Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Seeks Trump Order Exemption for Workers With Visas (bloomberg.com)

Microsoft is asking U.S. officials to grant exceptions for law-abiding, visa-holding workers and students from President Donald Trump's immigration order, channeling the outrage expressed by many in the technology industry with a proposed solution. From a report: Such individuals are low-risk -- having already undergone a rigorous vetting process -- and face immediate hardship as a result of last week's order, Microsoft President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith said in a letter Thursday to the secretaries of State and Homeland Security. Smith said he believes the two officials are empowered to take the necessary steps to allow certain people entry into the country. The exemptions sought would cover workers with visas sponsored by U.S.-based companies and students with ones obtained via a U.S.-based school.

244 of 437 comments (clear)

  1. It's not about risk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is about Micro$oft short changing American citizens on jobs by importing and hiring cheaper labor from other countries. Simple as that.

    1. Re:It's not about risk... by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 2

      They should be subject to the 150,000$ a year if they want to keep them... after all there are only 2 arguments that could be made..

      1) They wanted cheap labor and hired a foreign worker instead of an american because they could pay them less.

      2) They found a highly skilled foreigner that has a unmatched skill set they could find in america.

      Both problems are solved with paying that worker 150,000$ a year... They wont keep around someone at that pay rate that isn't worth it. and if they are that good... they should be able to stay.

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    2. Re:It's not about risk... by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Or they only have offices in areas where American workers don't want to relocate to, whereas imported labor will agree to work anywhere in the country.

    3. Re:It's not about risk... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Informative

      If we pull Men's and Boys's Cotton Shorts and Trousers manufacture to American factories from China, a few things will happen depending on a few factors.

      If we pay the factory workers more than $18/hr, we'll lose American jobs. There will be fewer American jobs in total. This is because the ability of Americans to buy MBCST decreases thanks to the price increasing. As the wage increases, the price increases; and as the price increases, fewer factory jobs are created and more infrastructure jobs (shipping, retail, etc.) are lost.

      If we pay the factory workers less than $18/hr, we'll gain total American jobs for the same reason.

      The more we pay the American factory workers, the greater the increase in total hours Americans must work to pay for MBCST. That is to say: Americans become poorer. The median wage today is $27/hr, and the average cost of a pair of MBCST is 0.55 labor hours at $27/hr. If we pay the factory workers $21/hr, then the average cost to the median American income is 1.87 hours; and if we pay them $8.25/hr (minimum wage), the average cost is 0.93 hours.

      This works inversely for the factory workers themselves: the less we pay them, the poorer they are. That should be obvious; the only thing worth indicating here is that raising factory worker pay takes the same American monetary spending power (amount of dollars spendable) and concentrates it into fewer hands (number of workers receiving that money). At current, a $21/hr worker pays 0.71 hours for a pair of MBCST; if they were made by $21/hr factory workers, the factory workers would pay 2.4 hours per pair. Likewise, an $8.25/hr worker pays 1.81 hours today for a pair of MBCST; if we pay the factory workers $8.25/hr, then they will pay 3.03 hours per pair.

      Of final note: it costs under $1,300 to import a 40-foot shipping container from China, which carries 20,000 pairs of trousers. That's 6.5 cents per pair. The average cost of the trousers at import is $6.12; the average retail price is $14.97. Cashiers perform 998 scans per hour on average--at minimum wage, 0.83 cents per item. Nearly half the ultimate cost of trousers is shipping; and in general the businesses make around a 10% overall profit margin (gross margins are higher than real profit margins because they exclude the cost of running the business itself), so about 90% of the price is generally the actual cost. That means we're not going to save a damned thing on shipping over the water.

    4. Re:It's not about risk... by pushing-robot · · Score: 2

      Result 1: American company hires more American workers, pays them good wages, everybody lives happily ever after.
      Result 2: American company hires more American workers, pays them good wages, costs go up, company can't compete with Chinese competitor, shuts down, eliminates many more jobs than H-1Bs.
      Result 3: American company open foreign campus, shuts down American campus, eliminates many more jobs than H-1Bs.

      Things like H-1Bs and outsourcing and illegal immigration are all just symptoms of wealth imbalance in the world. They're like relief valves that equalize pressure between hot and cold economies. Closing them without addressing the underlying issues may not have pleasant results.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    5. Re:It's not about risk... by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Knowing how much companies like Microsoft, Apple and Google etc pay H1Bs, I would bet reasonably heavily that all of these people already earn over $150k.

      Microsoft, Apple and Google (and all the other big tech companies) are not the ones you care about re problem 1 - that's infosys and tata. They're dealing with problem 2, and already applying your solution.

      What Microsoft is saying is "uhhh, we have guys that do awesome work who are from Iran/Syria/Somalia/..., we need them to carry on doing that awesome work".

    6. Re:It's not about risk... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      This is about Micro$oft short changing American citizens on jobs by importing and hiring cheaper labor from other countries. Simple as that.

      Loathe as I am to feed an AC troll, I suspect that MS get their foreign-born workforce from more locations than just the seven countries banned by Trump.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    7. Re:It's not about risk... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Or they only have offices in areas where American workers don't want to relocate to, whereas imported labor will agree to work anywhere in the country.

      Given the field we're talking about here, and the ability for tech workers within that field to work remotely (as in wherever they want to call home), that whole office locale excuse is a rather weak one.

      Hell, it's 2017. Companies don't have much of an excuse to not support remote work regardless of the field.

    8. Re:It's not about risk... by OhPlz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know a lot of people that don't want to telecommute. There's value on having your team nearby and having the ability to work together in person.

    9. Re:It's not about risk... by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the CEO and other Executives of MBCST could figure out how to live on $16 Million per year instead of $20 Million per year to give the employees an extra $5-10 an hour without having to raise the product cost or sacrifice the ever precious Profit Margin. Hell, maybe sacrifice some of that profit margin if it's really wide and they won't have to take as much of a pay cut if at all.

      Seriously... what the hell is so wrong with cutting some of the huge numbers at the top by 10 to 20% to increase the meager numbers at the bottom? Executives would rather pile drive their companies into the ground than take let one red cent fall out of their pockets. Some of these guys make more money during a sneeze than I make in a quarter, and they can't abide their workers getting more than 5.15/hr (Georgia minimum wage provided a position falls outside of the federal FLSA).

    10. Re:It's not about risk... by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ....if you're a sociopathic diva who likes to get a lot of attention.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    11. Re:It's not about risk... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      You don't factor in the fact that the boys cotton shorts made in the US will likely last a lot longer and most of the cost of having local workers will be recovered. Chinese factories use the thinnest cheapest fabrics they can. I've seen a big change in the quality of clothing in my life time. So we will buy something for more but it will last longer. Besides, who says we need to put as much labor into clothes. Maybe simpler easier to make clothes such as rugby pants become more fashionable, rather than blue jeans with all the stitches and rivets. There are a whole hell of a lot more factors to consider than you are taking into account.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    12. Re:It's not about risk... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Come back when you stop sucking at math.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:It's not about risk... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I don't know about microsoft but our company used infosys and paid they billed at $60 per hour onshore and $30 per hour off shore while U.S. resources making under $100,000 billed at $90 per hour.

      Infosys overpromised and under delivered. Anyone could see converting to all 6 SAP disciplines at the same time was impossible but the company fired two people who pointed that out and everyone shut up. 5 years later, the conversion was cancelled and is being rolled back. Over 1.5 billion dollars lost.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    14. Re:It's not about risk... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      The CEO's are not getting that money.

      The goal of a corporation is to raise the share price. No else. IT MUST GO UP every quarter FOREVER or the CEO is fired. Sure as CHina grows they buy more but you need to keep cutting costs in commodities like IT and workers to make Wall Street happy

    15. Re:It's not about risk... by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Chinese factories use the thinnest cheapest fabrics they can.

      Chinese factories use exactly what they're told to. Manufacturing in China, and using literally cheap ass fabric, are both ways that the cost is reduced. Unrelated ways. China would happily use better fabric, they don't care, they just charge the US company appropriately. There's no reason to think the US company would pay for better fabric just because i stuff is made here.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re:It's not about risk... by zlives · · Score: 1

      then explain why they need visas anyway? they could be working from any part of the world...

    17. Re:It's not about risk... by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting automation. Automation currently is not as cheap for some things as the non-sustainable dirt-cheap labor in countries like China, but we would automate production of many, many things as soon is it was cost effective. MBCST production could be quite an automated process. Then we'd have big factories in the US, the roofs of which would be covered in solar panels generating the power to operate the equipment, churning out products that no normal human would want to spend mind-numbing, totally unfulfilling hours doing.

      Isn't that what we want as a society? What percentage of our population was involved in food production (as in farming / agricultural) a mere 100 years ago compared to today? That portion of the population now has a better education and (hopefully) better jobs doing more fulfilling and rewarding work, than the brute force manual labor that is now done by machine.

      Why would we want Americans doing the kinds of jobs done in China right now, regardless of how much money they make ($18 an hour or whatever)? Imagine if most of the money going to China in trade deficit was instead invested back into this country, for more education, better healthcare, higher wages in the existing jobs... We have the technology to make the world a much better place, but due to the low-cost (and essentially slave-labor) production in some foreign countries, we don't bother investing in it. How in the world is that a good thing? Let's pay the price now and absolve ourselves of our reliance on a propped up world economy based on large masses of repressed people earning next to nothing to perform mundane tasks.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    18. Re:It's not about risk... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It's a race to the bottom. Maybe with more money in the nation and in the hands of consumers it begins to sustain itself.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    19. Re:It's not about risk... by Sparowl · · Score: 1

      CEO pay/compensation is generally in a millions, and the double digit millions are apparently reachable.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06...

      That talks about CEO pay, and it's from 2013. Even then, the median CEO pay for the top 200 companies in the country was $15 mil.

      Probably much more today, seeing as how the growth rate was through the roof.

    20. Re:It's not about risk... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Of course they raised the share price and made shareholders and banks rich. THe banks give them a tiny piece of the cut back in the form of a bonus for giving them extra money each quarter

    21. Re:It's not about risk... by gravewax · · Score: 1

      MS don't tend to hire cheap labour, if they are bringing them in on H1B's then they will have very specific expertise and are probably already on $150k+ a year anyway. there are plenty of specialist areas that would be near impossible to source from the US, especially around localisation and legal for the respective countries, MS are a global company.

    22. Re:It's not about risk... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the CEO and other Executives of MBCST could figure out how to live on $16 Million per year instead of $20 Million per year to give the employees an extra $5-10 an hour without having to raise the product cost or sacrifice the ever precious Profit Margin.

      So CEOs and other executives get a number of compensations.

      Firstly, they get your basic Cash compensations, which are salary and bonuses; these are taken from company revenue, just like all salary. Executives pay full income tax on these.

      Executives also get stock and stock options as compensation. Stock issuance--whether as a compensation or as a result of exercising an option--is considered income at then-current market value. If a CEO gets 100,000 shares of stock issued at $10/share, that's $1M and is taxed as $1M of income; if he gets an option for 100,000 shares, it's not any actual income until it's exercised, at which point it's income at value of stock. To pay these taxes, the executive must use part of his cash compensation or sell some of the stock immediately.

      When a stockholder sells stock, income is based on time. Shares held less than 1 year are direct income: the difference between the purchase (in this case, issuance) price and the sale price is income, taxed as such. Shares held more than 1 year are considered capital gains: the difference in purchase and sale price is taxed at 15%. That means a CEO issued $1M of stock pays $396,000 in taxes; then, 2 years later when he sells it for $1.2M, he pays 15% on $200,000--another $30,000. For the full $1.2M, he pays $426,000 in that scenario (about 35.5%).

      Stock issuance devalues stock in the market. That is: if you hold Apple stock and Apple issues more AAPL to its executives, the sale price of your AAPL holdings reflects a slightly-lower value. The fluctuation is typically minor: shave a tenth of a penny off 250 million shares and you have $25 million. This bulk stock compensation allows the company to essentially pay its executives by raiding the retirement accounts and investment portfolios of everyone in the world.

      Seriously... what the hell is so wrong with cutting some of the huge numbers at the top by 10 to 20% to increase the meager numbers at the bottom?

      So Steve Ells makes $1,526,000 in salary and no bonus as the CEO of Chipotle, circa 2015; he got most of his compensation in stocks ($12M value).

      Chipotle has 45,200 employees. $1,526,000 divided up among them is $33.76/year, or 1.69 cents per hour.

      Ford has 199,000 employees as of 2016. CEO Mark Fields got $5,215,000 cash compensation or 1.31 cents per employee per hour ($26.20/year per employee); Executive Chairman William Clay Ford Jr. got $2,990,000 cash compensation or 0.75 cents per employee per hour ($15.03/year). The other executives each received less in cash compensation. Together, they could pitch all their salaries and bonuses in to raise all Ford employee wages by 4 cents per hour.

      Try it. See how much it matters.

