Slashdot Mirror


97 Tech Companies Including Apple, Google, Microsoft Call Travel Ban Unlawful In Rare Coordinated Legal Action (washingtonpost.com)

An anonymous reader shares a WashingtonPost report: Silicon Valley is stepping up its confrontation with the Trump administration. On Sunday night, technology giants Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Twitter, Uber and many others filed a legal brief opposing the administration's contentious entry ban. The move represents a rare coordinated action across a broad swath of the industry (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternate source) -- 97 companies in total -- and demonstrates the depth of animosity toward the Trump ban. The amicus brief was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which is expected to rule within a few days on an appeal by the administration after a federal judge in Seattle issued late Friday a temporary restraining order putting the entry ban on hold. The brief comes at the end of a week of nationwide protests against the plan -- as well as a flurry of activity in Silicon Valley, a region that sees immigration as central to its identity as an innovation hub.From a TechCrunch report: Notably absent from the list of 97 companies are several who met with Trump prior to his inauguration: Amazon, Oracle, IBM, SpaceX and Tesla. Although Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos was highly critical of Trump prior to his election, he has not spoken out against the immigration policy. Oracle CEO Safra Catz is serving as an advisor to the Trump transition team, while SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk has defended his decision to remain on an advisory council for Trump.

626 comments

  1. Cheap by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why don't we just allow them to get exemptions for anyone they have that qualifies as a truly highly skilled employee that they can't get locally and be done with it? Personally I feel there wouldn't be that many and this is actually about cheap labor.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds fair! Here is a list of our highly skilled employees. [File attached: EntirePayroll.txt 417 MB]
      Thanks!
      -Microsoft

    2. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well for one thing that goes against stack ranking... Microsoft loves that.

    3. Re:Cheap by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pretty much all work visas have an "Unable to hire someone local to do the same job" test, though for some it's weaker than others.

      One of the frustrating things about criticism of the Trump EO is that so many people assume laxity about the current system but have literally no idea what's involved in existing immigration. To be blunt, unless you're traveling from a handful of countries that participate in what used to be called the Visa Waiver program (and for work visas, even if you do), you already have to jump over numerous hurdles, including various levels of background check, to gain access to the US. That was the case even long before 9/11, but it's even more strict now.

      (FWIW, I am someone who emigrated from one of the countries that participates in what used to be called the visa waiver program. It's a sign of how long ago it was that I still call it that. I've had work visas, and my employer had to prove that my skills couldn't be found within the US. Even what they proved wasn't enough to get me an actual green card. And as part of getting the green card - I was lucky enough to find love here - I was subjected to a background check that took so long the immigration officer at my hearing was actually frustrated about that.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Cheap by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I have a *really* hard time believing these companies have such a large part of their workforce that they depend on daily coming in and out of Syria, Iran, etc....

      I never knew those were the tech Mecca of the world....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Cheap by FyRE666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe some people look at the bigger picture, instead of purely their own selfish interests at that moment in time? Just because the discrimination might not immediately affect them today, it doesn't mean it doesn't affect their staff, family, friends, or the image of America.

    6. Re:Cheap by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      You must be new here. It has long been known that tech companies are finding ways around these rules. There have been many documented cases of domestic workers losing their jobs and being replaced by these workers, I'm sure if that is the case then companies aren't going out of their way to find someone somewhere in the US to fill open positions. I'd be interested in knowing what skills you have that no American anywhere would have. I'm sure there are people out there but it has to be a rare circumstance and a rare specialty.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    7. Re: Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While Mecca is technically in Saudi Arabia, these places are all in that general vicinity.

    8. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe some people look at the bigger picture, instead of purely their own selfish interests at that moment in time? Just because the discrimination might not immediately affect them today, it doesn't mean it doesn't affect their staff, family, friends, or the image of America.

      Maybe some people make USD50 per annum.

      Neither group of people are Fortune 500 company executives.

    9. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why don't we just allow them to get exemptions for anyone they have that qualifies as a truly highly skilled employee that they can't get locally and be done with it?"

      Like Nazi rocket scientists or Chinese or Indian scientists who win Nobel prizes for America?
      Who cares in a presidency of an illiterate moron?

    10. Re:Cheap by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have a *really* hard time believing these companies have such a large part of their workforce that they depend on daily coming in and out of Syria, Iran, etc....

      This particular pushback is just them testing the waters on how to stop Trump on immigration. Their REAL concern is what he might do next to their H1B fount of cheap labor if he wins this battle.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    11. Re:Cheap by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, I'm not new here, I'm someone with actual experience of the system, rather than someone who's just heard news headlines and has taken some particularly egregious abuses of the system and extrapolated it to the entire thing. There's a reason the Disney IT outsourcing thing made headlines, and why Disney walked it back, and it's not because it was business as usual.

      Why was I hired and accepted? I had a combination of speciality and lack of people willing to work in the location the business concerned was located at. Essentially it was a US outpost of a UK office, and the US outpost had no developers who knew the current system - not just the developer knowledge, but the business knowledge.

      From the point of view of anyone looking from the outside concerned about US jobs, hiring me was a no-brainer. It meant that there could be a local development office, with many local, American, developers. Those Americans literally wouldn't have gotten jobs if I hadn't gotten a job there. We know this because they tried, and it didn't work. The next step would have been to fire two American developers left and just have the UK office develop everything.

      This worked for the non-immigrant work visa my company applied for, but even that wasn't enough to get a green card. Why? Because in theory I had a US shelf life - over time, the office would have had the skills it needed transferred, and so the six years or so I could legally stay (that's another story) would have been more than enough to get that job done.

      Should that change? As long as you make the story about hiring Americans first and only hiring non-Americans if they can be justified, you'll always end up with green card requirements being stricter than work visas. For those who argue - as many do here - that green cards should be the default instead of work visas, because the latter are too easy to abuse, you're making the wrong argument if you couple it with a "Hire Americans first" justification.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    12. Re:Cheap by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe some people look at the bigger picture, instead of purely their own selfish interests at that moment in time?

      Oh yeah, because Microsoft, Apple, Facebook etc. are doing this because they *CARE*, not because Trump is about to take away their cheap slave-labor pool and make them hire American workers.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    13. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe some people look at the bigger picture, instead of purely their own selfish interests at that moment in time? Just because the discrimination might not immediately affect them today, it doesn't mean it doesn't affect their staff, family, friends, or the image of America.

      Some possible reasons.
      1. They believe it is the right thing to do.
      2. It really is hurting their business or potential future business. This can be an indirect effect such as in the case of employee engagement.
      3. Doing it improves their public perception, so may help future business.

      What is really important is to look at the order and see if it is:
      1. Well thought out.
      2. Actually useful, in that it does more good than bad.
      3. In agreement with American principles.

      I'd tend to argue that
      1. Nope, no way in hell, see news stories.
      2. Terrorism is a low odds type event with many causes. Just giving the appearance of banning Muslim's likely helps recruit more than it prevents and possibly increases the odds of radicalization of those already here, even if it is a very low percentage.
      3. Since when do we run in terror at such pathetic odds? Seriously, if your that afraid of the terrorists then you might as well not get out of bed in the morning, and you sure as hell should not get in a car. Those things are far more dangerous. We are supposed to be the home of the brave and the great melting pot, growing stronger from our differences. Instead it almost seems that we are the home of the coward wanting walls and save us. What was that expression about those who give up liberty for security deserving neither?

    14. Re:Cheap by fluffernutter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      lack of people willing to work in the location

      Ah yes that's the game they play. At one time they would have to pay someone specifically to move to that location but today they don't.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    15. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Microsoft alone has added some 30,000 H-1B workers in the last 3 years, and laid off over 30,000 American IT workers in the same time period. The numbers do speak.

    16. Re:Cheap by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's not just "no American", it's "no American available to fill the post". When there is more demand than talent available in an area, people from outside that area are needed to meet it.

      You can argue that companies should be required to help Americans move to fill posts, although it's often not just a case of offering generous relocation packages.

      I'm sure there is abuse of this system, but at the same time there is also ridiculous exaggeration. People claiming that places are 90% Indian, while stats keep saying that these companies that are supposedly abusing the system are mostly white, not even reaching parity with US society. And the ones who really want to abuse it to save money will offshore jobs, because why pay enough for someone to live in the US when they can live on 1/10th as much in India? Most of those guys being trained by the people they are replacing go back to India afterwards.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re:Cheap by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Why don't we just allow them to get exemptions for anyone they have that qualifies as a truly highly skilled employee that they can't get locally and be done with it? Personally I feel there wouldn't be that many and this is actually about cheap labor.

      The fair way to handle ir is for each such prosoect to apply for a standard immigrant visa. The company would then offer sponsorship support, which helps a lot. That's how my father did it years ago when he worked DOD contracts.

      Today, 'refugees' are ululating for special exemptions from the vetting process. So are the corporate biggies who want cheap peons.

    18. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't we just allow them to get exemptions for anyone they have that qualifies as a truly highly skilled employee that they can't get locally and be done with it?

      Because technically they've already proven that to get the H1Bs to begin with. All they'd do is lie about it a second time.

    19. Re:Cheap by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      We have the same thing in the UK. A lot of people think that there is unlimited immigration and we have no control over it. Actually it's already heavily controlled and very difficult to get a visa.

      They are in for a shock when Brexit happens and they realize this.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:Cheap by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      You pay them enough and they will come. There are many remote places that need doctors and medical people, those industries don't seem to have an issue with holding recruiting drives to get people where they need them. This is how a healthy market is supposed to work, why does the tech industry get a free pass?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    21. Re:Cheap by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      At one time they would have to pay someone specifically to move to that location but today they don't.

      I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have ever been successful doing that, without offering salaries that were absurdly high and uneconomic, and more to the point, they still would have been hiring someone without the business knowledge I brought, even if they'd have found someone already skilled in the obscure technologies the company was using at that time.

      Remember, they hired me so they could have a viable, useful, US development team. What you're demanding they do instead would not have resulted in that, they always had the choice of just relying on the UK office.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    22. Re: Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What heavy controls are there on EU migration to the uk?

    23. Re:Cheap by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I've been looking for work overseas lately, and relocation packages are pretty much standard for skilled workers. Maybe it's different for India, but most Europeans wouldn't move overseas unless the company demonstrated some commitment with such a package.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:Cheap by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lots of more rural places around here struggle to find enough doctors. Doctors are in demand, they can pick the best places to go to, and few want to be right out in the sticks it seems.

      That's one reason why tech companies congregate around places like Silicon Valley. That's where the talent is, and when the talent is in demand it gets to decide where it's going to work.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:Cheap by Maritz · · Score: 2

      This. People who constantly obsess about terrorism should be called out for what they are. Pathetic cowards.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    26. Re:Cheap by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Well I don't generally hear about them trying to hire people for 20-30% more so it's hard to say whether they would have to go "absurdly high".

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    27. Re:Cheap by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And yet, on the level of the "law", these two issues have nothing to do with each other. H1B is done via Department of Labor, border issues are Homeland. Now this EO does impact H1B holders from the "unlucky 7", so there is cross-contamination.

      Trump must be stomping his feet around, cursing and screaming right now. Personally, I think this "ban" is one of the worst implementation ever. Wrong countries, no policies or procedures for the various people expected to implement it, zero involvement of anyone outside Trump's inner circle...but these 97 companies are poking a hornet's nest. Trump is very vindictive; his "work visa" reform will now probably be even more restrictive and down-right punitive against Silicon Valley.

    28. Re:Cheap by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      DOD is a completely different level...your father wasn't just working for a company; he was probably also privy to many "state secrets" and such. That level of trust is cemented by moving the whole family over and full citizenship. I agree with your statement, at least in spirit. The h1b visa holders should have a very clear path to citizenship, and the companies bringing them in should have to pass a MUCH higher bar.

    29. Re:Cheap by jandersen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You must be new here.

      A word to the wise: always check the user ID and compare it to your own before you use that particular opening. In this case: 241428 1411889, meaning that he/she has been here a while longer than you.

    30. Re:Cheap by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you explain those companies investing large sums of money trying to train up American kids if they prefer the slave-labour H1Bs? Insurance perhaps?

      Intel threw $300,000,000 at increasing diversity and equality. Either there is a genuine shortage of skill, or they genuinely care about that stuff*, or... Or what?

      * I refuse to believe that Intel could be induced to spend a third of a billion dollars by feminists, persuasive as we are.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re:Cheap by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I'm just talking about drawing people from one part of the US to another.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    32. Re:Cheap by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      And then they complain when some other company takes their talent. So it is a double edged sword for them. Congregating in Silicon Valley is just stupid and small thinking.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    33. Re:Cheap by fluffernutter · · Score: 0

      The only reasonable conclusion to make is that they haven't been reading articles for that entire time. In which case they would be new here.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    34. Re:Cheap by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why was I hired and accepted? I had a combination of speciality and lack of people willing to work in the location the business concerned was located at.

      Lack of people willing to work? The very fact you claim something you cannot know, makes me believe that you're just bullshitting. I am not a US citizen and I don't live there, but I can very easily believe that the company you're working at could have found the necessary workforce in the country, had they be willing to pay for it.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    35. Re:Cheap by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      fuck intel!

      I was a contractor at intel. I did a great job (got great reviews, led the group in its mission, trained my own local guys for the task, etc) and at the end of the project, I was unhirable. I was white. intel hires MOSTLY 'for diversity' and I was told flat-out that I was the 'wrong color' and intel needed more non-whites.

      again, FUCK INTEL. they are a useless company, for the most part, and they go out of their way to be political. especially when they can hire foreigners, abuse them and underpay them.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    36. Re:Cheap by DarkOx · · Score: 0

      yes well the next thing out of the mouths of people bitching about the immigration orders will be more bitching about the wealth gap. Hint constrict the labor supply than the value of laybor goes up.

      Want to get existing US citizens to move to places where the work is, pay a wage that commands their attention.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    37. Re:Cheap by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      not because Trump is about to take away their cheap slave-labor pool and make them hire American workers.

      You obviously have a point that many of these companies have an interest in getting cheaper workers, but I really wish you'd tone down the rhetoric of "slave labor." Slaves, typically, aren't paid at all. Yes, employers can be more abusive toward H1B workers, and that's a real problem, but "slave labor" is just hyperbole.

      You want to talk about immigration and "slave labor"? Look toward what could happen under the Trump presidency and farm workers like pickers. Those are people who frequently work 12-16 hour days in fields, frequently in 100-degree weather. And get paid something like $10/hour (for SKILLED workers). Stats usually say that half of the U.S. farm labor force is illegal, and 3/4 of it is composed of immigrants -- because Americans simply refuse to work these jobs for that pay. There are actually other issues too -- because many of these jobs are really "skilled labor" in the sense that it can take a few years of picking a specific crop to get really good and fast at it, and these workers generally get paid per volume picked.

      Not to go too off-topic here, but the U.S. is going to have to deal with some harsh realities if Trump actually tries to follow through with his immigration threats against Mexicans and Latin Americans. A number of states tried placing harsh restrictions on immigrants a few years ago, and farm owners ended up with worker shortages and crops that rotted on the fields. Without immigrants, we're looking at a future of either food shortages or significantly higher food prices... or both.

      Anyhow, if you want to talk about "slave labor," there are plenty of jobs Americans get immigrants to do in much harsher conditions with backbreaking work often at significantly lower wages than any tech workers. I'm not saying tech workers aren't exploited too -- but the grand scheme of things, it's not "slave labor."

    38. Re:Cheap by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be coming from one of the countries to be barred from entering the US, you just have to be a citizen of one of them. Most effected people I know were out of the country for business or educational travel (going to a conference) and then found themselves stuck in, say, Paris because of the ban.

    39. Re:Cheap by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I have a *really* hard time believing these companies have such a large part of their workforce that they depend on daily coming in and out of Syria, Iran, etc....

      I never knew those were the tech Mecca of the world....

      Precisely what struck me when these companies filed suit

    40. Re:Cheap by GNious · · Score: 1

      Many people from these countries have fled/migrated to other countries, gotten educations and built up skills - you now have people living in e.g. Europe, with European educations etc, unable to enter the US due to where they were born.

    41. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, Facebook the company that openly works and shares loads of data with some of the most disgusting tyrants in the world has a real moral qualm here.

    42. Re:Cheap by unixisc · · Score: 1

      If you noticed, Intel is not in the above list. In fact, during the elections, Brian Krzanich once planned to host a rally of some sort for Trump, but canned it b'cos of the tolerant shaming by Libs across the board. Intel probably is the one company left that still invests heavily in their own R&D and Quality, and for that, they dip directly into the Universities and pluck students from there

    43. Re:Cheap by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      What world are you living in? It is incredibly hard to get doctors and health care professionals to got to underserved areas in the US. It is a huge problem: http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/2...

    44. Re:Cheap by unixisc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure the people who did not bother about terrorism, like the ones killed at a Christmas party in San Bernardino or the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, are proud that they were not pathetic cowards

    45. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several of these companies, including Apple and Google, were caught illegally colluding to suppress engineer wages just a few years ago. The vast majority of them don't invest large sums of money training Americans. Intel and a few others are very rare exceptions.

    46. Re:Cheap by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Strange, according to their report last year only 46% of hires were non-white and non-male: http://www.intel.co.uk/content...

      Shame you didn't manage to record being told flat out that you were the wrong colour, or you could be rich by now from the proceeds of your discrimination lawsuit.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    47. Re: Cheap by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The word "Mecca" in English has come to be used to refer to any place that draws large numbers of people. That's what the GP was referring to, not the fact that those places are all within a certain radius of Mecca

    48. Re:Cheap by unixisc · · Score: 0

      Most of those people would have become European citizens in that case, and would not have been affected by that ban

    49. Re:Cheap by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      because Americans simply refuse to work these jobs for that pay.

      How many people sit in Seattle whining about not being able to find a job with their useless degree but refuse to go out and pick the food they're eating?

      I know farmers all across the US face labor shortages with "illegal" immigrants. Get in your car, sell your MacBookPro and start driving around farm country June to October. You'll find work.

    50. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      his "work visa" reform will now probably be even more restrictive and down-right punitive against Silicon Valley.

      *fingers crossed*

    51. Re:Cheap by GNious · · Score: 1

      Apparently many didn't, and even some that did were stopped esp in case of dual citizenship.

    52. Re:Cheap by tbannist · · Score: 5, Funny

      And you have such a great, positive attitude, I can't imagine any company choosing not to work with you...

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    53. Re:Cheap by muffen · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, because Microsoft, Apple, Facebook etc. are doing this because they *CARE*, not because Trump is about to take away their cheap slave-labor pool and make them hire American workers.

      They are doing this because they sell products in those countries, so they have staff there that needs to come to the US for training, which Trump is effectively stopping. Furthermore, they need to be able to develop products that fit that marketplace, which requires people with specific business skills from those countries, especially when looking at things such as licensing, pricing, marketing, legislation, HR and so on...

      You can create a massive list of reasons how this does in fact hurt them, most of which would hold up in court, but the anti-H1B /.-movement in strong, and now that we have alternative facts and decisions based on feelings and opinions rather then facts, I guess such a list would be quite worthless.

    54. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's truly difficult for me to imagine that no native born U.S. citizen
      could satisfy the requirements of your job. Even if it involved a
      foreign language; sorry not buying it. You're cheap labor, that is all.

      CAP === 'position'

    55. Re:Cheap by tbannist · · Score: 1

      We, too, born to freedom, and believing in freedom, are willing to fight to maintain freedom. We, and all others who believe as deeply as we do, would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.

      - Frandklin D. Roosevelt, June 19, 1941

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    56. Re:Cheap by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

      Because it's a lateral move to hold off discrimination lawsuits. But it doesn't hurt that it provides cheap labor.

    57. Re:Cheap by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      I have a *really* hard time believing these companies have such a large part of their workforce that they depend on daily coming in and out of Syria, Iran, etc....
      I never knew those were the tech Mecca of the world....

      They aren't. This is another "Jump on the Stop Trump! Bandwagon" appeal to liberals move. The press likes to call this a Muslim ban. Here's a list of countries that have at least a 50% Muslim population. I've bolded the ones that the temporary travel applies to.

      Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina, Central, Chad, Cocos, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mayotte, Middle, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Western Sahara, Yemen

      If it was a Muslim ban, why aren't they all on the list?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    58. Re:Cheap by simplypeachy · · Score: 1

      "There have been many documented cases of domestic workers losing their jobs and being replaced by these workers" This I don't doubt. How many cases has there been of domestic workers not existing, and a firm having to employ immigrant labour, documented or otherwise? One hardly paints an accurate picture by cherry-picking the most blatant and egregious cases and trumping them as the norm, the majority.

    59. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can lower labor costs in two ways:

      1) import cheap foreign labor
      2) increase the supply of domestic labor (higher supply means lower prices).

      So...they are doing both. It is that simple.

    60. Re:Cheap by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Clearly, he lives at Trump Towers. It's a magical world, where everything bad is the fault of Mexico, India and China, and everything good is the work of the Trump.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    61. Re:Cheap by gtall · · Score: 1

      It isn't that they care about these countries. It is that they figure this is only the tip of the iceberg that Trump will send their way. And it isn't just visas, it is the general Soviet style economy he wants to impose.

      A bunch of them (including Apple) screwed up by meeting the fellow a few weeks back. If Trump calls, treat him like telemarketer and hand up. He'll only twist anything you say and you will forever be beholden to his antics.

    62. Re:Cheap by gtall · · Score: 1

      But, but, but....Trump insists we must have Extreme Vetting. I gather by that he intends for prospective immigrants to undergo torture to see if they'll admit to wanting to come here to kill Americans. If they admit it, then America will be Great again by denying them entry. If they do not, then they are lying and America will still be Great again by denying them entry. One has a vision of Trump acting like the Wizard of Oz with the green flame jets and the magnified voice. Sooner or later Toto will show up and pull his curtain aside.

    63. Re:Cheap by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about the ones at the Mosque in Quebec. Lots of white terrorists around and they're becoming more bolder with the current political climate. Of course this ban isn't meant to keep out terrorists as no countries that traditionally produce terrorists are on the list, its meant to create terrorists and doing a good job.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    64. Re: Cheap by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Your making it sound like there were 8 employees affected by the cases I mentioned when in fact the number is in the hundreds.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    65. Re:Cheap by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Yes, being in defense work made it more difficult than fir mist, because he needed a security clearance. The extreme vettting (as we call it today) this required would not apply to most tech workers.

    66. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a former company I worked for shut my office they offered me a position in SV. It would come with a $10K a year pay raise to account for cost of living. Problem was, to keep parity on my standard of living, it would have needed to be closer to $25K a year. And sorry, but I'm not moving there for a $15K a year pay cut.

    67. Re:Cheap by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Gets you fit as well.

      Maybe that's what I should do when I take a sabbatical later this year. Go fruit picking for a couple of months, lose a bit of flab, meet some interesting people.

    68. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What he means is that the company couldn't find any Americans practiced and adept at shitting in the streets like the H1-Bs.

    69. Re: Cheap by simplypeachy · · Score: 1

      I don't wish to denigrate the abuses that have happened, I've read about them and they're undeniably appalling. But that fact that some unscrupulous assholes misuse the system doesn't mean the system has to be scrapped. It just needs to be improved. In this case "the system" being skilled, immigrant labour.

      The UK is crying out to fill huge gaps in its medical professional staff and we're about to shut the door even more tightly on immigrant labour, of the exact type and skill we desperately need. If we stopped accepting any at all our hospitals and other healthcare establishments would cease to function. I do understand they're different industries and countries, but where there is a real skills gap, it has to be filled by someone, else the country and the customers suffer. By all means come up with a long-term plan to increase the number of skilled locals - better education, outreach etc., but that can't happen straight away.

    70. Re:Cheap by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      How do you explain those companies investing large sums of money trying to train up American kids if they prefer the slave-labour H1Bs? Insurance perhaps?

      Intel threw $300,000,000 at increasing diversity and equality.

      I don't see anything about training and skills in "diversity and equality".

    71. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't stupid. There's a reason companies tend to congregate in the same area. It makes finding specialized talent much easier. The more companies that are in the area, the more value it is for other companies to be there. This is not just limited to computer companies. The banking industry is in New York, the movie industry is in LA, the car industry is in Detroit - all for very similar reasons. Congregating has advantages, sometimes quite large.

    72. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? Somalia is the heart of the tech industry, and the microprocessor was invented in Yemen.

    73. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am an American living in France working in the tech sector. Given the response of my colleagues to all this, believe me, this is severely damaging the reputation of the US. I imagine this is going on just about everywhere else. The fact that the US unilaterally changed the rules literally overnight without warning would make anyone even thinking about applying for a job in the US think twice, no matter where they are from. So any company that depends on skilled immigrant workers of FROM ANYWHERE is going to find it harder to recruit. In additional, almost all of these companies probably have at least a few people from those places (my former boss when I was in the US is from Iran).

      To me, the worst aspect of this was the way it was issued. People who were legally en route to the US and were detained at the airport on the whim of the government. What insane person thought this was a good idea? Even if you believe that we should tighten the rules (which are already rather tight), it is morally wrong to do this to people who have already been granted permission, already potentially uprooted their lives (i.e. sold their homes to move to the US because the US said it was allowed) and already gone through extensive screening procedures.

      This sort of capricious behavior ought to be illegal (we'll of course see what the courts have to say - they are, after all, the finally arbiters of what is legal).

    74. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re: "I am not a US citizen and I don't live there, but I can very easily believe that the company you're working at could have found the necessary workforce"

      The very fact you claim something you cannot know, makes me believe that you're just bullshitting

    75. Re:Cheap by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      You pay them enough and they will come.

      That's not how it works.

      Say there is 1 American with an expertise in Skill Set A. No amount of money is going to split that person into 3 people to get hired at 3 different locations.

      Additionally people refuse to move. "My family is in this area" "All my friends are here". Try and tell any of the under employed people in Seattle or SV that they can make bank with a 4 week welding certificate nearly anywhere in the US and see how many of them move to Nebraska.

      Now, personally I like flyover country. Food's cheap, I pay less for 20 acres than a small 1 BR apartment in SV.

    76. Re: Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why is it you think we care what the surrender monkeys think?

    77. Re:Cheap by lgw · · Score: 3, Informative

      Islamic terrorists killed ~27000 people last year. That's a fair-sized war. It's simple rationality to keep that war off our shores - like any other war.

      It's not some fantasy. ISIS has bragged that they hide terrorists among "refugees", and they have done so, e.g. the recent Paris attacks. It's wonderful that it's not a real threat in the US - let's keep it that way,.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    78. Re:Cheap by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I have a *really* hard time believing these companies have such a large part of their workforce that they depend on daily coming in and out of Syria, Iran, etc....

      I know a number of people with technical backgrounds who are originally from Iran. Mostly, I met them in the UK. One is the CEO of a public company with annual revenue over $1B.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    79. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a time traveler?

