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.

Comments

Cheap

[fluffernutter]

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.

Re:Cheap

[squiggleslash]

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.)

Re:Cheap

[cayenne8]

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....

Re:Cheap

[FyRE666]

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.

Re:Cheap

[fluffernutter]

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.

Re:Cheap

[elrous0]

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.

Re:Cheap

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re:Cheap

[elrous0]

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.

Re:Cheap

[fluffernutter]

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.

Re:Cheap

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

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.

Re:Cheap

[jandersen]

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.

Re:Cheap

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Cheap

[blind biker]

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.

Re:Cheap

[unixisc]

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

Re:Cheap

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Cheap

[tbannist]

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

Re:Cheap

[lgw]

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,.

Re:Cheap

[Ravaldy]

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.

Meh.

[msauve]

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.

Re:how about this

[Mashiki]

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 are provoking a response

[johanw]

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.

Re:They are provoking a response

[Mashiki]

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.

Re:They are provoking a response

[K. S. Kyosuke]

My dice has a 16% chance of generating a six. It still happens from time to time. Your N=1 dataset is irrelevant.

Re:how about this

[Kierthos]

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.)

Re: Discraceful!

[dougdonovan]

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.

Re:How can it be unlawful if it was made a law?

[Tranzistors]

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.

Re:how about this

[fluffernutter]

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.

Re:This backlash is done by children

[squiggleslash]

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?"

Re: how about this

[FyRE666]

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.

Except it's not.

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:how about this

[Kierthos]

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.

Re:ONLY tech???

[BarbaraHudson]

"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.

Re: Discraceful!

[elrous0]

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.

Who helped make these people refugees?

[humptheElephant]

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.

Re:how about this

[LordWabbit2]

the 0.0001%ers who backed him

Then how the hell did he win the election?

Re:how about this

[fluffernutter]

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?

Does anyone understand Musk's position?

[iris-n]

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.

Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position?

[Rei]

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.

Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position?

[Rei]

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!"

Re:how about this

[DrXym]

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.

Re:Interesting

[elrous0]

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.

Re:how about this

[NatasRevol]

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.

Re:how about this

[fluffernutter]

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.

Re: Discraceful!

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re: Discraceful!

[tripleevenfall]

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/...

Re:This backlash is done by children

[0xdeadbeef]

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.

Re: Discraceful!

[Farmer Tim]

Canadian. Technically. William. Shatner's. fault.

Re:Swap positions

[MightyMartian]

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.

Wipe the smirk of the business' face.

[sethstorm]

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.

Re:Interesting

[jeff4747]

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.

Re:how about this

[meta-monkey]

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?

Re:Interesting

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:how about this

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Interesting

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:how about this

[ClickOnThis]

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.