      Or maybe the CEO and other Executives of MBCST could figure out how to live on $16 Million per year instead of $20 Million per year to give the employees an extra $5-10 an hour without having to raise the product cost

      It can't be done. Corporate profit margins are generally under a 10% average, with risk sometimes making this comical (e.g. a large pharmaceutical company will make 49% profits one year and -27% another year, averaging an astounding 14% over 10 years, or sometimes as low as a 7% 10-year average--the extremely-high gross profit margins let them build up cash holdings in the +50%-profit years to survive the -30%-loss years).

      For MBCST, paying the American workers a minimum wage actually costs more than the current sale price of (Chinese-made) trousers in total. If they don't raise prices with the wage, they won't have the money to write paychecks for their minimum-wage workers--that is to say,

    23. Re:It's not about risk... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Actually, the exact type of fabric and even its sourcing can be specified by the client ordering the manufacture. I've seen Chinese factories make some of the highest-quality goods on the planet; I've also seen them make the cheapest crap because somebody wanted "a can-opener" that will fit into the $2 bargain bin.

      most of the cost of having local workers will be recovered

      This is a meaningless statement.

      Besides, who says we need to put as much labor into clothes. Maybe simpler easier to make clothes such as rugby pants become more fashionable, rather than blue jeans with all the stitches and rivets.

      i.e. we'll get poorer and have to buy lower-quality goods instead of the luxuries we've come to enjoy.

    24. Re:It's not about risk... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting automation. Automation currently is not as cheap for some things as the non-sustainable dirt-cheap labor in countries like China, but we would automate production of many, many things as soon is it was cost effective.

      You suggest that automation would still be a higher-wages-paid-in-total process than the current Chinese labor market. This isn't any different.

      Isn't that what we want as a society?

      What we want as a society is a maximization of buying power. "Economy" is about "economizing", which means using the means you have to achieve the greatest amount of ends. It's not about having a median income of $50,000 or $80,000, or a given minimum wage, or whatever else people yammer about today; it's about what your 40-hours of work actually buys. If you get paid $10,000/week working 60 hours and that's barely enough to afford a 600sqft apartment and the cheapest food you can get, you're still poor.

      Technical progress is the continuous march toward a reduction of labor. As you say: we reduce the number of people (really, the number of hours) spent to produce a thing, and those people produce another thing. As a result, we pay less in wages for the thing: $10/hr paid for 10 hours of work is more than $10/hr paid for 5 hours of work. If people are still making $10/hr, it would appear they can buy twice as much stuff if we only employ half as many people to make it.

      That reduction isn't about money; money is what you get by wage. In truth, we won't let a $20 chair become a $10 chair; we'll issue more money as chairs become cheaper. Your wage goes from $10/hr to $20/hr, and that chair stays a $20 chair; at the same time, you cease working 2 hours to buy a chair, and instead work only 1 hour to buy that same chair. (Really, we also add a 2% inflation rate, so your wage goes up more than that--but so does the price of a chair, so it's still spending 1 hour instead of 2; you're not getting rich off inflation.)

      Trade and technical progress are what create those reductions and allow our labor to exchange for more goods.

      Let's pay the price now and absolve ourselves of our reliance on a propped up world economy based on large masses of repressed people earning next to nothing to perform mundane tasks.

      We have a labor advantage over these people: the cost of a Chinese worker is $3.20/hr including social insurances (like our Social Security taxes, unemployment, etc.). That means our minimum-wage workers at $8.25 work 1 hour and can induce the labor of 2.58 hours of a Chinese worker through our purchasing ability.

      What do you think will happen to the Chinese worker's ability to eat if we stop buying things from them?

      Even if we raised the Chinese worker's wage, that just means we can exchange our labor for less of their labor. Increase their wages by 50% and suddenly 1/3 of the portion of their workforce doing anything supporting their export markets become terminally unemployed.

      It all sounds good to absolve ourselves of our position over another, powerless person; the problem is our position over them is that we feed them and force them to labor, and our moral high road is to send them naked into the cold to starve and die.

      The Chinese wage has actually increased over the past 10 years--nearly doubled, in fact--and the technical progress of the rest of the world (and China itself) has allowed China to retain jobs as such. A doubling of wage overnight would destroy their workforce; but a doubling of wage over 10 years, with increases in purchasing power across their export markets, and with increases in technical progress to reduce the labor-hours invested in their production processes? That kind of wage growth, in that frame, occurs alongside factors which drive their costs down, and thus simply prevents an explosion of labor force population. It's sustainable at that level.

      As we continue to purchase from their export

    25. Re:It's not about risk... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      And fuck anyone with families that are separated because someone in that family had the audacity to travel out of the country, right?

    26. Re:It's not about risk... by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Indeed, if we all switched to wearing togas all we'd need is a few yards/meters of fabric and wrap it round us and pin it! Voila!

  2. a little pressure by Pirulo · · Score: 2

    Just expire all their Windows licences. I am sure Microsoft has a way to justify it somewhere in the EULA.

  3. Re:Sure, if they are H-1B.... by rjhubs · · Score: 1

    This is not about H1-B
    "The exemptions sought would cover workers with visas sponsored by U.S.-based companies and students with ones obtained via a U.S.-based school."
    It is right in the summary....

  4. Microsoft engineers low risk ? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

    Look at what they did to the USS Yorktown!

  5. Re:I Live Under A Rock by will_die · · Score: 1
  6. Re:Microsoft doing good things??!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They aren't doing "good things', unless you think slave owners hunting for their runaway slaves is a good thing.

  7. Microsoft wants to modify /etc/hosts.deny by helixcode123 · · Score: 4, Funny

    # Trump/Bannon settings:
    ALL: ALL

    --

    In a band? Use WheresTheGig for free.

  8. Re:Sure, if they are H-1B.... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    You expect a two bedroom 1000sq ft apartment? Where the fook do you live? Here is spacious NYC 550 square feet is a decent sized one bedroom. You expect a foyer? Not here dude.

    Seriously. 1000 square foot places in NYC (in nice areas) are an expensive, close to unaffordable, luxury.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  9. Please don't go groveling to him by H3lldr0p · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's what he wants. It's what he needs to feel important and the more you give into it, the more he's going to keep doing these stupid, stupid things.

    This isn't about getting more Americans employed. It's about punishing people who wouldn't kowtow to him and his corrupt cronies. It's about hurting those he thinks need to be hurt.

    He doesn't understand the world or how it works. He couldn't care less about you or I or how well we are employed. Neither can anyone else in his administration. Don't fool yourself into thinking that is a good thing. It's not. It's only going to hurt us more and more each day it goes on. It's going to hurt the prestige of the nation. It's going to hurt the economic prospects going forward. It's going to affect each and everyone of us in subtle and not so subtle ways. It already has.

    1. Re:Please don't go groveling to him by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's what he wants. It's what he needs to feel important and the more you give into it, the more he's going to keep doing these stupid, stupid things.

      Boy, you really don't like Bill Gates!

      --
      Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    2. Re:Please don't go groveling to him by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      It's going to affect each and everyone of us in subtle and not so subtle ways. It already has.

      This statement is like Astrology: so vague that it applies to everything.

      Would you mind elaborating on your theme that it's going to hurt us? I'm always open to the possibility that I'm missing something (even something painfully obvious), but I like the idea of gutting the entire H1B Visa program.

    3. Re:Please don't go groveling to him by H3lldr0p · · Score: 1

      Because trade isn't solely about making the rich richer.

      It's also about creating ties at the human level. The level where people matter and count. See? Immigration is the best way to safeguard a nation against attack. Who wants to attack their own? Those nations that restrict their immigration don't have that protection, they don't have the reasons to not do stupid things and wage war against their neighbors.

      By having this program, we get some pretty smart people to come here and start families. We get them used to the idea of how nice we have it and either they find a way to stick around or they take those ideas back home with them. If they stick around? That's beautiful. It helps us. Them becoming a citizen or green card holder only makes all that better. And if they return? Where do you think ideas for the student protest at Tiananmen square came from? Or the urge for the Arab spring? It came from having a taste from a work or student visa.

      War sucks. War is bad. We want to avoid war, any war, at just about any cost.

      And so does under-employment. I know because I've been there. So does seeing someone you know doing better because of seeming random chance.

      But war sucks more. Cutting off routes for immigration starts us down that road as a nation. Fewer people will come here. Fewer people will have a reason to avoid thinking poorly of us. Which are just further steps down that road towards war.

      Immigration pays for itself many times over. Not just economically but in very real, very social ways.

    4. Re:Please don't go groveling to him by LostInTaiwan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trump is openly picking individual winners and losers in the business world. By naming specific companies like Boeing and GM, instead of setting more generic industry wide rules, Trump's action is the very definition of crony capitalism. Yes, there are procurement problems in the defense industry, but why attack the F35 program and not the littoral combat ship (LCS) program.

      Perhaps Trump likes to mouth off with only a superficial knowledges of whatever he happens to hear on the cable news, or perhaps people around him are using inside knowledge to capitalize on the subsequent market valuation of those publicly traded companies.

      Slowly but surely, Trump's actions will diminish US's worldwide competitiveness and standing, much like Obama's inactions. However, Obama does not have a history of predatorial financial and gender behavior.

    5. Re:Please don't go groveling to him by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Immigration is the best way to safeguard a nation against attack. Who wants to attack their own? Those nations that restrict their immigration don't have that protection...

      Wow..just...wow.

      When did you come up with this little ditty..and do you actually believe that....?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Please don't go groveling to him by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's also about creating ties at the human level. The level where people matter and count.

      Save your bleeding-heart bullshit and point out that trade makes the poor richer.

    7. Re:Please don't go groveling to him by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 1

      He couldn't care less about you or I or how well we are employed. Neither can anyone else in his administration. Don't fool yourself into thinking that is a good thing. It's not. It's only going to hurt us more and more each day it goes on. It's going to hurt the prestige of the nation. It's going to hurt the economic prospects going forward. It's going to affect each and everyone of us in subtle and not so subtle ways. It already has.

      My employers solution to this issue:

      Fire all of the US staff and massively expand the branch in India. My last day is Feb 7th after 13 years on the job. Thanx Don!

    8. Re:Please don't go groveling to him by bobbied · · Score: 2

      That's what he wants. It's what he needs to feel important and the more you give into it, the more he's going to keep doing these stupid, stupid things.

      Here is a guess, you haven't actually read the order have you?

      The order specifically says that the various departments involved may grant exceptions to the general rule as they see fit. Meaning Trump said "Don't call me, do what you have to do." Which is pretty much the opposite of the micromanager you describe Trump to be. He will likely never know or care that one of his underlings has granted or refused Microsoft their wish.

      So your little fit here about Trump really is more about your perceptions of Trump and your feelings about this order than reality. He may be brash and abrasive, but that doesn't mean he is all the bad things you project onto him...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:Please don't go groveling to him by lgw · · Score: 1

      What you suggest is true, but really only applies to other nations over the long term, and only to those with sane leaders at that. Trade of all sorts helps prevent war.

      But that's not the problem we face today. This threat is "Islamic terrorism", and while terrorist groups are funded by certain nations, those states aren't openly invading us or anything. Islamic terrorists killed around 27,000 people just in 2016 - the sort of casualty numbers you get from a mid-sized war. The war is ongoing, too late to prevent it.

      And even large wars do happen in the face of good trade and so on. Everyone in WWI had good trade relations with one another. In WWII, Hitler didn't care whether he was attacking "his own".

      Banning travel from a nation you're annoyed with is a very traditional diplomatic move, a way of saying "your nation has pissed our nation off" that has no casualties. It's a much more mild step than, say, airstrikes. It may not have been the best move in this case, but it's a perfectly legitimate one.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Please don't go groveling to him by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      so....

      your boss is just doing the needful, eh?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    11. Re:Please don't go groveling to him by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> Immigration is the best way to safeguard a nation against attack.

      Tell that to the Jews who moved to Germany prior to WW2.

    12. Re:Please don't go groveling to him by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Everyone in WWI had good trade relations with one another

      Not everyone. Much of Western Europe belonged to a highly interdependent subsystem of states in which crises arose but were resolved peacefully. By contrast, economic interdependence was much shallower in most of Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe. The Ottoman Empire, Serbia, Austria-Hungary, and several other newly independent Balkan states traded relatively little with each other. Unlike in the interdependent West, crises in this region tended to escalate to war.

      It is no coincidence that World War I was sparked among the non-interdependent states in Eastern Europe. Economic ties played an important role in averting escalation to major warfare in the crises that led up to the Great War, especially in the first and second Balkan wars. These crises, however, produced the need for the more economically integrated countries, most importantly Germany and Russia, to demonstrate an increasing resolve to support their weaker, less interdependent, allies, Austria-Hungary and Serbia. Alliances tightened after Germany and Russia took turns backing down under the pressure of war in previous crises. Tighter alliances increased the leverage of Balkan allies, but only by in effect handing the foreign policies of the interdependent powers over to countries that were less well integrated into the world economy, and thus had fewer reasons not to engage in war.