    80. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 7 countries affected by the TEMPORARY entry ban could disappear tomorrow and the world would be better off. Accepting unfettered immigration from any of these countries is only spreading the virus the refugees and asylum seekers are running away from. The people running away from the violence and chaos are the ones who tacitly allowed their children and neighbors to become the sociopaths running their countries without challenge. Instead of accepting millions of people running away from their problems we should hand them an AK-47 and send them back to fight for a better life. The people not committing the violence vastly outnumber the homicidal maniacs. People will die but the body count would be less than it is now. Any type of negotiations are a waste of time. The people in that volatile region have bended a knee to leaders who wrap themselves in religious dogma who do not have the smallest amount of empathy or compassion in regards to their country and society.

      Isn't it odd that there have been foreign and domestic complaints accusing the US of being the worst place to live in the world but now everyone is falling all over themselves to complain they can't come seek a better life in the US? I guess all the gun violence, intrusive surveillance, fat, ignorant, and racists are all being over looked by the teeming masses running for US shores?

      And if the tech companies filing these court challenges put the same amount of effort into hiring US talent maybe they would deserve a pat on the back instead of a fist in the mouth. How about we make these companies verify that they have truly exhausted all efforts to find the skillset they are seeking from the current US workforce? Personally I think their sudden concern for the well being of their imported, English as a second language workforce is going to end badly for them. Have the high and mighty leaders of these corporate giants not been paying attention to the person currently in the WH? Even as bad as the current President may be the fact is he was able to win the Presidency in the first place. No matter what he says or does he can still rally his core voters and his supporters have not been kind or understanding of anyone putting foreign concerns ahead of their own.

    81. Re:Cheap by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the people who did not bother about terrorism, like the ones killed at a Christmas party in San Bernardino or the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, are proud that they were not pathetic cowards

      The San Bernadino shooters were from Pakistan.

      The Pulse nightclub shooter was American-born.

      Neither episode would have been stopped by Trump's travel-ban.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    82. Re: Cheap by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      But that's fine The problem is that companies aren't forced to try to find someone else in the country and they aren't. Companies should be forced to try to make remote employees work and they aren't. THEN they should look to outside nations.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    83. Re:Cheap by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      When a company says that no one wants to move, I instantly wonder how hard they tried. Did they recruit at colleges in other areas? Did they offer a bonus to move? Do they pay moving expenses? Do they assist with finding housing in the new location? Do they try remote collaboration solutions? If the answer is no to any of these, then a company has not done everything in their power to look for people. If they have done all of this and still can't find someone then yes, they should apply for an H1-B.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    84. Re:Cheap by Ravaldy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was white. intel hires MOSTLY 'for diversity' and I was told flat-out that I was the 'wrong color' and intel needed more non-whites.

      Your lack of maturity while speaking about a previous employer tells me one thing but the statement I quoted tells me you are lying. NOT ONE HR department would make the mistake of saying such a thing. Sounds like Trump alternative fact makeup.

    85. Re:Cheap by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      This sounds like more "alternative facts" such as what Trump has been doing. Put some references to facts.

    86. Re:Cheap by phorm · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be a large part of their workforce, just key important positions.

      I'm Canadian and thus not affected by this directly, but I have worked in places where co-workers in important places came in as refugees from the affected countries, notably one co-worker who is damn good at his job and whom without him I'm sure there would be issues. He's not even Muslim himself (awesome guy, one of his favourite things about Canada is bacon). It would have sucked if he was suddenly barred from re-entering the country after being away from holidays.
      How would YOUR organisation be affected if even 2-5 people in key positions happened to be blocked from entering the country for a month or three? Probably more than you think.

      Add to that people who would be unexpectedly separated from family etc and it's really a huge clusterf***. The last thing you want to find out after being out-of-country on a business trip is "hey, you can't come back because the sh*thole you escaped from is now on a blacklist, even though you hate everything they stand for and that's why you left."

    87. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Win. I wish you would have done more with the "negroid" portion, though the inbreeding thing was pretty good.

    88. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about these seven countries or the ones comeing after them.
      It's not even about H-1Bs

      It's about power.

      How dare the President of the United States tell the Tech Super-Corps whom they may or may not hire, where they and their people may not go, how their global operations may or may not be conducted. Who is he to gainsay those who could end the world as it is with a keystroke. He will bow before the almighty power of Silicon Valley, or he will be destroyed.

    89. Re:Cheap by phorm · · Score: 1

      or you could be rich by now from the proceeds of your discrimination lawsuit

      Right. Because it's a slam-dunk case when somebody says something discriminatory in front of no witnesses but the complainant and without any paper-trail or recording...

      Bringing a suit is easy. Proving it not so much, especially if you have limited financial resources.

    90. Re:Cheap by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they are hoping that if they can just keep Trump in the throes of one long continuous tantrum perhaps he will have a stroke.

    91. Re:Cheap by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have ever been successful doing that, without offering salaries that were absurdly high and uneconomic,

      It used to be SOP in the industry. I got paid $1500 to cover my expenses to move from Santa Cruz to Austin (I wasn't finding good jobs in scruz so I bailed) just to go do tech support for Tivoli. Granted, at the time literally everyone in tech support was an ex-sysadmin, because you actually had to know your way around. While I was there, IBM created a level 1 support team to work under us and make things worse by writing really crap tickets with words like "yowzij" (I am not translating that for you, take a guess!) and "dragon drop". And no, they were not using Dragon Naturally Speaking, either (though that was a current IBM product at the time... if only it connected to RETAIN, it probably would have outperformed our L1.) People getting real jobs would often get real relocation money. Three to five grand is not that unusual. When you figure that it costs about 40 percent (or presumably more with the ACA) on top of an employee's salary to cover all the typical costs, a one-time relocation bonus that you can write off anyway is not a big deal.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    92. Re:Cheap by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      A word to the wise: always check the user ID and compare it to your own before you use that particular opening. In this case: 241428 1411889, meaning that he/she has been here a while longer than you.

      A word to the unimaginative: Lots of us lurked for years before creating an account here, or lost our first account and can't recover it for one reason or another. Not only did I lurk for over a year before creating my first account, but this isn't even it. My first one had one less digit. IIRC it began with a 7 or so, but I don't even remember the name much less the UID (or the password, ha ha.) In case anyone is wondering, this is only my second account. I don't have time for sockpuppets on top of all the time I spend with this one.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    93. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, 27,000 is a 19th century battle. A war? You have no sense of proportion. You're trying to take your yellow-bellied spineless cowardice jumping at your own shadow and dress it up in some veneer of rationality. Fuck you.

    94. Re:Cheap by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      Hilarious argument.

      1) Does Trump *CARE* about America, or is he simply trying to push an agenda (his brand) and look tough?
      2) Since when should companies *CARE* about anything other than profits?

    95. Re: Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He never said anything about HR. Stop bringing in your own "facts" to the discussion. For all we know it was a hiring manager who said this.

    96. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been here since around 1998, and I've never bothered to create an account.

    97. Re: Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because trump makes a lot of money in most of those places.

    98. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must've been the wrong shade of white. The one with the deep red hue...

    99. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      H1B is done via Department of Labor

      USCIS which is under Department of Homeland Security is also involved with H1Bs.

    100. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to break it to you, but 'white' is de facto not a protected class

    101. Re:Cheap by Hodr · · Score: 0

      You must be new here.

    102. Re:Cheap by SumDog · · Score: 0

      > There have been many documented cases of domestic workers losing their jobs and being replaced by these workers

      Could you list them? I know of one documented case: Disney. It's actually not that common. You're not going to replace actual high skilled workers with H1-B visa holders. That's a lot of cost and not much benefit. I bet Disney will be shooting themselves later for that.

      The H1-B situation is way more complex than you make it out to be:

      http://fightthefuture.org/articles/hr-170-will-all-large-companies-to-consolidate-talent-in-the-tech-industry/

      In the case of Microsoft, they recently made a bunch of Azure people redundant to replace them with .. workers from Puerto Rico. That's right, the replaced US citizens with .. US citizens.

    103. Re:Cheap by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Person opposing a ban on Muslims entering this country cites a president who ordered the internment of citizens based on their ethnicity - not even their religion

    104. Re:Cheap by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Since the president doesn't have jurisdiction over Canada, it's up to Ottawa to decide what works there. But in the US, there haven't been anywhere near the number of anti Muslim terror attacks as there have been US terror attacks

    105. Re:Cheap by unixisc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not like the people protesting this ban would have been for it had it included Pakistan, Afghanistan (where that Pulse night club attacker was really from), Saudi Arabia or Emirates. So let's not use that straw man

    106. Re: Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Impressive.

      I've seen people who have not read the article they are replying to.

      I've seen people who haven't even read the summary they are replying to.

      On occasion I've even seen people who haven't read the comment they are replying to.

      But you, good sir, deserve an honorable mention for not even reading the sentence that you quoted.

      Bravo.

    107. Re:Cheap by unixisc · · Score: 1

      What was an acceptable level of casualties in the 19th century is no longer acceptable today, Especially when wars are fought less on battlefields and more by infiltration of terrorists who then do what they can to take out as many people possible

    108. Re: Cheap by unixisc · · Score: 1

      No he doesn't. What does he have in Chad, Afghanistan, Djibouti or Tajikistan, to pick just a few examples from the above list?

    109. Re:Cheap by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      You are confused. You are the one who is using a strawman, You're defending Trump's travel-ban by citing incidents perpetrated by people who were not from the countries in Trump's EO.

      And no, the Pulse nightclub shooter was not from Afghanistan. He was born in New York. Saying he was from Afghanistan is as spurious as Trump claiming a judge was biased against him because he was "Mexican" -- even though the judge was born in the USA.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    110. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go fruit picking for a couple of months, lose a bit of flab, get knifed and left in an irrigation ditch by some interesting people.

      FTFY
      HTH
      HAND

    111. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't telling you about folks hired overseas, that work in the US for part of the year, and are paid 1/3 of American wages. There is great opportunity for book-cooking in your trivially simplistic approach to the problem.

    112. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tax deductions, past criminal fines for discrimination, and PR.

      I work for a big evil bank and we can't stop talking about diversity hires while we're red-lining minority mortgages and supporting DACL and payday loans.

      And companies do these types of things because their target demographic (people in an age group that spends lots of money) expect the companies they do business with to be socially conscious.

    113. Re: Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      27,000? Big whoop. More people died in the US from car crashes.

    114. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wage control and job entrapment.
      This stuff is obvious. It clearly and demonstrably drives down wages as you can't ask a native developer to work 80 hours a week ALL THE TIME. but sure as can ask a brown import to or the best job they've had in their life will disappear and they'll be deported. How can someone compete with that. What is the punishment if a company gets caught? a wrist slap. still financially worth it.

      I'm all for importing labor if needed but the h1b system is fuuuuuucked. It's usually used to suck the souls out of people. out of minorities. you should be furious bro, supporting H1b visas (in their current abuse prone incarnation) is racist. Look up the abuse stats! I guarantee they are on the wikipedia page as abuse is so rampant.

      Please reply after that.

    115. Re:Cheap by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Intel threw $300,000,000 at increasing diversity and equality. Either there is a genuine shortage of skill, or they genuinely care about that stuff*, or... Or what?

      If you are sincerely having a problem filling jobs, then diversity is the LAST thing you're concerned about.

      If you have 3000 jobs to fill, and all you have are 3000 black women applying, you fucking hire them.

      Geez....when we we get over this forced diversity for diversities sake and just let people compete and be hired on their own merit in this country?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    116. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But hiring or firing based on race is. Which includes all races bud.
      Protection does not factor into it.

    117. Re:Cheap by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Right. Because it's a slam-dunk case when somebody says something discriminatory in front of no witnesses but the complainant and without any paper-trail or recording...

      Bringing a suit is easy. Proving it not so much, especially if you have limited financial resources.

      Well, it is a LOT DIFFERENT if you are a minority female.

      First of all, they start off by giving you the benefit of the doubt. So, if you are a minority female, then it is generally upon the company to prove its innocence if you bring these types of charges (warranted or not).

      And God help you if you are minority female AND trying this against a government entity (especially federal)...they'll pretty much quickly pay you off to get you out of there and out of their hair.

      It isn't like the applicant will face any fines, or punishment by bringing false accusations you know...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    118. Re: Cheap by lgw · · Score: 1

      27,000? Big whoop. More people died in the US from car crashes.

      Not by much, and are we content with that death rate from car crashes? No need to make anything safer on the roads? It's not global nuclear war, but it's not trivial either. In the US people tend to brush it off, since the risk is relatively low here. I'd really like to keep it that way - if nothing else, the TSA would get worse.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    119. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe some people look at the bigger picture, instead of purely their own selfish interests at that moment in time? Just because the discrimination might not immediately affect them today, it doesn't mean it doesn't affect their staff, family, friends, or the image of America.

      You can't be serious. Perhaps you just haven't met these type of executives, but I have, and I assure you they don't give a shit about anything you mentioned.
      They care about profits.
      Oh, and they also care about profits.

    120. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. People who constantly obsess about terrorism should be called out for what they are. Pathetic cowards.

      Yes, those that wish to defend themselves are cowards, and those that pretend there isn't a problem are brave like you.
      Interesting world you live in.

    121. Re:Cheap by guises · · Score: 1

      That's not how it works. The law only prohibits hiring decisions which are made to the detriment of someone in a protected class, if that decision is made because of that person's membership in that class. It is perfectly legal to make hiring decisions based on race, age, gender, etc., provided that you don't run afoul of this issue.

    122. Re:Cheap by ventsyv · · Score: 1

      Interviewed with Amazon couple of years ago in NYC for a job in Seattle. A colleague of mine moved across the country 3 - 4 year ago to work for Yahoo. So yeah, they'll still pay you to move.

    123. Re:Cheap by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Where are you getting that number from? The figure I have is 33,000 between 2002 and 2015, and 2016 wasn't that much worse. If anything, 2016 is the time when ISIS started to really lose ground and get pushed back thanks to Russian and Kurdish forces.

      Source: http://www.ibtimes.com/how-man...

      Anyway, the idea that ISIS could bring their war to US shores is laughable. Maybe some terror attacks at best. And surely if it's a war, they aren't terrorists, they are either soldiers or maybe guerrillas. They aren't trying to murder small numbers of people to effect political change, they are trying to establish a state.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    124. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, the guy you're responding to DID mention how fruitless such a legal pursuit is... lest he HAVE an ironclad recording of the conversation.
      Though it is nice to see your miraculous lawyer'n & fine court decorum, as misplaced as it is. *heeHee

    125. Re: Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My nephew graduated cum lade with a 4.0 gpa and a physics degree. He has worked as an intern for three years at 3M, which means about 24 hours a week and no assurance he won't be terminated next week.

      Fuck the big tech companies. They simply want the bottom dollar slave-labor force that gives them a max profit.

    126. Re:Cheap by lgw · · Score: 1

      Here's one source - shows 21k killed, 27k injured. http://www.thereligionofpeace....

      Note that most of these attack are in Islamic countries, so they don't get Western press coverage.

      They aren't trying to murder small numbers of people to effect political change

      Look at the list. That's what they're doing for these numbers: ~2500 small attacks. I don't think ISIS battle casualties are included, and probably bring the total up to the 27k I saw elsewhere.

      Anyway, the idea that ISIS could bring their war to US shores is laughable. Maybe some terror attacks at best.

      Just the occasional truck through a crowd - no problem, right? I agree we won't see small communities slaughtered in "door-to-door beheadings" as in Africa, but a suicide bomber in a crowded nightclub could have a similar death toll.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    127. Re:Cheap by marcel_in_ca · · Score: 1

      Here's 3 more cases that I thought of, off the top of my head. There's more with a simple Google search:
      UCSF https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
      Toys-R-Us https://www.numbersusa.com/new...
      Southern California Edison http://www.computerworld.com/a...

    128. Re:Cheap by unixisc · · Score: 1

      First of all, the claim by a lot of Leftists, including the Seattle judge, that no terror incidents have happened from the countries in Trump's list is downright false, and it didn't help that the lawyer defending the EO had no clue. But the Ohio State Attack was done by a Somalian. The stabbings in Minneapolis a few months back (at the same time as the trash bombs in NY and NJ) were also done by Somalis. There had been Yemenis in the plots in Ft Hood or Ft Dix. Not including Syria or Iraq, both of where ISIS is active, would have been insane. Anyway, bottom line - you people are wrong in claiming that there have been no attacks from these 7 countries.

      The Pulse nightclub shooter was 'American' as an accident of birth. Not only was his father deeply connected to Afghanistan - to the extent of claiming to be its rightful president(!): Omar Mateen himself made trips to Quetta, Pakistan, which is a place one only goes to meet up w/ Taliban people. It's not the same as Trump's 'Mexican judge': that judge was doing his job according to the constitution, and did nothing that flies in the face of US law. That's not the same as Omar Mateen, who not only retained his deep Afghan connections, but also used them to coordinate w/ them. So yeah, he's a US citizen in the same way that Yaser Esam Hamdi was a US citizen: born in the US, but happy to engage in treasonous activities.

    129. Re: Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh.. actually a lot of medical students (post grad n beyond) work on J1 visas in remote locations for this exact reason. Because there aren't enough Americans with the skills willing to work in middle of nowhere locations

    130. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may have meant new to the US, not Slashdot.

    131. Re:Cheap by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I'm not opposing the ban on people with visas/citzenship from 7 arbitrary predominatley Muslim countries. I'm opposing the craven cowardice of the poster, I was replying to.

      You should also note that neither of those attacks that he cited were carried out by people who would have been affected by Trump's travel ban. Two of those shooters were natural born American citizens, and the third was married to one of the other shooters and while born in Pakistan (not covered by the ban), was a permanent resident of the United States.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    132. Re:Cheap by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Intel threw $300,000,000 at increasing diversity and equality. Either there is a genuine shortage of skill, or they genuinely care about that stuff*, or... Or what?

      Pandering. Nothing more. They also laid off 11% of their workforce at roughly the same time.

      If you don't think there aren't shakedowns going on by sexist baiters and race baiters you're extremely naive. Al Shaprton has done it to numerous companies, Sarkeesian has done it to several companies as well. The only upside is, the numbers of companies actually pandering and simply not giving a shit is increasing.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    133. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to your fat fuck nut job mates at 4chan, you will feel safe there snowflake, pathetic troll white trash begone.

    134. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't want your "wisdom", old man. Your "wisdom" is why we have trump. Your time is over and you have become irrelevant. It's natural. Deal with it.

    135. Re:Cheap by driblio · · Score: 1

      So you're saying they must be doing it for moral reasons?

      Maybe they have a genuine fear about trump's fairness, proportionality, constitutionality, overreach and what he might do next?

    136. Re:Cheap by driblio · · Score: 1

      India's not on the list.

    137. Re:Cheap by jandersen · · Score: 1

      We don't want your "wisdom", old man. Your "wisdom" is why we have trump. Your time is over and you have become irrelevant. It's natural. Deal with it.

      Hah, that's what you mere babes in arms always say, when you don't want to listen to sense. But you'll come running soon enough when you need our experience.

    138. Re:Cheap by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I can find ads here in Canada which contravene the equal hiring laws, where companies and government agencies have openly stated that they "are not hiring white people." Hell buzzfeed got caught doing it a year or two ago, in both Canada and the US.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    139. Re:Cheap by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The one in Quebec? You mean the white, hyper leftwing supporting person, who supported the Parti Quebecois, NDP, and other various separatist leaders in Quebec? Yeah, you read that right. He was a left-wing nationalist. Not the first one we've dealt with here in Canada. The PQ are leftwing nationalists, the FLQ was a leftwing nationalist terrorist group. But those facts aren't convenient for the story of the day.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    140. Re:Cheap by Raseri · · Score: 1

      You're not an American, so it's not a shock that any number of terrorism-related American deaths is no big deal to you. However, those of us that are Americans, or even just live here, would like to keep the number as low as possible. What we do to effect this will not be dictated to us by someone who sits on their hands while thousands of inbred, third-world savages rape a million little girls because you're so terrified that someone might think you're a racist if you do anything about it. Fuck you and your cowardice, you disgusting piece of shit.

      --
      Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
    141. Re:Cheap by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That's an argument for carefully vetting immigrants. It's not an argument that our current vetting is insufficient. I note that you mention an attack in Paris, not one in the US.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    142. Re:Cheap by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't have been for it, but at least it would have had some justification if it included those four countires.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    143. Re:Cheap by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I read of a case of a woman who was born in Iraq or Iran (which is irrelevant here), holds Australian citizenship, and was really uncertain about leaving the country on business. A halfway decent EO would have made it clear, one way or another.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    144. Re:Cheap by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And now I'll list the countries mentioned in the travel ban whose citizens have killed anybody in the US in a terrorist incident:

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    145. Re:Cheap by dryeo · · Score: 1

      WTF? Where are you getting this bullshit, unless you consider Trump, LePen as well as the nationalist Parti Quebecois (who are a coalition of right and left) as extreme left wing.
      Everything points to Alexandre Bissonnette being an extreme right winger, along with most of Canada's recent shooters such as Justin Bourque.
      You can do what I did and Google "politics of Quebec shooter" and read the results. Here's a couple, though you'll probably call them fake news.
      http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
      http://www.macleans.ca/news/ca...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    146. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I'm not new here, I'm someone with actual experience of the system, rather than someone who's just heard news headlines and has taken some particularly egregious abuses of the system and extrapolated it to the entire thing. There's a reason the Disney IT outsourcing thing made headlines, and why Disney walked it back, and it's not because it was business as usual.

      Like you I have actual experience with the H1-B system. As a VP Engineering of a tech company I was forced by the CEO and CFO to be part of the scam.

      1. Define an obscure set of tech skill requirements for the job description. e.g. compiler design with JavaScript
      2. Advertise in the US and decide the few US applicants are just not suitable.
      3. Use in-house lawyers to obtain H1-B visas (no one locally, you see)
      4. Advertise in Bangalore and Mumbai and offer low wages for the chance of moving to the US
      5. By the time the new tech slaves arrive the job descriptions and needs have changed.
      6. No matter. We can't send them back and they are low cost. Let's fire some Americans and let these kids take over the jobs.

      Standard practice in the tech industry. And THAT is why they are bitching like hell.

    147. Re:Cheap by syntotic · · Score: 1

      And... is Trump aware THEY are being accused over a period of years of stealing code and producing fortunes from stolen code? And also of sedition implicitly and treason overtly. They are trying to protect Indians or Mexican or Orientals believing they ARE the best programmers but in fact they only use stolen code, hide the evidence and call themselves programmers from copying and changing some documentation example, (of which the documentation is quickly gone...)? Sorry, but COMPUTING was supposed to be a tenet of America first, THEN of the European world THEN a tenet of Occident! The evident sign of the Industrial Revolution and associated revolutions being successful. Instead, it now looks like the undoing of Occident and these guys are confirming it when opposing Trump to actually get better wages and better foundational economic conditions.

    148. Re:Cheap by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      I would like to see a reference to said statement. Any company making such a statement would be in court shortly after doing damage control.

    149. Re: Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'How do you explain those companies investing large sums of money trying to train up American kids if they prefer the slave-labour H1Bs?"

      Supply and demand. Same reason the tech companies want women to be more involved in IT. These companies don't care about women, men, or h1bs, they care about cheap labor. So by fooling people to donate to the "teach girls to code" program or convincing the government to teach all kids to code they are using somebody else's money to make their labor cheaper. They even donate small sums of money to these programs to appear as if they have good intentions. Now is it bad that these groups get more involved in IT? No of course not but in the end of the day these corporations are concerned about lowering wages for themselves only. You don't see Google and Microsoft pushing to teach more woman into medical school or to teach all children how to be doctors do you?

    150. Re:Cheap by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Or they wanted to find a way to legally discriminate against "Over Represented Minorities" whom they laid off by the tens of thousands last spring.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    151. Re:Cheap by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Not a chance. White and Asian males can't file discrimination lawsuits, they get laughed out of court.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    152. Re:Cheap by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Even with an ironclad recording, it will get laughed out of court because ORMs can't bring discrimination lawsuits.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    153. Re:Cheap by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      You can only get training $$$ at Intel these days if you're a URM.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    154. Re: Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about they just mary a Dr and mooch off her instead? Seems better than picking fruit.

    155. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islamic terrorists killed ~27000 people last year. That's a fair-sized war. It's simple rationality to keep that war off our shores - like any other war.

      It's not some fantasy. ISIS has bragged that they hide terrorists among "refugees", and they have done so, e.g. the recent Paris attacks. It's wonderful that it's not a real threat in the US - let's keep it that way,.

      That is perfectly fine, but... make sure that the countries you are banning are the ones producing the terrorists you are talking about. No terrorists have come from any of the countries banned thus there is no justification in banning them.

    156. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it not obvious that these companies are taking a multi-pronged approach to devalue your skills? They are trying to lower the value of our labor. Even if these kids never actually can program, you will still need to justify getting payed more than a kid who took a class in highschool.

    157. Re:Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have an uid yet I've been posting random crap here since 1998.

    158. Re:Cheap by Maritz · · Score: 1

      There are higher priorities for public policy. It should not be allowed to set the agenda. Why? That's what terrorists want. They want a ban on muslims travelling. Everything people do with respect to terrorism feeds the flames.

      You're more likely to die in a fucking car crash. Governance should be run by cool heads, not people losing their shit constantly as a justification for a power grab. I make no apologies for the description, pathetic cowards. Freedom or safety. Choose one.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  2. how about this by FudRucker · · Score: 0, Troll

    all those big wig IT executives that want to open the floodgates for refugees open their homes and guest houses to refugees, they can sleep in your spare bedrooms and eat your food, use your couch and TV, or if that inconveniences you too much maybe you can buy homes and supply them with the money to live since you want them here so god damned bad

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:how about this by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      all those big wig IT executives that want to open the floodgates for refugees open their homes and guest houses to refugees

      Not a chance. They'll do what the elitist pricks in France and Italy did while cheering on the "migrants" and so on. Cheer, cheer, cheer while they're flooding in and the average person gets fucked. Then when they show up on their door step, scream "help me police and government, you're our only hope." And build a wall or two while they're at it.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:how about this by Kierthos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, and I'm just throwing this out there....

      it's a terribly conceived, poorly written, and horribly implemented EO that doesn't actually make the U.S. safer, provides our enemies with the recruitment point they've been wanting for years, and conveniently leaves out countries in the Middle East where terrorists who have killed people on U.S. soil have come from. (They're also countries that Trump has business interests in, but I'm sure that's just an amazing coincidence.)

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    3. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      all those big wig IT executives that want to open the floodgates for refugees open their homes and guest houses to refugees

      Not a chance. They'll do what the elitist pricks in France and Italy did while cheering on the "migrants" and so on. Cheer, cheer, cheer while they're flooding in and the average person gets fucked. Then when they show up on their door step, scream "help me police and government, you're our only hope." And build a wall or two while they're at it.

      In other words, "Let them eat cake."

    4. Re:how about this by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's all true, but here we have an aggressive fight by 97 tech companies that don't seem to give a crap about people in their own back yard. You have to wonder what their real motivation is.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    5. Re: how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's what makes you feel okay with oligarchs working to undermine the United States government so they can continue to import H-1B slave labor, keep telling yourself that.

    6. Re: how about this by FyRE666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If by "slave labour" you mean the tech workers earning 6 figure salaries, with in some cases stock options, then yeah I'm ok with that.

