It was a restriction on issuance of new visas. It did not affect people who already had visas or green cards, and who happened to be outside of the country at that moment.
People are not things. You don't "steal" them, unless we're talking kidnapping. You give them an opportunity to come, and they decide for themselves whether they want to come or not. The way you put it, it sounds like you want them to be slaves to their countries of birth, destined to work for the benefit of the society and the people that they may well hate.
NextThingCo CHIP would be great for something like that. It's literally pocket sized, has built-in WiFi, and two interfaces at that - so one can connect to the external network, while the other one serves as an API, with the device serving as a bridge/firewall between the two. And it costs $10 (although you need to bring your own battery).
It does not mean that if you speak Nazi-like remarks that you won't get a fist thrown at you.
You don't get to be free from the consequences of punching someone, either. That's usually known as "assault", and if you actually manage to hit them, "battery" - and is a crime.
For what it's worth, the first concentration camp in Germany (Dachau) was established on March 22, 1933. Hitler was appointed chancellor on January 30, 1933. So, it took less than 2 months. Granted, it wasn't an extermination camp then, and was used at first for political prisoners (and publicly advertised as such - they weren't really trying to sugar-coat it).
Sure. Except it's not a line, it's more like the entire order.
Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.
Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.
Have you ever looked at what it takes to become a citizen? It's not like you can just say "I wanna be a citizen", and get it. There are waiting periods before you can even apply - 5 years on a green card (shortened to 3 in some circumstances). And then, of course, obtaining a green card first takes several years also.
The vast majority of people who come from other countries to work at Microsoft want to become citizens, and eventually do become them - and Microsoft assists them with that process all along the way, providing lawyers and paying fees. But it takes time. Most, if not all, of the people affected by this EO were people undergoing that process.
And why wouldn't they be actively travelling to their homeland? It's where their parents live, in most cases. Also, depending on the country and the visa, you sometimes have to travel to renew said visa, or renew your passport.
If you don't want someone working in US, that's easy: don't issue them a visa or a green card.
But if you have already done so, at their considerable expense undergoing that process (which is neither lengthy nor cheap, especially for someone from those "extra vetting required" countries), and they already have a job, friends, and quite possibly loved ones in US?
I'm an ex-H1B, and I concur. Heck, I'm sure if this were in place when they hired me, I'd actually get a better offer, too (since it would raise the baseline).
Look, if you need talent that bad, why aren't you willing to pay accordingly for it? Supply and demand and all that. $100k isn't even all that much for the industry.
It's not just the modules themselves; npm is also horrible.
For starters, npm is non-deterministic. Yep, you've read it right: you can install the same packages on two different machines, but if you do it in different order, you can end up with different dependency trees. And yes, despite what the npm maintainers say, it can result in different versions of packages being installed for the same set of version constraints.
Then there are major bugs that have been open for over a year, and can be blocking (as in, no way to install a package) if you happen to be the unlucky one who is affected... but there's no fix. The bug still says "needs repro", despite 80+ comments and 24 upvotes on it, and one of npm developers saying that he "ran into this a few times".
I'm Russian, born in Russia and still a citizen. I'm fairly sure that I've read a great deal more history books on the subject of Russia and Ukraine than you did.
Thus, I'm well aware that every single word that you wrote is bullshit.
Here's what actually happened... Kotaku In Action, the GamerGate reddit board
These two things would seem to be contradictory. Except, of course, in some weird alternate reality where "Gamergate" actually happened the way Reddit thinks it did.
The facts are that more people voted for Clinton. You're the one trying to rationalize this as "it doesn't really matter" and "that's not what those votes really mean". Rather poorly at that.
Electors were pledged to specific candidates, and all voters understand that. In fact, in many states, the ballots don't even list the names of electors, they just list the names of the candidates they're pledged to. So as far as voters are concerned, they are voting for the candidates. And when assessing the relative popular support for either candidate, that is absolutely the right way to count such votes.
You can easily prove me wrong by showing a substantial number of voters who are willing to openly claim that they actually voted for electors, and that their vote should not be construed as indication of their support for the corresponding candidate. Go ahead.
