idea that this was Trump randomly banning countries. Obama's administration (not Trump's) compiled the list of countries. It wasn't racial or "because they're Muslim" (most Muslims aren't banned). What was the common thread between the countries? 6 out of the 7 countries have been on and off the US "State Sponsors of Terror" list for the past 40 years. Somalia (the one th…

This doesn't appear to be at all responsive to the concern expressed in the comment you're responding to.

> > 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?

It is a direct response to "the crux of the matter". Trump isn't going to be banning countries on a whim.

I read in the news that the police detained up a murder suspect. Now I'm afraid that the police are coming for me even though I haven't hurt anyone. Logical?

Country A is temporarily banned for sponsoring or harboring terrorists. Person in Country B is afraid of being banned too even though their country doesn't support terrorism. Logical?

People are wrongly arrested every day. Few if any countries have been banned unjustly. If we cry out against a temporary ban, why not cry out even more about the wrongful arrests that take place much more frequently?

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#162

Post by thrillgore »

hmate9 wrote: post #132
jondubois wrote: post #18

I don't know what Americans are protesting about. I don't agree with the bans at all but at least you have a president who is true to his words for once - For me that is a higher moral value. You have to take the good with the bad. I don't agree with Trump on a lot of things but I can respect a politician who does what he says he'll do. It's a refreshing break from the typical Washington charlatans who don't do anyth…

I am not sure why you are downvoted, regardless of whether you agree with the travel ban or not, his supporters, the people who voted for him wanted this.

The more they keep protecting, the more we're trapped within.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#163

Post by ams6110 »

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…

Is there any precedent for overturning a legal order based on what "future orders" might be?

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#164

Post by dmschulman »

hajile wrote: post #154
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…

The entire "unreasonableness" is based on the idea that this was Trump randomly banning countries. Obama's administration (not Trump's) compiled the list of countries. It wasn't racial or "because they're Muslim" (most Muslims aren't banned). What was the common thread between the countries? 6 out of the 7 countries have been on and off the US "State Sponsors of Terror" list for the past 40 years. Somalia (the one th…

If this law was really about fighting state-sponsored terrorism why aren't saudi arabia, uae, and egypt, all countries who have carried out terrorist attacks on the united states, on the travel ban list?

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#165

Post by rgbrenner »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #146
kazimuth wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, bombing Syria does seem farther away, in the geographical (and therefore emotional) sense. Plus, the United States is sickeningly nationalistic, and still carries a hint of pride about its immigrant origins. "This child wanted to come into the U.S., but the cruel President Trump won't let him!" packs more punch than "President Obama issued a drone strike against one side of a multifaceted conflict in a small…

At least you recognize that this is political posturing and virtue signaling and not an actual principled stand in favor of people from other countries. I'm one step more cynical than that. I think this is the butt-hurt media riling people up because their darling lost the election. Oh, and of course ratings. When the news broke via wikileaks that the CIA, under Obama, started the Syrian civil war which as led to hal…

The syrian civil war started 2.5 years before US involvement.

And just so I understand you correctly.. you're saying the green card holders and other visa holders who had their lives disrupted by this order, the judges who ruled that the order is likely illegal, the 97 tech companies in this article whos lawyers think this is illegal, Sally Yates, ACLU, Cato institute, state AGs in CA, WA, CT, HI, IL, IA, ME, MD, NM, NY, OR, PA, VT, VA, and DC...

are all acting entirely politically.

You're even accusing the judicial branch, including judge(s?) appointed by republicans, of ruling against this order because the dems lost an election?

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#166

Post by JMCQ87 »

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…

Might be because Boeing only is seen as a tech company in the DC area, if at all. ;)

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#167

Post by [deleted] »

Fej wrote: post #126
simonh wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a US citizen so I'm just commenting as an observer. I'm a lot less worried about legislation overall because it does get scrutinized by the wider elected legislature. At the end of the day if the US as a nation decides to restrict immigration more then that's your prerogative as a nation. The American people voted in Trump and the current largely Republican legislature fair and square and they do have a right…

Was the election fair? I would say so. That being said, Donald Trump received almost three million fewer votes than his main competitor, Hillary Clinton. To say we "voted him in" is only strictly technically correct.

[deleted]

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#168

Post by willstrafach »

TenOhms wrote: post #159
willstrafach wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are all common arguments brought up to argue against those who oppose the EO, but not a single point made seems to be related to the comment you have replied to. Could you clarify what you are trying to say?

Possibly since the OP expressed concern that their travel plans could be interrupted without notice, but that doesn't appear to be a warranted concern since the exact same temporary bans were put in place by previous presidents including President Obama and are therefore nothing new.

I hear this often, but I have not been able to find anything recent which would cause the same level of problems and uncertainty as this EO did.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#169

Post by hajile »

dmschulman wrote: post #164
hajile wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire "unreasonableness" is based on the idea that this was Trump randomly banning countries. Obama's administration (not Trump's) compiled the list of countries. It wasn't racial or "because they're Muslim" (most Muslims aren't banned). What was the common thread between the countries? 6 out of the 7 countries have been on and off the US "State Sponsors of Terror" list for the past 40 years. Somalia (the one th…

If this law was really about fighting state-sponsored terrorism why aren't saudi arabia, uae, and egypt, all countries who have carried out terrorist attacks on the united states, on the travel ban list?

Saudi Arabia and UAE exert a lot of economic power with their oil reserves and control OPEC (together they make about half of Opec's oil and Opec controls about 40% of the world's oil supply). Stop their terrorists by banning everyone or risk an even bigger economic attack. Not a great choice.

As to Egypt, from what I've read, the current Egyptian government is trying to play ball with the US. No need to upend things.

Obama's people knew what they were doing (and probably knew a lot more than you or I). I'd love to know why Lebanon isn't on the list though.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#170

Post by roywiggins »

TenOhms wrote: post #159
willstrafach wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are all common arguments brought up to argue against those who oppose the EO, but not a single point made seems to be related to the comment you have replied to. Could you clarify what you are trying to say?

Possibly since the OP expressed concern that their travel plans could be interrupted without notice, but that doesn't appear to be a warranted concern since the exact same temporary bans were put in place by previous presidents including President Obama and are therefore nothing new.

When did Obama institute travel bans on already-issued valid visas?
Post reply on HN