    7. Re:how about this by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most, if not all, of those 97 companies are global. When one country does {stupid thing}, other countries tend to react to that by doing their own {differently stupid but related thing}. That makes it very hard to continue doing business effectively.

      Now, are these companies uncaring about people in their own backyard? Well, technically, yes. But no more so than normal. They want to continue to make profits. If they could make lots of money by treating all employees like fluffy bunnies who just need a hug, they would. Especially if they would make less money by being uncaring.

      But most companies do not shit on their employees without a reason. And most companies want employee morale to be good, as it increase productivity. If employees are worried about being stranded in another country because the country they work in is passing poorly thought out travel laws, it tends to affect employee morale negatively.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    8. Re: how about this by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      You have to wonder what their real motivation is.

      Elimination of the headphone jack... er, I mean fairness! And bravery!!

    9. Re:how about this by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the 0.0001%ers who backed him

      Then how the hell did he win the election?

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    10. Re:how about this by fluffernutter · · Score: 3

      But these companies would be doing better if they treated their employees well with high compensation packages. Kids coming out of high school go into professions that show a history of being interested in the workers. If the problem is as these tech companies say, not enough kids learning programming, then the solution is to make the industry better for workers and more people will go into it. This may not help them this quarter, but they have spent years digging themselves deep so what do they expect?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    11. Re:how about this by Merk42 · · Score: 2

      I believe GP is referring to top .0001% of people in terms of wealth, that backed Trump. Not .0001% of the population.

    12. Re:how about this by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      all those big wig IT executives that want to open the floodgates for refugees open their homes and guest houses to refugees, they can sleep in your spare bedrooms and eat your food, use your couch and TV,

      They don't want immigrants in their homes, they want them working in their factories and offices (for a fraction of what they would have to pay an American).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    13. Re: how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $60K is what the H1-B visa program defines as "high skilled". $60K is not a six figure salary. Also, considering a lot of these people are being sent to the bay area, $60K is not really a comfortable living either.

    14. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That comment is so historically and politically out of touch I can only assume it will be read and affirmed with gusto by the xenophobic Trumpians.

    15. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, god forbid we have a President who actually puts the interests of his own country and countrymen first, or who dares challenge a trade and immigration policy that has been fucking over the American middle class for decades now. He must surely be Hitler!

    16. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the distant past articles of incorporation were only issued by the state legislature and only for causes that would be beneficial to the people or society (still today you must fill out the "cause" section of the filing, though you put "any lawful purpose" today). One wonders if there is any statutory provision or common law rule kicking around that would allow the revocation of a charter based on damage to the people or society.

      It is, perhaps, something to think about for those so inclined to be involved in this issue on either side.

    17. Re: how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      H1-Bs are not making 6 figures in CA. Companies like TCS/InfoSys start Bay Area salary offers at 60-70k.

    18. Re: how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you no heart!?

      There are people out there having to work 40 hours inside data centres! have you ever been inside a data centre? it's pretty loud. (health and safety laws do force companies to provide earplugs but it's loud if you don;t like wearing them)-some of the techs even have to handle server hardware upgrades. Ever tried to fit 64 DIMMs into an R910? -just try to unrack it, give it a go. (sure there;s a lift but you have to walk to the end of the fucking aisle)

      Listen I can give you plenty of example but there's no question about it, the data centre technician is the modern day coal worker.

      Most of them don't even get premium gym memberships for free, they're just subsidised. So yes it's SLAVERY!

      I'm not about to compete for my reinforced (up to 500lbs) seat so I can surf the internet a couple of hours a day (but only when it's not busy) so some foreigner can come in here and do my job. Fuck it. Ban all of them (did you know POTUS said they're some bad dudes??). Make companies HAVE to pay me more because I am all they have. #MAGA!

      And before you even dare compare the quality of my work just know hands down that I'm AWESOME at my job and foreginers are fucking clueless.

    19. Re:how about this by DrXym · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I expect their "real motivation" without any reaching for conspiracy theories is that this harms their business. It's a stupid order issued by a stupid president to placate stupid people.

    20. Re:how about this by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Informative

      IF "they treated their employees well with high compensation packages"???

      Fuck, man, are you not paying attention?

      Other than Uber which tries to classify its drivers as 'not employees', ALL of the tech companies pay their employees very well.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    21. Re:how about this by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Let us know when he's doing that.

      Because so far, he's a retarded screaming shitgibbon making the country & countrymen much less safe on the worlds platform as it exists today.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    22. Re:how about this by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      The only people "united" by this were already against him. He is doing what he promised during his campaign.

      How does it destroy credibility by doing what he promised?

    23. Re:how about this by fluffernutter · · Score: 3

      So if that's the case then all kinds of high school students must be going into technology and we don't need the H1-B program at all. If not enough students are available for them then they need to make things better. There is no middle ground.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    24. Re:how about this by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Because high school kids are, on average, too lazy to work hard enough to obtain the skills to be employed like that.

      Kind of like how doctors are highly compensated, but there aren't many of them. And rural people suffer for it.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    25. Re: how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lying shill.

    26. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe then Trump could learn how to do it, rather than knocking down America and pissing on which is all he's doing now.

    27. Re: how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is utter garbage that in no way reflects the reality of H-1B abuses. Shill.

    28. Re:how about this by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      Well, you reap what you sow, I can't say it any other way. Yes rural areas have trouble with doctors, that's why there are recruitment drives. Tech companies can do the same.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    29. Re:how about this by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Sure they could, but the 5-10 year cycle would be ... inefficient for tech companies.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    30. Re:how about this by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Maybe schools could do a lot better job of identifying those whose talents and interests lie in certain directions earlier on, like the Germans do.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    31. Re:how about this by fluffernutter · · Score: 0

      Yeah well, if business wasn't hard then everyone would have their own company.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    32. Re:how about this by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      he's a retarded screaming shitgibbon

      Are you sure you are talking about Trump or the cry babies rioting ?

      making the country & countrymen much less safe on the worlds platform as it exists today.

      You can argue how effective the travel ban is/will be after time has passed to see the effects. What happened in 2011 when Obama did it? The whole point of the pause is to reassess the process to make sure we aren't letting in the bad ones like what has happened in Europe. Why is it that bad? In what way is that anything near nefarious and crappy as you and others make it out to be?

    33. Re:how about this by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 0

      its like what george carlin said about the republicans. they seem to 'care a huge amount' about the unborn babies, but once you are born - until you reach military age - you are not important to them.

      they 'care' only as far as their holy book is interpreted as saying. once born, they could not care less about you or your kids.

      same here; the companies really don't care about workers or people. its ONLY about the bottom line. they are completely untrustable in anything they say. capitalism has gone off the rails and it really is headed for a trainwreck. it simply is not sustainable in its current form. but don't look now; just keep going. that's their view. don't think - just keep lining our wallets!

      pathetic.

      I'm part of silicon valley, but part of me hopes it all melts down. we need a reboot. a serious one, at that.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    34. Re:how about this by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      The whole point of the pause is to reassess the process to make sure we aren't letting in the bad ones like what has happened in Europe

      The fact that you took the time to type this out instead of researching what the ban actually did is the worst thing about your entire comment.

      Hint: his ban did nothing like this.
      Hint2: immigrants & refugees are already extremely vetted.
      Hint3: the fact that he didn't ban countries where actual terrorists have come from, to the US, says it's complete bullshit.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    35. Re:how about this by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      https://www.merriam-webster.co...

      Definition of non sequitur

              1
              : an inference (see inference 2) that does not follow from the premises (see 1premise 1); specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative (see 1affirmative 3) proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent (see 1consequent 1)

              2
              : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    36. Re:how about this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      My hope is that the US and UK will be seen as an experiment in far right politics and withdrawal from globalization and movement of labour. Other countries will see how it works for those two before following them. And it will work out really badly and hopefully others won't make the same mistake.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    37. Re:how about this by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      The idiots who are screaming about him didn't think he would actually follow through on the campaign promises he made. After all, what politician does that?

      The the idiots scream because he isn't a politician. I expect they'll be screaming for 7 more years.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    38. Re: how about this by lucasnate1 · · Score: 2

      The thing that makes someone a slave is that he knows that he can't leave. If someone knows that being fired means going back to his dangerous third world country, then he doesn't really have much freedom in choosing his employer. So yes, to some extent, it makes his job closer to slavery than yours.

    39. Re:how about this by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      Well you can read the actual executive order here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...

      Which part of it is terribly conceived or poorly written? How was it horribly implemented? Currently there are 6 countries named that are in the midst of civil strife/war, and unable or unwilling to provide the data needed to verify info of travelers from their region. The 7th country is Iran. Not sure why they were selected, it might be because they're uncooperative, or it might be because they have a habit of chanting "Death to America" at large gatherings.

    40. Re:how about this by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      Right now as a parent in technology I wouldn't want my kids in it even if they were interested. Back when I went in everyone was telling me that technology was so important everyone would need me to work for them. It didn't pan out that way. Tech companies got all kinds of ways around a fair job market. My kids are going into another industry that treats their workers better and must participate in a fair market.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    41. Re: how about this by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how not being able to recruit from those countries will harm their business significantly. Do Somalia and Yemen have a flourishing IT sector?

    42. Re:how about this by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      I believe GP is referring to top .0001% of people in terms of wealth, that backed Trump. Not .0001% of the population.

      Uh, that's who the 97 companies represent. News flash: they didn't vote for Trump. You'd think after this last election we could get over the whole "only rich people vote for Republicans" idiocy, especially since the same people are claiming that only poor, stupid, blue collar self-defeating idiots voted for Trump.

    43. Re:how about this by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. Import people with a wide variety of incompatible cultures to your country.

      2. Actively discourage assimilation by promoting multiculturalism and denouncing any criticism of the incompatible culture as "racism."

      3. When violence inevitably occurs, demand expanded police and surveillance powers to maintain "stability."

      You lose your culture, are forced to live next to people who are at best indifferent to you and at worst want to kill you, lose your civil rights and get a police state, too. What's not to love?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    44. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people "united" by this were already against him. He is doing what he promised during his campaign.

      How does it destroy credibility by doing what he promised?

      He lies about what he's doing, he lies about how what he did do work out, and he lied about what others did to deflect blame.

      He gives zero reason for anybody skeptical to believe him, let alone those already challenging him.

      Oww, captch is "pompous" a word that describes Trump from T to P.

    45. Re:how about this by muffen · · Score: 2

      all those big wig IT executives that want to open the floodgates for refugees open their homes and guest houses to refugees

      Not a chance. They'll do what the elitist pricks in France and Italy did while cheering on the "migrants" and so on. Cheer, cheer, cheer while they're flooding in and the average person gets fucked. Then when they show up on their door step, scream "help me police and government, you're our only hope." And build a wall or two while they're at it.

      They aren't asking for refugees to be let in, they are saying that a blanket ban, like the one Trump is trying to implement, to stop _anyone_ from those countries from entering the US, for _any_ reason, is hurting them.

      They do business in those countries, they need to sell their products there, and be able to support them, have teams there for the local markets, and now none of them can get to the US and be trained, they cant come for conferences, they cant assist in projects and so on... not to mention the negative image this gives US companies in not only the banned countries, but also in many others.

      If you are from Iran, do really good research, then should you not be able to present that research in a conference, even if its in the US?

      Its sad to see the comments on /. these days, it used to be a good forum, but as soon as Trump / foreigners etc are mentioned in a story, the anti-H1B movement comes rushing in, and floods all comments to the point that its depressing to read them.

      I simply don't get how you can move from "cannot get our staff from abroad here for training and conferences" to "they should let refugees sleep in their homes".

    46. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Trump campaign cost half as much as the Hillary campaign. The money angle doesn't make any sense either.

    47. Re: how about this by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Every company in every industry has to deal with these issues yet tech companies get a pass. I fail to see how my comment I'd non-sequitor. If they can't take the heat...

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    48. Re: how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if it goes well?

    49. Re:how about this by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And what field is that precisely?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    50. Re: how about this by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Tech

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    51. Re:how about this by dryeo · · Score: 2

      He hasn't been following through on his campaign promise to stop terrorists from coming in. Instead he has picked a list of countries that would be easiest to sell as doing something while continuing to let those most likely, based on prior performance, to be terrorists.
      If he was serious about terrorists, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would be close to the top of the list and if this was about H1Bs, countries such as India would be on the list.
      He has done a good job of alienating some of his base such as the Christian Syrian community with his ill thought out travel ban.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    52. Re:how about this by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Basing the list on citizenship rather then residence seems poorly thought out. You have green card holders and other legitimate visa holders, who have been extremely vetted, some of whom are ready to become American citizens stopped at the border after going to a conference out of country vs Saudi Arabian citizens who have joined ISIS, been fighting in Syria etc for the last decade allowed in.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    53. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or it could be they lose their predatory hiring practices and want to unite against it? Your insult of "stupid people" IS a major reason Trump got elected. You do know that, right? You continuing to call everything you personally don't like "stupid" is not only immature and very ignorant, but it will ensure Trump gets a second term. Keep it up, and you'll get more of what you don't want.

    54. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think after this last election we could get over the whole "only rich people vote for Republicans" idiocy, especially since the same people are claiming that only poor, stupid, blue collar self-defeating idiots voted for Trump.

      I believe you misheard what people are saying. That's probably the issue. People say "Only rich people should vote for Republicans" as they are voting against their own interest by voting for a party that merely pretends to pander to their interests, and offers them token saps and emotional appeals, but delivers nothing of value. Thoughtful people have long known of the appeal that the Republican party has stirred up in the working man, the way they've been cultivated and exploited through emotional exploitation of patriotism, nationalism, loyalty, and the like.

      What should happen, is that people wake up, and realize what a con-job Trump is pulling, even when he actually pursues the things that Republican politicians with sense know only to offer, not to deliver.

      You know the saying, beware what you wish for, you just might get it? That's the operative word. He may well deliver the steaming load of crap so everybody can dine on it's magnificence.

      Some people need to stick their hands into the fire to realize it will burn.

    55. Re:how about this by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      So, then there's this:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

      Across the United States, more than 15,000 doctors are from the seven Muslim-majority countries covered by the travel ban, according to Medicus, a firm that recruits doctors for hard-to-fill jobs.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    56. Re:how about this by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      For Hint1: His ban was temporary implying that the process was to be reassessed in addition to the stated goals of the WH.

      For Hint2, maybe you forgot the debacle a few years back how the FBI and Homeland Security secretaries could not guarantee the process would ensure no terrorists made it through. If they are already extremely vetted then what is the problem to ensure that that process is not behind the times? I have heard reports how that vetting process could not look at social media to see if they have ISIS sympathies. So far what I have heard is that prospective immigrants have to sit through a few extra hours of interviews... So what? Considering where they are coming from a few hours answering a few questions seems like cake. These were reports from NPR.

      Hint3: The countries have ISIS operations. Are you saying ISIS is not terrorists? ISIS made it to Europe through the refugees why do you think they wouldn't make it to the US if they tried to game the immigration system?

    57. Re:how about this by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In a gentle way, Canada has done (1) and (2) pretty much since the 1950s. Certainly there has been some vigorous debate, but no widespread denunciation or violence.

      Canada has not "lost" its culture, at least not due to multiculturalism. On the contrary, it has evolved into a mosaic of cultures from all over the world, but with a common theme of mutual respect and understanding.

      Fearing the loss of your culture and imagining your neighbors want to kill you should be a wake-up call to reconsider what you think your culture really is.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    58. Re:how about this by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      List of countries that A) the Obama administration listed as dangerous prior and B) has ISIS operating within their borders. WTF is a good criteria if those aren't for a temporary immigration ban ?

      The countries he listed had ISIS operating within the borders...We are at war with ISIS. Why is that not a good enough reason to suspend immigration until the processes has been vetted to ensure it isn't being gamed by an enemy whose operations and ideological extremism span across continents and national borders?

      What is a good reason to suspend immigration from a country if a violent ideological enemy is not?

    59. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. you do understand how percentages work and correlate across different populations.. right?

    60. Re:how about this by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      2. Actively discourage assimilation by promoting multiculturalism and denouncing any criticism of the incompatible culture as "racism."
      [...]
      You lose your culture, are forced to live next to people who are at best indifferent to you and at worst want to kill you, lose your civil rights and get a police state, too. What's not to love?

      Don't worry, your people will be allowed to keep civil war reenactments, potpourri bathroom aerosols and stale, watery beer, but you may have to give up rolling coal.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    61. Re: how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to provide them with dormitory housing. Also, they could pay them in credits only good at the company store.

    62. Re:how about this by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      will be allowed to keep civil war reenactments

      The political pendulum is swinging back to the right, but if it had gone any further left I seriously doubt civil war reenactments would have survived much longer. They too would be declared political incorrect and protested and shut down because the rebel uniforms and flags are far too problematic and each one constitutes a milliaggression (1000 microaggressions) against marginalized POC and probably the LGBTQRS7TU&V community also.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    63. Re:how about this by meta-monkey · · Score: 0

      Canada has a highly selective immigration system, unlike the United States. Also soon "Canadian" culture will be Chinese.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    64. Re:how about this by dryeo · · Score: 1

      One problem is that Saudi Arabian, Egyptian, etc citizens who are in Syria, Iraq etc fighting with ISIS are still free to enter the USA. Considering that based on prior performance, those are the countries that are most likely to do a terrorist attack on the US, it seems counter productive to ban already vetted people such as Syrian Christians in favour of groups that are radicalized (if they're fighting with ISIS, they're radicalized).
      Suspending issuing visas for that whole part of the world would seem a better move. At least it wouldn't fuck up green card holders and other residents, some of who are about to take their citizenship.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    65. Re:how about this by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      Why would you want assimilation? The very word you use, "assimilation", can be interpreted in a somewhat chilling way, suggesting that any immigrant must give up their culture and conform to some cultural norm that you choose. And which cultural norm exactly would you pick? Even if you restrict yourself to white European-descended Americans there is still a huge variation in the culture from the West Coast, to Midwest, to South, to the East Coast, New England, and more. America is a diverse country, and that diversity gives it strength, and you are foolish if you think that there even is a single American culture for immigrants to be assimilated into.

      Also you talk about "losing your culture"... nobody is taking your culture away from you. Immigrants may bring their own culture, but your culture is still here too. And the cultures do meld and transform over time, but not instantly of course.

    66. Re:how about this by rilister · · Score: 1

      Something I find fascinating is the sheer political ineptitude of rolling up terrorism, immigration and refugees in to one big messy ball and acting against all three simultaneously, without a clear message about what the point was of all this disruption. Bringing people with valid visas into the action looks like a totally unnecessary own-goal. Do you think Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft would have teamed up together against a well-crafted, well-articulated action against possible terrorists coming into the country? Perhaps using an NSEERS-like system of profiling?

      Nope, Trump, Bannon and Miller seem to think offending the maximum number of people possible would be helpful and the scale of the blow-back seems to show that was a miscalculation. (On the other hand, every other apparent miscalculation they made in the election campaign played out ok, so perhaps they really are the political Forrest Gumps they appear to be.)

      --
      'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
    67. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saudia Arabia and Egypt have bent over backwards in the last decade to provide extensive documentation on visa applicants. The 7 banned countries don't do that and they don't have appropriate documentation even if they wanted to.

    68. Re:how about this by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      You'd be a great defense lawyer.

      trump is a fucking moron & this is a racist ploy. Other than than, you're spewing 'what-ifs'.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    69. Re:how about this by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Have you read the executive order? Because it sounds like you haven't and are basing your opinion based on what CNN says. Seriously... when you say " counter productive to ban already vetted people such as Syrian Christians." when the E.O. says: "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"

      IOW, halt immigration take an assessment of the process and then when we start it back up prioritize those that are minorities instead of random lottery. Instead of Obama's policy that left those Syrian Christians you are concerned about to be butchered it gives them priority because they are a minority being persecuted because of their religion. They have waited years, what is a few more months at most? An inconvenience to be sure but so what?

      Just read the damn thing before you go half cocked on an absurd opinion that has no basis in reality because CNN said "Muslim ban". Hint. It doesn't say Muslim any where. Most Muslims can still immigrate to the US.

      I wonder if there are other reasons why Saudi Arabia or Egypt wasn't included on that list. I wonder if it has anything to do with where ISIS operates or the type of documentation they have on their citizens for visa applications or their diplomatic status. Stop conflating the issue. It's an apples to orange comparison and you know it. I bet they would have been included if the Obama administration labeled them dangerous like the others.

    70. Re:how about this by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      I'll take that as a compliment. Law is interesting; it's where philosophy, ethics, morality, and free-will come crashing into reality in one blunt obtuse tool that makes liberal democratic civilization possible.

      racist ploy

      If you read the E.O. it doesn't sound bad... At all. Here are a few excerpts:

      the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles

      United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law

      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.

      It seems that if you don't do any of those things you will be fine. Those are not actions specific to one religion, race, or ideology. I honestly do not have a problem with any of those. In fact, I think it should the driving ethos of our immigration policy.

      I must have missed the "what if's" I used. I reread the post and did not see any statement resembling "What if they X".

    71. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >but with a common theme of mutual respect and understanding.

      Having lived all over the world, (and also enjoyed Canada- a wonderful place), I can say that the US is very welcoming as long as you want to be American.
      If new arrivals are given housing, money, language classes; yet after a couple years will still not assimilate. Cloister themselves into groups & neighborhoods, and cliques that defy local mores. Over time lobby for yet more accomodatino & insulted when they're not- whilst claiming racism- then yes... locals would HOPE and EXPECT new arrivals would carry the same "common theme of mutual respect and understanding" which was extended to them but not reciprocated and in fact, culturally told to withhold lest 'you become one of them'. These are are our guests. Not all, but enough that it is no myth or prejudice- it's rather true.

      Also note Meta-Monkey's comment: >Canada has a highly selective immigration system, unlike the United States... and there you go. We were founded on 'escapees' from the old country- but that sentiment is waning. Original settlers had a stake in making a new life, new arrivals can ride on the coat tails of handout programs whilst leaning on an old culture of promised dominance, that the rest of the world is to defer to them merely by reason of a deity saying so.

    72. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There aren't many doctors because the number of medical schools and graduating doctors is tightly regulated by the AMA. They are a guild that have been around for a long time and actually work to keep their members employed and well paid.

    73. Re: how about this by DrXym · · Score: 1

      No but other Muslim and non-Muslim countries do. It's not a stretch to imagine that a tech company might very well want itself, its work force and the places it does business in to not be associated with these policies.

    74. Re:how about this by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Canada has not "lost" its culture, at least not due to multiculturalism. On the contrary, it has evolved into a mosaic of cultures from all over the world, but with a common theme of mutual respect and understanding.

      Head into Brampton or Q-West and let me know if you still think that way. Watch out for the ghettos.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    75. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the wealthy get more than one vote, or is that that can control the masses through advertising?

    76. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This video by Canadian journalist Lauren Southern cites a CBC-Angus Reid Institute poll where 68% of Canadian respondents (as opposed to 53% in the USA) would like to see immigrants do more to fit in to "mainstream society." She goes on to explain how what we are seeing today is not the beautiful melting pot that we have been promised and all desire, but instead we are getting cultural enclaves that are creating a sort of virtual segregation.

      It's not that we fear that our neighbours want to kill us, it's that our actual neighbours for the most part reflect the melting pot we were promised. We are a beautiful mixture of cultures and we respect each other just fine. But there are growing parts of the cities that we grew up in that we can't visit any more because no one there speaks either of our country's two official languages. The "fear" comes from the fact that we don't recognize those areas as "Canada" any more. That's not racism or xenophobia, it's asking if the current policy of multiculturalism is the best policy for all involved, including the immigrants themselves. Because what we're getting now is more cultural divide, not the melting pot that all rational people want. From the immigrant's perspective, if you're going to move here does it not stand to reason that you want to embrace what Canada has to offer? Obviously it's a scary experience, being some place so foreign, and therefore living close to people that are more familiar to you is probably insanely appealing. Even beneficial provided that you're with people who have already assimilated, can speak the language and help you find work etc. But ultimately wouldn't you want to join the melting pot and adopt a bit of Canadian culture and figure out how you're going to fit in as a Canadian immigrant, as opposed to a foreigner living in Canada? I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask if our current policies are doing all they can to help immigrants embrace their new lives as Canadians. And for what it's worth: people that want to immigrate because they love this country and what it has to offer are some of the most important people in the world and we should accept them with open arms. They are certainly our biggest ally against our enemies that hate our country. Why welcome them just to alienate them?

    77. Re:how about this by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's not because standards & not killing people, right?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    78. Re:how about this by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much what happened in the US in the first part of the Twentieth Century, and it seems to have worked fine.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    79. Re:how about this by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Today's high school kids are no lazier than their counterparts going back in history. The circumstances are somewhat different.

      There's limits on the number of MDs the US produces, and that's not based on the market. If there were no such limit, the high pay would get more people to study medicine, and we'd see the same sort of over and underproduction we see in any field that takes a long time to get into.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    80. Re:how about this by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The smart people screaming about him thought he would do stupid things while posturing as someone who keeps his campaign promises. So far, that looks on target, although I hadn't expected him to be quite so flagrant in giving government offices to people who don't care about Trump's voters.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    81. Re:how about this by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Liar: the list of countries is not from the Obama administration. It was added by Congress to an appropriations bill.

      The fact that ISIS is operating in those countries makes things pretty dire for people, leading to refugees. They need to be extensively vetted before coming to the US, and they are. We're not talking about additional vetting, which we probably don't need, but a block on people we're already pretty darn sure are harmless.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    82. Re:how about this by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Were the people from those cultures incompatible with American culture, though? And weren't they treated like shit until they adapted themselves to American culture?

      Compare and contrast with importing Islamic culture, which goes to war with every other culture it encounters including itself, and then a significant portion of our people who bend over backwards to avoid criticizing them or making them feel as if they need to change in any way.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    83. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to Europe, especially Sweden.

    84. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (They're also countries that Trump has business interests in, but I'm sure that's just an amazing coincidence.)

      No, it was a conspiracy between Obama and Trump (before he won the nomination) for Obama to exclude countries in which Trump had a business interest so that Trump could then point to it without hurting his own interests.

    85. Re:how about this by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Was that bill(s) (there were more than one) signed into law? Why would you argue that kind of semantic? Obama signed off on those provisions that were expanded with "countries of concern". He signed it and just like the ACA bears responsibility, for the most part (yes Congress is responsible too but it is the POTUS signature that turns a bill to law. )

      You are being very pedantic and disingenuous if you think that is a "lie" because it was a law signed by Obama. i.e. his approval, support, and his execution of the law by his administration.

      The fact that ISIS is operating in those countries makes things pretty dire for people, leading to refugees. They need to be extensively vetted before coming to the US, and they are. We're not talking about additional vetting, which we probably don't need, but a block on people we're already pretty darn sure are harmless.

      Yes, it sucks for those people. Yes, there is vetting. Has that vetting kept up with the times? If so, why would the FBI acknowledge there is no basis to vet some Syrian refugees? The ban is temporary... What is wrong with taking stock into the process to ensure it has kept up with the times and methods used by nefarious individuals? Instead of acting like Germany I have no problem with the government reassessing our immigration processes.