    13. Re:Please don't go groveling to him by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that Microsoft is also providing legal assistance to the State of Washington in their lawsuit against this EO (as do Amazon and Expedia).

      So this is more of a "here's how we can settle this peacefully, but if you don't want to, we'll see you in court".

  10. Faustian bargain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Jokes on you MS. Making deals with the government to usurp American privacy (OneDrive, Skype, PRISM) and you think you'll get special treatment?

  11. Re:Sure, if they are H-1B.... by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    H1B's are supposed to be sponsored though this aspect is often abused.

  12. Why? by ASCIIxTended · · Score: 2

    I highly doubt that Microsoft has many non-replacable workers from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia in their employ that are actively traveling to their homelands. I also doubt they are going out of their way to hire refugees from these countries. If these people like their jobs then let them become citizens.

    --
    I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'
    1. Re:Why? by skids · · Score: 3, Informative

      Probably the majority of people who work on visas "actively travel to their homelands" to visit family, or because their job involves actually interacting in their homeland. Microsoft also sells internationalized products, so they have a great need for native language speakers pretty much world wide.

    2. Re:Why? by nomadic · · Score: 2

      "If these people like their jobs then let them become citizens." I'm sure a lot of them would like to do so, but are prevented right now.

    3. Re:Why? by m00sh · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt that Microsoft has many non-replacable workers from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia in their employ that are actively traveling to their homelands. I also doubt they are going out of their way to hire refugees from these countries. If these people like their jobs then let them become citizens.

      Everyone's replaceable.

      But, you'd still try and stand by and help your co-workers.

    4. Re:Why? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Why do translators need to travel? If you need to translate something you get the text as a file, translate it & send it back.

      You apparently don't realize this, but it's not uncommon for people to speak directly to each other - in person.

      (except my daughter, who would probably be texting her friends even if they were standing two feet away)

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Have you ever looked at what it takes to become a citizen? It's not like you can just say "I wanna be a citizen", and get it. There are waiting periods before you can even apply - 5 years on a green card (shortened to 3 in some circumstances). And then, of course, obtaining a green card first takes several years also.

      The vast majority of people who come from other countries to work at Microsoft want to become citizens, and eventually do become them - and Microsoft assists them with that process all along the way, providing lawyers and paying fees. But it takes time. Most, if not all, of the people affected by this EO were people undergoing that process.

      And why wouldn't they be actively travelling to their homeland? It's where their parents live, in most cases. Also, depending on the country and the visa, you sometimes have to travel to renew said visa, or renew your passport.

  13. Re:They don't get it. by epiphani · · Score: 5, Informative

    Speaking as someone who has spent thousands of dollars in legal assistance getting the appropriate visa in place allowing me to work in the US (but luckily am not from one of the countries in the executive order)... go fuck yourself. This isn't about American jobs, its about screwing over people you don't like and trying to win political points with morons.

    People have spent years getting those visas. People may have even been living the in US for decades. This is not a moratorium on new visas, this is retroactively screwing people who have followed the process to get into the US legally.

    --
    .
  14. Bad policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    First they came for immigrants but I am not an immigrant. Then they came for Muslims, but I am not a Muslim. Then they came for me... Oh wait - I work in Tech so screw the rest of you, all is well...

    Microsoft do not compromise on bad policy. Do not ask for an exemption. Oppose bad policy or you are just as responsible as Trump for its implementation.

    1. Re:Bad policy by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Haven't actually taken the time to READ the order have you? Come on, it's not that long. Go find it on the White House's website...

      THEY are not coming for anybody, immigrants, Muslims, or you.. All the order does is "pause" entries from specific countries until a vetting system can be put in place that has some hope of figuring out who these people are we are letting in. It does not mention Muslims (or any religion) and will NOT cause the deportation of anybody already legally here (or illegally for that matter). Plus it is time limited to 90-120 days, at which time everything returns to what it is now unless it's renewed.

      What's your beef with this?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  15. Re:Sure, if they are H-1B.... by shaitand · · Score: 2, Informative

    "This is not about H1-B
    "The exemptions sought would cover workers with visas sponsored by U.S.-based companies"

    It is indeed right in the summary... did you not know that H1Bs are visas for workers sponsored by U.S. Based companies?

  16. Re:They don't get it. by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

    Of course he is. That's why his businesses are busy seeking all the foreign worker visas they can get. And that's why the H-2A and H-2B visas his businesses use aren't on the list of visa types he wants to crack down on, either.

    http://www.npr.org/2017/01/12/...
    http://www.vox.com/policy-and-...

  17. Re:They don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's bullshit, though. It doesn't matter if you're an American either, you have to give up your constitutional liberty and abandon all integrity in your interpretation of the rule of law unless you can convince yourself that doing whatever Trump tells you, in the name of God, is the only way to save your eternal soul.

  18. take a hike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hey Microsoft (and the others): How about you hire some of your American workers back?!?

    1. Re:take a hike by Altus · · Score: 1

      Yeah because its so easy to hire qualified tech people these days, particularly in the major tech hubs where the unemployment rate for tech workers is incredibly low.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    2. Re:take a hike by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      depends on quals. for example, virtually anyone with a PhD in a related field could easily work there, and most people with Masters in a close field. And anyone with a decent Bachelors. But MSFT is ageist, so ...

      (yes, I turned down five job offers to work directly for them, I know the lifestyle)

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:take a hike by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      I know several tech workers in the research triangle park area NC who can't get jobs because they are over 50.

  19. Re:They don't get it. by m00sh · · Score: 2

    This just proves that Microsoft just doesn't get it. The whole point of Trump's administration is to make American companies hire American workers. Too bad if outsourced workers are cheaper, AMERICANS NEED JOBS!

    And you wonder why they'd rather hire a "terrorist" over you. Entitlement much?

  20. Re:I Live Under A Rock by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes you could rely on the lying MSM to tell you what they want it to mean. Or you could read the real thing here.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  21. Re:Sure, if they are H-1B.... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here is spacious NYC 550 square feet is a decent sized one bedroom.

    My Silicon Valley studio apartment is only 475 square feet. Could be worse. A relative bought a $1M+ five-bedroom house in Gilroy that had a wet bar larger than my kitchen and a kitchen larger than my apartment. Very obscene. Although the mountain lion watching the BBQ from the other side of a 20-foot-tall wired fence was very cool.

  22. Re:An immigrant CEO by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    How qualified would Eric Trump be if his last name wasn't Trump?

  23. Re:They don't get it. by Major+Blud · · Score: 5, Informative

    The workers MS bring in AREN'T cheaper, they are paid at the same rate as US workers or in most cases higher.

    But you can't hire Americans and ask them to work 80+ hours a week under the threat of deportation.

    --
    If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
  24. Re:They don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well to be fair, what's the point of having a country at all if it doesn't entitle you to anything? Just somewhere to throw away your taxes in the hope that you'll get drafted for a war you don't wanna fight?

  25. One Law For All by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    Or no law at all. Make up your mind or we will make it up for you.

    1. Re:One Law For All by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Obama sure had the "no law" part down... Got slapped in the courts for his immigration EO's, and not just some injunction, he lost the case outright. He was found to have altered immigration law with his EO which a president simply can not do.

      At least Trump's EO's have the backing of law, regardless of that one injunction by the misguided judge in NY...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:One Law For All by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

      Whooosh

  26. Nice try by JustNiz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >> Such individuals are low-risk --

    Nice deflection attempt by Microsoft, but Its not about terrorism, its about taking jerbs from US workers.

    1. Re:Nice try by bfpierce · · Score: 2

      Stop sucking at interviews and you'll get one.

    2. Re:Nice try by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Unlikely. The countries are: Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia. The total sum of US visa workers from those countries is probably very low. Probably most of them are hired *because* they came from those countries. They probably do something specific to that country, like translation, marketing, distribution, or legal, and as such can't readily be replaced by an American worker.

    3. Re:Nice try by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Probably most of them are hired *because* they came from those countries.

      Most of the Iranians I know in Silicon Valley were refugees from the 1978 Iranian Revolution. They speak fluent English and do the jobs that any American can do.

    4. Re:Nice try by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      They should be citizens by now, so the ban shouldn't affect them.

    5. Re:Nice try by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      They should be citizens by now, so the ban shouldn't affect them.

      The original ban applied to green card holders traveling outside of the United States.

      http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/politics/donald-trump-immigration-ban/index.html

    6. Re:Nice try by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Right. I said "citizen" not "green card holder."

    7. Re:Nice try by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Stop sucking at interviews and you'll get one.

      Hard to get one when your skills say you're worth $110k-180k/year and they want to pay someone to do the same job for $31-41k/year who will fuck everything up along the way. Sorry, but nobody except those who are desperate will willingly take a paycut like that.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:Nice try by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Can you point at the line in the executive order in question where it says it's about jobs?

    9. Re:Nice try by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Can you point at the line in the executive order in question where it says it's about terrorism?

    10. Re:Nice try by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Sure. Except it's not a line, it's more like the entire order.

      Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

      Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.

      In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

      Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

      Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

  27. Re:Sure, if they are H-1B.... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Started as plausible, finished as crazy. Loved it.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  28. Re:They don't get it. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Americans need to finish their schools to qualify for these jobs too.

    New factory jobs require a college degree. Something that most Trump voters don't possess.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/education/edlife/factory-workers-college-degree-apprenticeships.html

    Somehow i feel most of the Trump voters would rather get a job in a car factory.

    From the various articles of I've read, the ideal Trump voter is someone who wants a 1980's manufacturing job that doesn't require a high school diploma. Those jobs are not coming back.

  29. Re:They don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Canada is part of North America, so by your definition I am American. Kindly get the fuck out of my way and remove all border stops when I try to go shopping in your giant U.S.A.-ians shopping malls.

  30. Re:They don't get it. by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A friend of a friend on Facebook is Iranian by birth. She has lived 20+ years in Australia and is an Australian citizen. She has also previously lived 5+ years in the UK and is now in the middle of a 5+ year stint in the US. She does not have a green card but is working in the US under a valid US work visa (but I don't know which class). She has had to cancel 5 international business trips in the short term because as per Trump if she leaves the US the immigration lawyers at her work have said as a best guess that she won't be able to re-enter.

    How's that for fucking over your friends.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  31. Re:Microsoft is already great. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

    Err...I believe there was a clarification yesterday ( maybe from the State Dept?) that said green card holders were not part of the temporary halt of immigration from those 7 countries into the US.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  32. comparisons by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    We rented an urban, asian, 4500 sq ft house for ca $1400/month in 2012. The lot it was on was worth about $3 million.

    You just have to know how to shop...

  33. Gotta Think That.... by maz2331 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Applying the order to those already in possession of visas and green cards sure looks like the DHS bureaucracy doing a mini-rebellion by applying the EO to its most extreme levels, rather than using good legal reasoning based on due process. It's clear from the text of the EO that they were to implement it "to the extent allowed by law" which does not permit abuse of discretion. Sometimes people in agencies will cynically implement an order in a way as to inconvenience those it isn't intended to cover to generate outrage.

    1. Re:Gotta Think That.... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Applying the order to those already in possession of visas and green cards sure looks like the DHS bureaucracy doing a mini-rebellion by applying the EO to its most extreme levels, rather than using good legal reasoning based on due process. It's clear from the text of the EO that they were to implement it "to the extent allowed by law" which does not permit abuse of discretion. Sometimes people in agencies will cynically implement an order in a way as to inconvenience those it isn't intended to cover to generate outrage.

      Quite right. It's all the agencies' fault. The buck doesn't stop in the Oval Office at all.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:Gotta Think That.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I've seen mention of laws that forbid this practice entirely, so I'm not sure what "the extent allowed by law" is. In any case, it's Trump's responsibility as President. If he can't deal with that, he shouldn't have run in the first place.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  34. Re:Sure, if they are H-1B.... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Started as plausible, finished as crazy. Loved it.

    What's crazy?

    http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Gilroy_CA/beds-5-5

  35. Re:Import some talent in the old style? by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

    Commenting to undo an erroneous mod...but fuck you.

  36. Re:They don't get it. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

    Well to be fair, what's the point of having a country at all if it doesn't entitle you to anything? Just somewhere to throw away your taxes in the hope that you'll get drafted for a war you don't wanna fight?

    PLEASE post under a real username...so someone can/will mod you up!!!

    I couldn't have put it any better.

    Yes...if you are a US citizen, you *SHOULD* have first preference to a job in your own country.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  37. Re:They don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are you from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan or Yemen?

    I doubt it.

    My U.S. based IT company has 90% foreign born workers. Most are Indian. Some are Asian.

    This E.O. has nothing to do with them. At all.

    And as the token white guy, I wouldn't mind if Trump's proposed H1B reform makes things a little more diverse around here.

