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

171–180 of 221 posts

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#171

Post by skrowl »

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?

This argument is FUD.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc weren't "banned" because they share a great deal of information with us about people seeking entry into our country. The 7 "banned" countries do not. It's that simple.

It's about information exchange. We can't get enough info from the 7 "banned" countries to make informed pass/fail decisions about their travelers.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#172

Post by rayiner »

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…

> The constitutional claim doesn't hold water (foreign nationals have no right to travel in the US and the countries were selected for terrorist connections).

The Constitutional claims are very strong, at least as applied to certain groups of people affected by the EO: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13531117.

You are conflating the right to enter the U.S. with due process rights relating to denial of U.S. entry. Only citizens have a right to enter the U.S. (i.e. they cannot be denied entry, period). But the Supreme Court has squarely held that permanent residents, at least, have a right to due process before being denied re-entry. That doesn't mean the government can't deny them re-entry, but it does mean that the government cannot do what it did here: deny them re-entry without individualized process (usually, a hearing).

The EO is going down. The only question is what parts of it will survive.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#173

Post by dontyouremember »

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…

Trump explicitly called for a Muslim ban during the campaign. Rudy Guiliani is on camera saying that this EO was drafted as a legal way to implement a Muslim ban.

I am not a lawyer, but is seems like it should be illegal to deny refugees or immigrants based on religion.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#174

Post by soundwave106 »

hajile wrote: post #161
kevinmchugh wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The wrongful arrest argument seems to be a straw man argument against the original concern (though I'll add that wrongful police shootings in particular are a subject of much concern, and have sparked major protest movements in America, actually.)

From my perspective, I am guessing that a lot of the original poster's issue comes from the more or less the haphazard, shoot from the hip way this executive order was implemented (temporarily blocking even green card holders for instance)... combined with Trump's past primary campaign rhetoric, which did call for a complete ban of all Muslims from the US at one point. It's less about what was in the order and more about how it was executed, in other words.

I am curious what makes you feel confident in your statement "Trump isn't going to be banning countries on a whim". That sounds a little too strongly certainty to me given the above.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#175

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

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.

>the exact same temporary bans No. The Obama era bans were not at all the same. Citation please. I would counter-cite, but that's hard to do when you don't mention which Obama action you are claiming as exactly the same.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#176

Post by hajile »

rayiner wrote: post #172
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…

> The constitutional claim doesn't hold water (foreign nationals have no right to travel in the US and the countries were selected for terrorist connections). The Constitutional claims are very strong, at least as applied to certain groups of people affected by the EO: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13531117 . You are conflating the right to enter the U.S. with due process rights relating to denial of U.S. entr…

There's a big difference between denied re-entry and delayed re-entry.

Delaying a re-entry application 3 months is hardly what passes for "unreasonable" in government circles. The fact that cases can still be reviewed and approved faster if necessary makes this even more reasonable legally.

> (e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#177

Post by arjunnarayan »

jklein11 wrote: post #134
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way is to estimate the net present value of America's GDP by multiplying it by 20 or so, which implies that it's roughly 1% of American wealth. Alternatively, percentage of rents at office and industrial zoned land would be a good measure. That'd separate out national vs international activity, at the cost of being significantly more difficult to estimate and calculate. I actually don't know how well rents an…

Out of curiosity, why ~20?

It's just a rule of thumb as to what long run P/E ratios look like in the equity markets.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#178

Post by d4rti »

hueving wrote: post #56
leereeves wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump issued an executive order (EO) temporarily suspending entry to the US for nationals of 7 countries listed by the DHS as "Countries of Concern", and temporarily suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. The State of Washington sued to block the EO. The lower court judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the EO and Trump appealed. Now these 97 tech companies are sharing their opinion with the ap…

>Now these 97 tech companies are sharing their opinion To clarify, this is the leadership of those 97 companies. There is no indication whether or not that this is how the majority of their employees feel. This is the same virtue signaling that resulted in Trump being elected in the first place. An employee of one of these companies wouldn't dare now to express their agreement with Trump's policy because it's against…

> The phrase “virtue signalling” came up a lot, which is the sequel insult to “champagne socialist”; again, it doesn’t have very much meaning, beyond “person X holds views less compromised and more ambitious than mine, ergo, person X is a narcissist who uses other people’s misery as grist to their own self-fashioning.” It was invented by the mild-mannered rightwing polemicist James Bartholomew.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/10/labour...

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#179

Post by rayiner »

hajile wrote: post #176
rayiner wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The constitutional claim doesn't hold water (foreign nationals have no right to travel in the US and the countries were selected for terrorist connections). The Constitutional claims are very strong, at least as applied to certain groups of people affected by the EO: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13531117 . You are conflating the right to enter the U.S. with due process rights relating to denial of U.S. entr…

There's a big difference between denied re-entry and delayed re-entry. Delaying a re-entry application 3 months is hardly what passes for "unreasonable" in government circles. The fact that cases can still be reviewed and approved faster if necessary makes this even more reasonable legally. > (e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and…

Permanent residents do not "apply" for reentry. They just need to show their green card and ID upon arriving in the U.S. Likewise, the EO did not merely delay visa applications. It denied entry, without any process, to people whose applications had already been approved and who had already received visas.

If the EO had merely delayed applications for three months pending additional procedures, courts across the country wouldn't be granting TROs to stop enforcement of it.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#180

Post by hvo »

skrowl wrote: post #171
dmschulman wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This argument is FUD. Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc weren't "banned" because they share a great deal of information with us about people seeking entry into our country. The 7 "banned" countries do not. It's that simple. It's about information exchange. We can't get enough info from the 7 "banned" countries to make informed pass/fail decisions about their travelers.

Iraq, where US contributed to the establishment of the present regime and where some remaining American soldiers are still there, does not share information with you? Seriously.

If sharing information with you as you said here is the most important yardstick,rather than subtle religion test,why is North Korea is not on the list?

Post reply on HN