      There were mistakes but no government is perfect and they have started to rectify those mistakes by letting in green card holders and the like. What I have heard is that refugees directly affected by this have to go through some additional interviews and questions before immigrating... So what? An inconvenience to be sure but it sure as hell beats where they came from. It's also temporary for most of the countries save Syria which has no records, barely functioning government and civilian militants... We are at war there and there is a hostile government... I am sorry for those people but the world is a crappy place. There is nothing wrong with reassessing various processes that could vector extremism to the US.

    86. Re: how about this by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 1

      When has it ever?

    87. Re:how about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 2. Actively discourage assimilation by promoting multiculturalism and denouncing any criticism of the incompatible culture as "racism."

      Multiculturalism, on a national level, should be about creating a common culture which is comprised of and fed by many distinct subcultures. In other words, a culture where everyone feels represented and welcome, even if they have differing opinions on some points on the basis of social or religious connections *and recognizes the existence and validity of contrary or divergent opinions.* In short, a culture with the goal that everyone who lives in will freely choose to identify as first, and second.

      What you are describing is almost exactly the opposite - a "multiculturalism" in the foolishly literal sense of "several cultures sharing a geographic area".

    88. Re:how about this by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      So when it was done repeatedly over the last 30 years with various countries, you were right there protesting. No? Guess what? These companies aren't trying to sell there, they're trying to stop Trump from cutting off their low-cost labor alternatives.

      If you think that Syria or Yemen is in any financial situation to afford the software or hardware that these companies are peddling, you have no idea of exactly the state of their economy. If everything that's going on there stopped right now, at this exact moment. It would still be the better part of half a decade before there would be stable enough market that it wouldn't be a massive loss.

      There's an actual reason why Iran is on such a highly restricted country list that even other muslim countries in the region refuse to allow any entry at all. If you need help figuring out why, I'd suggest checking out a newspaper or political journal. The fact that you're so happily pro-H1B, instead of having people who are already *in* the country retrained to do the job says a lot more.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    89. Re:how about this by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      *and recognizes the existence and validity of contrary or divergent opinions.*

      That sounds nice but doesn't work that way in practice, as political opportunists will use "tolerance" of behavior unacceptable to the dominant culture to declare such objections invalid. For instance, I'm opposed to illegal immigration because:

      1) My culture values rule of law, and illegal immigrants are breaking the law.

      2) The immigrants are exploited for cheap labor by greedy businesses who pay them below the minimum wage, do not follow labor protection laws, and keep them in line by threatening them with deportation. My culture values fair play and again, rule of law.

      3) Some of the illegal immigrants commit crimes against my countrymen that would not have occurred if they had not been allowed in the country. My culture values justice, believes the purpose of government is to serve citizens and betrays them by refusing to enforce the laws passed to protect them, and values the lives of countrymen over the economic interest of foreigners and businesses.

      4) 80% of the central American women and girls who cross the border illegally are raped during the crossing. My culture finds rape abhorrent and wants these crimes stopped by securing the border so people can only cross in a safe and authorized manner.

      However, according to the media (coincidentally owned by businesses that profit from illegal immigration), I'm lying about each of these points, they are not valid opinions, and in fact I simply have an irrational, deranged hatred of Mexicans because I am an entity of pure evil wrapped in human flesh.

      So your vision of multiculturalism doesn't matter when the only people who are chastised and told to "understand" the other cultures is the dominant culture.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    90. Re:how about this by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The list was a rider to an appropriations bill, so Obama could have vetoed it for a minor provision and let things go unfunded. The President can only sign or veto what Congress sends him, which unlike any other deliberative body in the US I'm aware of has no rule against non-germane amendments on bills, and he does not have a line-item veto. Given a generally hostile Congress, saying "the President approved of or had any influence on this rider that's not germane to the main bill because he signed it", is disingenuous. It doesn't rise to the level of pedantic.

      The cnsnews.com article you site is from 2015. and applied to one country, not seven. The vetting process has been successful to the point that no immigrants from the countries listed have committed a terror killing in the US, unlike several other countries in the area that are not on the list. The fact that it was only an inconvenience is primarily due to people attacking the EO in court.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    91. Re:how about this by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Some of those cultures were pretty foreign, yes. Consider the Chinese.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    92. Re:how about this by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      He still signed it, approved it, and executed it. Even the appeals court arbitrating over the E.O. recognizes the "countries of concern" from the "previous administration". It was under Obamas administration that those countries were listed as a concern for terrorism. That is a fact that was used in crafting the language of the E.O. It is disingenuous because the E.O. was crafted with that precedent established by the Obama administration for listing those countries as a concern and barring travel.

      If there is one instance there can be others. Syria was given special attention by the E.O. by halting indefinitely. While the other "countries of concern", according to Obama, were given a temporary halt to reassess the process. I am not sure what your point is. Has the vetting process changed since 2015? If not then the FBI's statements are still relevant.

    93. Re:how about this by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Has the vetting process changed since 2015?

      I don't know, but there's been time to change it. I don't really know about the vetting process, except it's long and has been very successful. People keep complaining about it without telling me anything about it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. In other news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    97 Tech companies lament the loss of one cheap immigration stream.

    1. Re:In other news. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Yup, the fact that they're all against it (and wrongfully claiming it's illegal) is evidence that, overall, it's a good thing. They ONLY care about their H1-B labor and their image. They don't give a shit about the genuine employee trying to get back in to work or the family divided by the new border crossing rules.

      If these 97 companies said "Every employee affected by this will receive full pay and benefits while stuck beyond the border despite not working, have a guaranteed job when they return, and their families here will receive help as needed until that time.", then maybe I'd listen.

      I'm fairly indifferent to the order itself, especially since it's nothing unusual (see Obama), but I'm LOVING the shitshow from the media, the millennials, that idiot judge, and now these corps. They're so absolutely ignorant, hypocritical, and downright wrong that all their flailing and whinging and rioting is just helping to guarantee another 4 years of Trump.

      The media kept crowing about "the first 100 days", and Trump did exactly what he said he was going to on day 1. Trump is the "fuck you" President, and the media simply doesn't know how to respond. They failed to get Hillary elected and they can't find any actual reason to get him impeached and recalled. Trump doesn't give a shit about public opinion, and the Republicans have control of Congress (and let's face it, they'll soon have control over the Supreme Court).

      If you don't like Trump or his policies you better spend the next 3 years constructing actual arguments rooted in fact and come up with some alternatives that don't treat vast swaths of American citizens as racists, sexists, xenophobes, idiots, etc. I sure as fuck didn't vote for Trump, but I'm enjoying the show so far.

      This is what the DNC gets for backstabbing Bernie Sanders. He would have won against Trump, and I would have likely voted for him (I did in the primary) despite disagreeing with him on many things. It's the GOP & Ron Paul all over again.

  4. Meh. by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Companies don't do this because they have deeply held legal or ethical principles. They do it because one side of the case makes them more money than the other.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Meh. by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      Can I ask you what is the source of this information?

    2. Re:Meh. by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Companies don't do this because they have deeply held legal or ethical principles. They do it because one side of the case makes them more money than the other.

      Very true, and we now have a list of 97 tech companies presenting their facts that allowing free travel increases their profits, and Trump has a half dozen tech companies advising him of "Alternate Facts" that make the travel ban look like a good idea.

      At the end of the day, the ban isn't about tech company profits - it's about values deeply held by a minority of the population. The question is: will we let that minority opinion dictate national policy, or will we protest, file injunctions, and use the system to check and balance the executive orders?

    3. Re:Meh. by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

      Can I ask you what is the source of this information?

      Fiduciary duty to shareholders, basically. The other side of this board level obsession with profit is all the regular people who buy mutual funds and shares based on which one is going to give them the biggest payback. In the end people want profits, and if CEOs aren't interested in delivering these, then CEOs can be moved aside by boards. Note, this is what happened to Steve Jobs, fortunately for him he got the ultimate comeuppance out of the situation, but this is rare.

    4. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >the ban isn't about tech company profits - it's about values deeply held by a minority of the population ...
      Apparently you do not see the value in not seeing you and your family blown up.

    5. Re:Meh. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem like a winning strategy to go up against the President's flagship policy though, does it? Quietly lubricate him and other members of the government with bribes, sorry donations, with some urgency now that H1B might be on the chopping block.

      Publicly attacking him means that they think there is no hope of cordial relationship and damaging him is the best they can hope to do, despite knowing that he is petty and vindictive and will certainly retaliate by tweet or worse.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Meh. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      If that's the goal, why haven't Saudi Arabian, United Arab Emirates and Egyptian citizens been banned from the US?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Meh. by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Because making the USA safer isn't the goal. The goal is to throw a sop to the Trump voters, who, as discussed in another earlier thread, just want to burn down the status quo.

      There is another goal: preserving Trump's business interests.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    8. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note, this is what happened to Steve Jobs, fortunately for him he got the ultimate comeuppance out of the situation...

      Dying?

    9. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is: will we let that minority opinion dictate national policy?

      Yes, as of the last election.

    10. Re:Meh. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Under the assumption that all these companies aren't run by idiots, the CEOs and boards have considered that already, and concluded that confrontation is the way to go here. I find that interesting.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Companies don't do this because they have deeply held legal or ethical principles. They do it because one side of the case makes them more money than the other.

      Can I ask you what is the source of this information?

      Think about it.

      US law is riddled with legal ethics problems - and since the right to ethical practice of law arises under the 9th Amendment - that means there's a huge amount of illegal stuff in the law. See prior Slashdot discussions for many, many examples. It's not just the patent and copyright law we love to discuss - every major area of law is tainted by this cancer.

      As a result, federal, state, and local government routinely violate fundamental rights in this country.

      Huge numbers of people are harmed as a result of illegal government activities and illegal law. Some just lose their hard-earned money, some go to jail, some even commit suicide (Aaron Swartz comes to mind). Lives are thrown into disarray, family members lose their loved ones, and massive economic harm is done.

      Yet you don't see US tech companies lining up to fight things. US citizens are being harmed on a daily basis by corrupt and unethical government, and a frequently unethical legal system - but US companies do nothing.

      Then suddenly they do a complete turnabout - but only when their supply of cheap overseas labor is threatened.

      Doesn't that seem wrong to you?

  5. They Only Care Because of Cheap Labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Of course CEOs want cheap migrant labor to handle their lawn, swimming pools, Rolls Royces, and of course, coding...

    1. Re:They Only Care Because of Cheap Labor by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      CEOs? How about everybody? Am I really the only person who "shops around" and tends to favor lower prices?

      One of the reasons I'm pro-free-market, is that I like cheap, affordable stuff. I'm happy to buy local (and on average it ought to be cheaper, since transportation isn't free), but I'm not willing to sacrifice much for it. Any time you people try to force everyone to buy more expensive shit, you create create black markets, externalized costs, lower quality, etc.

      (And perversely, people are willing to make a few sacrifices for black markets. Something about sticking it to The Man...)

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    2. Re: They Only Care Because of Cheap Labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you are indeed part of the problem, youlike cheap shit, and lots of it, and the market provides

  6. changing of the guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    messy

  7. This backlash is done by children by JackieBrown · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Anyone that even states they will meet with Trump are faced by backlash, protests, and boycotts.

    The idea of forcing Trump to stay solely within his echo chamber just shows that these whiny people and businesses (including all the people that threaten to boycott anyone that might even sing at a Trump event) are nothing more than pouting children.

    I hope Trump just keeps moving forward. These are not people that will ever be satisfied or content with Trump. There is no reason to cater to them at all.

    1. Re:This backlash is done by children by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0, Troll

      The companies that spent $MILLIONS for superbowl ads critical of Trump's policies should tell you something - hating on Trump has gone mainstream. There's a reason why.

      Hopefully he won't be impeached and replaced by someone more able to push the alt-right agenda. His twitter account alone does more damage to his cause than everything else combined. The question now is, can the republicans survive him?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:This backlash is done by children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are making it appear as if it was Trump vs. money elite. Unfortunately, Trump *is* money elite. Just add his team's fortunes together. Notice something? Right! This is the *richest* admin in US history!

      It' one elite trying to fuck over the other elite. You and me are the losers.

      But stay in your little pitiful denial, if it helps you economize on Prozac.

    3. Re:This backlash is done by children by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The question now is, can the republicans survive him?

      The Republicans have been doing this since 2008. Some of people we consider moderates today actually originally rode to power harnessing the Tea Party movement that incubated the more extreme Trump agenda. Right now, they have complete control over two branches of government, and the only reason they don't control the third is that it's not elected.

      So given it's worked for them so far, I can't imagine it'll destroy them until the US itself is completely destroyed by this insanity.

      I suspect the next few elections will be more "Can we elect people who'll keep the Trump regime under control?" rather than "Can we make Elizabeth Warren President and get universal healthcare back?"

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:This backlash is done by children by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These are not people that will ever be satisfied or content with Trump. There is no reason to cater to them at all.

      Well, yes, intelligent people see him for the Dunning-Kruger charlatan that he is, so even when his policies are advantageous, they fear the taint his supporting them would bring to their cause. So opposing Trump is always a win-win in the long run.

      I know you people still feel like losers, even after your political tantrum was successful, so it must really stick in your craw when Trump is thwarted. You're just going to have to learn to live with it. The President is not a king and he must answer to a wide variety of power that challenges his own - and his only originates from and is limited by the Constitution. He has no soft power at all. His leverage is that of a toddler holding gasoline and a match.

      You might want to consider why right-wing boycotts and protests usually amount to nothing more than providing material to comedians, while the protests against Trump have traction and are supported by the most successful companies. I mean, even Anheuser-Busch trolled you dumbasses hard.

    5. Re:This backlash is done by children by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      The question now is, can the republicans survive him?

      The Republicans have been doing this since 2008. Some of people we consider moderates today actually originally rode to power harnessing the Tea Party movement that incubated the more extreme Trump agenda. Right now, they have complete control over two branches of government, and the only reason they don't control the third is that it's not elected.

      So given it's worked for them so far, I can't imagine it'll destroy them until the US itself is completely destroyed by this insanity.

      As opposed to the previous admin's rule of "All immigrants, all the time!"?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    6. Re:This backlash is done by children by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 0

      You are making it appear as if it was Trump vs. money elite. Unfortunately, Trump *is* money elite. Just add his team's fortunes together. Notice something? Right! This is the *richest* admin in US history!

      It' one elite trying to fuck over the other elite. You and me are the losers.

      Trump isn't fucking me over, like his opponents managed to do under the previous administration. Obama went out of his way to fuck over the average white or black American. Actually, he didn't even help the hispanic Americans, only the hispanic non-Americans.

      You can scream about the change in policy all you want. The president is supposed to be looking out for Americans, not Syrians and Yemenis, and not the boards of directors of 97 large corporations.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    7. Re: This backlash is done by children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The better question is how Dhimmicrats can survive being the party of spittle-flecked diatribes of hatred.

      And don't forget they are the party of anti-free speech (for speech they don't like). Hence your moderation.

    8. Re:This backlash is done by children by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      We don't have universal health care, so there's no way to get it back.

    9. Re:This backlash is done by children by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Well, yes, intelligent people see him for the Dunning-Kruger charlatan that he is, so even when his policies are advantageous

      I love the "Trump is stupid" meme. The guy is a billionaire who smashed two political dynasties, the Republican party, the Democratic party and the entire media establishment with a hat and a twitter feed. But you're the smart guy.

      I know you people still feel like losers, even after your political tantrum was successful, so it must really stick in your craw when Trump is thwarted. You're just going to have to learn to live with it. The President is not a king and he must answer to a wide variety of power that challenges his own - and his only originates from and is limited by the Constitution.

      The injunction issued by a whiny, politically motivated judge whose argument was nothing but "my fee-fees!" is not going to stand. The power to halt the entry of any class of alien for whatever reason is a power that has been granted to the President by Congress, and there are piles and piles of case law and precedent that show that it will stand. Sorry, but the Somali ghettos you love so much will have their growth hampered by a measly 90 days and you're going to have to learn to live with it.

      You might want to consider why right-wing boycotts and protests usually amount to nothing more than providing material to comedians

      See Macy's stock over the last year?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    10. Re:This backlash is done by children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't reddit. God dammit slashdot stop upmoding flamebait and trolls as interesting or insightful just because it suits your brand of political hatred.

      This is why slashdot is losing mindshare and the good posters are leaving to never return.

    11. Re:This backlash is done by children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the previous admin's rule of "All immigrants, all the time!"?

      Which previous admin are you referring to? George Washington's? Because Obama actually deported more people than Bush.

      Indeed, it actually got so bad that farmers started to complain at one point, because they were unable to get enough people to help at harvest time. I wonder how that's going to pan out if the INS goes full Trump?

    12. Re:This backlash is done by children by modrzej · · Score: 1

      Can anybody explain why creating US jobs is at the absolute top of the agenda? (I'm not trolling.) With the unemployment rate at 4.8%, you won't get any lower. It's the absolute minimum not only according to Fed, but as a result of the universal laws of free market. For example, there's a contribution to the unemployment rate from those who switch from one job to another right at the moment of the measurement. So what's the problem? (My guess: the unemployment is low, but the jobs available for US citizens are shitty.) Note: I'm an EU citizen; I don't work nor stay in the US.

    13. Re:This backlash is done by children by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I hope Trump just keeps moving forward. These are not people that will ever be satisfied or content with Trump. There is no reason to cater to them at all.

      Trump will never really listen to people who have ideas contrary to his own. There is no reason to cater to him at all.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:This backlash is done by children by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      See Macy's stock over the last year?

      That certainly is a fairly counterexample. Do you have any more? They're kind of scarce. There's plenty of examples of liberal boycotts that amount to jack diddly as well though, like hobby lobby and chik-fil-a. Who knew that a bunch of redneck conservatives were the majority of their market? Wait, everyone. Everyone knew.

      It's also worth mentioning that Macy's has been in decline for some time now, and the Trump supporter boycott (while, I think, significant) is just one more wound they can ill sustain. The truth is that Macy's and Bloomingdale's are both specifically old brands which people see as irrelevant today. About the only people shopping there were social conservatives who chose to give them their money on that basis, perceiving them as a traditional brand. A more relevant brand which did not depend on that particular segment for sales would have less trouble with a Trump-supporter boycott.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:This backlash is done by children by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I suspect the next few elections will be more "Can we elect people who'll keep the Trump regime under control?" rather than "Can we make Elizabeth Warren President and get universal healthcare back?"

      When did we get universal health care? We don't even have universal health insurance like we're meant to, and for the people who do have it, there is often no care but emergency care available because no physicians in their area are accepting new patients. (That was true for me last time I had insurance from a regular employer as well, so that situation was created by the AMA, but exacerbated by the ACA.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:This backlash is done by children by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      CNN market share? Trump and Trump supporters haven't really called for many boycotts. I think the entire boycott thing is a red herring, but as I noted there do exist counter examples.

      Not directly related, but ESPN's ratings have tanked since they started injecting leftist politics into their sports coverage. I don't know if that's a rejection of their political stance or simply because the entire point of bread and circuses is to distract from politics. If the circus gets political you might as well just watch actual politics. Same thing with Marvel Comics sales tanking every time they replace an established white male hero who fights space monsters with a transethnic trigendered demimexican that fights against mansplaining or whatever.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    17. Re:This backlash is done by children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect the next election in 2018 will show the Democrats that they have *serious* issues hanging on to power when the Republicans extend their majority in the Senate and hold the majority in the house. Quite literally the deck is stacked against them this next time out on the field and the only question is how many seats and power will they lose?

      Their only possible gain is to take over the house, but the chance of that is slim to none because the advantage goes to the incumbent by default and they'd have to pretty much run the table on *every* race that is even remotely competitive. In the Senate, even if they run the table there, there is no possible way they gain seats.

      Now, we are 18+ months out from this event, so it's possible that something massive happens to change the election outcome, but without the untimely resignation of a large group of Republican Senators or some Huge scandal that blows a bunch of Republican house members out, the absolute best case scenario for the democrats is to hold their ground. Of course with Trump, who knows what the bull in the china shop will cause... But if you are a democrat hoping for a better showing in 2018, you are hoping for a major mistake to be made by the other team or fooling yourself.

    18. Re:This backlash is done by children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drumpf is not a billionaire, not even close. He's not even a hundred-millionaire. He may very well have a few million, or he may have a negative net worth. He's there because of grift, he's planning on using the office to try to take the country to the cleaners.

      The injunction will stand. It will become permanent. And there's plenty of case law behind that.

      Is there a RWNJ boycott of Macy's? I don't think anybody noticed. The economy is headed downhill, because of Drumpf. There will be a recession in six months at this rate.

    19. Re:This backlash is done by children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the explanation: It's not about jobs.

      It might appear to be about jobs. Certainly the Trump administration will say it's about jobs! However it's about the kleptocracy; Trump wants to give the business sector even more money than it already has, and Trump is personally going to get much richer as well. Everybody important wins!

      I've seen estimates that the US private sector is sitting on something like $1 trillion of investible assets. That is cash or cash equivalents. You can never put all that money to work, but some portion of it could be invested in job growth and creation. Trump's idea is to give even more money to corporations. Whatever jobs trickle out of that to citizens, that's a bonus, but it's not the main goal IMO.

      Before anyone says, "yeah, but I know this one company, and they are poor! They are doing terribly, and better government polices might help." OK, well in a large economy there will always be a certain amount of struggling companies. It's like saying there are a certain amount of struggling citizens; that will always be true. I'm not unwilling to look at government policies, if they can be shown to be harmful on a large scale, or if they can be adjusted for better results in certain sectors.

      What annoys me are when politicians come out and claim "government regulations are shackling job growth! Government regulation is bad! It hurts citizens!" And they don't even bother to back that statement up with any facts. It's just a faith-based value statement designed to look good in a sound bite.

      It's like claiming "the Hedgehog/Armadillo wars are a menace and must be stopped in the name of humanity!"

    20. Re:This backlash is done by children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God dammit slashdot stop upmoding flamebait and trolls as interesting or insightful just because it suits your brand of political hatred.

      No.

      This is why slashdot is losing mindshare and the good posters are leaving to never return.

      Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

    21. Re:This backlash is done by children by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The injunction issued by a whiny, politically motivated judge whose argument was nothing but "my fee-fees!" is not going to stand. The power to halt the entry of any class of alien for whatever reason is a power that has been granted to the President by Congress,

      The question is exactly what power Congress has granted to the President. Does it include the power to immediately close the borders to people of specified nationality? Now, Congress could certainly grant such power, there's no Constitutional question here, but did it?

      Until you know that, you're babbling.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    22. Re:This backlash is done by children by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      8 U.S.C. 1182(f).

      Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

      The president has been granted by Congress to ban the entry of all lesbian left-handed eskimo transmidgets. Any aliens or any class of aliens. So there's absolutely no problem with banning people from 7 specific countries for 90 days, correct? So you would agree, I'm not babbling?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    23. Re:This backlash is done by children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump's more liberal than Hillary ever was, holyshit the delusion.

      We had two bad choices, they could've put a corpse or an inanimate carbon rod up for the dems, and they would've had a better shot at victory.

      As it stands, people either were too unmotivated by the shitty choices to vote, or chose the lesser of two evils yet again.

      At least this time, it wasn't a big name in politics.

    24. Re:This backlash is done by children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just a power granted Congress. The Constitution specifically empowers the executive as Commander in Chief and gives him responsibility for foreign affairs (treaty-making; see Article II, Section 2). Sorry, Microsoft. The Constitution doesn't mention that you get a pass if you need cheap coders.

    25. Re:This backlash is done by children by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      OK, what I should have written was "what passes for universal healthcare".

      (And lest anyone who knows me be confused, I still maintain the ACA was a shitty attempt at healthcare reform, as it was always doomed to be overturned by the next Republican majority. But it was, I'll give it that, an attempt to create universal healthcare in a country without it.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    26. Re:This backlash is done by children by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Which brings up the question of why the courts disagree. If the first judge was way off base, the three appellate judges would have tossed the case when they got it, instead of keeping the stay on enforcing the EO and holding hearings.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    27. Re:This backlash is done by children by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      The 9th Circuit is the most politicized court in the US and the most overturned. Any given year the 9th circuit gets overturned 70%, 80%. Was 86% overturned in 2012. And they are frequently overturned by unanimous decision, so it's not like it's 5-4 decisions on controversial partisan issues. It's Ruth Bader Ginsberg saying "WTF are you people doing? Can you fucking read?" Can you imagine that? Would you keep your job if you were wrong 86% of the damn time?

      So to answer your question as to why "the courts disagree," it's because the 9th Circuit is doing what they always do: playing completely retarded moonbat leftist politics. I would not be shocked if they stay the lower court's decision and then it has to go to SCOTUS who will once again smack them down, because the law is clear as day and there's piles of precedent. Obama blocked visas from Iraq, Carter blocked travel from Iran, nobody cared.

      If that happens, though, and we have to wait for SCOTUS, liberals better pray to the God they don't believe in that not a single hair on an American's head is harmed by anyone let in from one of those 7 countries, because the right will politicize the hell out of it. This is why it's important to pick one's battles, but the left is so completely deranged by Trump they're incapable of anything resembling rational thought.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    28. Re:This backlash is done by children by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You're saying nothing useful about the overturn rate of Ninth Circuit Court decisions. I don't believe the Supreme Court has heard even 86% of their cases, so this suggests that, when one of their decisions is appealed, and the Supreme Court hears the appeal, they overturn it most of the time.

      Now, I'd expect a case to be appealed primarily because one side thinks they've got a good chance on the appeal, and without checking I'd expect the Supreme Court to decide to hear cases they don't agree with, so I'd expect most Circuit Courts to have a high percentage of their decisions overturned.

      Also, there's no reason to expect Americans to be killed by people from those countries. Our screening processes have been successful so far. This has been a useful battle to pick, since it shows the US public what Trump thinks of the US courts, even if it goes nowhere.

      The people incapable of rational thought because they've been deranged by Trump are not his opponents (or, another word he used, "enemies").

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    29. Re:This backlash is done by children by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      The injunction issued by a whiny, politically motivated judge whose argument was nothing but "my fee-fees!" is not going to stand.

      Still standing. For all your whining about the "fee fees" of judges, el Presidente Anaranjado sure is getting into an all-caps frothy rage over this. Your populist hero is the biggest lolcow in American history.

    30. Re:This backlash is done by children by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Complete judicial power grab. It'll be overturned by the supreme court (as about 80% of the 9th Circuit's decisions they hear are), and hopefully the legislative and executive branches will dissolve the 9th circuit and replace it with a court that understand the meaning of "judicial review."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  8. They are provoking a response by johanw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The next presidential decrete sets the number of H1-B visas to be given out the next 4 years to 0, while congress gets to pass a law to end the H1-B visas completely.

    1. Re:They are provoking a response by mjwx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The next presidential decrete sets the number of H1-B visas to be given out the next 4 years to 0, while congress gets to pass a law to end the H1-B visas completely.

      The more batshit insane he gets, the closer to impeachment he becomes.

      The republicans will happily throw him under the bus if he starts to make the republicans unpopular. I'm sure Mike Pence is going to be a very complicit puppet after Trump is impeached.

