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

201–210 of 221 posts

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#201

Post by Consultant32452 »

rgbrenner wrote: post #165
Consultant32452 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

The US sent the CIA into Syria in 2006 (Bush then continued by Obama) to train and fund opposition forces which resulted in the Arab Spring breaking out in 2011. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0418/...

The Syrian civil war is at least in part THE RESULT of US involvement.

I'm not saying the green card holders are acting politically. I'm saying the thousands of people protesting are expressing partisan bullshit selective outrage.

Obama bombed Syria so much we literally ran out of bombs. I'm going to repeat that again for effect. The United States of Bomb-merica bombed Syria so much we ran out of bombs. We're making cluster bombs and selling them to be dropped on these places, weapons which the use of is a war crime in most of the world. For years there's not been an peep out of these people. Now suddenly some people can't travel where they wanted to and it's like the next rise of Hitler. Gimme a break, there's half a million dead on Obama's hands and nobody gave a shit.

The EO was a pretty shit idea. I don't support it and I don't support Trump. If the Judicial is able to clear it up, then that's great. The group(s) I was referring to with the political posturing are the media with frankly disgusting coverage intended to inflame an already delicate situation, and the protesters who are largely their pawns.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#202

Post by Daishiman »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #103
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 have a (related) counterpoint. The real problem is that there just aren't that many good US-educated engineers. This boils down to the US's weird college system, where either parents have to save up for their children's tuitions, or the people have to be lucky to get a scholarship. The US is not a land of equal opportunity when it comes to education, which is costing a lot of potential talent to be lost. There's so…

This is something that a lot of Americans don't understand. I've met a lot of graduates from Berkeley and Stanford, and they're smart guys certainly, but I can't really say that their coding skills are absolutely outstanding; there's certainly dozens of universities around the world that have similar or superior levels of talent for the kind of skills these companies are looking for.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#203

Post by fennecfoxen »

xoa wrote: post #143
fennecfoxen wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The terminal is pretty. But it was 10 years behind schedule. It costs $3.75 BILLION dollars to build, making it the world's most expensive transportation hub. And it runs about 46,000 passengers a day. (Compare and note that Grand Central does five and a half times that many). It was not worth it. Even the director of the Port Authority (the one in 2015, not the one when it was approved) declined to hold an opening c…

Not that I disagree with you at all about cost overruns and schedule delays being an issue, or poor incentive structures all around being an even bigger issue, but going by your numbers: > The terminal is pretty. But it was 10 years behind schedule. It costs $3.75 BILLION dollars to build, making it the world's most expensive transportation hub. And it runs about 46,000 passengers a day. (Compare and note that Grand…

> the entire $3.75 billion only works out to ~$220 a passenger for a single year.

It works out so that $220 extra per commuter per day would pay off the station in a year. If you wanted to pay it off like a mortgage at 2.5% interest over 30 years, that'd be a a rate of about $322/mo.

For comparison, a 30-day unlimited pass for the entire PATH system currently runs $89.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#204

Post by aerovistae »

hajile wrote: post #156
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…

US immigration law gives the president explicit right to do exactly what he did (and that has been upheld by the supreme court in the past). See section f https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

If you read the many arguments made in the amicus curiae brief[1] that was at the top of HN here 12 hours ago, you would learn quite clearly that there is substantial precedent for requiring the executive branch to use its powers on a rational and discreet basis.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/06/17-...

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#205

Post by User23 »

scottmf wrote: post #139
tzmudzin wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So should we forget the Holocaust and WWII because of Godwin? Please note I've been very careful to put things into perspective here...

>If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician -Mike Godwin

The only time I've seen this is in well thought out articles demonstrating that Trump is absolutely nothing like Hitler. Here is a good example: https://regiehammblog.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/this-hitler-n...

Anyone reading this who feels a powerful urge to jump in and demonstrate their confirmation bias in a reply is invited to stop, take a deep breath, and think about it first.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#206

Post by ConfuciusSay02 »

hvo wrote: post #180
skrowl wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Are you suggesting when Obama added Iraq to the list he was lying about what information they share?

North Korea is not on the list because literally nobody is travelling from North Korea to the United States.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#207

Post by Consultant32452 »

rgbrenner wrote: post #158
Consultant32452 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last president asked us if it would be okay to bomb Syria. We said no. Then he did it anyways. He bombed them so much that we literally ran out of bombs. This guy screws up some travel plans and suddenly it's a problem. Bombing these people for 8 years, totes cool. Temporarily not letting them come here!?!?! Monster!!!! I mean, I don't support Trump, nor do I agree with this dumb temporary travel ban, but all thi…

> We said no. Then he did it anyways. ... Bombing these people for 8 years, totes cool. That's some quite revisionist history there... The Syrian conflict isnt even that old. It started in 2011. In 2013, US starting supplying arms to syrian rebels. This was our first intervention in the conflict. In Sept 2014, Obama gave his syria speech and Congress authorized action in Syria. Bombing started shortly after w/ other…

No, what you believe is the revisionist history. We learned from the wikileaks cables that the US (CIA) has been in Syria funding and training the opposition since as early as 2006.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0418/...

That means that the civil war and the refugee crisis are at least in part the direct results of actions of the United States.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#208

Post by Consultant32452 »

moultano wrote: post #150
Consultant32452 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last president asked us if it would be okay to bomb Syria. We said no. Then he did it anyways. He bombed them so much that we literally ran out of bombs. This guy screws up some travel plans and suddenly it's a problem. Bombing these people for 8 years, totes cool. Temporarily not letting them come here!?!?! Monster!!!! I mean, I don't support Trump, nor do I agree with this dumb temporary travel ban, but all thi…

>but all this noise about it is clearly disingenuous. He's destroying the lives of my friends. There are 100,000 such people affected according to the DOJ in court, and they all have friends as well. Geopolitics is complicated, and the right action isn't so obvious that I'm going to be in the streets whenever someone drops a bomb. I don't and can't understand things with enough certainty to be outraged. This situatio…

>He's destroying the lives of my friends.

You know that Syrian refugee crisis that's going on where nearly 500,000 have already died and countless more are permanently injured? How many lives do you think that has ruined? Did you also know that the wikileaks cables revealed that the Obama's CIA was in Syria and stoked the fires to start that civil war?

>Moreover, a president who bombs other countries is not going to suddenly bomb me. This president already tried to deport my friends, and almost all of my friends are immigrants.

You know what? That's really shitty. I didn't vote for Trump, don't support this retarded EO, and will be glad when he's gone. But it's absolutely disgusting that you can consider this shit incident to be anything close to the magnitude of the lives the government has destroyed over the last 16 years. This is trivial by comparison.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#209

Post by Arizhel »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #118
hueving wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

That's an obviously nonsense idea. Must every public stance taken by a company be unanimously agreed by every employee? Clearly that's not feasible. Is your opinion then that no company should take public policy stances?

>Is your opinion then that no company should take public policy stances?

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Otherwise, by giving these companies a voice, you're giving more weight to the statements by company executives than to anyone else. The employees are all assumed to be in agreement, which is a false assumption. Corporate CEOs shouldn't have any more voice in any political discussion than anyone else, including a janitor.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#210

Post by legostormtroopr »

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…

> H1B employees are not getting inferior benefits

Yes they are. Even the relatively anti-Trump Huffington Post thinks so - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13579226

Post reply on HN