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

51–60 of 221 posts

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#51

Post by coldtea »

Buge wrote: post #34
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…

Being true to your word doesn't mean you have to immediately send out an order with no planning, preparation, or consultation.

It does if you want to give a loud example of a new policy, to be able to scale it down afterwards, and thus has both your extremist supporters happy (because at least you did what you could) and the activists against you happy (because you "caved in" and took somethings back).

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#52

Post by richardwhiuk »

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 Boeing Iran deal is exempted under the Iran nuclear deal (the JCPA). I expect Boeing also doesn't want to raise the administrations hackles regarding various defence contracts.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#53

Post by richardwhiuk »

belorn wrote: post #45

> The Order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United States for more than fifty years Can I derive from this that the 97 tech companies accepts the classified Terrorist Watch List (2mil people), Selectee list, and no fly list? The statement would hold more credibility if the companies acknowledged and denounced the pr…

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'

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#54

Post by chx »

richardwhiuk wrote: post #52
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 Boeing Iran deal is exempted under the Iran nuclear deal (the JCPA). I expect Boeing also doesn't want to raise the administrations hackles regarding various defence contracts.

Hrm, I am apparently wrong, http://presstv.com/Detail/2017/02/02/508809/Iran-says-Trump-... it seems by now they don't want to cancel.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#55

Post by powertower »

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…

This is just virtue signaling against Trump by those that don't know they are being played.

None of these people and companies (and media outlets) said anything when Obama was doing much worse, such as blowing up entire countries.

Yet Trump puts into effect a temporary travel correction from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, half of which are an open death sentence destination for Americans right now, and here we see the establishment latching on to a story, removing the facts, playing with the numbers, etc, all to accomplish its anti-Trump goals.

This is dirty politics being dressed up as morals and values.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#56

Post by hueving »

leereeves wrote: post #49
tzaman wrote: post #41

Someone care to (briefly) elaborate what this is about for us not up to speed?

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 company's official stance.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#57

Post by throw2016 »

It's interesting that while we all accept it's ok for businesses, corporates and others to form groups to protect their interests any attempts by individuals to group together is instantly labeled as 'un-american' and socialism.

It's odd anytime individuals try to organize hysterical scares about communism are raised in the media and by businesses and it's dismissed as 'anti-american' socialism with ultra aggressive reactions even in places like HN.

Individuals are effectively disempowered in society, without groups there is no way to articulate or protect your interests especially when others are organizing and lobbying aggresively to protect their interests.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#58

Post by celticninja »

mschuster91 wrote: post #8
throwaway287391 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes sense as Elon is a Trump advisor. Also interestingly missing: Amazon.

I believe Elon Musk is playing (once again) the ultra-long game. He is betting that the court system as well as Congress will limit Donald Trump and his cronies from doing something that is grounds for impeachment - and so Donald Trump will be in office for the entire term. Given this, it makes sense to be in a position that has at least a tiny bit of influence on Trump. Amazon has a similar position: they need large…

Isn't Jeff Bezos involved in a spat with trump already, over the Washington Post reporting?

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#59

Post by celticninja »

sremani wrote: post #40
justinv wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon was one of the first to file their brief - in the original lawsuit. Bezos has no problem rocking the boat & actually wrote one of the stronger worded condemnations in the industry.

Bezos has been trolling trump using what used to be a respectable publication called Washington Post for about 14 months now ?

Trolling?

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#60

Post by peteretep »

chx wrote: post #54
richardwhiuk wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Boeing Iran deal is exempted under the Iran nuclear deal (the JCPA). I expect Boeing also doesn't want to raise the administrations hackles regarding various defence contracts.

Hrm, I am apparently wrong, http://presstv.com/Detail/2017/02/02/508809/Iran-says-Trump-... it seems by now they don't want to cancel.

Bombardier, Embraer, and Airbus must be salivating
Post reply on HN