      BTW, is "decrete" a portmanteau of decree and secrete... because that seems fitting.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:They are provoking a response by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't get it do you? Blue collar workers have been putting up with their jobs being outsourced since the 1990's under various trade agreements. The white collar workers would go on and on about how those people should have gotten jobs just like them, and be safe from outsourcing. Now it's happening to those white collar workers who were smugly looking down. This backlash is decades in the making, and in some cases it's even worse on particular parts(especially racially) of the US then others. Hell, it's the same here in Canada. There are places that still haven't recovered from NAFTA, and that's in my own backyard.

      These companies can stomp their feet all they want, and they can pump out the polls saying "look at all these people saying how much they hate Trump." But in 90% of the cases people fear a backlash against themselves and will lie about their actual answer for fear of being attacked. Either socially, or politically. That's one of the main reasons the polls were so wildly out-of-whack compared to the actual election. Even democrats are finally starting to get it. On top of that, it would have to take something massive and I mean truly massive at this point to stem the losses that Democrats have taken in the last decade. You know, like full-on-depression levels of economic collapse. And even then, the chances of that working are less likely then you think. Ask the NDP and Liberals here in Canada how well a similar plan worked out for them from ~2000-2015. I'll give you a tip: It didn't.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:They are provoking a response by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Do you think Trump is unhinged enough to commit economic suicide?

      Like it or not, all countries need some level of skilled immigration.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:They are provoking a response by radl33t · · Score: 2, Informative

      polls were within margin of error, they weren't widely out of whack. stop this revisionism. Trump had an outside chance and he squeaked through. It doesn't invalidate any of the polling methodology, if anything it challenges some non statistical assumptions about neglecting to poll some key areas. That's it.

    5. Re:They are provoking a response by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      You mean like those projections that showed Hillary had a +90% of winning? Or the polls which had her leading by 10+ points in "very strong democrat states."

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:They are provoking a response by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      scarborough isn't a democrat. he's msnbc's token republican.

    7. Re:They are provoking a response by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      scarborough isn't a democrat. he's msnbc's token republican.

      Yeah, but he's a RINO, so not much of a difference.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    8. Re:They are provoking a response by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My dice has a 16% chance of generating a six. It still happens from time to time. Your N=1 dataset is irrelevant.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:They are provoking a response by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, at least not for long. Even all those Mexican, Chinese and Indian manufacturing jobs you seem to fear so much will fade in the next few decades. The failure here is simple; US political leaders haven't sat down and told blue collar workers "Your jobs are being automated at a rapidly increasing pace, and it won't make much difference to you whether the factory is in Mexico or across the street."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:They are provoking a response by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. One thing that is pretty clear is that Trump's supporters have an extraordinarily poor grasp of statistics, how they are generated and what they mean.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re:They are provoking a response by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Are you rolling a hundred-sided die? Because there is a large gap between 90% and 16%. Every single state that Trump "had to win" to reach 270 went to him. The official polls through the election had it impossible for his to reach 270, yet he managed to get over 300. Face it, the polls were not just wrong or inaccurate, they were not based on reality.

      For the record, I didn't support or vote for Trump. I voted Green Party again. But I could see the writing on the wall for months before the election.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    12. Re:They are provoking a response by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of Republicans on TV are token. If you look up the origin of neoconservatism it's ex-trotskyites who love foreign wars. Like Bill Kristol's dad. Democrats love these "reasonable" Republicans because they basically agree with them in everything but measure. So CNN's "fair, balanced panel" will be "Democrat Lefty McCommie and Republican Rino McNeocon who both agree Trump is dangerous and unhinged for not wanting to import the entire third world into America."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    13. Re:They are provoking a response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you rolling a hundred-sided die? Because there is a large gap between 90% and 16%.

      Not so much as between 10% and 16%, or 90% and 84%, which you know, would be comparing like to like. Instead of deliberately deceiving us with a misconstrued representation.

      Every single state that Trump "had to win" to reach 270 went to him. The official polls through the election had it impossible for his to reach 270, yet he managed to get over 300. Face it, the polls were not just wrong or inaccurate, they were not based on reality.

      Reality: Trump didn't gain that many votes. He's behind Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton in total turnout. Not by a little. By millions. He barely got ahead of George W. Bush in 2004. His margins in critical states are slim enough to be influenced by the rain. In Wisconsin, he under-performed the loser in underperformed2004 AND 2012.

      Reality: Polls had the margin at around 3%. Real margin? 2%.

      Either you're a full-on member of the lying Trump brigade, or you're just a victim of them, but as much as he proclaims it so to be so, it's as false as his claims of a massive landslide, or a surge of voters, or even "illegal voters" in some large scale. All wrong. All lies.

      Don't believe them. Free yourself from it, and embrace the true story: Trump barely performed enough that a mere chance and an arcane system of elections carried him into office.

      You don't have to soothe Trump's small and petty ego. You can stand up against his lies.

      For the record, I didn't support or vote for Trump. I voted Green Party again. But I could see the writing on the wall for months before the election.

      Sure, whatever, but can you see it AFTER the election?

    14. Re:They are provoking a response by johanw · · Score: 1

      The best thing would be free college for those who can't pay it or can't get a loan. Sure, it creates waste - highly educated unemployed - but it creates also much more value. And it reduces the amount of blue collar workers who need to find a blue collar job.

      Disadvantage: it takes 2 generations to have a significant effect.

    15. Re:They are provoking a response by johanw · · Score: 1

      Skilled, yes. But not in those numbers and certainly not for the kind of jobs H1-B's are filling now.

      What really helped the US was the influx of German scientists and engineers before and after WW2. Those were really skilled, and that much smaller number did kick ass.

    16. Re:They are provoking a response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blue collar workers would desperately like to believe their jobs have been lost to outsourcing. Some of them have, but far more have been lost to automation. If you disagree, please explain how the US could lose 5 million factory jobs while at the same time growing manufacturing output ( http://fortune.com/2016/11/08/china-automation-jobs/ ).

      Those jobs aren't coming back, no matter how many trade agreements get scuppered.

      And BTW, Canada's manufacturing sector was hit a lot harder by exchange rates than by NAFTA. Again, if you disagree you'll need to explain why it's made a big comeback since our dollar tanked after reaching parity a few years ago. ( http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/canadian-companies-starting-to-reap-benefits-from-low-loonie-we-see-this-as-an-opportunity )

    17. Re:They are provoking a response by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Do you think Trump is unhinged enough to commit economic suicide?

      If he had just invested his money with any of several (or more likely, many of several) major funds, he would have outperformed the work done conning people, while being able to sit around sipping boat drinks and occasionally raping an imported model. So given that he's such a shitty businessman, yes, yes I do.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:They are provoking a response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for them. If they believed they had no chance none of them would have voted, just like the Bernie supporters.

    19. Re:They are provoking a response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about running a "Madame President" cover story and saying "guaranteed victory, hi fives all round"?
      Cause you know... that happened.

    20. Re:They are provoking a response by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You mean like those projections that showed Hillary had a +90% of winning? Or the polls which had her leading by 10+ points in "very strong democrat states."

      You know the difference between a chance of winning and a list of margins right? Yeah I didn't think so.

    21. Re:They are provoking a response by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The next presidential decrete sets the number of H1-B visas to be given out the next 4 years to 0, while congress gets to pass a law to end the H1-B visas completely.

      The more batshit insane he gets, the closer to impeachment he becomes.

      Just so you fully appreciate the insanity you suggest.... You do understand that Impeachment *REQUIRES* some specific crime to be committed. He's got to do something illegal, or you have to trump up some quasi crime to use... THEN.... You have to draw up changes and get the House majority to vote to impeach. Once you have articles of impeachment, he is "tried" in the Senate which MUST vote 2/3rds to convict.

      Now if you are counting on Trump making some unforced error so he loses the majority of Republican support.... You severely underestimate him. If Trump is anything, he KNOWS how to keep the base that elected him happy and Republicans realize that. You may not like him, he may even make you and those like you so angry you cannot help yourselves, but don't over estimate your case. We look at the idiots who are rioting and bad mouthing Trump as spoiled brats.... So the more you try by ramping up the rhetoric and riots, the more you prove our opinion of you is right, batS#!+ crazy liberals...

      Impeachment? Try it you idiots and the sooner the better... Bury yourselves deeper in that hole... Come on 2018 is fast approaching.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    22. Re:They are provoking a response by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The republicans will happily throw him under the bus if he starts to make the republicans unpopular.

      There is little evidence of that. http://www.politico.com/story/...

      The more batshit insane he gets, the closer to impeachment he becomes.

      Right now, it's the Democrats, their representatives, and their street thugs that look increasingly batshit insane.

    23. Re:They are provoking a response by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You know the difference between a chance of winning and a list of margins right? Yeah I didn't think so.

      Apparently more so then you, and bookies in Vegas when I walked away with my $4k.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    24. Re:They are provoking a response by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Again, if you disagree you'll need to explain why it's made a big comeback since our dollar tanked after reaching parity a few years ago.

      Two reasons: Excessively high energy costs at roughly 20x the rate in Michigan or Buffalo, this is directly contributed to "green energy." And carbon taxes, or the threat of carbon taxes which businesses have said NOPE. Picked up and moved out. The answers are right in front of you.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    25. Re:They are provoking a response by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      My dice has a 16% chance of generating a six. It still happens from time to time. Your N=1 dataset is irrelevant.

      You're basically saying that trump threw a 100 on a 10,000,000 sided dice. You realize the exact statistical impossibility of that right? Not once, but in multiple throws he got a 100 every time. That means ones of two things, either the initial estimates were so wildly off in terms of the polls, or the dice was fixed. Now the first is far more likely true, that the polls were wildly off. The second? Well, if the second was true. Why are democrats stomping their feet from wanting to investigate it now? You'd think they'd want to show beyond a reasonable doubt that either they were correct, he was incorrect, or that there was something funky going on right.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    26. Re:They are provoking a response by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      He's a RINO. Which makes him basically a democrat. But hey, he's not the only one. You notice all those other people on there? You noticed how they shook their head so hard, and believed that they were *still the right ones" and all that? No? You should watch that again then. Then while you're at it, you can watch this little bit by Dave Rubin.

      People can whine, complain, stomp their feet or whatever else. But as someone who's "right of center" the left needs to get it's act together because a functinoing democracy doesn't work when one half it is overrun by extremists. And it's not the right however much you want to think it is.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    27. Re:They are provoking a response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bigot.

    28. Re:They are provoking a response by andydouble07 · · Score: 1

      538 had Trump with about a 30% chance to win on election day. It's like rolling a dice, seeing a 5 or a 6, then proclaiming that anyone expecting 1-4 are morons.

    29. Re:They are provoking a response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is, however, not as much of a gap between 90% and 83% (the chance of rolling a non-six).

    30. Re:They are provoking a response by radl33t · · Score: 1

      this gibberish is hilarious

    31. Re:They are provoking a response by radl33t · · Score: 1

      bookmakers do not make bets, they set odds based on bets placed. idiot.

  9. How can it be unlawful if it was made a law? by mark-t · · Score: 2, Insightful
    That seems like an inherent contradiction in terms.

    Unconstitutional, I can understand, or even calling it just plain wrong, but unlawful?

    1. Re:How can it be unlawful if it was made a law? by Tranzistors · · Score: 4, Informative

      Executive order is not a law, so it can be unlawful. Unconstitutional is a special type of unlawful, since the constitution is a law itself.

    2. Re:How can it be unlawful if it was made a law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This valid argument carries more weight when you provide the evidence that it is a law.

      Namely, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2015-title8/html/USCODE-2015-title8-chap15-subchapIII-sec1735.htm

      The attempts to blame this on Trump are "fake news". His executive order may end the delays in implementing the law, but isn't responsible for the policy people are protesting.

    3. Re:How can it be unlawful if it was made a law? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Well
      1. if it's unconstitutional, it's automatically illegal
      2. those opposed to the are basing their objections on

      (A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. 8 U.S. Code 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states

      3. The administration's position is

      8 U.S. Code 1182 - Inadmissible aliens(f)
      Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

      Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
      Inadmissible aliens

      Personally, because
      1. we have been in a various states of belligerency with the suspended counties,
      2. the extreme difficulty in separating Civilian Combatants from Civilian Non-Combatants
      3. the demonstrable and dire consequences in failing to separate Civilian Combatants from Civilian Non-Combatants;
      The temporary suspension of immigration is likely to be the stronger position.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    4. Re:How can it be unlawful if it was made a law? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      It's not unlawful, the President has the sole authority to set immigration directives and pretty much every President including Clinton, Bush and Obama has done so. Obama instituted the same exact travel bans against 'Muslims'.

      However Trump has taken it a bit further and also added "and we'll see about those H1B's too" - at that point the lawsuits got started by Microsoft and now seemingly joined by other tech giants that suck up the largest pool of foreign slave labor.

      Indians (from India, not Native Americans) are the new blacks and H1B is the Amistad, Trump is the North and large corporations the South.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    5. Re:How can it be unlawful if it was made a law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where were all these people when former president Obama issued more executive orders than most previous administrations?

    6. Re:How can it be unlawful if it was made a law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand how government functions in the US. Congress makes law with the concurrence of the president, but Congress does not (and has never) specified every single detail of the law's execution. That is left to the executive. In the executive branch, regulations are written that serve to put the law into effect. If you don't think those regulations (of which exec orders are a type) are laws, try violating one. Say by building your house within a protected waterway or wetlands.

  10. Re: Discraceful! by dougdonovan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if you are legal to live in the US. stay here. if not. get a clue or get deported. this is not rocket science. there are some people that the US citizen is simply not comfortable with and this is why they voted for trump.

  11. Outside of Mr. Trump's comfort zone & voter ba by mykepredko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While this condemnation of the travel ban is laudable, I don't think that it will have much impact on Mr. Trump simply because he is something of a Luddite - don't forget that through the Clinton email scandal, Mr. Trump declared that he thinks computers are overused for communication and, other than Twitter, it doesn't seem like he uses anything other than paper.

    Along with this, I suspect that if you were to look at where these companies' employees were situated, you would discover that they would be overwhelmingly in constituencies which didn't vote for him which really makes their value to him in retaining power negligible. If it is extremely unlikely that they would support him.

    So, if he doesn't see the value of the technology being represented by these companies and nobody in them votes for him, why would anybody think this would have affect on him or anybody in his administration?

  12. ONLY tech??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First red flag here - why are only tech companies doing this? Where are the other blue chip companies? if this is a huge problem for teh US, and is unlawful, why is the only sector speaking up the same sector that imports the most foreign workers on restricted visas?

    1. Re:ONLY tech??? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Why are only tech companies doing this?"

      I guess you missed the individual states that have sued, the pro-immigrant, and all those expensive anti-racist, anti-misogenist super bowl ads bought by other blue chip companies - Budweiser, Coca-Cola, Audi, etc.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:ONLY tech??? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I thought Intel was the blue chip company? (And AMD was the green one?)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re: ONLY tech??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you missed the Coca Cola, Budweiser, and 84 Lumber ads yesterday? I'm not sure why they aren't attached to the lawsuit, but they *are* speaking up.

  13. Greed by thunderclees · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It is another example of the absolute greed that afflicts the IT sector. They are afraid that they will not be able to hire maggots because the maggot wranglers will not be able to get enough visas to replace American workers.

    1. Re:Greed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is about more than just access to cheap labor, as it's likely that none of the affected countries (except perhaps Iran) provides any significant number of H1B (or other workers) to these companies. Instead, the negative reaction world-wide to Trump's actions affects their ability to market their products world-wide. In other words, they think that it will negatively affect their sales and growth over time.

    2. Re:Greed by johanw · · Score: 1

      Things like US judges ordering American companies to hand over foreign data is much more hurting their sales.

    3. Re:Greed by thunderclees · · Score: 1

      Dear anon, Read a newspaper, the tech turncoats specifically said that they were concerned about H1B visa maggots.

    4. Re:Greed by thunderclees · · Score: 1

      No, not when even the tech turncoats say 40% of their workforce is H1B.

  14. Re: Discraceful! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0, Troll

    And other citizens aren't uncomfortable with people like you, so what's your point? I hope Trump stays in office the full 4 years - he is doing so much damage to racists, xenophobes, and the far right that he'll be a far better purge than anything that the left could have come up with.

    When companies spend millions on superbowl ads to publicly give him and his policies the middle finger, they're doing it because their marketing teams are saying "this is what the public REALLY wants." His actions have helped unite people against anti-muslim and anti-immigrant policies.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  15. foreign workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not particularly certain that with offshored tax accounts and foreign workers that these companies have much if anything to do with canada/america anymore. Why not just revoke their corporate charter if they've become a cored out shell for foreign national interests operating on our soil? We don't need name brand particularly just their patents and engineering processes. Why not gut these companies which are infested with foreign workers, and seed a plethora of micro local companies that encompass both business and production logic/work? After all we pay taxes because we desire a unified over control that is in our interest enjoined by patriotism and legal framing to enhance and empower the people who pay the taxes. If these multinationals no longer operate within that environment of control and are no longer interested in our well being they should be dismantled and reborn anew as a local entity with the foreign corruption cannibalized, the people returned to their respective lands, the corporate charter revoked, the patents opened and a special dispensation of their aquired engineering data as well so any physical product they produced can continue production for the public.

    1. Re:foreign workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make a tweet and a phone call and suggest that to the new administration if you feel this way. Originally corporate charters were only granted by the legislatures of the various states in a legislative session and for a specific cause that was beneficial to the society, otherwise you had to be a sole proprietorship or a partnership with full joint and several liability, and, not being a separate entity, your personal and real property was reachable.

      Many people might argue that discriminating against local labor is detrimental for the society from which the charter was granted.

    2. Re:foreign workers by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Lawyers ensure the "US" multinational brands stay just enough in the USA to lobby the US government.
      Using cheap foreign workers in the US is part of the wage lowering, profit making aspect of staying within the USA.
      The multinational have long supply chains and enjoy a global jet set lifestyle. Low wages in the US support that profit growth.
      They have forecasts depending on that cheap US foreign staff to keep profits flowing and generational investors happy.
      If a cheap foreign worker costs as much as any US worker in the USA? That upsets the multinational who thought they had the US legal fix in and could just keep US wages low with decades of short term foreign workers.
      So the multinationals who see their profits and projections failing are starting all kinds of astroturfing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... to secure their low cost workers.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  16. Hurry up by Comboman · · Score: 2

    Hurry up and do it. There's nothing special about Silicon Valley. Those talented people you want to keep out will find other places to go that are more friendly to building global businesses.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:Hurry up by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Not all H1Bs go to Silicon Valley, keeping them out wouldn't help other States, it might help other countries as you suggest.

      I do agree we should crack down on H1B abuse, but the idea at heart is a good one. I think they should give priority to converting Student Visa to H1B. I've known a few foreign student visas who have done so, but they didn't get any priority. If there person is already here at a student it makes sense to keep them here as an employee, no reason to lose those we educate.

    2. Re:Hurry up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll go somewhere else to code more SystemD s?

    3. Re:Hurry up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The H1B needs to be completely eliminated, it's bad for Americans and it's bad for the people on H1Bs.

      I'm not suggesting we kick those people out, or even change the numbers coming in. But temporary work visas need to be for 90 days or less, long term visas should be citizenship-track - give them a green card.

      And student visas should all come with the option of a green card at graduation if the student wants to stay.

    4. Re:Hurry up by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Those talented people you want to keep out

      Actually, it's Democrats that have been keeping talented people out, by flooding the immigration system with illegals and insisting on "non-discriminatory" immigration policies, which in practice means, immigration based on race rather than skill.

      Trump has advocated skill-based and wage-based immigration statistics. Democrats oppose that simply because it would mean that most new H-1Bs and immigrants would come from wealthy, liberal democracies in Europe and Asia.

  17. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    More interesting than that is that fact that wanting to hire Americans before foreigners is considered racist.

  18. Re:Numpty cunts. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

    1. Who the fuck cares? Companies, despite being granted extraordinary powers under Obama's tenure, don't get to declare things legal or illegal.

    Surprise! Neither does Trump :-)

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  19. Except it's not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    List of countries comes from Section 217(a)(12) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Signed by Obama)

    Section 212(f) of the INA, U.S. Code 1182 - Inadmissible aliens: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

    Congress already approved the, Trump just invoked it.

    Non-citizens of this country have no affirmative right to reenter this country. Is it in the constitution? Is it in the bill of rights? It's not. If you have a visa or green card, we don't have to let you come back. Heck, it even says it on your visa application page:

    Question: "After I have my visa, I will be able to enter the U.S., correct?
    Answer: "A visa does not guarantee entry into the United States. A visa allows a foreign citizen to travel to the U.S. port-of-entry, and the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) immigration inspector authorizes or denies admission to the United States."

    So this lawsuit is FUD, it's a bunch of leftist companies whining, pissing, and moaning that they can't get their cheap labor or doing their SJW duties. The only saving grace for the leftist is SC is split between 4 leftist, 2 rightist, and 2 RINOs...

    *Please note before you start attacking me. I for open borders, but only after we: 1) Remove the federal welfare system completely, 2) make citizenship easier to obtain. I have no issue with Trumps temporary ban, considering all of the nations listed are failed states. Kind of hard to ask those governments who these people are when they're engulfed in civil wars (or there is no government).

    1. Re:Except it's not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's a lie. Read what Obama did. He did not cancel green cards. He did not terminate visas that had been granted. He did change the approval procedure for new visas.

    2. Re: Except it's not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They made no statement about Obama other than that he signed the law.

    3. Re:Except it's not. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Read the "blame Obama" defense carefully. What Trump's supporters are really doing is admitting the EO was a disaster in execution, and now want to try to find a way to blame Obama for Trump's and Bannon's utter incompetence.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Except it's not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. It's classic deflection. I'm not sure it's entirely incompetence. Pulling the list from Obama's order in the first place is sly.

    5. Re:Except it's not. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The order itself may not have been incompetent. I think the order itself is fairly politically savvy. The problem here, and maybe it points out how while it's great to have Goebbels-like figures running your public relations, they probably make pretty shitty managers. The problem stems from execution, as in the EO was thrown out there with little interest in how it was to be carried out, leading to chaos. Even if you believe Obama was the most evil man in the history of humanity, at least he and his advisers and the Cabinet seemed to know how to run a government.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Except it's not. by chispito · · Score: 1

      Read the "blame Obama" defense carefully. What Trump's supporters are really doing is admitting the EO was a disaster in execution, and now want to try to find a way to blame Obama for Trump's and Bannon's utter incompetence.

      No, they don't really care about whether the executive order works or not. Of course it's pointless. For the matter, neither does the President--it's about kinda sorta checking off campaign promises nobody said he could follow through on.

      The reason they bring up Obama is to point out the hypocrisy of those trying to say the current President is in any way acting illegally, when he specifically exercising the authority that the previous administration secured.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    7. Re:Except it's not. by meta-monkey · · Score: 0

      I for open borders, but only after we: 1) Remove the federal welfare system completely

      Yes, the whole "nation of immigrants" rhetoric doesn't really work in the presence of the welfare state. During the times we were taking in the tired and the poor and everything, it was European immigrants who were likely to share a similar culture and set of beliefs to the people already here, and there was a vast, empty country to fill. It was "hey, welcome to America. Now go west until you find some place to squat and either build something to feed yourself, starve, or fuck off back to Europe." And an awful lot of them did fuck off back to Europe because they couldn't make it in America. Now it's "we're going to tax you so we can give money to Catholic Charities to import Somali muslims to set up in Section 8 housing next to you. And we're going to tax you to feed and house them, and if you complain about the crime and terror threats we'll call you names because we've found one who's a doctor or something and we put him on TV so that means they're all doctors you racist."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    8. Re:Except it's not. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      But the intent of Obama's list was different, so it isn't really hypocrisy in this case.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Except it's not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iran is a failed state in a civil war or with no government? That is complete news to me. I mean, granted, they have a lot of sanctions in place against them, but their political system has been relatively stable for closing in on 4 decades now. If that's a failed state then the world could use some more failed states like that.

      Also, you are allowed to dispute the validity of laws when new applications of them raise questions about their legality in regards to superseding legal frameworks (such as the constitution).

    10. Re:Except it's not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

      Every wave of immigrants has been opposed on those same grounds. Pretending it was somehow different before is a problem.

    11. Re:Except it's not. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Yes, and you know what we did to those immigrants? We beat and derided them until they became Americans. We didn't pander to them and give them free shit.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    12. Re:Except it's not. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, and you know what we did to those immigrants? We beat and derided them until they became Americans. We didn't pander to them and give them free shit.

      We put most of the men on boats and sent them out to maybe die for us, actually. We let someone else beat them for us.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Except it's not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no issue with Trumps temporary ban, considering all of the nations listed are failed states. Kind of hard to ask those governments who these people are when they're engulfed in civil wars (or there is no government).

      Iran is a fully functioning nation state. It's just functioning in a way you don't like.

    14. Re:Except it's not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, who knew Iran was a fail state? Cool how you guys get to just deny reality and expect others to listen to you.

    15. Re:Except it's not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone that unironically uses "leftists" and "SJW" is a complete fucking moron.

      That would be you.

    16. Re:Except it's not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the intent of Obama's list was different, so it isn't really hypocrisy in this case.

      Intent? MightyMartian, you're not being accurate. By far. Intent, implementation,outcome and nature were all completely, different, so it's totally not hypocrisy, and the actual purpose of attempting to bring up Obama is for Trump to deflect blame, and try to make idiots believe the Emperor is wearing a fancy suit that they just can't see.

    17. Re:Except it's not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This comment would be interesting, except that the number of cheap technology workers coming from the blocked countries is awfully small. Somalia? Syria? Yemen??

    18. Re:Except it's not. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The reason they mention Obama's action is that they're liars. Obama put a hold on people getting visas. Trump tried to put a stop to people with visas entering the country. Different things entirely.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    19. Re:Except it's not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Section 212(f) of the INA, U.S. Code 1182 says "class".

      And yet....:
      "no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence"

      See:Wikipedia

  20. President's can't make law by Comboman · · Score: 1

    That seems like an inherent contradiction in terms. Unconstitutional, I can understand, or even calling it just plain wrong, but unlawful?

    President's can't make law, that's the job of the legislative branch (congress) not the executive branch. That's why they're called Executive Orders rather than laws, and yes, they can be both unlawful AND unconstitutional (and just plain wrong).

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:President's can't make law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which in this case the president can choose who enters the country.

    2. Re:President's can't make law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but he (via CBP) cancelled existing issued visas and took away lawful residents' green cards. These are people who have lived here for years and were suddenly taken from their families because they happened to be traveling when Trumps EO came down. He would have been within his rights to block new visas temporarily. What he did shows no respect for due process or rule of law.

    3. Re:President's can't make law by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      An Executive Order is just an order from the executive telling the workers in the executive branch how to implement policies the President has been authorized by congress to make. So Congress via the Immigration and Nationality Act has authorized the president to ban any class of foreigners he wants from coming to the US. Trump could say "no left-handed lesbian mormon eskimo transmidgets" and it would be perfectly legal and constitutional.

