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

191–200 of 221 posts

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#191

Post by dragonwriter »

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

> US immigration law gives the president explicit right to do exactly what he did

Clearly the federal courts (six different district courts, if I've counted correctly) don't believe that the case is as open and shut as you do, or they wouldn't have aisued restraining orders against the EO, one of the explicit considerationa for which is likelihood of prevailing on the merits.

That one section of law appears to be a broad grant of power does not mean that that grant is not constrained by other provisions of law.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#192

Post by dragonwriter »

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 were put in place by previous presidents including President Obama

Except, and here's the key thing, that never happened.

In response to a specific, concrete threat Obama instituted a much more limited delay on certain applications from Iraq in 2011 which had no effect on most visa categories or any already issued visas or LPRs.

And in 2015, the 7 countries subject or the 90 day ban in the Trump order were removed (4 by legislation, 3 by executive action) from the Visa Waiver Program, but no ban or delay of new visas, and no ban of entry by LPRs or persons with valid existing visa, was instituted.

People defending the Trump policy as nothing new continue to try to blend the 2011 action, the 2015 action, and a healthy dose of pure fantasy to argue that Obama did exactly what Trump did in this EO, but that is completely false and utterly dishonest.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#193

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#195

Post by flexie »

dragonwriter wrote: post #190
alex- wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like Cisco did not sign either. 9 of the largest 15 IT companies in the world are US owned[1] Looks like 5 of them did not sign up (HP, Amazon, IBM, Dell and Cisco) and 4 did (Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet and Intel) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_informatio...

Amazon, as one of the plaintiffs in the case (the State of Washington is the first named plaintiff; the "et al." on the case title means there are others, which include Amazon and Expedia), can't file (alone or with others) an amicus brief, which is a brief by interested non-parties. But it's misleading to count them as a company that choose not to sign on to the amicus brief.

You are right that they have made separate declarations of support, but are they plaintiffs? I think 'et al' refers to the sole other plaintiff, the state of Minnesota: http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/1lori020217.pdf

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#196

Post by conistonwater »

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…

> I think the bans are ineffective at stopping terrorists and are just Trump following through on his populist promises.

I think you are totally missing the main opposition to the ban: not only is it ineffective, it also harms innocent people. So saying "he's following through on promises" should not be nearly enough to justify it. After all, one is entitled to expect the president to do a good job, not merely a legal job.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#197

Post by richardwhiuk »

Chris2048 wrote: post #115
richardwhiuk wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'

"potential workforce", or "public"? Because polls suggest many Americans support the ban.

The arguments presented in the brief suggest they care more about the impact on their ability to recruit than negative general PR for not supporting the ban.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#198

Post by dragonwriter »

flexie wrote: post #195
dragonwriter wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon, as one of the plaintiffs in the case (the State of Washington is the first named plaintiff; the "et al." on the case title means there are others, which include Amazon and Expedia), can't file (alone or with others) an amicus brief, which is a brief by interested non-parties. But it's misleading to count them as a company that choose not to sign on to the amicus brief.

You are right that they have made separate declarations of support, but are they plaintiffs? I think 'et al' refers to the sole other plaintiff, the state of Minnesota: http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/1lori020217.pdf

You may be correct; I've seen a number of articles specifically claiming Amazon and Expedia joined the lawsuit (which has a clear and well accepted meaning), but on review there are also a lot claiming that the relation and there involvement is somewhat different, and I can't immediately find any definitive documentation of their joining as plaintiffs (they clearly weren't initial plaintiffs). Their involvement by any of the reports may still be of a kind to make it inappropriate for them to be amici, and they clearly support Washington (and Minnesota) substantively in the case, at any rate.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#199

Post by flexie »

dragonwriter wrote: post #198
flexie wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right that they have made separate declarations of support, but are they plaintiffs? I think 'et al' refers to the sole other plaintiff, the state of Minnesota: http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/1lori020217.pdf

You may be correct; I've seen a number of articles specifically claiming Amazon and Expedia joined the lawsuit (which has a clear and well accepted meaning), but on review there are also a lot claiming that the relation and there involvement is somewhat different, and I can't immediately find any definitive documentation of their joining as plaintiffs (they clearly weren't initial plaintiffs). Their involvement by an…

Yes, they do.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#200

Post by pvg »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #141
Jabbles wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which "actual law appears to be very clear"?

I think Section 1182f: “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 ap…

It's not the only law and in addition, there is case law. Reading that one section is a very incomplete and likely inaccurate way to reason about the EO.

http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/trump-exceeds-his-plenary-...

Post reply on HN