  38. Re:They don't get it. by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

    People get screwed in business all the time, don't know why work visas should be completely risk-free

  39. Re:They don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We don't want or need foreign workers here. There is no labor shortage, there never was. You are only here because you value your time less than the typical American and American business knows and exploits this. Your presence here only benefits you and the company. What about the 300 million other natives? Fuck them too?

  40. Re:They don't get it. by JustNiz · · Score: 2

    It's not entitlement because its not a level playing field.
    in real money terms, the living costs for foreign workers, and their families in their own country is WAY cheaper than what US citizens and their families in the US need to just get by.

  41. Re:Throw 'em all out! by aicrules · · Score: 1

    No it wasn't...troll

  42. I don't get it either. by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2, Informative

    Speaking as someone who has spent thousands of dollars in legal assistance getting the appropriate visa in place allowing me to work in the US (but luckily am not from one of the countries in the executive order)... go fuck yourself. This isn't about American jobs, its about screwing over people you don't like and trying to win political points with morons.

    People have spent years getting those visas. People may have even been living the in US for decades. This is not a moratorium on new visas, this is retroactively screwing people who have followed the process to get into the US legally.

    I don't get it either.

    The order does not affect people from other countries, it doesn't affect people from your country, and it specifically doesn't affect *you*.

    It doesn't affect 87% of all Muslims, so it isn't a ban, and it affects the 10% Christian populations of those countries and other religions, so it isn't a religious thing.

    And the DHS has further clarified the executive order by saying that it doesn't affect green-card holders.

    Furthermore, many countries don't allow immigration at all, and many other countries have onerous requirements to immigrate, so the US is not unusual in that regard. Obama banned immigration from Cuba, and Carter banned immigration from Iran with no fanfare.

    The "no fanfare" bit - was that because Obama and Carter were Democrat? Or was there some other difference(*) that no one has noticed?

    Muslims in the US have come out in favor of extreme vetting, some Muslim *countries* have come out in favor of the ban, and the president's approval rating has jumped 5 points.

    Add in the fact that this is a temporary ban, that the order specifically directs the departments to sort it out, and that this was a campaign promise... it looks less like a fascist order and more like a reasonable and prudent order(*).

    I *honestly* don't see why anyone thinks that this is a big deal.

    It rather looks suspiciously like an issue of convenience - something people can protest without actually caring about which side they're on.

    Is it anything else?

    Can someone explain how this is anything to get worked up over?

    (*) And for the record, Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952:

    "Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president 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 non-immigrant's or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

    Obama used this same law at least six times between 2010 and 2014 against people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Crimea without even a whimper from the ACLU, ADL, John McCain, Gender Netural Graham, Chuck You Schumer, Hillary, Mark Zuckerberg, Hollywood elites, or the establishment globalist media.

    1. Re:I don't get it either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I *honestly* don't see why anyone thinks that this is a big deal.

      Let's say that you are entirely selfish - absolutely don't care about anyone other than yourself - and the number one thing you worry about for yourself is get shot by a Muslim refugee - as opposed to get shot by a fellow American - or killed in a car accident - or dying of cancer - or choking on a ham sandwich. Should you be concerned about Trump's ban? My answer is emphatic yes. One of the huge problems with the US immigration system is this notion of rejecting people at the border. By the time someone gets to the border all the vetting should have already happened. The only question should be whether they are actually the person who the visa was issued for. But then what about this "extreme vetting" that Trump keeps promising. How is that supposed to work? Sit down in a room with them and ask them if they're a terrorist? Here's a news flash: if they are, they're not going to tell you. In general, "extreme vetting" is quack medicine, snake oil, Trump lying his ass off with promises that are fundamentally impossible to deliver. The best chance for keeping terrorist out of America is to have already infiltrated their networks. Of course, this doesn't help with the lone wolves. But at least when the ones who are parts of known terrorist networks show up at the embassy asking for a visa you can avoid giving them one - although, if you're actually smart, you give them a visa and them the moment they set foot on American soil you arrest them for all the bad things they did as part of the terrorist network that you infiltrated.

      But let's assume you're not entirely selfish. Let's assume that you look for opportunities to help people where a small act of kindness from your can make a huge difference helping someone out of a horrific situation. And let's assume that, as an American, you place a huge value on individual freedom - both your own and that of others who also yearn to be free. So you see this situation where government bureaucracies are keeping good decent people trapped in horrific situations by dictating where they can live and work and travel. You see a situation where if you were willing to take on a very small amount of risk, then good decent people could have the freedom to remove themselves from the horrific situations in which they are trapped.

      If you were a kind and generous person who believed deeply in individual freedom then you would be deeply opposed to Trumps ban on Muslim refugees.

    2. Re:I don't get it either. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      The question is not about additional vetting and checks. The question is about the ban - it affects people who ALREADY hold visas and/or green cards.

      Nothing terrible would have happened if Trump announced 80 days from now new rules to apply to new visa applicants. Instead we got an unexplained ban designed to throw red meat for Trump's rabid base.

    3. Re:I don't get it either. by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      One of the huge problems with the US immigration system is this notion of rejecting people at the border. By the time someone gets to the border all the vetting should have already happened.

      Unfortunately that is the way of immigration officials the world over and not just the USA. They have the absolute power to allow you to enter or stop you dead in your tracks.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:I don't get it either. by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Informative

      And the DHS has further clarified [redstate.com] the executive order by saying that it doesn't affect green-card holders.

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does. Who gives a crap about whether someone has a green card or not? There's no meaningful difference between a green card holder and an H1-B visa holder in terms of the impact on those people and their families when they suddenly are unable to return to their homes, to their families in the United States, etc. because of this idiotic and ill-conceived ban.

      Obama used this same law at least six times between 2010 and 2014 against people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Crimea without even a whimper from the ACLU, ADL, John McCain, Gender Netural Graham, Chuck You Schumer, Hillary, Mark Zuckerberg, Hollywood elites, or the establishment globalist media.

      By that same logic logic, I have no right to complain when a terrorist takes a car and drives over hundreds of people, because I use a car to drive to work....

      There's a huge difference between not allowing a bunch of homeless refugees to permanently come to the U.S. (as President Obama did) and not allowing technology professionals who already live in the U.S. to leave the country on business trips and be able to get back in (as President Trump did).

      President Obama used the law to limit the rate of refugee entry into the country, and only refugee entry. He did not cancel existing visas. He did not ban people who had a preexisting legal right to enter the U.S. That's the difference. And it's an important difference that has a real-world impact on real people's lives.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:I don't get it either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey everybody reading, just here to point out that this is a good example of "Soft racism" - Just in case siting breitbart and redstate aren't big enough red flags enough for you.

      Responding to criticisms of racism by downplaying the target of said racism with notions that "It affects everybody and just just them" is a hallmark of the tactic. What follows is a dispute of numbers, then a denial of other facts. It's a modified version of "Soft hollocaust denial" who's hallmark opening starts with with similar tactics by removing jews as the target.

    6. Re:I don't get it either. by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama banned immigration from Cuba, and Carter banned immigration from Iran with no fanfare.

      The "no fanfare" bit - was that because Obama and Carter were Democrat? Or was there some other difference(*) that no one has noticed?

      First, there were some objections to the Obama action, but admittedly nothing like Trump. But the comparison is disingenuous, because what Obama did was end the "wet-foot dry-foot policy" that allowed Cubans who reached the US to get entry WITHOUT A VISA to request asylum. Trump, on the other hand, has banned people WITH VISAS, some of whom went through vetting processes for months or years.

      In the equivalent case to Cuban refugees requesting asylum, the Cuban refugees were allowed entry with NO VETTING. In Trump's case, the vetting process for most refugees who now HAD VISAS has taken about TWO YEARS, including approvals from multiple security agencies.

      As for Carter, we had an active hostage situation where diplomats from the US were being held by a foreign government. And even then, Carter did NOT CANCEL VISAS that had already been granted. He stopped new visa approvals and in some cases required recent Iranian immigrants to undergo additional screening upon arrival. There was no automatic cancellation of approved visas.

      I've used this analogy before, but to take this into a different context, if Obama and Carter were running a business, what they effectively did was stop new applications for jobs, and perhaps require a bit of additional verification for those already hired. The equivalent for Trump in terms of many refugees would be if you were negotiating with a business for a new job for 2 years, underwent significant interviews for security clearances, had medical testing, etc., and you'd been approved for everything, bought your plane tickets to relocate, made arrangements for a new home where the company was... and then suddenly your hiring contract was summarily rescinded while you were in transit.

      Add in the fact that this is a temporary ban

      Yeah, a lot of people keep saying that as if it's some sort of minor inconvenience. Setting aside that some refugees are applying for such status while in FEAR for their lives, you also have all sorts of logistical issues that were simply tossed aside here. Many of the approvals for security or medical or whatever tests are done with a specific timeline in mind, and many of them expire over a period of a few months, essentially putting these people "back to the drawing board" after months or years. And what about all the refugee organizations in the U.S. who organized apartments and places to live for these people, etc.? There a hundreds of other little details that make this a MAJOR disruption within a system... not just a minor "temporary" inconvenience.

      Can someone explain how this is anything to get worked up over?

      Here's are a couple things, besides issues I already brought up above:

      (1) What are Trump's actual problems with the vetting system right now? What are his suggestions for improvement? Is there ANYTHING specific he can point to that he intends to change about the vetting? If there were some major flaw in the two-year multiple-agency process for refugee approval we have now, I'd be right on board with you in saying, "Let's slow it down and see how to fix it." But Trump hasn't actually identified anything in our screening procedures he thinks are flawed or need reform. So why the sudden rush into this outright ban, disrupting a system that he doesn't have any specific criticisms of?... other than for the political capital with his supporters?

      (2) If this REALLY were about fear of terrorism and proper "vetting," why are countries that actually have PRODUCED terrorists (e.g., Saudi Arabia) not on this list? If it were really so dire that we needed to cancel travel plans for thousands and thousands of people over the next few months, why aren't we looking int

    7. Re:I don't get it either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What Obama and Carter didn't do, that Trump is doing, was to retroactively rewrite the rules for people who had already jumped through the hoops, invested a lot of time and money in making sure they were squeaky-clean and legal beyond reproach... ... and are now seeing all that work blown away.

      Trump is screwing those people, and there is absolutely zero plausible gain in public safety from doing so. Why is he doing it?

      Because it plays well with his base. And he's a cunt. Question answered.

    8. Re:I don't get it either. by lgw · · Score: 1

      A green card is a permanent US resident, on "tenure track" for citizenship. Green card holders are special. They are citizens-to-be. Good for them. This is very different from a temporary work or holiday visa.

      This order in no way prevents families from being re-united. The border still works just fine in the other direction. No citizen of a foreign country has any basic right to cross the US border inbound. The most fundamental thing that makes a nation a nation is the ability to limit who crosses its borders.

      I get it. Globalism is very popular. Lots of people love the idea of a world without borders. Sorry, but lots of other people actually like their nation, and want to restore sovereignty. This executive order was ham-fisted, poorly done. IMO Trump should have left things alone until the better vetting was sorted out.

      This was virtue signalling over effective policy, but Trump was totally within his rights to do so. And after 24 years of lefty virtue signally over effective policy, I can hardly blame the right for wanting to strut a little.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:I don't get it either. by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      I *honestly* don't see why anyone thinks that this is a big deal.

      Imagine that you had lived and worked in the US for 5 years, were on a plane to return home to the US from the Sudan, arrived, then were turned down entry and sent back. You would think it is a big deal!

      It doesn't affect 87% of all Muslims, so it isn't a ban.

      I think you mean to say it is not a "Muslim ban." Agreed there. It is just a "ban."

      And the DHS has further clarified the executive order by saying that it doesn't affect green-card holders.

      This is the really heart of the problem, and the reason it is a big deal. As-written, the executive order didn't say anything about green-card holders or visa holders. It was only after it was challenged, and courts intervened, that sensible discretion was added. Trump wrote the executive order too broadly, probably since he rushed to do it and didn't solicit advice from the state department. As a result, people got screwed, the courts had to intervene, and we gave ammunition to ISIS. 5 minutes with someone from the state department would have fixed these issues, and I would be defending the ban along with you.

      Obama used this same law at least six times between 2010 and 2014 against people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Crimea without even a whimper

      There was no outrage because he didn't stop green card holders and visa folders, he didn't stop people mid-flight, and he used it during a time of war.

      So now you can say you know why people think it is a big deal. Hopefully, next time Trump issues an executive order he will seek appropriate legal council before writing it.

    10. Re:I don't get it either. by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      Out goes the moderations, then.

      it affects the 10% Christian populations of those countries and other religions

      It does affect them, by giving them a special exemption:

      (b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

      This is, in practice, Christians. (Muslims are the majority, other religions are almost non-existent in the given countries.)

      (*) And for the record, Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952:

      And, for the record, Section 202(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 :

      No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of his race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence

      Emphasis mine. I haven't read the whole 1965 version, but unless there's a provision that creates exceptions for INA1952 212(f) I believe the 1965 version takes precedent. (There are exceptions to 202(a), but deal mainly with things like immediate relatives of citizens getting preference.)