      8 U.S.C. 1182(f).

      Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

      So, the power was granted by Congress, and Trump has simply issued an executive order stating that he's wielding this power to ban the class of aliens defined as people from these 7 countries, for 90 days, because security risks while they figure out how to vet them. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it, lots of presidents have issued similar orders, and courts have always found in favor of the President's authority when challenged. The judge who approved the halt had no arguments besides "muh feelings" and it will almost certainly be overturned.

      There's nothing unreasonable about stopping the entry of Somalis when we have no way of knowing who the fuck they are because Somalia has no function government that can provide us with records. Lefties and the media (but I repeat myself) are apoplectic because they knee jerk oppose anything Trump does. If Trump said "air is good and people should breathe it, believe me" the left would suffocate themselves to death. Come to think of it, Trump should tweet just that.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:President's can't make law by sexconker · · Score: 1

      The executive branch has control over border crossings, and can honor or revoke visas.

      If Trump were deporting visa holders already in the country, I'd be bitching about it loudly. He's not. He's securing the border as he is empowered to do. I don't agree with the way it's being done but I agree with him being able to do it.

    5. Re:President's can't make law by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes that border crossings aspect has been used for years to keep the USA safe. This is not some new law or altered law.
      History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Legislation is passed by Congress, constitutional separation of powers all still work. Congress has a lot of old and new laws to keep the US safe and such laws can be used per nation.
      Nations can be listed, the US is then under no obligation to allow random people in from any nation the US selects not to accept people from. The federal government gets to deny admission. Lots of interesting laws have been passed over many decades to fix select historic citizenship issues.
      People can read back over the different laws for citizenship rather than immigration.
      i.e. the US federal government has the power over border crossings. Non-citizens had to show the lawfulness of their presence if in the USA to the INS.
      The ability to regulate immigration from any nation into the USA is clear.
      Later Congress authorized the President to "use all necessary and appropriate ..." to keep the United States safe.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:President's can't make law by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      President's can't make law, that's the job of the legislative branch (congress) not the executive branch.

      That's not really correct. Congress has transferred a lot of lawmaking responsibility to the executive branch. That is, they pass a law that basically says "fill in the blanks here".

      In any case, Trump's immigration order on the face of it seems to fall within the authority given to him by Congress, and there is really nothing particularly unusual in banning entry of groups of people temporarily. We'll have to see how the courts actually argue. I suspect that if this makes it to SCOTUS, the order will be found lawful, in particular if Gorsuch has joined the court.

    7. Re:President's can't make law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is administrative law. Yes, it's authorized by the legislative branch, but the administrators can impose new rules within a prescribed scope (if you don't want to call them laws) without going back to the legislature for approval.

    8. Re:President's can't make law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now, see, that's a reasonable argument for why the order is/was legal. Thanks!

  21. Companies acting as proxy arbitrators of law?? by Idisagree · · Score: 0, Troll

    Something tells me this is not out of the goodness of their heart or the will to uphold the law.

    I question their motives greatly and I would suggest that they should not be involving themselves in the political arena to this degree.

    I've not checked but I'm guessing most of these companies hold SJW principles too dearly?

  22. Re: Discraceful! by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    And other citizens aren't uncomfortable with people like you, so what's your point?

    Your rebuttal was so relevant that his entire family has actually begun cancelling their plans to illegally emigrate to eastern Turkey and Yemen.

  23. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Americans" are not a race. So, not racist.

  24. Re: Discraceful! by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Companies spend millions on anti-Trump ads because he's threatening their H1B slave labor pool. They don't give a flying fuck about his stance on social issues.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  25. Who helped make these people refugees? by humptheElephant · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I noticed that one of the countries that are in the Trump list is Iraq. Lots of refugees there caused by the destabilization of the country caused by some other country invading it. I wonder what country that was? Then there is another country where the 9-11 terrorists came from that isn't affected by the travel ban. I wonder why that is? Could someone in this administration have a financial interest in this country? Nah, I can't believe something like that. Administration folks are good honest outstanding citizens to have any conflict of interest.

    1. Re:Who helped make these people refugees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt aren't listed, as they have long since cooperated with the US in background checking and securing the identification of Visa applicants. The point of the ban is to get a system like that working for the targeted countries.

      You can't even get a basic job in the U.S. without verifying your identity and submitting to at least a basic background check. Don't think Visa holders should have to vetted similarly?

    2. Re:Who helped make these people refugees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUcking Christ, first the headline is that Trump bans muslims ONLY from countries he is NOT doing business with, to punish them.
      Now you are saying the exact opposite. Fucking make up your minds, will ya?

    3. Re:Who helped make these people refugees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simply the country where 9-11 terrorists came from still has some law and order in place, and is cooperating, so it is less of a threat, although I think it still should have been included in the ban

    4. Re:Who helped make these people refugees? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Simply the country where 9-11 terrorists came from still has some law and order in place, and is cooperating, so it is less of a threat,

      I don't know that it works that way. You have to trust that they are cooperating faithfully, and I for one am not willing to extend that trust.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re: Who helped make these people refugees? by will_die · · Score: 1

      so you are saying that Muslims as a whole are the problem. not like trump that is listing countries that are causing issues not countries that are fighting terrorist s but might have some citizens that cause it.

    6. Re:Who helped make these people refugees? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      OMFG. Whomever started the rumor that Trumps choices for travel bans do not include where his businesses are was a fucking genius.

      The reason Saudi Arabia is not affected is because of of weapons sales. One year of weapons sales to Saudi Arabia is worth more than all of Trumps monetary wins during his entire life.

      In other words, Trump couldn't do anything about Saudi Arabia even if it was his deepest darkest desire.

      But of course, the meme that Trump did not add Saudi Arabia to the ban because of his business holdings, fits sooooo smoothly. Remind me again exactly how much business (monetary worth is sufficient) Trump personally has in Saudi Arabia?

      Regardless of ANY of the preceding, of course Trump has no business ventures in the countries that were banned. There are already sanctions and such. It would illegal for him to have any business there.

      Long story short, I did not vote for Trump, and yet all of these lies and mischaracterizations are just disgusting to see. Attack the mother fucker on legitimate grounds. It surely can't be that hard with someone like him.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  26. Liberal hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "Corporations are evil. If a bunch of corporations all want something, it must be disastrous for regular people."
    Liberals, 1992 - 2017

    "Corporations are humanitarian. Look how many corporations are opposing Donald J. Hitler."
    Liberals, 2017 - ongoing

    1. Re:Liberal hypocrisy by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I see the contradiction. Unless you see the world as some kind of bipartite graph of entities...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Liberal hypocrisy by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      It goes both ways

    3. Re:Liberal hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoops, looks like the hash got parsed out when I went to link where Conservatives are hypocrites too

  27. Does anyone understand Musk's position? by iris-n · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm a bit disturbed to see Musk sucking up to Trump. Does anyone have a reliable source on why he's doing it?

    My guess is that he has no choice. One of his companies (SpaceX) depends a lot on government money. Trump could deeply damage it with a penstroke by excluding it from ISS resupply missions, or forbidding it to compete for national security launches. His other company (Tesla) does not go well with Trump's love for the oil industry.

    --
    entropy happens
    1. Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      SpaceX as such is probably indifferent to this kind of legislation because SpaceX's employees are subject to much stricter regulations. They're not going to have the same issues as your bog-standard software company employing two Iranians who might go on vacation from time to time.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Check out his twitter posts. He's completely fallen for the bait, the exact same thing Trump used on his Republican political opponents: convincing them that they "have his ear" so that they self-censor if not outright help him, in order to avoid ruining their chance to "moderate his behavior". Which of course they actually have zero influence on whatsoever.

      Elon Musk is his newest Chris Christie.

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    3. Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All of his tweets on the topic, not counting replies:

      "The blanket entry ban on citizens from certain primarily Muslim countries is not the best way to address the country’s challenges"
      "Many people negatively affected by this policy are strong supporters of the US. They've done right,not wrong & don't deserve to be rejected."
      "Please read immigration order. Lmk specific amendments. Will seek advisory council consensus & present to President." (links to executive order)
      "Reading the source material is better than reading other people's opinions about the source material" (links to a person saying "Not a trump lover by any means, but after reading the language of the order, it looks far less bad than portrayed by the left")
      "Regarding the meeting at the White House:" (links to image of text insisting that he's hoping to use his status on the advisory council to oppose the order, and that all he cares about is building a good future for humanity)
      "At my request, the agenda for yesterday's White House meeting went from not mentioning the travel ban to having it be first and foremost"
      "In addition, I again raised climate. I believe this is doing good, so will remain on council & keep at it. Doing otherwise would be wrong."
      "Many in America don't realize how proud they should be of the legal system. Not perfect, but nowhere is the cause of justice better served."
      "Activists should be pushing for more moderates to advise President, not fewer. How could having only extremists advise him possibly be good?"
      Retweet of someone quoting what he just tweeted
      "Signing off now. That was more than enough Twitter trouble for one morning!"

      He sounds a bit stressed though, if you check out his replies. Examples:

      @rtoro20: "@elonmusk Can you tweet more please."
      @elonmusk: "@rtoro20 Really? I already have both feet in my mouth and am levitating on my own idiocy..."

      @eveegdmann: "@elonmusk not sure, though, to spend time on politics is the right way. Especially when you stayed away from it by your own choice before."
      @elonmusk: "@eveegdmann Really don't want to get in politics. I just want to help invent and develop technologies that improve lives. Feels so bizarre."

      He seems to feel that people just "don't get" that he's trying to do good by being on the committee. He doesn't seem to understand that most of his critics know what he's trying to do, but see him as being used and falling for a bait of fake "influence". Like a mouse going, "No, you don't understand, if I just get this cheese that's on this trap, it'll feed us all! Stop saying that traps are bad and we shouldn't associate with them - I agree that traps are bad, but look, there's cheese right there!"

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    4. Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Thanks for searching for the tweets. But I'm afraid you are underestimating Musk. I don't think he would fall for such an obvious trap. His arguments make sense if he were given a position of actual power: say by leading the EPA instead of a climate-change denialist. But on an advisory council? I think Musk knows very well that his advice will be completely ignored and he is only there to lend some legitimacy to the Trump administration.

      --
      entropy happens
    5. Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? by Rei · · Score: 2

      He honestly doesn't seem to realize that. The more of his tweets you read, the more it becomes clear. He honestly thinks he is being / will be listened to and will be a "moderating influence" on Trump.

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    6. Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? by iris-n · · Score: 1

      What I'm surprised about is not that he is not fighting for his employees in this particular case (although SpaceX is only allowed to hire US citizens, Tesla does have foreign engineers), but more generally why is he supporting Trump, given that their political views are rather incompatible.

      --
      entropy happens
    7. Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      He appears to think he can have the greatest effect by being an "insider".

    8. Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Indeed, this is what comes out of the tweets. My theory is that he is lying through his teeth, because the real reason he is Trump's council (he is afraid that Trump would destroy his companies otherwise) is inconfessable.

      --
      entropy happens
    9. Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? by phorm · · Score: 1

      Honestly? You're not going to change much by pointing out what an a**hole your government is. While it might not be the moral high-ground, it just might be more productive to attempt to effect influence from a position close to or within government, as opposed to complaining pointlessly from without.

      Of course this is a coordinated effort - so it may have more effect than any lone wolf might - but thus far the administration does't seem overly receptive to anything they deem as "opposition."

    10. Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I'm a bit disturbed to see Musk sucking up to Trump. Does anyone have a reliable source on why he's doing it?

      My guess: Then they met Trump told him flat out that they wouldn't be awarding him any big government/military contracts for their shit (from solar to AI to space) if they can't strongly vet any engineers or high level staff of foreign origin.

    11. Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be more direct -- this is the road to true corruption. Where Trump uses the power of government to help his friends and hurt his enemies. I think American's don't know what a corrupt government looks like, but they are about to find out.

    12. Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      Where have you seen Musk sucking up to Trump? He criticized him before the election, and has criticized some of his actions after especially the travel ban.

      From reading his Tweets it seems clear that Musk just wants to do the right thing, working with the administration to push for positive changes, rather than picketing in the street. You may disagree about the best way to do the right thing.

    13. Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? by dwpro · · Score: 1

      Do you really think he'd have more influence by _not_ being on the cabinet? Sometimes you have to play the hand you're dealt.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    14. Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      One of his companies (SpaceX) depends a lot on government money. Trump could deeply damage it with a penstroke by excluding it from ISS resupply missions, or forbidding it to compete for national security launches.

      Both true, and it goes further than that. SpaceX requires a great deal of participation from the Air Force to do anything. The Air Force owns the launch sites. The Air Force provides range control, which isn't optional. And Trump is the Commander in Chief of the Air Force. If he said, "Stop cooperating with SpaceX," SpaceX couldn't even launch commercial launches.

      Add to that, SpaceX is largely immune to the whole immigration kerfluffle. Due to ITAR, SpaceX has zero H1Bs or any other category of temporary work visa. Only citizens and permanent residents are allowed to work on orbital rockets, because the other name for the Falcon 9 first stage is "ICBM". (You remove the second stage to deliver a suborbital payload.) Slashdot is largely unaware of ITAR ever since calling encryption a munition went away, but it is still a thing, and in the case of "giant controlled explosion that can drop 20 tons of your choice anywhere on the planet in 30 minutes or less", it's a very sensible restriction.

      It seems very likely that Elon Musk's other companies are not H1B abusers either, so when you get right down to it, he has nothing to gain by opposing Trump on immigration and a great deal to lose.

    15. Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? by iris-n · · Score: 1

      I think you are overestimating Trump's power. He cannot simply forbid SpaceX from launching. Even the things I mentioned require cooperation from Congress (which he still has, so he could do it).

      But independently of this, Musk is opposing Trump on immigration, or at least he is claiming to, if you read his tweets. The weird thing is that he is doing that while remaining a member of the advisory council.

      --
      entropy happens
    16. Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? by iris-n · · Score: 1

      I think being a member of his advisory council is sucking up to him. From his tweets yes, this is the message he is conveying: he disagrees with the policies and wants to fight them from within. I think he is either lying or is extremely politically naïve.

      --
      entropy happens
    17. Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my brother is a physicist and got called for jury duty. he purposely avoided traps that could've gotten him dismissed precisely so there could be at least one critical thinker on a panel of people who were mostly too dumb to find a way off the jury. I suspect - no, citations, just a hunch - that this is similar

  28. They're just pissed about TPP and h1b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're just pissed they won't be able to import more wage slaves and will have to pay Americans fair wages.

  29. Put them in jail by Nocturrne · · Score: 1

    The leaders of these companies should do time in jail for illegally replacing American workers with H1-B visa workers, just to save money. The law is already very clear and they have abused it massively.

  30. Bizarro World by Merk42 · · Score: 2

    Now to be Republican you have to be pro Federal Legislation and anti Big Business?

    1. Re:Bizarro World by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      Now to be Republican you have to be pro Federal Legislation and anti Big Business?

      The only people who think Republicans are "pro big business" are idiots who believe what the Democrats tell them. Almost all large businesses lean heavily Democrat - they're cheaper and easily used for regulatory capture.

      Republicans tend to get most donations from individuals and small business owners.

    2. Re:Bizarro World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I think it's more bizarre that to be a liberal these days you have to be pro Big Business.

      Corporations are exploiting the left's "everything is racist" mentality. Liberals are an excellent tool to push globalization as anything else would be "xenophobic". You wouldn't be against multi national corporations, outsourcing, cheap imported labor, lower wages and having citizens of other countries take precedent over your own, would you? It'd be a shame if we'd have to call you a racist!

      It's all about increased profits and the left is more than willing to sacrifice everything they've worked for in the past at the altar of perceived -isms.

    3. Re:Bizarro World by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The "travel ban" is irrelevant to Big Business. It's relevant to Google and Facebook because those companies have been in bed with Democrats, so they automatically oppose anything Trump does.

  31. Re: Discraceful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No, they are doing it because they know they will make a shit-ton in asvertising dollars, you are giving them waaay too much credit. I fail to see how a temporary ban on 7 countries sounds the death knell for all immigration for all time. Listen: there is no question the man and his administration are apes, but we still have to think with our brains.

  32. Things change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is how we stole your core white, working class voters. The election of President Trump is a remarkable political achievement.

  33. Re:Interesting by Kierthos · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I would point out that a bunch of these Republican politicians are also pro-life up to the point where the kid is born, then they can't cut social services that might help the newborn fast enough.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  34. Did you forget who made the list of countries? by raymorris · · Score: 0, Troll

    If you have an issue with the list of countries affected, you may want to take up with the adminstration who made the list (in 2015) or the president who signed it (Obama).

    Trump put a temporary travel restriction on countries that Barak Hussein Obama identified as sources of terrorists.

    I have no opinion on the policy either way, because I'm not FBI and don't have the data in front of me. I *am* of the opinion that we should discuss the facts as they are, not pretend that Trump made the list this month when it was in fact made by Obama's people two years ago.

    1. Re:Did you forget who made the list of countries? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact the intent of the list was different than Trump's has no bearing on this? I'm trying to sort out this logic. It's almost as if you're trying to assert that Obama is somehow responsible for President Trump's EO. As others have pointed out, these countries are not responsible for attacks on US soil. Saudi Arabia and Egypt, however, did prove 9-11 hijackers, so one wonders why actual countries that have produced actual terrorists that have actually attacked US citizens on US soil were not added. It's almost as if the EO was poorly thought-out, was meant more as a bit of security theater, but it was so badly written and coordination with the departments needed to enforce it so mismanaged that it turned into a complete shit show.

      The real problem with the travel ban, to my mind, isn't that it happened (that was stupid enough), but if you are going to implement such policies, then implement them. What we're seeing here isn't just nasty government, what we're seeing is just plain incompetent government.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Did you forget who made the list of countries? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you have an issue with the list of countries affected, you may want to take up with the adminstration who made the list (in 2015) or the president who signed it (Obama).
      Trump put a temporary travel restriction on countries that Barak Hussein Obama identified as sources of terrorists.

      If Trump can't make his own lists of countries, then he's probably not qualified to be president. Maybe if he went to those security briefings he's been ignoring, he'd have his own opinions and wouldn't have to rent someone else's.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Did you forget who made the list of countries? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you have an issue with the list of countries affected, you may want to take up with the adminstration who made the list (in 2015)

      You have told me the very reason why we have issues with the list of countries. It's a list from a different time, used for a different purpose. The mere fact that it's the same list in this case is the problem especially given the wording of the EO which includes in Section 1: Purpose a long list of things that have nothing to do with the 7 countries selected.

    4. Re:Did you forget who made the list of countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >the intent of the list was different than Trump's has no bearing on this?

      Unfortunately, that's how laws like this work.

      IF Pres Trump sets a law saying: "The president may check any citizen's home at any time"; his party would be at a loss to defend it if the next president used it in such a way.

  35. Re:Interesting by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It wasn't the Republican establishment that put Trump into power. They did everything they could to keep him from winning either the nomination or the Presidency. It was the people who voted for him, the people who are tired of getting fucked over by shitty trade and immigration policies and who no longer give a fuck who the political establishment (or CNN or Hollywood) wants them to vote for.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  36. Gamergate again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not a "rare" coordinated action. They are once again taking orders from the Muslim Brotherhood to appease their Saudi investors.

    /v/ just yesterday dug up another Saudi prince in Games For Change, the video game propaganda house linked to the US State Department and started by a money laundering family. This was attached to a report that someone is getting money from the Department of Education to create games that promote Islam. The prince was introduced with great praise by the head of Zynga, which is on this list along with several of the tech companies most notorious for data mining and political censorship. There are too many of these coincidences for them all to be coincidences.

  37. List of Mega Corps by DarkOx · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hmm list of TBTFs make extra legal argument to try and influence what should be a narrow legal question about the scope of a 1952 immigration act.

    It does not matter if you or anyone else things the action is a good idea. What matters is a very simple Question of did the legislation enacted by congress give the president the power to do what he did or not. Washington State and these mega corps are conflating irrelevant issues and trying to get the courts to act outside the law. They don't care about the rule of law. They care about their influence and want to prove theirs is greater than POTUS.

    This is ACTUAL fascism folks, what these corporations are doing right here. Judge James Robart ought to be impeached, because he never should have issued a stay on something so impactful when the legal challenge is as weak as it is. I don't care who appointed him or how unanimously he was confirmed. Those things also are not relevant, the only thing that matters is can and will he do his job today and he showed he cant!

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:List of Mega Corps by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's more fascist to assume you can ignore your country's most fundamental, strongest laws just because you are so great. The constitution clearly says this is unlawful, and the only way past it will be to rework the policy or screw with the supreme court. Guess which one Trump has in mind.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:List of Mega Corps by DarkOx · · Score: 0

      WAIT how does the Constitution clearly say this in unlawful! Citation please or shut the fuck up. I don't believe you, I have read the Constitution. I researched this issue when Khizr Khan was spouting his pro-Hillary lies! There is quire a lot of settled at the SCOTUS level case law on this.

      What is different here? I think you are full of shit.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:List of Mega Corps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess your research didn't include Article 3 of the US Constitution. It's OK, Trump hasn't read it either. I've put the relevant sections below.

      You might want to look up how fascists consolidate their power, diminishing the independence of the judiciary is quite high on the list.

      Article 3
      Section 1
      The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

      Section 2
      1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

      It is absolutely, completely, and inarguably the role of the courts to take the actions they have. Judge James Robart did exactly what his job requires, as defined by the US Constitution. Whining about it earnestly and wishing it were different does not change the facts.

    4. Re:List of Mega Corps by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      No he did not. There was no need to issue any stay or injunction against enforcement of the order, while the mater is being resolved. None, you only do that when you strongly believe the legal challenge is going to succeed.

      It won't the states don't have standing, in the first place. The president clearly has the legal authority given by congress in the second. This was a political stunt by this judge. He should have dismissed the case because of the standing issue actually. Even if he did think the case could succeed why is the temporary order national? Why not just Washington and Minnesota? This was activism, and he should be removed!

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    5. Re:List of Mega Corps by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The bit about the state not establishing religion, which the SCOTUS has clarified to include favouring one religion over another.

      Yes, yes, I know it's not a Muslim ban. Problem is, Trump said he was going to have a Muslim ban, put out multiple statements and tweets to that effect, and then when he got into office took some advice and implemented what he thought he could get away. So it really looks like it is an attempt at a Muslim ban.

      Also, it might be a constitutional violation to deny entry to people with a right to be in the US. Something about not violating people's rights to move around freely or to access the country when they have a right to, which their existing visas grant them. He should probably have started by trying to cancel all existing visas, but I guess he didn't want to "tip them off".

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:List of Mega Corps by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, I know it's not a Muslim ban.

      It's a partial Muslim ban. Section 5(b) bans Muslims from entering the country from any of the affected countries if they're escaping religious persecution.

      They were very careful with the wording, so nobody could CTRL-F "Muslim" and find the smoking gun, but no Judge in the US is going to treat it as anything other than a religious test, given there's no justification for the test to begin with.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:List of Mega Corps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he did not. There was no need to issue any stay or injunction against enforcement of the order, while the mater is being resolved.

      Need? Define need. Will the universe blow up if he didn't? No. Will people be hurt? Yes.

      None, you only do that when you strongly believe the legal challenge is going to succeed.

      Nope. The people who will be otherwise subject to the government's actions will undergo real harm, while the government, by not doing something, will only what? Possibly not be able to do something that might maybe conceivably have an impact of some potential event? Reality trumps speculation.

      People have real jobs they won't be able to do. People have real houses. Real pets. Real family. Trump? Razzle-fazzle.

      It won't the states don't have standing, in the first place.

      Except they do, states are long-recognized as having the right to stand in the interests of their citizens, residents, and the companies within them.

      The president clearly has the legal authority given by congress in the second.

      Legal authority to do an act, does not mean unquestionable and unchallenged authority to take any act in all circumstances and situations.

      This was a political stunt by this judge. He should have dismissed the case because of the standing issue actually.

      This was a political stunt by the President. He should have consulted with people who actually know how to protect the country, write laws, and follow procedures without running with scissors. He might have achieved some better result. Instead? He seeded chaos.

      Even if he did think the case could succeed why is the temporary order national? Why not just Washington and Minnesota?

      Because it turns out, individuals who are represented by those states, can be traveling on planes that could arrive in any other state.

      This was activism, and he should be removed!

      Ah yes, and that substantially discredits the argument. Demanding a judge be removed for making an order against you. That is a perilous line to walk.

      It is the kind of thing Trump is dumb enough to suggest, but a sensible man should realize the perils inherent in making that assertion. For that, you better be damn sure it is appropriate and necessary. That's the kind of gamble you can't afford lose, you can't be dirty, and you can't mishandle.

    8. Re:List of Mega Corps by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Have you read the Order? I bet you haven't.

      Here is a hint:

      the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles...

      United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law...

      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.

      How is that a Muslim ban? Notice that those characteristics are not specific to one religion, race, or ideology. If you think or do those things you should not enter the U.S. Why is that bad?

    9. Re:List of Mega Corps by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Careful with the wording??? We are talking about law... The whole point is to be careful about the wording... WTF do you think law should be vague and misleading? Or very carefully worded?

      These are some of the criteria that will bar you entry into the US from the E.O.:

      the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles

      United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law

      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.

      How the fuck is that a religious test?

    10. Re:List of Mega Corps by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Also, if you are not a citizen there is no right to enter the U.S. and the State Department can deny access for any reason. it is a privileged granted by the federal government for immigrants to come to the nation that can be taken away at the Presidents discretion as established by the Constitution and the Congress that gave the President that power.

    11. Re:List of Mega Corps by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Interesting how it talks about people who do not support the constitution (like Trump). Seems like the old "unamerican" crap, an easy way to persecute anyone you don't like. And of course, supporting the constitution is not required to be a US citizen, and in fact many citizens do not support all or some of it.

      Also, since Thiel pledged allegiance to the Queen to get his New Zealand citizenship, i.e. pledged allegiance to a monarch, the very one that the US fought a war of independence from... Maybe he needs to be banned too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:List of Mega Corps by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      supporting the constitution is not required to be a US citizen, and in fact many citizens do not support all or some of it.

      Yes, and that is a problem but they are citizens that are protected by the very document they don't support. With immigrants they are not protected and as such there is nothing wrong with requiring prospective immigrants respecting the law of hte land and the philosophy it was founded on.

      Again, citizenship. You seem to not understand this concept. Dual citizenship is possible and has it's own 'caveats'... but they are still a citizen that has protection by the constitution. Do you really not understand this concept? You cannot ban a citizen but you can ban an immigrant.

    13. Re:List of Mega Corps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      p>United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law

      "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!" - Trump on Twitter

      The judge in question was appointed, confirmed, and acting in his capacity as defined by article 3 of the US Constitution. This alone would ban him by his own executive order, not to mention all the other parts of the Constitution he clearly doesn't support.

    14. Re:List of Mega Corps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've made a very shallow argument - and you missed a key issue. There's a clue in your own quote:

      shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour

      Is it "good Behavior" for a judge to overturn the authority of the president, when Congress has specifically granted that authority - and no claim has been made to the effect that Congress had no legal right to grant that authority?

