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

211–220 of 221 posts

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#211

Post by legostormtroopr »

pavanky wrote: post #89
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.

One of these is me: http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=Twitter+Inc&job=Senior+Soft... I am closer to the higher of the salaries listed. This does not include other kinds of compensation I'll be getting. Let me know if you think I am being underpaid.

> A: Some people get underpaid.

> B: I'm not being underpaid, therefore you are wrong.

Thats not refuting his claim.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#212

Post by moultano »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #208
moultano wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Unsurprisingly, I care more about my own friends and family than a situation I understand little about. On a global scale, everything is trivial. I'm not going to stop trying to improve the circumstances immediately around me because things are worse somewhere else.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#213

Post by pavanky »

legostormtroopr wrote: post #211
pavanky wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of these is me: http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=Twitter+Inc&job=Senior+Soft... I am closer to the higher of the salaries listed. This does not include other kinds of compensation I'll be getting. Let me know if you think I am being underpaid.

> A: Some people get underpaid. > B: I'm not being underpaid, therefore you are wrong. Thats not refuting his claim.

He did not say some. So I assumed he was talking about everyone.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#214

Post by tdb7893 »

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.

My understanding is that it is different in at least these ways: 1. Was focused on a specific threat 2. Didn't apply retroactively, to all green card holders 3. Didn't fully stop the programs, just slowed them down as processes changed

I'm not super familiar with Obama's original order but any one of these three differences I think is enough to say that his order was substantially different.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#215

Post by rgbrenner »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #201
rgbrenner wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was ready to give you an upvote for the link, but your link doesnt support the claim ("US sent the CIA into Syria in 2006") you're making.

In fact, if you read the actual document from Wikileaks, the funding seems to consist of funds for informational campaigns, conferences, etc -- all talk. A lot of it entirely outside of Syria. And the amount is fairly small as well - $6m over 4 years. No military/cia operations, nothing about rebels, etc are found in the document.

To get back to the topic though.. I would suggest that if the issue is legitimate, then the protest is also legitimate.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#216

Post by rgbrenner »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #207
rgbrenner wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

here's the document from wikileaks: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/wikileaks...

Your link, nor the actual wikileaks document supports the claim that US sent the CIA into Syria in 2006.

It talks about funding to Freedom House, American University and others for information, conferences, etc.

I think you would have a good point if it were true about CIA involvement.. but I believe people have a right to speech. And that's all that this appears to be.

I'm not ready to agree that the US is the source of the Syrian civil war just because we encouraged speech without the approval of a dictator.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#217

Post by UncleMeat »

legostormtroopr wrote: post #210
deanCommie wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

At these corporations. What H1Bs are getting abused at Google or Microsoft?

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#218

Post by jakelazaroff »

ConfuciusSay02 wrote: post #206
hvo wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, GP is suggesting that "sharing information about people seeking to enter our country" is not the reason any of these countries were in- or excluded from this list.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#219

Post by coldtea »

celticninja wrote: post #145
jondubois wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said he will impose a tax on Mexican imports and use the proceeds to pay for the wall - That sounds on track.

You understand that the tax will be passed on to US consumers via higher prices right?

You understand that this is no rule of nature, right?

It's not like Mexico is the only source of some goods. Or that they can't make concessions (and assume the extra hit on their own margins) if their sales drop. Or tens of other factors and outcomes.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#220

Post by coldtea »

threeseed wrote: post #184
coldtea wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Trump is not evil. But he is morally bankrupt. When you brag about sexually assaulting women whilst your wife is pregnant or the callous, baseless attacks on minorities and the weak you really are the lowest of the low.

>When you brag about sexually assaulting women whilst your wife is pregnant

He didn't say about "sexually assaulting" women as if he's some rapist. Just that if some are rich/famous they'll be open to them, and let them "grab them by the, etc". Which, in many cases, it's true (and it's their choice if they prefer the rich guy with the yaughts, not an assault).

In any case, nothing more or less, than half of the US talks about between male friends (female friends can say even worse stuff).

Is that a big deal? Or just puritanism? Millions of Americans have for example cheated on their wives, when they were pregnant. And likewise for women in relationships.

It's nice to pretend it's all some happy-go-lucky PC world, where there's nothing but respect in families etc, but it's nothing like that.

That doesn't mean all those people are "morally bankrupt", just that they are human.

Post reply on HN