      Obama used this same law at least six times between 2010 and 2014 against people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Crimea without even a whimper from the ACLU, ADL, John McCain, Gender Netural Graham, Chuck You Schumer, Hillary, Mark Zuckerberg, Hollywood elites, or the establishment globalist media.

      I'm a little fuzzy on the others, but at least the Iraq action in 2011 was in response to an actual threat, was not nearly as broad (applying only to pending applications), and wasn't even a proper ban (just a delay of approval while they re-evaluated the process.)

      But, by all means, continue playing down 45's bullshit by shouting "but the other guy!"

    11. Re:I don't get it either. by quantaman · · Score: 2

      I don't get it either.

      The order does not affect people from other countries, it doesn't affect people from your country, and it specifically doesn't affect *you*.

      To paraphrase a famous quote:

      First they came for the Jews, and then some libtard do-gooder starts complaining so I said what are you whining about? You're not a Jew, you'll be fine!

      --
      I stole this Sig
    12. Re:I don't get it either. by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Since CNN wants to make him look bad, and you are so clueless you can't even be bothered to look for his comments, you obviously don't really care either.

      I read the whole executive order. Did you?

      Trump is giving those countries 90 days to come up with a vetting system that his State Department deems acceptable. If they do not comply, the ban will be extended.

      That still doesn't answer my question, since we already have detailed vetting in place within the State Department and frequently including other agencies (depending on the type of visa or entry desired). What is wrong with our current procedures that justifies such a unilateral and sudden action, rather than simply reforming our vetting policies?

      So you pitching a hissy fit over 90 days and giving a pass on a permanent ban shows again you don't really care, and are only really hear to bash Trump over bullshit that is meaningless because you have been fooled into thinking its valid.

      Wow -- you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Cuba had been granted a SPECIAL EXEMPTION that essentially allowed those who managed to sail into Florida and landed to be granted entry without a visa and allowed to apply for asylum -- this was a policy unique to Cuba and unfair to other immigrants, who needed to go through "normal" legal channels for entry.

      And Obama did NOT ban immigration from Cuba "permanently" -- Cubans are still perfectly able to immigrate to the U.S. Now they just need to follow the rules that all other countries do to do so. You can argue about what the original rationale was for allowing Cubans special treatment to get into the U.S. without vetting, but given the fact that our relations have improved in recent years, it seems positively weird to continue such a bizarre exemption for Cubans. Nobody was "banned" in that case -- just required to use proper immigration channels like everyone else.

    13. Re:I don't get it either. by TheSync · · Score: 1

      The "no fanfare" bit - was that because Obama and Carter were Democrat? Or was there some other difference(*) that no one has noticed?

      The difference is: 1) During the campaign, Trump explicitly called for a "Muslim Ban" and 2) the Trump ban caught people in the air off guard and lead to them being detained for hours under great uncertainty or unexpectedly deported.

      If Trump had simply said "no new visas" instead of stranding people in handcuffs at airports, and if he did not already call for a Muslim Ban, few would care.

      President of the United States is also Chief Marketing Officer of the United States. If you say stupid things and do stupid things, it makes the USA look bad. Obama, Clinton, Reagan all did a much better job than Trump, they were slick.

      So elect a President who is slick, not one who is a dick...

    14. Re:I don't get it either. by TheSync · · Score: 1

      This is, in practice, Christians. (Muslims are the majority, other religions are almost non-existent in the given countries.)

      There are about 30,000 Bahai's and 25,000 Zoroastrians in Iran. Probably 400,000 African indigenous religious followers in Sudan.

    15. Re:I don't get it either. by dwillden · · Score: 1

      And your last sentence proves you have zero reading comprehension. It is NOT a ban on Muslim refugees. It is a ban, or rather a delay on Refugees from seven nations (yes predominantly Muslim but not 100% Muslim). The Order affects all citizens of those nations regardless of their faith, including the heavily oppressed Christian and Yazidi minorities found in those nations (Yazidi are in Iraq and Syria not the other nations).

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    16. Re:I don't get it either. by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the Iranians working and studying here who were deported by Carter. He Retro-actively rewrote their visa's changing the end date to immediately.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  43. Re:They don't get it. by sinij · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Speaking as someone who has spent thousands of dollars in legal assistance getting the appropriate visa in place allowing me to work in the US... go fuck yourself.

    Why do you think your ability to work in the US should be prioritized over interests of US citizens and US tech workers? Do you think USA could have a legitimate right to turn you away for any reason whatsoever, no matter how misguided such reason might be?

    I do not live or work in US, so this is neutral third-party question.

  44. Re:They don't get it. by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    Speaking as someone who has spent thousands of dollars in legal assistance getting the appropriate visa in place allowing me to work in the US (but luckily am not from one of the countries in the executive order)... go fuck yourself. This isn't about American jobs, its about screwing over people you don't like and trying to win political points with morons.

    People have spent years getting those visas. People may have even been living the in US for decades. This is not a moratorium on new visas, this is retroactively screwing people who have followed the process to get into the US legally.

    It could actually both be about American jobs and screwing over people you don't like to win political points. There's nothing about one that prevents the other.

    You might want to ramp your hysterical reaction down a notch or two. No legal residents are being kicked out. Some who left the country are having trouble getting back in, but nobody here is being kicked out. I read recently about a guy who has lived in the US for over 20 years and his children are young adults and naturalized citizens. For some reason Dad doesn't want to get US citizenship, so he's now in trouble because he travels outside the USA all the time on work and he's an Iranian passport holder. I admit to not really seeing the point in targeting people like him, but I have to ask why he hasn't applied for American citizenship yet. Maybe if he needs an Iranian passport to work in countries hostile towards the USA, he needs to consider getting a new job. I personally know immigrants who the first chance they could they applied for US citizenship and got tested and they are proud to be Americans. Maybe it's inconvenient for him but the truth is that having US citizenship provides protections that don't exist otherwise. As long as you are a long time legal resident without citizenship, you're always going to be at some level of risk that Uncle Sam might not want to extend your stay.

  45. Microsoft's population by unixisc · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, how many employees does Microsoft have from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya? I thought that most of their foreign employees would be people from Europe, China and India, who are untouched by this order (which applies only from the above countries)

    1. Re:Microsoft's population by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      There are not a lot of IT jobs in Yemen, so tech workers from there almost always work outside of their home country.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Microsoft's population by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 5, Informative

      WRONG. http://www.snopes.com/presiden... Obama's deal only increased the time it took to get a certain type of visa. It didn't ban them outright as this is doing.

    3. Re:Microsoft's population by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Informative

      Obama's ban was a targeted response to a specific threat, where two Iraqi nationals were caught attempting to send money, explosives, and weapons to Al-Qaida. That ban was enacted in order to review how the vetting process allowed those individuals into the country.

      Regardless, I don't see Microsoft being "outraged". They are making a specific request for providing exemptions to those who have been vetted, and the executive order allows exemptions to be granted at the discretion of administration officials.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    4. Re:Microsoft's population by gmack · · Score: 1

      Iran has a very functional university system and the company I work for employs several techs of Iranian decent. Libya also had (before the civil war) a highly functional educational system and I know one (from my circle of friends) engineering grad student from Libya. It's not hard to imagine a company the size of Microsoft running into even more issues since they tend to pull talent from wherever they can find it.

    5. Re:Microsoft's population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obama's ban didn't impact green card holders, who are legal US Citizens. Do you understand that? Do you understand that Obama's order was specific to a loop hole of flying through Europe to avoid the additional scrutiny of coming from one of those countries?

      In general the missing outrage that your kind like to blame others for wasn't missing, it was that the GOP's fake outrage and blocking and in general constantly crying "Wolf" that made it nearly impossible for any of the things that we all as American's agree was bad to get any traction. So thanks for that.

    6. Re:Microsoft's population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Obama didn't ban or delay people who already had existing visas and cards. Trump and his staff haven't got a fucking clue what they did as evidenced by the number of clarifications and reclarifications and sackings that have happened in the last week.

    7. Re:Microsoft's population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That ban was enacted in order to review how the vetting process allowed those individuals into the country.

      That is literally the same thing happening here.

      Are people honestly so naive as to ignore the ISIS training ground in Syria and Yemen, where the last batch of terrorists came from? Or the insanity in Europe where Islamic Terrorism is becoming freakishly normal, but no one can call it what it is? A tractor trailer plows through 80+ people and I guess it was just a bad day for that guy? Let's not comment on where he came from because that's mean spirited and you had better not describe his motives, if they happen to be religious?

      I thought the liberal crowd was above religion. It seems like liberals only enjoy mocking Christianity, while being literally afraid to discuss Islam (radical or not, because they will literally kill you if you draw Mohammad). Islam is a religion stuck in the Dark Ages, which Christianity fortunately crawled out of centuries ago.

      The same nations that are blocked also block Jews from entering their countries. We're simply doubling down on ensuring that anyone coming from there isn't an intolerant, vitriolic sociopath. The media is portraying this as Islamophobia and to some degree it is, but it's also completely justified. One person that slips through can literally murder 50 people before we can stop them, as we observed with the club shooting in Florida (who was a naturalized citizen and the son of a Taliban supporter, who we also allowed into the US).

      The ban is stupid in that it blocks people with visas, as Microsoft points out, and any Green card holder. But, frankly, how many people beyond that are impacted? For those that actually work in tech: look around your coworkers and count the number of people from these nations? I work for an international technology company with employees from over 30 countries. Guess where we have none from? These backward nations. Guess what we do have? Muslims that actually assimilated into their host nations (during either their generation or their parent's generation).

      So before everyone blows a gasket, let's be realistic: fix the mistake where people that should be allowed back can come back, but beyond that the blockage is really quite reasonable and it impacts at-best a few hundred people across the industry screaming the loudest. It's a short duration and it impacts people that have no right to come here just because they want to come here.

      All nations should be looking out for their own best interests and not blindly accepting anyone. Germany is a prime example of what happens if you don't, and Merkel is likely going to lose reelection as a result. I don't care if you're immigrating to the US from England: if you're not going to add value, then there's no reason that the US should reasonably accept you. And, to be ultra-clear, it's far more likely that someone from a first world country is going to add value than someone from a third world country that is stuck in the middle of a war with radical terrorism, while under the rule of dictators (or equivalent).

    8. Re:Microsoft's population by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      That ban was enacted in order to review how the vetting process allowed those individuals into the country.

      That is literally the same thing happening here.

      No, it isn't. Obama's ban was a response to a specific threat. Trump's ban is a response to partisan hacks who refuse to acknowledge that a vetting process was already in place.

      It seems like liberals only enjoy mocking Christianity

      I'm a Christian.

      intolerant, vitriolic sociopath

      I'm glad you can see what kind of man he is... ... oh wait, my bad, you weren't talking about him.

      All nations should be looking out for their own best interests and not blindly accepting anyone.

      I'd love to discuss your evidence that the U.S. has recently been accepting refugees into the country without vetting.

      if you're not going to add value, then there's no reason that the US should reasonably accept you

      There are humanitarian reasons. It's not ideal... but war isn't ideal. At least it is better than nuking ISIS from orbit (along with the millions of innocent civilians in the area).

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    9. Re:Microsoft's population by multi+io · · Score: 1

      Obama accomplished a long soft ban.

      Obama did not ban visa holders or other legal US residents. How often does one have to explain this before you understand it?

    10. Re:Microsoft's population by unixisc · · Score: 1

      In that case, why was Obama's ban 6 months, and Trump's ban 3-4 months?

    11. Re:Microsoft's population by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Obama's wasn't retroactive.

      Yeah, big scary foreign word. It means it didn't apply to people who already had visas.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:Microsoft's population by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      I expect programmers and computer techs from Syria would be willing to work very cheap if it included moving them and their family to the USA.

    13. Re:Microsoft's population by TheSync · · Score: 1

      There are about 300,000 Iranian-born Americans.

    14. Re:Microsoft's population by bongey · · Score: 1

      WRONG SNOPES IS BULLSHIT, ABCNEWS clearly has a state department quote that they stopped ALL refugees processing for 6 months, which would be visas. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/...

    15. Re:Microsoft's population by bongey · · Score: 1

      BULLSHIT YES HE DID http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/...

    16. Re:Microsoft's population by bongey · · Score: 1

      So we need to wait until someone blows us up on US soil then we will do something? Funny how many times does that happened , and everyone goes WHY DIDN"T THE GOVERMENT DO ANYTHING?, ( because of dipshits like you complaining about silly ban for 90 days)

    17. Re:Microsoft's population by stooo · · Score: 1

      >> I thought that most of their foreign employees would be people from Europe, China and India
      Yeah.
      "Most"
      When you have 120 000 employees in the world, you have people from basically each and every country, so you are really pissed off when they are banned from travelling by some crazy troll.