      Putting this in other terms, is this consistent with the judge's oath to uphold the law of the land (which is the key element of "good Behavior)?

      Either he has to establish that Congress was not acting within it's legal authority, or he is in violation of his oath.

      Personally, I favor the former outcome, since limiting the authority of Congress is long overdue - there are enormous numbers of pages of laws that violate fundamental rights, and fixing that is an issue long overdue.

      In order to establish that Congress was not acting within it's legal authority, the judge has to show that the action of Congress is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, a higher legal authority. That could be done - but the judge didn't take that step in his order. In fact, he didn't say anything in his ruling to suggest a specific ground for why the states would allegedly win "on the merits". Similarly, he didn't list any reasons why there would be "serious questions" going to the merits of their claims. He dropped the ball on the key substantive issue. That's very sloppy, and arguably incompetent. Oops.

      It is absolutely, completely, and inarguably the role of the courts to take the actions they have.

      Since the issue can clearly be argued - I just did - your wording here is clearly false.

  38. Re: Discraceful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is interesting how english continues to evolve. for example. using periods instead of commas. also note the lack of capital letters. while i can't help but to be disappointed. this must be the beginning of a new american style. it is too bad we can't simply deport people who can't write correctly.

    dear pedantic. embrace the new.

  39. It's all about money! by bwanagary · · Score: 1

    These companies are only interested in how it affects their bottom line. They can bring in H1B visa workers cheaper than they can hire American workers. This keeps downward pressure on salaries in the tech sector. Its about time this artificial suppression of tech workers' salaries was curbed and the greedy super-rich companies stop taking food, opportunity and jobs from the American workers' mouth.

  40. They can whine all they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact is, it is a LAWFUL order and has been for a very long time.

  41. Swap positions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the last 15+ years, the constant /. post has been corporations have too much power and are making the rules in DC. If ONLY we could get someone in the White House to stand up to corporate interests.

    Well, here you go, without apology Trump is doing JUST that. And now, the corporations should be making the rules and running things and we need to get rid of Trump because he won't do what the corporations want. Just like the day he trashed the TPP and the number of posts saying how great the TPP was and how Trump trashing it was going to help China.

    You all on /. are complete idiots just repeating what the mainstream news tells you to, because for some reason you think it makes you sound smart.

    1. Re:Swap positions by squiggleslash · · Score: 0

      He's not standing up against corporate interests, he's standing up for white nationalist interests. Sometimes those will overlaps, other times, not, but you can hardly criticize us for criticizing those policies.

      Sometimes corporate policies overlap with our's, sometimes not, and sometimes a majority of those on Slashdot have no idea what's really going on.

      As for my post, I'm pointing out what the reality is. I hear people here making all kinds of bizarre claims about the system, and in particular most have absolutely no idea that there already are hurdles involving making sure an American couldn't (practically) be hired to do the same job. As I've never said American immigration is too lax, there's no reason to assume double standards on my part.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Swap positions by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From what I can see, the problem in the most egregious cases isn't the rules, it's that the rules haven't been enforced. With Trump's general deregulation policy, I suppose there really is no alternative than to heavily limit H1Bs, because the border is the one place he seems keen to have lots of barriers.

      Of course, you already see places like Europe and China making a clear argument that maybe all the experts should go work for them. Trump's policies may have the effect of starving the US of pools of foreign talent that have made it a dominant economic power for decades.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Swap positions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump's policies may have the effect of starving the US of pools of foreign talent that have made it a dominant economic power for decades.

      I'm unaware of any actual evidence that foreign talent was a major factor in the US economy for the past decades.

      Agenda much?

      How about a peer-reviewed study in an economic journal, with a good history of being referenced in other articles? Something that tests a hypothesis with an actual measurement?

  42. The McCarran–Walter Act revisited by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Read up on the McCarran–Walter Act. POTUS has the authority to do this.

  43. Oracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, how is Oracle on the list of passive collaborators? I understand their CEO is a bit of a prick but even he ought to realize that Oracle wouldn't exist if Trump's ban was in effect 40 years ago, since one of the founders of Oracle is an Iranian immigrant. Even Trump Towers wouldn't exist in its current form in Muslims were banned since all modern skyscrapers are based on Fazlur Khan's tubular structural design.

    As for SpaceX and Tesla .. at least Elon is rationalizing that one.

    IBM -- what can we expect, they are simply upholding tradition .. I mean collaborated with the Nazi Germany.

    Amazon -- Jeff Bezos probably too busy with his drones to know wtf is happening.

  44. Sure... by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    And how many of those companies are frothing at the mouth over Trumps proposed tax holiday that'll let them bring their money back?

  45. Re: Discraceful! by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Companies never directly spend millions on political ads to influence policy - through PACs, yeah, but directly, pretty much never. They do, however, spend millions on ads that they think will sell their products, and it happens that "Yeah, we think Trump sucks too. Drink Budweiser" sells products. You can probably figure out why for yourself.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  46. Re: Discraceful! by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On both sides of the aisle, the social issues are for the activists and the idealogues. Politicians pay lip service to them and then take no action on them in office. (Well, until now)

    What gets the politicians moving is not social issues. It's money. Money from corporate donations from these big tech companies. (What side gets most of that money?) The manpower of the ground game in election races that keep them in power.

    Both parties pretend to care about social issues, but all they really care about is keeping themselves in office and their parties in power.

    A really nice article in National Review pointed this out last week - http://www.nationalreview.com/...

  47. Fuck Trump and Fuck Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are BOTH psychopaths who kill others for their personal profit!

  48. Too bad there is nothing unlawful about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're just pissed it might screw with their cheap h1b labor, even though THAT doesn't even have anything to do with the content of the executive order, what they're really worried about is what comes next, the administration actually vetting new h1'b not just for security issue, but for actual need, of which there is very very little.

  49. Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks... I was trying to find a list of all the employers abusing the H1B visa program.

  50. They wouldn't fight for ours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I believe that before we give residency status to foreigners (particularly men), that they serve in the active armed forces. We need to know which way they'll shoot in case of a conflict.

  51. Re:Outside of Mr. Trump's comfort zone & voter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump has a much better understanding of the practical implications of the use of computers for communications than Clinton, her staff and most of her supporters. He is suspicious of them for a reason --- the NSA has been snooping on everybody for ages and the CIA with the help of AT&T and other telecom companies know all about who you are talking to.

    All the wailing and gnashing of teeth about travel bans is just virtual signaling (travel to and from those places are a tiny, tiny fraction of what they do as an enterprise), H1-B visas on the other hand is their prime tool to keep salaries down and workers in line. If Trump offers to zero all H1-B visas and rescind all the rest, all those tech compaines will be just as unhappy, maybe even more as they don't have a fig leave to disguise their too motivation.

  52. Re: Discraceful! by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 3, Funny

    Canadian. Technically. William. Shatner's. fault.

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  53. Small Wonder they object by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

    Small wonder they object -- the open secret in the tech industry is that they're using H-1Bs to generate a slave caste in the tech industry.

    It's not just about the lower wages. It's also about the fact that these employees aren't allowed to quit.

    Trump has openly said he will be going after H-1B abuse, and any restrictions in travel means they can't find some bright but desperate young adults from Europe and abuse the hell out of them. Turns out there's a bit of swamp in Silicon Valley, too.

    1. Re:Small Wonder they object by marquisdepolis · · Score: 1

      Turns out there's a bit of swamp in Silicon Valley, too.

      Maybe he'll drain it the same way he did Washington - by appointing all the valley billionaires and asking them nicely to do whatever they want.

  54. The more reason to do it. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    The hostility towards citizens in tech (if not just Silicon Valley) isn't more obvious than this. They depend on a steady stream of people that they can easily control in ways not possible with US citizenship. If these firms really cared about immigration, they would encourage them to become citizens, not transients working for some foreign paymaster.

    Never mind that the list includes about every major abuser of guest worker law, especially "forced training for severance" Disney. I hope that Trump turns the dial up to 11 and uses the laws that are available to him.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  55. Double-edged sword by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1, Insightful

    These companies might want to be careful with this move. They keep claiming they're not overlooking/bypassing/not hiring U.S. workers for cheaper, overseas labor, yet here they are claiming this ban will affect their operations because they rely heavily on workers from these countries.

    They claim there is a shortage of tech workers, and have been for decades, yet each year thousands of workers are laid off and thousands of new graduates enter the workforce. To claim they can't find someone while at the same time screaming they need to have these overseas workers to fill slots is disingenuous and hypocritical and does nothing to help their case.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  56. Re: Discraceful! by unixisc · · Score: 0

    if you are legal to live in the US. stay here. if not. get a clue or get deported. this is not rocket science. there are some people that the US citizen is simply not comfortable with and this is why they voted for trump.

    The lucky thing for these companies is that by playing to the gallery of people in the major cities, like Silicon Valley, Seattle, New York, et al, they are hip and have nothing to lose by pretending that they know what is or ain't constitutional. After all, when there is a Jihadist attack anywhere, like in Orlando or San Bernardino, they're not the ones who will be questioned about 'Why didn't we catch this', so it's easy for the likes of Cook or Brin to bellyache about this ban.

    /. moderation has gone to shit, which is why your post, as well as anyone who agrees w/ you, is and will be modded down.

  57. Wipe the smirk of the business' face. by sethstorm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's not just "no American", it's "no American available to fill the post" for a given price

    The citizens are quite available, the companies have to quit being picky.

    while stats keep saying that these companies that are supposedly abusing the system are mostly whit

    Easy to say that when the firm contracts out to a body shop, thus rendering any and all calculations invalid.

    You can argue that companies should be required to help Americans move to fill posts

    Even if it's entry-level work, I'd have no problem with that.

    Make it such a royal PITA to not [directly] hire a citizen for an FTE position that they don't bother with non-citizens.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Wipe the smirk of the business' face. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The citizens are quite available, the companies have to quit being picky.

      One of America's most beloved comic strips features such an engineer that illustrates the problem perfectly:

      There are legions of self-entitled "engineers" so bad any employer will be better off setting a pile of money on fire than hiring.

      America is built on the idea that it doesn't matter who your parents are if you have the talent.

      The tech companies are saying the same thing with H-1B's: They need talent, not sacks of meat waxing nostalgic about their family tree.

  58. Enforcing the law != racist. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Trying to confuse enforcement of law and patriotism with racism says more about you than anything else.

    If anything, there need to be painful-to-approach barriers to using foreign help for a while - to the point where it starts looking like the dotcom era for decades.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Enforcing the law != racist. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I've seen lots of racist justifications for doing things that are not necessarily legal, and certainly not definitely part of enforcing the law. There's all sorts of patriotism, also. Trump's EO on immigration, for example, was suspended by the courts for being questionably legal.

      This ties in with my observation that law-and-order types want order and don't care about the law, particularly any part of it affording rights to accused individuals.

      Why do we need further barriers to letting foreigners in? The current ones seem to be working pretty well.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:Enforcing the law != racist. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      What part of the existing rules allowing the President to deny admissions to any non-citizen is unclear to you?

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    3. Re:Enforcing the law != racist. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The part where four Federal judges have decided that he may not have that power after all. Do you want to ask any questions about what I actually said?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  59. Trump derangement, you have it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, I'm sure Apple will go under unless it can get those 50 computer hardware engineers from Somalia (Well known for its tech leaders)

    Meanwhile over 100+ people killed in Paris from refugees from Syria, but you all are claiming since it hasn't happened in the US then there are no terrorist with the refugees, despite OVERWHELMING evidence in Europe of the opposite.

    Go back to shilling for the corporations, and more H1Bs because protecting US citizens and getting them jobs is apparently the most evil and racists things that a president can possibly do. There was a FAIR election and you LOST. That means your policies don't get put into place, no matter how much of a fit you throw or how many universities you set on fire because you don't want a gay foreigner to be able to speak.

    Liberals hate gays (Milo and Thiel), they hate US citizens, and they really hat the US middle class. That is what I've seen from them since Trump has been elected.

    1. Re:Trump derangement, you have it by unixisc · · Score: 1

      THIS!!! Absolutely this!!! Also, if these countries are so vital to the companies in question, why doesn't Amazon open an office in Benghazi? Why doesn't Microsoft open an office in Aden? Why doesn't Google open an office in Baghdad? If people from all these countries are so safe that these companies consider it worth risking American lives for them, then why don't these companies open up branches in these countries, so that those people can contribute their skills, and also be near their families (not talking about the ones who have families here)

    2. Re:Trump derangement, you have it by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile over 100+ people killed in Paris from refugees from Syria, but you all are claiming since it hasn't happened in the US then there are no terrorist with the refugees, despite OVERWHELMING evidence in Europe of the opposite.

      According to the BBC, none of the attackers were actually Syrian refugees. It is suspected that two of the attackers posed as Syrian refugees when they travelled to France, but they weren't from Syria and the majority of the attackers were either French or Belgian citizens. It seems likely that had Europe and/or France implemented a ban on travellers from Syria, those two attackers would have simply used different fake identities.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    3. Re:Trump derangement, you have it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost as if you should stop refugees from ALL countries they are likely to be coming from until you can figure out their documentation is valid.

      Are you trying to make my point for me? Because you just pretty much completely validated that Trump's EO is not only the best thing to do, but the only thing to do to prevent terrorists from coming tot he US.

      And yet, it is still racist to protect the US citizens? You guys are so deranged it is unbelievable.

    4. Re:Trump derangement, you have it by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      If people from all these countries are so safe that these companies consider it worth risking American lives for them

      The people are safe - The countries aren't.

      Why do you think families are desperate to leave Syria? Because it isn't safe. Doesn't mean the people who want to leave are unsafe.

      That's why you want to hire smart people from Syria, not open an office in Syria.

    5. Re:Trump derangement, you have it by unixisc · · Score: 1

      How the fuck do you or anyone else know that the people in question are okay? To know they are safe, one would have to do a background check on them, and in case of these 7 countries, it would mean having to talk to their governments to find out more about what they did while they lived there. And that's where the crux is. Of these 7 countries, Libya, Somalia and Yemen have no functioning government, Iraq and Syria have governments that do not control huge portions of their territory, so it's impossible for the Assad regime for instance (even if we had diplomatic relations w/ them) to tell us whether someone from Raqqa was a part of ISIS or not. Iran is a downright hostile country, so it would make about as much sense to trust them to tell us which of their citizens are okay and which ones would be terrorists (although I suspect Obama would have taken them on their word), and Sudan is listed as a state sponsor of terrorism.

    6. Re:Trump derangement, you have it by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      How the fuck do you or anyone else know that the people in question are okay?

      You look at them, you interview them, and you use common sense. You interview the family of these girls - If her dad is a dentist fleeing terror then you put a tick in the "not dangerous" box: .

      http://bit.ly/2kOQsdf.

      For God's sake, where did all this American cowardice come from? You're the strongest nation in the world. Read your Statue of "Liberty" and prove it.

      And frankly, all this talk of 'safety' when it comes to suffering people is infuriating. If Trump truly wanted to make Americans "safe" he'd be pushing deep and meaningful gun control. He'd be supporting initiatives to reduce pollution and improve workplace safety in places like coal mines. He'd be pushing for clean drinking water in places like Flint, and working to improve highway safety. He'd beef up the FDA and inspect the food chain. He'd provide support to battered women and children.

      ...and much more.

      Those are the things that make you unsafe - Not bogey-man refugee terrorists.

      He demonstrates leadership in none of these things - Which proves he's not interested in keeping Americans 'safe' - He's just interested in keeping people like you scared.

  60. Re:Interesting by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    Mexicans not a race... So, not racist to want a wall protecting from illegal Mexican border jumpers.

    Muslim is not a race... So, not racist to want strong immigration policy that protects against the radical elements of the religion.

    Thanks. Now we know that strong immigration and border protections are not racist.

  61. The same Tech Companies who do not pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft, Apple, Google do not pay taxes so how come they are allowed to have a voice?

    And Levi's does not even make their over-priced clothes in the USA anymore. Their clothes are made via slave labor in countries like Vietnam. How can they have a voice concerned about Americans when they really don't?

  62. Re:Interesting by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    And those people are going to get one of the most incompetent US administrations in history, which will likely materially damage the United States. In four years, unless Trump actually understands that being head of the executive branch is about more than people clapping when you sign Steve Bannon's orders, the whole thing is going to be a disaster. Well, at least Congress and the courts will get a good workout restraining this idiot.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  63. Re:Interesting by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    "Americans" are not a race. So, not racist.

    Yet still, supporting them is being called racist.

    Do you see the hypocrisy yet?

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  64. The only refugees we should take in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...are single, sexy, unbirthable women.

    1. Re: The only refugees we should take in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safe to say any woman is unbirthable, as is any other adult.

  65. Re:The List by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

    Don't hold back. Let the inner Nazi in you flow freely.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  66. Uniting radicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He seems to be uniting radicals on both coasts who never were divided about our foolish giveaways to terrorist counties. The Trump heartland just yawns and wonders what the fuss is all about, enabling a multi-national lifestyle?

  67. Re:Interesting by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You misunderstand the goal.

    The goal is not a competent administration. The goal is to throw a Molotov cocktail at the status quo, because it has become obvious that no one in that status quo is listening.

  68. 97 Companies - So Close by khr · · Score: 1

    97 Companies... So close. Just three more, 100 companies, and the White House would get a set of free steak knives.

  69. sucess is a matter of perspective by Tom · · Score: 1

    Who thinks that Trump really wanted to ban anyone, and who thinks that he wanted to demonstrate to his voters that he is good for what he promised, and now the evil tech companies are stopping him?

    He can only win with such actions. In the eyes of his supporters, he is the good guy, whether someone stops him or not. And in the eyes of his enemies, there is nothing to lose anyway. And thanks for a century of the two-party-system, there aren't many left who are inbetween and could be convinced of joining his camp. You're either in it already, or you won't go there anyway.

    Obama unsuccessfully tried the "election is over, let's all work together" approach. Trump has a completely different approach: "You voted against me, so I don't give a fuck what you think".

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:sucess is a matter of perspective by danaris · · Score: 1

      Obama unsuccessfully tried the "election is over, let's all work together" approach. Trump has a completely different approach: "You voted against me, so I don't give a fuck what you think".

      Actually, it sounds like he's gone further, and is now saying that people who don't like what Trump thinks don't actually exist—polls showing disapproval of his actions are "fake news".

      Dan Aris

      --
      Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    2. Re:sucess is a matter of perspective by Tom · · Score: 1

      That's not very unusual. People also think Merkel has high approval ratings in Germany because the media says so. Strange that I haven't met one person in eight years who thinks highly of her.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  70. Right Thing to do... by Nex6 · · Score: 1

    I work in the tech industry like many here on this board. I think opposing the order was the right thing. opposing it, is more than just about so called "cheap labor"
    for the tech industry. for one it sets president, of what an executive order can or should do. this is not a dictatorship, we have laws and processess and they are not
    being followed.

    is it possible, that the H1B program is being abused? well yea, no shit sherlock. lets dig into that and find out where and why. blanket banning like was done,
    was done without thought, logic or reasons. hell the places with the most exported terrorist where not on the lists which also line up nicely as places trump
    does business odd hunh? so trump gets to make sure all the places he does business with are not listed, but everyone else just has to take it? not how it works
    and the tech companys and states are fighting back.

    welcome to the legal system...

    -Nex6

    1. Re:Right Thing to do... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> is it possible, that the H1B program is being abused? well yea, no shit sherlock. lets dig into that and find out where and why

      Well, where is going to be all the big companies that are fighting this bill, and why is already obvious: Cheap labor.

      Leghal masturbation and digging into endless detail is exactly what these companies are trying to cause, simply as a delaying tactic simply so they can keep their snout in the trough for a while longer.

    2. Re:Right Thing to do... by Nex6 · · Score: 1

      I think its more than that. its already hard to find talent. many tech shops are pretty diverse places now. limiting, tech companys it bitting your nose off to spit your face.

    3. Re:Right Thing to do... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> its already hard to find talent.

      Possibly but not half as much of a problem as these companies like to make out. If there is a shortage, its also by their own hand in the first place, for years of screwing the US software developer base for their own short-term gain.
      If they stopped (or were forced to stop) doing that, then the demand would adjust the salary they would have to pay, which in turn would stop people leaving the industry for other positions, and also attract more people to do Comp Sci degrees, so adjust the supply.

    4. Re:Right Thing to do... by Nex6 · · Score: 1

      sure, I am sure most of the tech industry is gaming the system, but for mid level talent, or above its very hard to find people. and when you start to drill down into
      some specific skillsets its gets even harder. much of the tech industry trys to find the best people. and, many of these companys are multinational so for example
      if you run data centers Germany they need to be staffed by germans that handle german data. once you start forcing arcane rules you start to run into all sorts of
      issues for no reason.

      better, is to address the root issues instead of blanket banning, as a protectist, isolationist which never works....

    5. Re:Right Thing to do... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> better, is to address the root issues instead of blanket banning,

      The government have been trying that for years. The fatcat companies aren't allowing it to work.

      >> instead of blanket banning, as a protectist, isolationist which never works....

      Sure it does. Look at how rich the US health industry is. Anyway the fatcats have bought it on themselves by until now blocking all more moderate government attempts to get them to stop replacing skilled US workers with cheap, foreign ones.

  71. Stand with TRUMP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is terrible! Very sad! Stand with Trump against Silicon Valley TRAITORS!

    Smash all items that represent them! Mail them a picture of of your deeds to send a message! Smash your iphone, your XBOX, your playstations, your android and windows phones, your MAC, your PCs. Vow to NOT HELP these folks with your purchases! DoublePlusGood for everyone!!

  72. Bezos has issued a statement by Branka96 · · Score: 1

    See e.g. Yahoo Finance. One of the strongest according to the article.

  73. Offtopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand feminism as a political movement that:

    1) insists that women are victims, thus encouraging a victim mentality
    2) insists that women deserve special treatment, thus encouraging an entitlement mentality.

    If I am incorrect on these points, could you please correct me? No links to novels please, something trenchant, clear, and supported. Thanks.

    1. Re:Offtopic by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I understand feminism as a political movement that:

      1) insists that women are victims, thus encouraging a victim mentality
      2) insists that women deserve special treatment, thus encouraging an entitlement mentality.

      If I am incorrect on these points, could you please correct me? No links to novels please, something trenchant, clear, and supported. Thanks.

      Feminism has many faces, and with it many definitions. My understanding of feminism is not as dismissive as yours. IMHO, feminists:

      (1) believe in social and political equality of the sexes; and
      (2) acknowledge that women have been disadvantaged historically because of their gender.

      And that means people of either gender can be, and are, feminists.

      I trust the above is trenchant and clear. As for supported, well, you could spend a long time googling, but the Wikipedia article is not bad.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  74. Re:Interesting by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If that is the goal, then it is sheer stupidity. Having the US government spiral into chaos domestically as it leaves a trail of ruin through foreign allies may disrupt the status quo, but it won't produce some sort of fantastic result.

    As it is, it's pretty clear that this is going to be a stress test of the Constitution, because the courts, and likely a somewhat unwilling Congress, are now going to have to spend a lot of time minimizing the damage of the Trump administration. I wonder if the end result will in fact be a diminished Presidency.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  75. Re:Interesting by tbannist · · Score: 0

    Actually, most of the people who put Trump into power are the people who always vote Republican whether it's Jesus or Satan's name next to the R.

    A small group of Americans who flipped from Democrat to Republican because of losing their jobs to free trade and automation did provide him with a considerable push, but we should never forget that it was Putin and Comey who actually carried him across the finish line.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  76. War regions is source of talent? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "a region that sees immigration as central to its identity as an innovation hub". Immigration from war-torn and terrorism-infested nations is somehow source of innovative talent? Or there is an underlying fear that this is just the beginning?

    1. Re:War regions is source of talent? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me what it's saying is that Silicon Valley doesn't consider Americans to be innovative. I find this very disappointing as none of those companies would even exist if it weren't for American innovation in the first place. It was America that produced ARPAnet which subsequently became the internet and transformed all our lives during the last fifty years. I look forward to the day that (1) the internet becomes truly global, not just limited to the relatively wealthy, and (2) America stops interfering with the politics of other countries.

  77. Re: Discraceful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Instead of bitching about h1b visas maybe it's time to realize the expectation of high salaries in that field should go away. In the 80s and 90s only a few had the basic skills. Now almost every child is exposed to computers at an early age. If someone is willing to do the job for less money while living in the US that seems like free market at work.

  78. It's Totally Lawful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

    There is nothing to argue here folks. It is completely legal for him to suspend entry of any alien or class of aliens, including Resident Aliens (green cards). The judges will have to overturn 60 years of precedent supporting the Immigration and Nationalization Act, which they simply will not be able to do and maintain any appearance of interpretive integrity.

  79. Re:Outside of Mr. Trump's comfort zone & voter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very good analysis.

    It is why the UK's IR35 tax regulation was enacted, the group most likely impacted I.T. Workers were not not seen as Labour voters.

  80. TPP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like the day he trashed the TPP and the number of posts saying how great the TPP was and how Trump trashing it was going to help China.

    The issue with TPP was that he wanted out of it (yay!) but for the stupidest-imaginable reason possible (and it turns out the reason matters a lot in this case, because it has infected a bunch of his other policies to the point where they look over-the-top retarded).

    I'm all for totally destroying overly-broad "trade" treaties (and treaty-like agreements) since they tend to be used as an excuse for the US "having to" enact crazy (and plaintly evil) laws. DMCA is an infamous example of that (it was required by the WIPO treaty) that most Slashdotters ought to be familiar with, but all the modern trade agreements have plenty of nonsense in them, unrelated to free trade. I view these things as attempts to circumvent democracy and public debate. TPP was overflowing with this bullshit, as we saw when the sorded details started leaking.

    (Leaking! Just the idea that our future laws can be "leaked" to is, instead of imposed on the government by us, ought to outrage every American from the furthest left to the furthest right.)

    A trade agreement should be something basically like "We won't have tariffs on your stuff, if you don't put tariffs on ours."

    The problem with Trump is that while he wants to get us out of these ridiculous agreements, it's because he's against trade! (Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!) Anyone who is against free markets is going to take a lot of heat from most Americans, since freedom is one of the few things that we at least say we're actually united on. I realize we don't all practice what we preach, and voters proved that in November -- but as long as he works against freedom, he's going to have to accept that many Americans are going to work against him.

    You all on /. are complete idiots just repeating what the mainstream news tells you to

    As if a sizable fraction of /. even knows whatever the "mainstream news" is telling anyone. If you think America has too much freedom and our "greatness" will require a little Lenin/Stalin style planning to tune the labor market to your needs, fine. But don't blame the media for everyone else opposing it.

    I'm particularly amused that you think this travel ban is something the media made up, rather than something Trump got caught actually trying to do. It's not real? Dude, you can read the president's own tweets. He hasn't ever claimed that it's an imposter, has he?

  81. Hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where were these people when Bush and Obama started bombing these countries, or then Obama instituted a similar travel ban? You allow this shit for 16 years, but oooh nooooh, "teh travel ban is evil"! Fucking hypocrites!