It's relevant if we're talking about what the people have preferred, because that's the only metric that we have. In case you haven't noticed, this isn't discussion of the results of the election, but of the popular sentiment towards the candidates.
What doesn't matter is all the could-have-beens, like "if the candidates were trying to win the popular vote then it would have ended up differently". The candidates presented themselves the way they did, and the public responded the way it did - by giving 2.8 million more votes to Clinton. That's the only piece of hard data available on the subject of whom US people "favored".
It varies a lot by regions. Some do pretty well; Izhevsk is another example. But the country overall is not doing great.
The biggest problem is that there's no clear path forward for the economy. It was clearly way too dependent on mineral exports, and all attempts to reform that so far have been smoke and mirrors mostly (Skolkovo etc); and it's not clear whether the ruling elites are even seriously trying, or are just making enough noise to look like they're doing something.
I have enough friends and acquaintances there, and trust me, it's felt quite a bit on the streets. Prices are higher than they used to be, salaries aren't catching up with inflation. People who are on welfare, especially pensions, are the worst off, because those haven't been indexed for inflation as they're supposed to for a while now (with official explanation of "we don't have the money").
There's no upward trajectory other than in the newspapers. Economically, Russia has plunged into the shitter in 2014, and any recovery since then has been very limited. Look at USD/RUB exchange rate as the prime indicator.
The only successes it can really boast of lately are military: Ukraine and Syria. The former seems to be coalescing into a frozen battlefield, and the latter had a strong show-off element (launching cruise missiles off the Caspian, or using Kuznetsov), and a lot fell flat - like Kuznetsov and its troubles, or the loss of Palmyra (after a pompous celebration of its liberation and "we're here to stay", no less).
Slashdot Mirror
Non-citizens also have rights and freedoms under the Constitution, so long as they're in US jurisdiction.
When its policies are detrimental to individual rights. That's pretty much the whole premise behind substantive due process.
It was a restriction on issuance of new visas. It did not affect people who already had visas or green cards, and who happened to be outside of the country at that moment.
People are not things. You don't "steal" them, unless we're talking kidnapping. You give them an opportunity to come, and they decide for themselves whether they want to come or not. The way you put it, it sounds like you want them to be slaves to their countries of birth, destined to work for the benefit of the society and the people that they may well hate.
These are not the companies that have been abusing the H1B program.
https://www.axios.com/h1-b-sal...
NextThingCo CHIP would be great for something like that. It's literally pocket sized, has built-in WiFi, and two interfaces at that - so one can connect to the external network, while the other one serves as an API, with the device serving as a bridge/firewall between the two. And it costs $10 (although you need to bring your own battery).
You'd have to set this all up yourself, though.
It does not mean that if you speak Nazi-like remarks that you won't get a fist thrown at you.
You don't get to be free from the consequences of punching someone, either. That's usually known as "assault", and if you actually manage to hit them, "battery" - and is a crime.
The Strasser brothers - the ones who were actually the ideologues behind the "socialism" part of "national socialism" - also come to mind.
For what it's worth, the first concentration camp in Germany (Dachau) was established on March 22, 1933. Hitler was appointed chancellor on January 30, 1933. So, it took less than 2 months. Granted, it wasn't an extermination camp then, and was used at first for political prisoners (and publicly advertised as such - they weren't really trying to sugar-coat it).
Sure. Except it's not a line, it's more like the entire order.
Can you point at the line in the executive order in question where it says it's about jobs?
Have you ever looked at what it takes to become a citizen? It's not like you can just say "I wanna be a citizen", and get it. There are waiting periods before you can even apply - 5 years on a green card (shortened to 3 in some circumstances). And then, of course, obtaining a green card first takes several years also.
The vast majority of people who come from other countries to work at Microsoft want to become citizens, and eventually do become them - and Microsoft assists them with that process all along the way, providing lawyers and paying fees. But it takes time. Most, if not all, of the people affected by this EO were people undergoing that process.
And why wouldn't they be actively travelling to their homeland? It's where their parents live, in most cases. Also, depending on the country and the visa, you sometimes have to travel to renew said visa, or renew your passport.
Keep in mind that Microsoft is also providing legal assistance to the State of Washington in their lawsuit against this EO (as do Amazon and Expedia).