      --
      aaaaaaa
    18. Re:Microsoft's population by red+crab · · Score: 1

      Actually, how many employees does Microsoft have from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya? I thought that most of their foreign employees would be people from Europe, China and India, who are untouched by this order

      As per TFA:

      Microsoft has an employee who is stranded outside the U.S. while the person’s children are here, and another who cannot leave the U.S. to visit a critically ill parent, Smith said in the letter. The company said it has 76 employees who, together with their 41 dependents, have nonimmigrant visas to live and work in the U.S. and are affected by the Executive Order.

    19. Re:Microsoft's population by gtall · · Score: 1

      "mocking Christianity". And could you please point to the outrage from Christian Fundamentalists? Seems to me their Christianity stops at the water's edge. I do not believe the CFs are Christians.

    20. Re:Microsoft's population by dwillden · · Score: 2

      And this EO doesn't impact green card holders either. Yes some were impacted on the initial bungled implementation, but it actually says nothing about green card holders who are resident aliens not immigrants. Those initially impacted and detained should not have been. That was an error in application of the EO, not something actually contained in the EO.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    21. Re:Microsoft's population by dwillden · · Score: 1

      So move them to Microsoft offices in Egypt or other nations in the region. They don't have to come to the US to work for Microsoft. It is a Global company with Offices around the globe.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    22. Re: Microsoft's population by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      No, but we also don't need to start banning entry into the country because all your Twitter followers don't understand that there already is an effective vetting process in place.

      Fearing terrorism is, definitively, what they want us to do. Letting it control our lives and letting it change everything we do is letting them win.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    23. Re:Microsoft's population by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Because it doesn't jive with what he has been told to say.

    24. Re:Microsoft's population by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      All nations should be looking out for their own best interests and not blindly accepting anyone.

      I'd love to discuss your evidence that the U.S. has recently been accepting refugees into the country without vetting.

      Come on, he has ALTERNATIVE FACTS on his side man! Give him a break! 18 months and at least 9 rounds of interviews and countless background checks, those are plainly just blindly accepting of everyone!

    25. Re:Microsoft's population by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      And this EO doesn't impact green card holders either. Yes some were impacted on the initial bungled implementation, but it actually says nothing about green card holders who are resident aliens not immigrants. Those initially impacted and detained should not have been. That was an error in application of the EO, not something actually contained in the EO.

      Bullshit. The original application of it included a directive from the White House to specifically include green card holders. The Alternative Facts are strong with you.

    26. Re:Microsoft's population by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      We're simply doubling down on ensuring that anyone coming from there isn't an intolerant, vitriolic sociopath.

      So, why does the order only apply to Middle Eastern countries whose citizens have not committed an act of terror on US soil within memory? Why not include at least one whose citizens come and been terrorists?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    27. Re:Microsoft's population by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Apparently we don't do anything when someone blows us up on US soil, since citizens of the restricted countries haven't done that, so we only ban people who aren't likely to be terrorists.

      There's also the question on what the government can do. One recent mass shooting was performed by someone the FBI was keeping an eye on, just not a 24/7 guard.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  46. Re:They don't get it. by laurencetux · · Score: 1

    Okay if you can not prove you are a minimum 25% Native American then Please Return to Your Own Homeland.

    By Strict Standards Mexicans have more of a right than most Texans do

  47. Blame thrower by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A friend of a friend on Facebook is Iranian by birth. She has lived 20+ years in Australia and is an Australian citizen. She has also previously lived 5+ years in the UK and is now in the middle of a 5+ year stint in the US. She does not have a green card but is working in the US under a valid US work visa (but I don't know which class). She has had to cancel 5 international business trips in the short term because as per Trump if she leaves the US the immigration lawyers at her work have said as a best guess that she won't be able to re-enter.

    How's that for fucking over your friends.

    Or maybe, just maybe, the Iranian government screwed her over?

    1. Re:Blame thrower by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or maybe, just maybe, the Iranian government screwed her over?

      By your logic anyone who is Iranian by birth* is tainted and thus should be treated with distrust, and there no is manner by which they can prove their humanity.

      Pissing off innocent people is not a good way to win hearts and minds and plays directly into the hands of those who would be easily radicalized. Thus making the global terror situation worse than it is now.

      *Is there a lower age limit by which an Iranian is so tainted? Or in your mind does terrorism begin at conception?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Blame thrower by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      That wasn't at all what he said. It's the actions of Iran supporting and exporting terrorism that caused the US government to do this per statement. (Whatever this is true or not, I couldn't say). Unfortunately, Yanks are considered brash and obnoxious world over, even if we aren't. Congruent issue, though of course, her issue IS larger.

  48. Re:They don't get it. by Jodka · · Score: 1

    AMERICANS NEED JOBS!

    Which is exactly what you get when foreign engineering and design firms which operate from nations with permissive immigration for STEM talent outsource their low-wage manual labor jobs here for manufacture. What? You want those corporations and their profits to stay here? Forget that, you just walled off the vast international source of talent from domestic high-tech companies which need access to succeed.

    Ceteris paribus, the most successful companies are those with the best access to resources, not those with the most limited access to resources. Labor is a resource.

    Engineering and design work supports an umbrella of labor: managers, accountants, IT, safety, etc. If your company fails because misguided nationalists blocked access to engineering talent, then all those jobs go with it.

    The nations which most successfully exploit the law of comparative advantage by allowing the most free exchange of goods and labor are the wealthiest nations. Walling yourself off because you believe that hoarding jobs and goods in your own country will make it richer is a certain formula for failure and poverty.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  49. Senior executives caught up in the mess by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Informative

    I heard yesterday about a senior executive at Oracle who regularly travels internationally to places like China for meetings with suppliers. He manages about 500 people. He's now stuck in the country and unable to do a large part of his job because he happened to be born in Iran. "Make America Great Again" my ass.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:Senior executives caught up in the mess by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      Do you have a name? A link to an article? It's believable, I just want to show this to some people.

    2. Re:Senior executives caught up in the mess by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Oracle co-founder Bob Miner is the son of Iranian immigrants. But I don't think that is who you are thinking of.

    3. Re:Senior executives caught up in the mess by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I heard yesterday about a senior executive at Oracle who regularly travels internationally to places like China for meetings with suppliers. He manages about 500 people. He's now stuck in the country and unable to do a large part of his job because he happened to be born in Iran.

      So what you are saying is that there is an upside to this. Note the bolded word in the quote. ;)

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    4. Re:Senior executives caught up in the mess by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area with his family. He would NOT be comfortable "just" moving to Singapore or London.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
  50. Re:Sure, if they are H-1B.... by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

    wow, I bought 12 acres for $10k but im not in Cal.

  51. Re:They don't get it. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    America is for Native Americans

    If you're not a Native American, KINDLY GET OUT

    doesn't matter if you're smart, honest, well behaved, a perfect employee or even run your own company, GET OUT, THANK YOU. ENJOY YOUR OWN HOMELAND

    FTFY

  52. Re:They don't get it. by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Cancel 5 trips over the next 90 days? For an Australian citizen? Based on a nebulous fear?

    Smells fishy to me dude. I'd check your sources on that one.

  53. I know what they'll try and get an exception for by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    They want to get an exception for the new $130,000 minimum wage for H1B workers.

  54. Re: They don't get it. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    U can be sure american youngsters would gladly take the STEM education if the long term ROI for them would be worth it and they wouldn't be under treat to be replaced with foreign slaves. It is just a matter of smart investment.

    That's unlikely. Most American youngsters and their parents are interested in the majors that are money makers today. They're not going to look at long-term studies to see if a job will still exist after four years of schooling or 30+ years from now. Too many young Americans stop learning after leaving school, fail to change when the job market changes, and find themselves stuck in life — just like their parents.

  55. Re:They don't get it. by m00sh · · Score: 1

    Well to be fair, what's the point of having a country at all if it doesn't entitle you to anything? Just somewhere to throw away your taxes in the hope that you'll get drafted for a war you don't wanna fight?

    The president doesn't pay taxes.

    An immigrant probably pays more taxes, and fights and dies for America.

  56. Re:They don't get it. by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    Cancel 5 trips over the next 90 days? For an Australian citizen? Based on a nebulous fear?

    Smells fishy to me dude. I'd check your sources on that one.

    Do you mean like this direct quote that I just copied from FB????? The one I paraphrased above???? That one???

    Immigration lawyers have said that if I fly overseas I will not be allowed to board a flight back to the US. No one born in Iran (or the 6 other countries listed on the EO) can enter unless they have an American passport or greencard (contentious). 20+ years living in Australia, 5+ years in UK and US, an Aussie passport, a visa to work here.. all irrelevant because of my country of birth. Tomorrow's flight cancelled, 4 other trips over the next 90 days postponed. It's a sad time to be in America.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  57. Re:I Live Under A Rock by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    you actually fall for that tripe bullshit!?!?!?!

    They've been caught again and again because they're not even good liars. But sure - whatever. Everything you hear/read is true.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  58. Re:Microsoft is already great. by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Informative

    Err...I believe there was a clarification yesterday ( maybe from the State Dept?) that said green card holders were not part of the temporary halt of immigration from those 7 countries into the US.

    Green cards are not visas. The two are completely unrelated.

    A green card is a non-expiring, permanent resident work permit. It confers a right to permanent residency within the U.S., and provides a path to citizenship.

    A visa provides temporary entry into the U.S. for various purposes, including tourism, work, education, etc. You've probably heard of some of the work visas, such as H-1B, H-2B, L-1A, L-1B, R-1, etc. There are also specific types of student visas, such as F-1, J-1, and M-1. Some visas allow you to leave and reenter the country, e.g. F-1 and J-1. Some allow you to work, e.g. H*, L*, R*, and J-1. And some just let you be a tourist, e.g. B-1, B-2, etc.

    Allowing green card holders to come back to the U.S. is basically unavoidable. They're legal residents of the United States with homes, families, etc. That's also true for many of the visa types, but those folks are currently screwed, which is nothing short of appalling. And it is particularly heinous for students whose schools have a January term (and who thus took the month of January as an extended vacation) who are now trapped outside the country, unable to return to school, potentially losing scholarships, etc., all because our President doesn't know the difference between a green card, a visa, and refugee status admission.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  59. Re:They don't get it. by Trogre · · Score: 1

    So... why aren't they "Americans" by now?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  60. Re:They don't get it. by Cyberax · · Score: 3

    "Allow proper vetting"? WTF are you smoking? Visas are issued by US consulates, host countries have nothing to do with them.

  61. Re:They don't get it. by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And if she had a stamp in her passport from Israel, she would be executed upon entry into Iran (actually factually true).

    True but irrelevant.

    Sorry she comes from a shithole, but the "ban" is Trump's attempt to force those countries to vet the people getting visas so we can tell they are not terrorists coming to kill US citizens.

    She already has the Visa. She has been vetted. She is already here.

    Once those countries comply and allow proper vetting, they get taken off the list.

    Umm .. you do realize that it is the US that is doing the vetting don't you? Do you?

    They refuse to comply, the ban will be extended past the original 120 days. As soon as those idiots stop thinking coming to the US to kill us is a good idea, they will be treated better. Until then, I don't really care how long they are banned.

    It's the banning the people who are coming here with good intentions that is the issue. But you seem hung up on THE EVIL TERRORISTS THAT LURK IN EVERY SHADOW.

    When did it become evil to even TRY to protect US citizens from foreign terrorist? You realize you are arguing to benefit ISIS?

    How the fuck is screwing over a person who has been vetted already has a visa protecting the US from terrorists? If anything it plays directly in to the easily radicalized by saying "look at how bad the US treats its friends. The US is obviously evil and doesn't want to give anyone else a fair chance".

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  62. Re:They don't get it. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    H1B holders can change employers.

  63. Re:They don't get it. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    America has a 4% unemployment rate, currently.
    Evidently, Americans need education more than jobs.

    You haven't been paying attention. Trump says there are 96 million Americans out of work. Repeal child labor and retirement laws to get America working again. Being too young and too old is no longer an excuse not to work.

  64. Re:Sure, if they are H-1B.... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    Man I got screwed. All I got for $40k a few years back was 2.7 acres but that is all upland hardwoods with 210' for shore line on a lake with no public access. Again not in CA.

    Joking aside your seems like a reasonable price depending on what is on the land and what is nearby. Mine is a 2 hour drive from the twin cities and is within 10 miles of a major fishing and recreation lake, unfortunately that was managed into the ground recently, so those things help drive up the price as well as the shoreline and the lake not having public access. I have seen other properties as low as $350 and acre but those are usually really in the middle of no where and if they have trees it is usually little shitty aspens with a bunch of lowland brush and a swamp for good measure. When you get to the $1000/acre you start seeing some nice but remote properties that aren't lakefront in Minnesota. This is just one of the many reasons that I tell recruiters who contact me who are out in CA that they can't afford me as I'm not taking a step down in my lifestyle.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  65. Re:They don't get it. by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Aww, she can't leave the country for a few months.