  82. NOT a ban by p51d007 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    More fake news from the left. It isn't a BAN, it's a PAUSE, until people are CHECKED PROPERLY. But that's ok...the left is still ticked off the winner of the popular election didn't win, even though we've NEVER in the history of the USA ever elected someone via the popular election. That's not surprising since the Constitution and the real history of the USA isn't taught anymore. Poor little snowflakes...go to your safe space. Adults are in charge of government.

    1. Re:NOT a ban by phorm · · Score: 1

      So how about you go on a trip and then - without notice - suddenly find you can't come home to your job, friends, and possibly family for 3 months. Does it really matter if it's a BAN or a PAUSE to you in that case. Suddenly you're 1000 miles away from home and all you've got on you is your suitcase which was packed for a weekend. Sound like a good deal to you?

    2. Re:NOT a ban by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      People keep saying they want immigrants checked properly. They never say exactly what they find deficient in the rigorous vetting the US does, which typically lasts years.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  83. Skill is not knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The H1B is to find particular SKILLS, not particular KNOWLEDGE. Your visa is based on straight-forward fraud.

  84. Stop Lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason for those particular counties that OBAMA picked is that they do not have adequate intelligence sharing for us to adequately vet people.

  85. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or it could be, you know, people who have absolutely no clue about trade, immigration policies, history or anything else, but really like to hear their crappy lives are the fault of [insert convenient group of scapegoats here] rather than their own life choices or just plain bad luck. And who are gullible enough to believe that a con man billionaire and his crypto fascist cronies really care about them and want to make their lives better.

    We've seen this show before; it doesn't end well.

  86. Re:Interesting by mjr167 · · Score: 1

    If you are afraid of what the president might do, then he has too much power.

    We have spent the past couple decades consolidating power up to the federal level and the presidency. It's time to give it back to the states and congress.

  87. Re:Interesting by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    Past couple of decades? The process started with at least Jefferson, and probably the President most critical to the Presidency grand scope was Lincoln, whose actions in office, and whose ultimate defeat of the Confederacy made it very clear that the Federal Government was pre-eminent. Then we can talk about FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan who all flexed federal muscle.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  88. Wage Suppression Lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we all remember this wonderful little bit of action from our moral, just, righteous tech giants. Funny how 97 companies failed to band together to condemn this actual, confirmed violation of the law. What's the total settlement so far, $515 million or so. This is nothing more than posturing to keep cheap labor. They do not care about right and wrong. Only money. Full stop.

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/disney-will-pay-out-100m-over-wage-suppression-claims/

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/09/us-busts-google-apple-intel-over-secret-employee-poaching-pact/

  89. U.S. Code Title 8, section 1182 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U.S. Code: Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II, Section 1182

    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

  90. Bias? Worse than fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Notably absent from the list of 97 companies are several who met with Trump prior to his inauguration: Amazon"

    Did anyone vet this journalism? It omitted a very relevant and important detail: Amazon didn't sign the amicus brief, but they sure did take a stand by filing one of the motions that contributed to the ruling by Judge Robart in Seattle: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3440036-19717300844.html

    "Although Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos was highly critical of Trump prior to his election, he has not spoken out against the immigration policy."

    That statement is 100% false, Bezos made unequivocal statements: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/30/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-says-trumps-immigration-order-is-one-we-do-not-support/

    And that is from techcrunch a WEEK earlier. Check your facts, Slashdot.

  91. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They did everything they could to keep him from winning either the nomination or the Presidency

    Nomination, yes, but they did everything they could to get him to win the Presidency. After all, he was "their" candidate by then.

  92. Re: Discraceful! by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1

    But it wasn't illegals he disallowed in to the country, but also people that were legally allowed in to the USA. An example, those with green cards.

  93. 100% Lawful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

    8 U.S. Code  1182 ...
    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

    Now, whether this is unconstitutional is up to the courts, but in the last 60 years the courts have ROUTINELY upheld the President's right to limit immigration. I don't see how the courts are all of a sudden so interested in reversing half a century of precedent.

  94. Bad suggestion by phorm · · Score: 1

    I know you're suggesting right in the boss's home, but be careful what you ask for.

    Given that here in Canada there were many cases of people coming in on TFSW (Temp Foreign Service Workers) that *were* being housed in accommodation provided by the employer/manager, it makes things even worse. Bosses were playing fast-and-loose with rent VS pay. Screwing employees on rent. Cramming unreasonable/illegal numbers of people into a dwelling, and basically playing both employer and slumlord at the same time.
     

  95. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was the people who voted for him, the people who are tired of getting fucked over by shitty trade and immigration policies and who no longer give a fuck who the political establishment (or CNN or Hollywood) wants them to vote for.

    IOW, losers making yet another of their trademark stupidly poor choices.

  96. Re:Interesting by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The goal is not a competent administration. The goal is to throw a Molotov cocktail at the status quo, because it has become obvious that no one in that status quo is listening.

    I'm sorry, but I don't think you're in touch with the bulk of Trump's power base, which both objects to the status quo and thinks that Trump is "a successful businessman" which they in turn think is "what America needs right now". They are not in touch with the facts that Trump is not a successful businessman — he is outperformed by the S&P 500, which should be a compelling argument even if you don't believe that he is a con artist. Or how about this one: he's been outperformed by Paris Hilton. I like that one even better.

    Trump is a con artist, but those of his supporters who are willing to believe that also believe that this is a good thing, because it makes him effective. It hasn't dawned on them that this means that they can be getting conned because they are suffering from Dunning-Krueger and operating way above their respective pay grades as a result — literally.

    Voting for Trump because of dissatisfaction with the status quo is, as has been stated previously in many circles, cutting off one's face to spite one's face, never mind the nose. Trump is the prime example of a rich white fat cat who abuses everyone around him; perhaps, in fact, the best example America has ever seen. Trump is America's most successful con artist. Odds are that there has never been a president who cared less for this country than Trump. Trump owns a visa mill of his very own; anyone who imagines that he's going to fix the problem is suffering a lack of everything but imagination.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  97. Cheap Labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Super rich companies with huge bank accounts complain they can't get dirt cheap 3rd world labor anymore. Boo hoo. Cry me a river.

  98. Unconstitution, I don't think so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Under the Constitution, Congress and in particular, POTUS has wide discretion in determining who is allowed into the U.S. (by definition, anyone who is not a U.S. Citizen or Lawful Resident has no authority to be in the U.S. if POTUS chooses to decline or admit them).

    The most famous case was during WWII with E.O. 9066, which interred japanese-americans (including U.S. Citizens born to Japanese Parents), now in Korematsu, it turned out the government essentially lied to the federal court on the issue of disloyalty (not a single case was ever proven).

    Next the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, in which Congress gave the president wide latitude in dealing with immigration and keeping out persons deemed unsuitable or national security risks.

    And in 1979, when the Iran Hostage Crisis occurred, Jimmy Carter forced 50,000 Iranians to leave the United States, after the takeover, wasn't any fanfare, they just were sent home, esp. from military bases like Lackland in Texas, which was hosting large number of Iranians receiving training when this happened.

    Since the ban is only temporary, I would hope the 9th circuit will do the right thing, but I'm not holding my breath

  99. US Code 1182(F) by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    More specifically: U.S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II, p1182(f) 2013

    > "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

  100. so why weren't they doing this when.... by executioner · · Score: 2
    the other presidents did the same thing. It is funny that many of the past presidents did this same thing (90/120 day suspensions) Carter - iran, Obama - 120 day ban reagan - had one.

    this is more of a political move by these companies and not real outrage over the policy. they don't like trump so even though multiple presidents have done it, and many more will do it.

    --
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  101. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of that, sure, but "throw(ing) a Molotov" sounds way cooler than "demonstrating the poor judgement that got them 'left behind' in the first place".

  102. Iran by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Iran was also where the Chappell Hill shooter, Mahmoud Taheriazar, who killed a number of students there, was from. Normally, Iran would have to vet anyone that the US accepts, except that Iran is a theocratic terror regime, and so that would assume that Teheran would allow into the US Iranians who are genuinely unhappy w/ them, while blocking any Jihadists. There is no rational basis for believing that to be the case

  103. French by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Not just that, if someone from one of these countries who's let in shoots up a mall or any place in the US, which is a soft target, will the GP's French colleagues accept responsibility for what happened? Europeans or other non Americans have no business telling the US what its immigration policy should be, any more than they should tell the US whether Common Core ought to be retained.

  104. It's all about MONEY $$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    posting as AC 'cause I used mod points

    It's not about feminism, diversity, or any of that. They do not care. It's about MONEY.

    They're going to fight everything Trump does, they really only care about protecting their off-shore tax shelters, but they'll have to fight everything or else their true motives would be exposed.

    Donald Trump’s tax plan also ends to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad and charges a one-time, 10% tax on cash held overseas so it can be repatriated. Both will leave the foreign tax credit in place so companies will not face double taxation.

    That's from this article: http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/...

    They *really* don't want to have to pay taxes. They'd rather offshore and repatriate by buying government bonds, money laundering that earns interest. Get it?

  105. Re: Discraceful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A really nice article in National Review pointed this out last week - http://www.nationalreview.com/...

    Except, back in reality, the Democrats are fighting DeVos because she's actually unqualified and appears corrupt enough that it's possible she might not get approved. Democrats may greatly disagree with Sessions, but I don't know of any evidence that's he's unqualified. People are certainly calling their senators about him, but there's no real hope of Republicans voting against him.

    (The actual argument of that article seems to be "obviously charter schools are better, so the Democrats are acting against their own interests just like they accuse Republicans of doing". Ignoring, of course, the real-world evidence that charter schools as a national policy would be a disaster for the education of the children of anyone who isn't wealthy enough to send their children to private school.)

  106. Re: Discraceful! by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

    That's rich. You call people racist while you frequently make bigoted statements and want a ban on anonymous political speech. You're such a manipulative asshole.

  107. it's also about TAXES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump wants to shutdown their offshore tax loophole. They really don't want to pay taxes! I think you're right on the H1B labor, too. Intel, Google, Apple, etc. are greedy little bastards. They like cheap labor and tax evasion. They fear Trump, and are going to fight him on every single issue.

  108. Neither Bush Jr nor Obama either... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because that is how much business interest there is in Saudi Arabia, and also because they want the 'homeland of Islam' on their side the same way they want the Jewish Homeland on their side.

    People haven't paid attention to the fact that all three 'pinnacles' of Abrahamic religions are buddy buddy with the US.

    Why *IS* that?

  109. These 7 countries lack reliable vetting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The seven countries are either failed states in chaos (cannot vet their own people) or openly hostile to the US (we can't trust their vetting). That is the basis of the EO listing those 7 countries. Have you watched the WH press briefing? If not, I suggest you watch it before jumping to conclusions.

  110. techtopus 2.0, and you are welcoming it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you American (citizen, immigrant, green-card holder), let them do this, if you celebrate their doing this, then you are destroying your own economy. They can force you to train your non-citizen replacements at 2/3 your replacement that they can only hire with h1b's.

    https://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/

    The same folks that set up techtopus are trying to defend their harm of workers using false discrimination. Your children will have no jobs and no wages in their own nation, because they were born here, and not in the lands where virtual slavery is the norm.

    If you buy goods made with slave wages, eventually everyones wages become slave wages.

    -EngrStudent

  111. Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So these are the companies selling cloud services and productivity suites and they can't figure out how to allow somebody work remotely?

  112. Re: Discraceful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another idiot with a strawman. The complaint is that the executive order unlawfully denies entry to LEGAL residents, immigrants, and refugees.

  113. this is just business as usual, why the freakout? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The left is freaking out about this, but the US has never really been as supportive of taking refugees and immigrants. This is business as usual. Here's an actual George Washington quote, since you used his name.

    "My opinion with respect to immigration is, except of useful mechanics and some particular description of men and professions, there is no use of encouragement."

  114. Hear that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the cry of 97 Fascists' whining.

    Thank a higher power neither I or any of my friends give any of these fascists any money at all. 5 years from now many will refuse the Rockefeller/Rothschild usury syndicate.

  115. Re:Interesting by ezdiy · · Score: 1

    If that is the goal, then it is sheer stupidity.

    Desperate people often think they have nothing left to lose. Whether this is stupidity, or a wisdom, time will tell. I'm not so sure about pundits denouncing current trumps policy just yet. Despite how outrageous it is, it has little to no practical impact. The impact of wages >120k for H1B immigrants is much, much higher and the true point of contention.

    On the other hand, if you look at the actual countries banned, and the actual number of workers involved in the ban (some of the tech giants publicized this number), you see that the impact is rather low (bulk of H1B tech immigration is asia, definitely not egypt). Basically you're jumping to conclusions based on petty gesture policy.

  116. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump may be the only way we get congress working together to fight an evil.

  117. Re:Interesting by helsinki92 · · Score: 2

    Wrong. Hilary Clinton gave us Trump on a silver platter.

  118. Re:Interesting by Ogive17 · · Score: 2

    Strong immigration policy by not "banning" the country that has produced the most foreign terrorists that have made attacks on American soil. Is it a coincidence the countries that were banned just happen to not having business ties with Trump entities? When I saw the list and didn't see Saudi Arabia on it.. I knew it was a joke. Not to mention there has been far more American born terrorism in the US post 9/11.

    I'm all for legal immigration. His ban punished people who legally immigrated.

    As for illegal immigration from Latin America.. the best way to combat it is to turn their economies around. If we continue to piss on our poorer neighbors, they will find a way to sneak into our country even with a wall in place. Do I have a solution? No. It just seems like common sense to not make enemies of your neighbors.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  119. Addicts [Re:Cheap] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Our energy sector is addicted to oil, and our tech sector is addicted to cheap/abusable visa workers, and they lobby like hell to keep the status quo.

    I cannot believe I'm saying this, but I hope T tells them shove it (at least in terms of worker visas in general, rather than cherry-pick nations.)

  120. Re:Interesting by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    has been far more American born terrorism in the US post 9/11.

    The difference being that if you are an American citizen you have constitutional protection. As opposed to refugees/immigrants whose admission is a priledge made available at the discretion of the federal government.

    His ban punished people who legally immigrated.

    Which is getting resolved by the courts and has already been amended to include green card holders and the like... This just in, governments are not perfect. News at 10. Not a lot of people fall into this category.

    the best way to combat it is to turn their economies around. If we continue to piss on our poorer neighbors, they will find a way to sneak into our country even with a wall in place. Do I have a solution? No. It just seems like common sense to not make enemies of your neighbors.

    I could agree with the sentiment. But do you understand why a lot of GOP'ers were upset that the previous administration refused to uphold immigration law and are now over reacting because of said refusal? As with a lot of issues, economics tends to be the answer but Latin American nations are sovereign nations.They are free to have crappy economies and that does not mean that we should ignore our immigration law because they are poor. And yes, I recognize US meddling in Latin America and I don't know the answer but at least understand the sentiment.

    the country that has produced the most foreign terrorists that have made attacks on American soil

    Yes, Saudi Arabia. The one with diplomatic relations with the US (ally). The one that has good documentation for visa applications. The one that does not have ISIS operating within its borders... The countries in the ban were listed as dangerous by the previous administration. Nothing is perfect and I you have an answer on what to do with an ally that does crap like Saudi Arabia I am all ears. They are apples and oranges.

  121. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a nice theory, except that all those people who voted for "the wrecking ball" or whatever metaphor they chose to personally use right before the election are the exact same people claiming Trump "needs a chance" and that "no one should want him to fail because we're all in this together"

  122. Loved the CNN home page all day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The representatives for this coordinated legal action were:

    A Jew, a faggot, and an Indian. I love it. They have been working overtime to kiss that lefty ass since Hilary dropped off the map.

    1. Re: Loved the CNN home page all day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kissing Negro backside must have not been as profitable as pandering to the purist lefties. They don't even pretend to be a news service anymore. They lean so far too the left these days you could fit 10 MSNBC's between them and the facts.

  123. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sadly, the Republican establishment didn't have a "stop Trump" plan. They didn't think they needed one.

    They had a "Stop Cruz" plan, and that one worked a treat.

  124. God forbid they have to hire Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're American then Trump is fighting for you.

  125. Re: Discraceful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This ban prevents some people who are legally allowed to live in the USA from returning to the USA if they pop over to Canada for the weekend.

  126. Re: Discraceful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    84 Lumber is just doubling down. They are banking on contractors who hire the illegal quasi-slave laborers buying lumber and building materials from them. American contractors and craftsmen who have to compete with the illegals? They know where to not buy lumber anymore.

  127. Re:Interesting by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    They were listening, voters just didn't like the realistic solutions they proposed. Adapting to change is hard, and Trump promised to simply roll things back to the 1950s when manual labour jobs were plentiful and well paid, when men were manly and when the rest of the world was still rebuilding after WW2. It's a fantasy, but it's a comforting one.

    Eventually people will be forced to face the truth, and they are going to come down hard.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  128. Re: Discraceful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you're exposed to automobiles and buildings every day; does that make you a mechanical engineer and an architect?

  129. You still don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Musk is a nationalist. He sees the establishment for what it is: a group of thugs who want to steal away the wealth of Americans and rule them under threat of violence. Trump is fighting the establishment and Musk wants to pitch in.

    1. Re:You still don't get it. by iris-n · · Score: 1

      In case you haven't noticed, both Trump and Musk are part of the "establishment".

      --
      entropy happens
  130. and, you guessed it: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    97 Tech Companies are Completely Wrong.

  131. globalists are going to self-destruct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most, if not all, of those 97 companies are global. When one country does {stupid thing}, other countries tend to react to that by doing their own {differently stupid but related thing}. That makes it very hard to continue doing business effectively.

    And there you have it in a nutshell. Globalists care less about America and more about foreign interests. After all, the elites can buy massive mansions wherever they want and protect them with big walls. Sounds crazy? Zuckerburg is doing exactly that in Hawaii as we speak.

    Now, are these companies uncaring about people in their own backyard? Well, technically, yes. But no more so than normal. They want to continue to make profits. If they could make lots of money by treating all employees like fluffy bunnies who just need a hug, they would. Especially if they would make less money by being uncaring.

    But most companies do not shit on their employees without a reason. And most companies want employee morale to be good, as it increase productivity. If employees are worried about being stranded in another country because the country they work in is passing poorly thought out travel laws, it tends to affect employee morale negatively.

    Yeah, they care about their bottom line, that's it. This move is about protecting their bottom line. They don't want the flow of cheap H1Bs to stop, they don't want their offshore tax haven loopholes stopped by Trump, and they want to keep offshoring jobs in a race to the bottom. They don't care if they bring down the middle class, they just want more profit. So they kick and scream every time Trump does ANYTHING and I guarantee you this will keep up. They're going to be so pissed when they have to repatriate their offshore money and pay 10% tax on it. They'll make a huge fuss and the middle class will hear it. Then we'll start asking questions about tax loopholes. It won't end well for these 97 silicon valley companies. The globalists are putting the noose on their own neck, they are backed into a corner and don't know what to do. It's beautiful.

  132. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back up any one of your facts with a single verifiable source. You can't. Why? Because you're just regurgitating the BS that was fed to you by others, and you have the gall to say someone else is uninformed. You know lots of stuff, it's true. Unfortunately that stuff isn't in any way true.

    Sorry dude. You're a gullible idiot.

  133. Re:Interesting by Dread_ed · · Score: 2

    Correct MM. Have any of the rest of you taken any government classes, ever? Every branch of government continually attempts to expand their power. Every single one, every single time they are given the opportunity.

    The problem is those people who view their party as the salvation of the country, rather than viewing the people of the country as their allies regardless of political affiliation. Why is this the problem? Because partisan sub-humans support government power expansion when it is done by the leaders they elect. Since they view their elected leader as a club with which to beat the rest of the population into submission to their dearly held principles, the more power they can invest in those leaders the better. One would think that it would be obvious to even the most rabidly partisan that this is incredibly short sighted and counterproductive.

    One would think...

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  134. Re:this is just business as usual, why the freakou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The left is freaking out about this, but the US has never really been as supportive of taking refugees and immigrants. This is business as usual. Here's an actual George Washington quote, since you used his name.

    "My opinion with respect to immigration is, except of useful mechanics and some particular description of men and professions, there is no use of encouragement."

    Spurious quote, the actual line is:

    "My opinion with respect to emigration is, that except of useful mechanic’s—and some particular descriptions of men—or professions—there is no need of extra encouragement: while the policy, or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing they retain the language, habits & principles (good or bad) which they bring with them; whereas, by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, manners and laws: in a word, soon become one people."

    So slightly different. Of course, Washington didn't live in a world where English is already taking over, so his concerns may be moot.

    But you're correct, the right has often been much opposed and resistant to immigration. Sucks to be them, what else is knew?

  135. Re: Discraceful! by dougdonovan · · Score: 0

    of course they would the majority that work for these companies are foreign ie: they are not from the US. just keeping it real.

  136. Re: Discraceful! by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    They do, however, spend millions on ads that they think will sell their products, and it happens that "Yeah, we think Trump sucks too. Drink Budweiser" sells products. You can probably figure out why for yourself.

    Because Democratic voters prefer craft ales?

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  137. Re:Outside of Mr. Trump's comfort zone & voter by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    So, if he doesn't see the value of the technology being represented by these companies

    The economic impact of this temporary ban on tech companies is non-existent. Some of their employees may not be able to leave the country or reenter for a few months; that happens occasionally to H-1B visa holders for many reasons. Presidents and Congress have been screwing with immigrants' lives for many decades this way. These tech companies are posturing simply because these companies have been in bed politically with Democrats; it's partisanship and crony capitalism, nothing more.

    Trump's proposed changes to the H-1B program actually would benefit those companies tremendously, because it would make it much easier for them to get H-1B visas for their employees; right now, a lot of those visas go to outsourcing companies that pay a pittance. These companies also stand to gain quite a bit from Trump's loosening of regulations. They may yet come around.

  138. Re: Interesting by will_die · · Score: 1

    not this failed liberasl meme again. i know you will not read the truth and will just keep repeating what you are told but for others here is the truth. the meme on trump vs the stock market ignores the money he has given away to family, charities, etc it also ignores that the taxes paid.

  139. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Citation needed

  140. Re: Discraceful! by joeboomer6289149 · · Score: 2

    No one was banned. The order was a temporary pause in admission of people that immigration had no way of figuring out who they were and what their reason for wanting to enter the county was. The pause was to establish better ways of identifying people before they entered the country with freedom to travel anywhere they wanted. There was no religious groups specified, only country of origin. Previously approved green cards were honored. Please read the material and stop listening to sources with TDS.

  141. Once again TechCrunch are idiots by cusco · · Score: 1

    Bezos has spoken out against the ban in internal Amazon email to all employees, publicly in the Seattle Times, and has sent their lobbyists directly to the White House to complain.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    1. Re:Once again TechCrunch are idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bozo also owns the Washington Post. The paper that claimed Trump hired hookers to urinate on a bed, and also claimed that Trump is little more than a Russian spy.

      Just to remind you..

  142. Re:Interesting by tbannist · · Score: 2

    Isn't it always the victim's fault?

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  143. Ineffective vindictiveness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is very vindictive; his "work visa" reform will now probably be even more restrictive and down-right punitive against Silicon Valley.

    Even better. It will show the Orange Toad for what he is - a narcissistic, vindictive bully.

    In a Trump vs tech industry fight, he might be able to damage a few companies, but that will just be highly visible foot shooting. "Make America Great" by destroying America's best companies? After that sort of gross idiocy, maybe the tards will wake up and realise what a disastrous choice it is to pick "wrecker" over "business as usual".

  144. Re: Interesting by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    the meme on trump vs the stock market ignores the money he has given away to family, charities, etc

    [citation needed]

    it also ignores that the taxes paid.

    What taxes paid? Trump won't release his returns like he promised because he is a coward and a liar.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  145. There is no spoon. Or ban. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the trillionth time. No one is being banned. People from countries that export terrorists are being put on a 90 wait list while they are more carefully vetted. What is wrong with everyone?

  146. Re:Interesting by helsinki92 · · Score: 1

    Ha. Painting her the victim. That's pretty funny. But you are partly right, it wasn't only her fault, the DNC and the media that colluded with her and the DNC have the rest of the blame. And now we have The Donald. save us all.

  147. Contempt does not drive them, Money does. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course they are upset. Their cheap labor pool just dried up. They will have to pay American wages to American workers, and train them. Oh, My!!!

  148. Does it bother anyone else ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that the ban wasn't stayed due to the harm done to individual people, but only because of the harm done to wealthy corporations?

  149. Re: Discraceful! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    We'll see if those marketing teams still have a job when Budweiser can no longer sell a six pack to a working man who is damn tired of having to compete with the entire world.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  150. Re: Discraceful! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    And they never will again after next quarter's reports.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  151. Re: Discraceful! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Except, Budweiser sales are going down and they're losing market share after that ad. Democratic voters do prefer craft ales, and Republican Blue Collar workers now won't touch Bud with a 10 foot pole because drinking a Bud at their local bar will get them beat up.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  152. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are afraid of what the president might do, then he has too much power.

    The right amount of power for the job is not inconsistent with being afraid what the wrong person would do in that position. Otherwise we wouldn't need elections, senate confirmations, etc because nobody could do the wrong thing while in office.

    We have spent the past couple decades consolidating power up to the federal level and the presidency. It's time to give it back to the states and congress.

    This I agree with, in many cases, but it seems like a natural result of being "one nation, indivisible"... folks want everything to be consistent instead of a hodgepodge.

  153. What a load of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's fine to bomb these nations for 14 years, but don't dare ban the refugees the US needless creates through it's criminal warmongering from entering the country.

    Sure, it's fine to have two WAR CRIMINALS in the executive office back to back, LYING the US into wars, and killing MILLIONS of innocent people - no complaints about that, but the second that limitiations of these refugees are made, well, that's a big problem apparently.

    I live and work in Silicon Valley, and the whole world has gone insane.

  154. America needs restrictive immigration policies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump-45 and the Republican Party are fine with LEGAL immigrants who are well vetted, will stay off welfare, no criminal behavior or record, not pregnant with an "anchor baby", in good health, love America, and have skills and/or education to Make America Great Again.

    Otherwise, stay home and cause trouble in your own backyard. Or in Europe, especially Germany where they have the welcome mat out for barbaric haters of western civilization. Dummies.

    I hate the thought of radical Islamists massing on the Canadian border. From there, they can teach progressive "useful idiots" to chant "Allah Akbar" and "Death to America".

    Trump-45 immigration policy: "America First ... nothing else is even a close second."

    Most countries with sane leaders have very restrictive immigration policies. Ours is broken and needs to be fixed ... yesterday.

    Jan 20, 2017: End of the BO error.

  155. Re: Discraceful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see, Two Days since the Superbowl.

    And you are claiming to have meaningful data on sales already. That's rather far-fetched.

  156. One word by NewYork · · Score: 1

    MAFIA

  157. Re: Discraceful! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    More knowledge of an organized boycott, but whatever.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  158. The 9th Circus? by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Four judges in a very left-leaning (and very un-American) district.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  159. Re: Discraceful! by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

    No, they're fighting her because she runs afoul of all their Union campaign money, and their re-election ground game. They don't actually care.