97 Tech Companies Including Apple, Google, Microsoft Call Travel Ban Unlawful In Rare Coordinated Legal Action (washingtonpost.com) 626
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.
Cheap (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cheap (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Cheap (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Cheap (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Wipe the smirk of the business' face. (Score:4, 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.
Re:Cheap (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Swap positions (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Cheap (Score:4, Insightful)
I never knew those were the tech Mecca of the world....
Re: (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.
Re:Cheap (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.
Re:Cheap (Score:4, 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.
Re:Cheap (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... [intel.co.uk]
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 (Score:5, Funny)
And you have such a great, positive attitude, I can't imagine any company choosing not to work with you...
Re:Cheap (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3, 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. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Cheap (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Cheap (Score:4, 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,.
Re:Cheap (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.
Re:Cheap (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Meh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Can I ask you what is the source of this information?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 syst
Re:Interesting (Score:5, 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.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, 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.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 l
Re:Interesting (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't it always the victim's fault?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm all for legal immigration. His ban punished people who legally immigrated.
As for i
They are provoking a response (Score:4, 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.
Re: (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.
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.
Re:They are provoking a response (Score:4, 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. [msnbc.com] 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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They are provoking a response (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
scarborough isn't a democrat. he's msnbc's token republican.
Hurry up (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think Trump is unhinged enough to commit economic suicide?
Like it or not, all countries need some level of skilled immigration.
How can it be unlawful if it was made a law? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unconstitutional, I can understand, or even calling it just plain wrong, but unlawful?
Re:How can it be unlawful if it was made a law? (Score:5, 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.
President's can't make law (Score:2)
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).
Outside of Mr. Trump's comfort zone & voter ba (Score:3, 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?
ONLY tech??? (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?
Re:ONLY tech??? (Score:4, 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.
Except it's not. (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).
Who helped make these people refugees? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does anyone understand Musk's position? (Score:4, 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.
Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? (Score:4, 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.
Re:Does anyone understand Musk's position? (Score:4, 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!"
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Bizarro World (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
List of Mega Corps (Score:2, 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 r
Re: (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.
Re:how about this (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?
Re:how about this (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.
Re: (Score:3)
They aren't asking for refugees to be
Re:how about this (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.)
Re:how about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how about this (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.
Re:how about this (Score:4)
Re:how about this (Score:4, 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.
Re:how about this (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: how about this (Score:3)
You have to wonder what their real motivation is.
Elimination of the headphone jack... er, I mean fairness! And bravery!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: how about this (Score:4, 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.
Re:how about this (Score:4, Interesting)
Then how the hell did he win the election?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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 Ch
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re: (Score:3)
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).
Re: Discraceful! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Discraceful! (Score:2)
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.
Re: Discraceful! (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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Discraceful! (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/... [nationalreview.com]
Re: Discraceful! (Score:4, Funny)
Canadian. Technically. William. Shatner's. fault.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 thwar
Re: (Score:3)
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 pil
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)