    You really can't see past your nose can you. She is working in the US. Cancelling those BUSINESS trips causes financial harm to a US company. That screws over not just her but her fellow employees that ARE US Citizens. You know .. the sort of person you are, but with more common sense.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  66. Re:Engineers 9 times more likely to be Terrorists by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    Nine times almost zero is still almost zero. The odds of someone being a terrorist is currently estimated at less than 0.00001%. That's less than one in ten million. So even after multiplying by nine, the odds of an engineer being a terrorist are still only about the same as the chances of that same engineer getting struck by lightning within the next year.

    Perspective is a funny thing.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  67. Re:They don't get it. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    The fact is, Americans have no choice but to buy things from the American economy. If you are in an industry that decides they only have to pay people according to another country's economy, then all members in that industry are being undermined in regards to their relation to peers to function in the local economy. If everyone was being affected across the board then it wouldn't be such a big deal because costs would be coming down. But this is very specific to technology workers mostly, so we are not only having the job market dropped out from underneath us, but we are also not having our economy reflect costs that balance with our income as we should have in a healthy economy.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  68. Re:Sure, if they are H-1B.... by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

    I live in the US mid-west renting a place is about $1.00 - $1.10/sq ft so that apartment would be about $550-$600/month.

  69. Re:Sure, MS! What Risks? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Never mind that the chance an American will be killed by a foreign-born refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-risk-of-being-killed-by-a-foreign-terrorist-trump-ban2017-1

  70. Re:An immigrant CEO by tsqr · · Score: 4, Funny

    How qualified would Eric Trump be if his last name wasn't Trump?

    He has terrific qualifications. Everybody agrees, he has fantastic qualifications. So there's no problem with his qualifications, believe me.

  71. Re:Sure, MS! What Risks? by pixie.pt · · Score: 1

    Never mind that the chance an American will be killed by a foreign-born refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-risk-of-being-killed-by-a-foreign-terrorist-trump-ban2017-1

    fuck logic, right?

  72. Re:Microsoft is already great. by brantondaveperson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is truly astonishing the extent to which this type of uncertainty about your country's own laws has become normalised - and so quickly too. In a stable Democracy, the stability of law is incredibly important. Knowing what you are, and are not, permitted to do - and being able to have enormous confidence that tomorrow the situation will be unchanged - is fundamental. And yet, here is the United States, in which the population is actually in the position of not knowing whether or not a particular person is permitted into their country - despite their being in possession of their "papers".

    The whole pantomime has several different aims. Firstly we have Trump separating his supporters from his foes, and dealing with these discovered enemies swiftly. Secondly, the presidential decree itself, which is deliberately over-reached, so that it may be dialled back to the position they really want, and be made to appear reasonable. And of course, thirdly, to create the situation described above. To create uncertainty in the law itself, and thus keep a population fearful of what they might not be allowed to do tomorrow. Controlling a population is much easier if they're never quite sure of what their rights are.

    Though the US has a deeply unhealthy relationship with firearms, it might yet pull itself out of this apparent nose-dive into a form of corporate totalitarianism by forming a decent citizens army, and dealing with these people in the only way that they deserve.

    Good luck.

  73. Re:Microsoft is already great. by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

    Allowing green card holders to come back to the U.S. is basically unavoidable.

    Laws are just people doing things that they believe are, well, the laws. Nothing is unavoidable in that sense. All you have to do is change what the people are doing, and those greed card holders can be kept out. This executive order is basically unlawful for a large number of different reasons, but that doesn't matter, because already your laws are becoming fluid.

  74. Re:They don't get it. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    And if she had a stamp in her passport from Israel, she would be executed upon entry into Iran (actually factually true).

    Let's make America great again by being not quite as bad as Iran. Yeah.

    USA! USA! USA!

    You realize you are arguing to benefit ISIS?

    Banning (for example) a British citizen with dual nationality from transiting through the US doesn't harm ISIS in any way. If you think it does then you're stupid.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  75. Re:They don't get it. by lgw · · Score: 1

    I'm a native American - I was born here.

    If you're talking about the various tribes mistakenly labeled "Indians" by Colombus, they weren't the first peoples here. Their ancestors displaced the previous people by force. In some places in the US there have been 6 waves (including the European one) IIRC, so you have to go back through several vanished civilizations to find the one who can actually claim "first post".

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  76. Re:They don't get it. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Native Americans fought for the land and lost.

    FTFY - Native Americans lived in the Americas long before the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian empires started dividing up the place.

  77. Re:They don't get it. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I'm a native American - I was born here.

    I was born here too. But I'm a German/English/Swedish/Irish/French-Canadian-American. But I would never pass myself off as a Native American, as my ancestors came from Europe and migrated westward prior to the American Civil War. I'm actually a minority in the Great State of California, which is fine with me because I grew up in the melting pot called Silicon Valley.

  78. Re:They don't get it. by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Who modded this up? The AC poster doesn't even seem to understand what a visa is.

    Trump's attempt to force those countries to vet the people getting visas

    You don't know what you are talking about. It is the US that vets the people and issues the visa, not the other country. And the ban affects people *returning* to the US who live in the US. They don't need to be vetted, they don't need new visas.

    As soon as those idiots stop thinking coming to the US to kill us is a good idea

    Ummm... that isn't happening.

    You realize you are arguing to benefit ISIS?

    Again, they don't know what they are talking about. The state department claims this ban is going to increase our risk of terrorism, not decrease it. And ISIS doesn't want to send people to the US. They want Muslims from the US to immigrate to those 7 countries and fight for them.

    I guess the informative thing about the post is it shows that the fiction is working. People think ISIS wants to attack the US, they think people from those countries are killing us, and they don't understand how international travel works.

  79. Re:Sure, MS! What Risks? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How much do those odds mean to the victims and their families of the WTC, San Bernadino, the Boston Marathon attacks, and others?

    Shit happens. You're more likely to die from obesity (30,000 people per year), lightning strikes (10,000 people per year) or from being attacked by a shark (five people per year).

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/20-things-that-kill-more-people-than-sharks-every

  80. Re:They don't get it. by ImprovOmega · · Score: 2

    These are people who HAVE visas to work in the United States. You know, vetted and approved already. It would be one thing to stop issuing visas, it's quite another to deny entry to people who already hold a valid visa.

  81. Re:They don't get it. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Any pre-Clovis peoples in the Americas were pretty small numbers, whereas there were a helluva lot of descendants of the Clovis peoples in the Americas, and they were witness to a lot more than wars. The treatment of some of these peoples was so awful that even at the time some had misgivings. At any rate, the point is that the Europeans were the late-comers and seized the land by force, just as their descendants seem oddly fearful that a few Syrian refugees are somehow going to manage to do.

    As to the Mexicans, well much of what constitutes the southern United States was out and out stolen in an imperialistic war of aggression against Mexico. So if Spanish-speaking peoples are now growing in number, well, sounds like karma to me. It sounds a lot like some Anglo-saxon types are worried that others peoples are just as much a pack of bastards as they have been in the Americas. But really, I see little evidence of any great overthrow of the American system by immigrants, it strikes me that the damage is being done by that narcissistic moron the Electoral College put into the White House.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  82. Re:Sure, MS! What Risks? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    fuck logic, right?

    Not at all. We just need to put everything perspective. Closing the borders and blaming foreigners isn't going to make America great again.

  83. Re:Throw 'em all out!FTFY by zlives · · Score: 1

    The America you knew has changed for the racist.

  84. Re:They don't get it. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    It would be unwise of the current occupants to make the same mistakes they did.

    That's an irrational fear spread by white nationalists in the White House.

  85. Re:Sure, if they are H-1B.... by balbeir · · Score: 1

    As long as you like snow in winter and skating on your lake. To me that's an undesirable lifestyle. One of the things that's an order of magnitude better in CA than in Minnesota is the weather. It's one of the other reasons people want to live and work there and that drives the prices up.

  86. Re:They don't get it. by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    In what field are visa holders working 80+ hours a week under thread of deportation? What geographic location? I say that is fiction.

    I can't speak for all fields, but if they are in any kind of computer-related field, they should move to the east coast. They will find a job making 60k easily, working 40 hours a week, guaranteed minimum 1-year contract. There's so much demand here it isn't funny. Nobody should put up with 80+ hours a week crud. Heck, why would anybody do that? They could probably do better in their home country.

  87. Re:They don't get it. by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Only if they get sponsorship from their new employer. Some employers will do it, others won't.

  88. Re:Sure, if they are H-1B.... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    In Cobble Hill, Brooklyn it's $2250/mth

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  89. Re:They don't get it. by lgw · · Score: 1

    My point is almost every spot of land in the world was taken by conquest by some previous owners, who took it by conquest etc. Defending against that sort of thing is the first principle of being a nation.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  90. Re:Sure, MS! What Risks? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    "chance an American will be killed by a foreign-born refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion."

    I realize that the odds are extremely low, but that statement is ridiculous. They can't possibly have the data to make that calculation. In order to determine the odds of an American being killed by a foreign born refugee(1975 -2016), they would need a list of every single refugee that has entered the country since ... say ... 1900 (any refugee that could have been living in 1975). Does that data even exist? Then, they would need to be able to match that list of names with 40 years of crime records to find every single murder committed by every single refugee.

    I think the study was focused exclusively on Americans being killed by refugees in "terrorist attacks", i.e. disregarding murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.

  91. Re:They don't get it. by johanw · · Score: 1

    After all, the pittyfull remains of what are now called "native Americans" know all too well what happens when you let in too many immigrants...

  92. Re:They don't get it. by lgw · · Score: 1

    Everyone in the US (other than recent immigrants) has ancestors who migrated here at some point in history. Humans didn't evolve here. Everyone who's not a first-gen immigrant is a native American. No special distinction should exist. That's kind of the point of America - we're not our ancestors, we're Americans. Don't create distinctions that only divide us.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  93. Re:They don't get it. by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

    Or how I lost my health insurance and access to my doctor because of Obamacare.

    I'm very interested in the exact way in which this happened, would you elaborate for us? You could also explain the first statement too, but I just plain don't understand that one.

  94. Re:Sure, MS! What Risks? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I realize that the odds are extremely low, but that statement is ridiculous. They can't possibly have the data to make that calculation. In order to determine the odds of an American being killed by a foreign born refugee(1975 -2016), they would need a list of every single refugee that has entered the country since ... say ... 1900 (any refugee that could have been living in 1975). Does that data even exist? Then, they would need to be able to match that list of names with 40 years of crime records to find every single murder committed by every single refugee.

    You obviously haven't read the article. Here's a direct link to the study.

    https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis

    This policy analysis examines foreign-born and immigrant terrorists and so excludes American-born terrorists except for purposes of comparison. For attacks planned or carried out by native-born Americans in concert with foreigners, the Americans are excluded and the immigrants are credited entirely for the terrorist plots and murders. That choice increases the estimates of the harm caused by foreign-born terrorists. For plots that included many foreign-born terrorists and victims, each terrorist is credited with an equal number of victims. For instance, the 1993 World Trade Center attack was committed by six foreign-born terrorists; six people were murdered, so each terrorist is responsible for one murder. Airplane hijackings that started in the United States and ended in different countries — such as the September 10, 1976, hijacking of TWA Flight 355 by Croatian nationalists that eventually terminated in Paris, France — are also included. However, this analysis excludes terrorist attacks in which the identities of the perpetrators were unknown, as well as attacks that occurred or were intended to occur (but were not successfully carried out) abroad.

  95. Re:Sure, MS! What Risks? by marquisdepolis · · Score: 1

    Fair point. I guess we should add american and kyrgyz citizens to the list.

  96. Re:They don't get it. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Agreed, but thats not what people are wanting in this case.

  97. Re:They don't get it. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Humans didn't evolve here.

    That's not correct. Paleo-Americans came across the Bering Strait land bridge ~30,000 years ago in immigration wave that lasted ~10,000 years until the land bridge disappeared. Those people evolved here long before the Europeans showed up with their pot-infested blankets. Native Americans lack of immunity against "Old World" diseases is proof that they evolved separately from the rest of the world.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Indians

    Don't create distinctions that only divide us.

    Pretending that there are no distinctions between people will only divide us. Not every person wants to be a white male American.

  98. Re:They don't get it. by lgw · · Score: 1

    There have been many waves, is the point you seem to be missing. And "pot-infested blankets" are only legal in WA and CO.

    Pretending that there are no distinctions between people will only divide us. Not every person wants to be a white male American.

    Ah, so you're overtly racist? You believe we should make distinctions between the good races and the bad, I assume? Even so, the idea that creating arbitrary distinctions somehow doesn't divide us is folly.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  99. Re:They don't get it. by lgw · · Score: 1

    The president doesn't pay taxes.

    Sure he does, in years when he manages to actually make any money. You have to have a positive income to pay income taxes. Trump business successes are, shall we say, sparse.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  100. Re:They don't get it. by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

    Jodka - you misspeak or misunderstand:

    You said, "the most successful companies are those with the best access to resources, not those with the most limited access to resources. Labor is a resouce."