So this is more of a "here's how we can settle this peacefully, but if you don't want to, we'll see you in court".
Because of basic human decency.
If you don't want someone working in US, that's easy: don't issue them a visa or a green card.
But if you have already done so, at their considerable expense undergoing that process (which is neither lengthy nor cheap, especially for someone from those "extra vetting required" countries), and they already have a job, friends, and quite possibly loved ones in US?
It's legal, sure. But it's wrong as hell.
I'm an ex-H1B, and I concur. Heck, I'm sure if this were in place when they hired me, I'd actually get a better offer, too (since it would raise the baseline).
Look, if you need talent that bad, why aren't you willing to pay accordingly for it? Supply and demand and all that. $100k isn't even all that much for the industry.
It's not just the modules themselves; npm is also horrible.
For starters, npm is non-deterministic. Yep, you've read it right: you can install the same packages on two different machines, but if you do it in different order, you can end up with different dependency trees. And yes, despite what the npm maintainers say, it can result in different versions of packages being installed for the same set of version constraints.
Then there are major bugs that have been open for over a year, and can be blocking (as in, no way to install a package) if you happen to be the unlucky one who is affected... but there's no fix. The bug still says "needs repro", despite 80+ comments and 24 upvotes on it, and one of npm developers saying that he "ran into this a few times".
I'm Russian, born in Russia and still a citizen. I'm fairly sure that I've read a great deal more history books on the subject of Russia and Ukraine than you did.
Thus, I'm well aware that every single word that you wrote is bullshit.
Here's what actually happened ... Kotaku In Action, the GamerGate reddit board
These two things would seem to be contradictory. Except, of course, in some weird alternate reality where "Gamergate" actually happened the way Reddit thinks it did.
The facts are that more people voted for Clinton. You're the one trying to rationalize this as "it doesn't really matter" and "that's not what those votes really mean". Rather poorly at that.
Electors were pledged to specific candidates, and all voters understand that. In fact, in many states, the ballots don't even list the names of electors, they just list the names of the candidates they're pledged to. So as far as voters are concerned, they are voting for the candidates. And when assessing the relative popular support for either candidate, that is absolutely the right way to count such votes.
You can easily prove me wrong by showing a substantial number of voters who are willing to openly claim that they actually voted for electors, and that their vote should not be construed as indication of their support for the corresponding candidate. Go ahead.
It's relevant if we're talking about what the people have preferred, because that's the only metric that we have. In case you haven't noticed, this isn't discussion of the results of the election, but of the popular sentiment towards the candidates.
What doesn't matter is all the could-have-beens, like "if the candidates were trying to win the popular vote then it would have ended up differently". The candidates presented themselves the way they did, and the public responded the way it did - by giving 2.8 million more votes to Clinton. That's the only piece of hard data available on the subject of whom US people "favored".
It varies a lot by regions. Some do pretty well; Izhevsk is another example. But the country overall is not doing great.
The biggest problem is that there's no clear path forward for the economy. It was clearly way too dependent on mineral exports, and all attempts to reform that so far have been smoke and mirrors mostly (Skolkovo etc); and it's not clear whether the ruling elites are even seriously trying, or are just making enough noise to look like they're doing something.
Russia is trying to start WW3 by actually, you know, invading neighboring countries, and you're ranting about poking them with a stick?
I have enough friends and acquaintances there, and trust me, it's felt quite a bit on the streets. Prices are higher than they used to be, salaries aren't catching up with inflation. People who are on welfare, especially pensions, are the worst off, because those haven't been indexed for inflation as they're supposed to for a while now (with official explanation of "we don't have the money").
There's no upward trajectory other than in the newspapers. Economically, Russia has plunged into the shitter in 2014, and any recovery since then has been very limited. Look at USD/RUB exchange rate as the prime indicator.
The only successes it can really boast of lately are military: Ukraine and Syria. The former seems to be coalescing into a frozen battlefield, and the latter had a strong show-off element (launching cruise missiles off the Caspian, or using Kuznetsov), and a lot fell flat - like Kuznetsov and its troubles, or the loss of Palmyra (after a pompous celebration of its liberation and "we're here to stay", no less).