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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/...
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
And you have such a great, positive attitude, I can't imagine any company choosing not to work with you...
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.'"
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.