    I'd counter:

    Best access != cheapest. The most successful companies are those with the best access to resources, not those with the CHEAPEST resources. Labor is a resource. Impacting the valuation of a resource isn't synonymous with the quantity in existence or available of a resource.

  101. Re:Sure, if they are H-1B.... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    12 acres for $10k? Where is that? I think I've seen prices like that in the Mojave desert.......

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  102. Re:They don't get it. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    Still, the message is, 'so what train a local'. I sorry you do not get it but this is exactly what happens every single time. Greedy arseholes abuse the system and the rules are changed to end the disruption and a whole bunch of people get caught in the cross fire. It has happened exactly like this in the past and it will happen like it in the future. Greedy arse holes fuck the system up, regulations come in to curtail their excess and the few people who were doing the right thing lose out. Make no mistake right now the system is being abused the crap out of and everyone knows it and it has to stop and that means a bunch of people doing the right will suffer because of many, many, more doing the wrong thing. Don't whine about a few here and a few there suffering when tens of thousands are suffering on the other side. Corporations should train locals they should not demand that others pay for the training and then use them to break the backs of local workers and force them to submit to hugely reduced conditions of employment, it has to stop, sorry but that is it, suck it up.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  103. Re:They don't get it. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Sod off, we bloody well don't want them back. If we wanted to be ruled by puritanical nutbags we wouldn't have kicked them out in the first place.

    Signed,
        England.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  104. Re:They don't get it. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    The entire point is that people form these countries have not been properly vetted. these are war tron countries that do not even supply police records for their citizens. Many of these refugees and immigrants are black boxes, with no provable history or documentation. Half of Trumps campaign was about increasing the vetting procedures for countries like these.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  105. If they've already got... by mhkohne · · Score: 1

    Visas, then MS should probably be taking this up with the courts as well - several courts have ruled on keeping various holders out already, if the people in question already have visas then I bet MS could get a court to rule in their favor long enough to get their people into the US.

    --
    A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
  106. Re:Sure, MS! What Risks? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Shit happens.

    I'd like to see you walk up to those victim's family members and tell them that.

    Why would I? Just because I work in IT doesn't mean I'm an asshole outside of work.

    You're a sociopathic monster.

    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." — Benjamin Franklin

  107. Re:They don't get it. by TheSync · · Score: 1

    AMERICANS NEED JOBS!

    Americans need to learn the skills required to provide profitable services to others. Then people will hire them, or they can start their own businesses.

  108. Re:They don't get it. by gravewax · · Score: 1

    So what you are saying is USA is heading down into the same shithole as Iran where people should be scared of the authorities and now longer can enjoy basic freedoms.

  109. Re:They don't get it. by gravewax · · Score: 1

    what the fuck do you mean unvetted? The US VETS VISA's, every single visa must be issued and vetted by the US not some foreign country. You are far more likely to be shot by your neighbour then you are by ISIS (that doesn't mean ISIS aren't evil pieces of shit, they are and need to be eradicated), ISIS have far more concerns with simply surviving at this point. What the US needs to be thinking about is what the families of the people they are now alienating and whose lives they are risking will do to them in 20 years time.

  110. Re:Sure, if they are H-1B.... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    I thought the "mountain lion" part was a pet sort of thing.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  111. Re:They don't get it. by bsharma · · Score: 1

    I don't understand this; If she has Australian passport, why will she be harassed? She can only be harassed if she travels on an Iranian passport i.e. she is a Iranian citizen.

  112. MS can take a long walk off a short pier. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    As much as they have abused guest worker provisions to the detriment of citizens, the only valid response is to deny them an exemption.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  113. Re:I Live Under A Rock by dwillden · · Score: 1

    You mean tripe like how the lying MSM continues to call it a "Muslim Ban". And pushes sob stories non-stop about it. Hell my local TV station is running an article about the last refugees for four months arriving an how the wife was set to come next month but is now banned for four months. The only problem, the family arriving is from Afghanistan, a country not on the list. So her delays are in no way related to the EO.

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  114. Re:They don't get it. by dwillden · · Score: 1

    If she is an Australian citizen, she applies for a travel visa using that passport. She is fine to travel then.

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  115. Re:They don't get it. by dwillden · · Score: 1

    Just because the attackers were incompetent does not lesson the fact that in the last year two Somali refugees conducted two separate attacks resulting in multiple injuries. One in Minnesota resulting in 9 innocent victims stabbed (luckily none died) before the perp was shot and killed by an officer. And the Ohio State Car and knife attack, again luckily none of the victims died and a police officer was able to quickly respond and end the attack.

    So nobody died. But terror attacks still happened, and the incompetence of the attacker does not diminish the attempt or the extensive injuries and trauma suffered by their victims.

    Or do we have to let American Citizens be killed before we react?

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  116. Re:They don't get it. by dwillden · · Score: 1

    Actually re-entry is not even guaranteed for a Citizen. You have the right to travel out of the country. Your rights on attempt to re-enter are greatly reduced. And the Gov can and has banned re-entry by Citizens before trapping thousands outside the country around the world. (the week post 9/11, nobody was flying here, not even citizens.)

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  117. They've a better chance of getting results than by sabbede · · Score: 1

    protesters making a ruckus in airports and inconveniencing people who have nothing to do with it.

  118. Re:They don't get it. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    There have been many waves, is the point you seem to be missing.

    Many waves between ~30,000 to ~20,000 years ago. Then none between ~20,000 years ago and the 15th century, where the various peoples evolved separately from the rest of humanity until the Europeans came with their pox-infected blankets, which may or may not have been made out of hemp fibers.

    Ah, so you're overtly racist?

    Just because I'm comfortable about race doesn't make me a racist, overt or otherwise. I live and work in a multicultural world. Except for the leasing office staff, I'm the only white person in my apartment complex. Down the street is a Korean church and a Jewish synagogue. On the bus, a half-dozen languages beside English is spoken. My boss is a black woman. My coworkers are American citizens who were born in England, Lebanon, Jamaica and Planet Texas.

    You believe we should make distinctions between the good races and the bad, I assume?

    I don't assume that being a white, hetrosexual male makes me better than anyone else. As the white executioner says to the black guy being hung on the gallows, "Everyone is equal in my eyes." ;)

    Even so, the idea that creating arbitrary distinctions somehow doesn't divide us is folly.

    Turning a blind eye to what makes us each unique human beings doesn't unify us either.

  119. Re:Microsoft is already great. by houghi · · Score: 1

    A green card is a non-expiring, permanent resident work permit. It confers a right to permanent residency within the U.S., and provides a path to citizenship.

    Is there a specific reason as to why the citizenship part is important? The reason I ask is that I have seen it several times and I do not see it as an essential part as a European.
    My parents and sister have 4 different nationalities and we live in 3 different countries and non in the country that is our nationality.
    My sisters kids are not even born in the country of their nationality as they took the nationality of the mother and not the father. (Parents are still happy together) and don't even speak the language of their nationality.

    We all pay the same taxes as others in the country we live in. We have the same rights as others have. To become a national of the country I live in now I would have to take a lot of time and a lot of effort for basically replacing my passport and ID.

    That is just me. Others will want, for various reason, get the nationality of the country they live in. However I would never assume that somebody who gets official papers to stay in the country is a way to get the nationality (although technically correct).

    For those wondering: I do not care about my official nationality. It is a piece of paper, nothing more, nothing less. If you have 4 nationalities inside your direct family, being proud of that becomes a bit silly.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  120. Re:Sure, if they are H-1B.... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    Actually I do ice fishing, snowmobiling, and snow showing, my kids like cross country skiing all of which are things one can do up there in the winter. At the end of the road (about 200 meters) is 680 acres of public land open to snowmobiling, ATVs, hunting, and other activities. If I really want to go fast on a snowmobile I can take the snowmobile trail over to the big lake and have about 200 square miles of area to ride on at any speed the machine is capable of reaching.

    CA weather is different. It doesn't get as cold but CA does suffer from droughts, mudslides, earthquakes, and fires at a level that is worse than has ever been seen in Minnesota. Add in the very high cost of living (food, housing, and transportation), the California crazies, and the brogrammer cultures and it becomes clear that companies wouldn't pay me enough.

    When I say support my current life style I expect to have similar to what I currently have. I own a ~2000 square foot house on a half acre plot that backs up to a 14 acre wooded city park. My home is also in one of the best school districts in the state and my kids will be going to one of the best high school in the state. My commute is at most 40 minutes usually closer to 30. The lake property is 2 hours 15 minutes away and is owned outright. My house has only 10 years left until it will be owned outright. I am also able to save close to half of my after tax income and still afford everything else. No employer in CA who has ever contacted me has made an offer that would even come close to that with most offers being slightly more pay than what I currently make by at most 20%. I also get offers for companies on the east coast and their offers are just laughably bad. The worse one there was for a position similar to what I do now in a higher cost area on the east coast but for 1/3rd of my current pay. I laughed at that person who then asked if that was a good offer, I responded and told them it was fucking awful as I make over 3x that now and don't have to live in the Philadelphia area.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  121. Re:An immigrant CEO by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    What did Obama accomplish before getting elected?

    What did he accomplish after getting elected?

    Please don't include that speech at the DNC convention as an accomplishment.

  122. Re:Microsoft is already great. by wyHunter · · Score: 1

    Actually, Green Card holders do NOT have to become citizens - they are permanent residents. It's just that many do.

  123. Re:Sure, if they are H-1B.... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I thought the "mountain lion" part was a pet sort of thing.

    Build houses up in the foothills of Silicon Valley, you have to worry about wildlife. That would typically be deers, mountain lions, rattlesnakes and tarantulas. Some areas have wild boars that love to tear up the landscaping. Down in the valley you have to worry about late night visitors like possums, racoons and skunks.

  124. Re:They don't get it. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    The entire point is that Trump is throwing his weight around to please his base. If he wanted to keep terrorists out, he'd have listed at least one country that's ever sent a terrorist to our shores.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  125. Re:They don't get it. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    A citizen has the absolute right to enter his or her country. If all aircraft are grounded, then nobody's flying in, but that's only one mode of entry.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  126. Re:They don't get it. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    "throwing his weight around" by allowing some committee put together by Obama to dictate which countries are unsafe and should be vetter better?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  127. Re:They don't get it. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Because of basic human decency.

    If you don't want someone working in US, that's easy: don't issue them a visa or a green card.

    But if you have already done so, at their considerable expense undergoing that process (which is neither lengthy nor cheap, especially for someone from those "extra vetting required" countries), and they already have a job, friends, and quite possibly loved ones in US?

    It's legal, sure. But it's wrong as hell.

  128. Re:They don't get it. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Let's see. If I leave the US, I can come back. I don't need two years of vetting. I don't need to worry about being deported back to, um, well, where? I have some influence on my country, since I vote, participate in precinct caucuses, and make campaign contributions. I get the use of numerous services that my taxes pay for. I get preference in various employment situations (we do some ITAR stuff here at work, which may only be seen by US persons, for example). There's plenty of advantages to being a US citizen.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  129. Re:Microsoft is already great. by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

    Respectfully, Sir, you have it all wrong. What you are seeing is a strategy designed to throw the left into a howling, immature, tizzy that eventually tires out the supporters and stems the flow of donations. It's working spectacularly, and it's brilliant.

    If you want to defeat the left, it's really simple:

    Stop the flow of money from the left's money laundering operation: Federal Workers Union, Teachers Union, Workers Union. First thing he did was meet with Union leaders.

    Break up the special interest groups that reliably vote left: Blacks, Hispanics, Women, LGBT. More Blacks voted for Trump than have voted for a Republican in a long time, more women voted...

    Third, and MOST IMPORTANT screw up the left's biggest weapon: Emotionally charged righteous indignation. This is what gets people to send money. Every opponent of the left is branded a racist, xenophobic, insane, un-educated, country bumpkin, radical, dangerous for America that MUST BE STOPPED send money today... Well, if you create a new righteously indignant moment EVERY DAY and all the protesting, wailing, and howling Accomplishes Nothing, then the money, it will stop flowing.

    It's brilliant,

    --
    Murphy was an optimist
  130. Re:They don't get it. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    JFYI, the current employer DOES NOT KNOW that somebody else is applying for H1B transfer for their employee. It's a protected personal information.

  131. Re:They don't get it. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    H1B transfer is easy - it just involves paying an attorney to file all the paperwork. There's no H1B lottery or anything, and the cost is trivial (around $2000) for a highly-compensated engineering employee. On the other hand, obtaining a new H1B visa is hard.

  132. Re:They don't get it. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    That would appear to mean that Trump wanted to change vetting and that Obama actually put together the list rather than signed the major appropriations bill it was a rider of.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  133. Re:They don't get it. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    This has changed, then. You used to need permission from the old employee, which of course they wouldn't give.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."