Tech Companies File Amicus Brief, Still Opposed To New Trump Immigration Order
from the same-problems dept
Last month, we noted that a ton of tech companies — including us at the Copia Institute — had signed on to amicus brief opposing the Trump Executive Order on immigration. As you know, the administration came out with a new executive order a few weeks later, trying to get around the multiple courts that had blocked the original order. The new order is just a cosmetic rewriting of the original one with a few small changes that the administration hopes will survive judicial scrutiny. A number of challenges have already been filed to the new order, and in one of them, brought by the state of Hawaii, a bunch of tech companies (again, including the Copia Institute) have now filed an amicus brief opposing the order. In particular, this brief focuses on the harms to the tech industry, including actual examples of harms created by this exec order:
- A U.S. resident employed at a cutting-edge software company fears that he cannot leave the U.S. because he is a national of a Muslim majority country targeted by President Trump?s travel ban. If he attempts to travel outside the country, he could be detained and refused re-entry. After the travel ban went into effect, he canceled plans to bring his mother to the U.S. to visit him, out of concern that she might be detained or turned away. He has not been home for five years. The U.S. company he works for, which employs over 100 people and has raised hundreds of millions of dollars in capital, was founded by an immigrant.
- A high-tech, U.S.-based software company devoted significant resources to an event it scheduled in February 2017 where it planned to host owners of small businesses and tech start-ups based overseas. Before these entrepreneurs became business and start-up owners, they were Syrian refugees. After President Trump?s travel ban went into effect on January 27, 2017, the event was abruptly postponed, because the guests were unable to travel to the U.S. on account of their status as Syrian refugees. The U.S.- based software company plans to reschedule the event at a location outside the U.S., so the Syrian refugees and entrepreneurs can safely attend.
- A U.S.-based mobile app and website development company with millions of users worldwide employs U.S. residents who are nationals of the Muslim-majority countries targeted by President Trump?s travel ban. In late January and February 2017, some of these employees had planned to fly outside the U.S. for business or personal reasons. Since the travel ban was announced, these employees canceled their flights for fear they would be detained or not permitted to re-enter the U.S.
- A U.S.-based technology company courted promising job candidates overseas and was prepared to offer them employment when the prospects suddenly withdrew from consideration because they were worried about immigration issues in light of President Trump?s travel ban.
- After the implementation of President Trump?s travel ban, foreign born founders of a U.S.-based technology company began exploring the possibility of moving their company outside of the U.S.?and taking the company?s jobs with them.
The filing goes through the history of the initial ban, and then notes that the new version is still just as bad:
President Trump?s new travel ban is no different. It will inflict the same substantial and irreparable harm upon U.S. companies and their employees. And in implementing the promise of a ?Muslim ban,? the new travel ban suffers from many of the same defects as the first travel ban. It violates the prohibition against nationality-based discrimination that Congress established through the Immigration and Nationality Act. It exceeds the authority granted to the Executive. It is arbitrary and overbroad in scope. And it impermissibly discriminates on the basis of religion and deprives individuals of Due Process rights, thus violating the U.S. Constitution. In sum, President Trump?s new travel ban has not overcome the constitutional and legal deficiencies that led courts to enjoin his first travel ban. Accordingly, the new travel ban should meet the same fate as the first travel ban? it should be enjoined nationwide.
This amicus brief is at the district court level, so it’s still quite early in the process — and there are other legal challenges in other courts. This will still take a while to sort itself out, but we’re proud to stand alongside others in the industry in speaking up for why these immigration executive orders are illegal and unconstitutional, not to mention bad for innovation and the economy.
Update: Oh, and just an hour or so after I posted this, the judge has granted a temporary restraining order, blocking the executive order from going into effect…
Filed Under: donald trump, hawaii, immigration, tech companies
Companies: copia institute
Comments on “Tech Companies File Amicus Brief, Still Opposed To New Trump Immigration Order”
Hilighting exceptional cases seems designed to ignore the larger issues of overwhelming immigration and non integrating communities. It ignores the thousands overstaying visas.
Re: Re:
Um. I’d argue that the administration and those fighting against immigration are the ones guilty of highlighting "exceptional cases" while ignoring the larger issues of all the benefits immigration brings.
Re: Re: Re:
Wait until the next 9/11 event.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good point. We were attacked by a group of Saudi terrorists; therefore we need to ban refugees from Yemen.
Sounds a lot like the same flawless reasoning that got us into Iraq.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only terrorists round here lately have been white christians…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, when people say things like this, they sound as if they are not only waiting for such a thing to happen, but are openly salivating over the idea. And that is a fucking frightening idea, that someone would want another terrorist attack to happen as a pretense to, say, bombing more brown people in the Middle East or taking away even more civil rights.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It’s yhe same with those who oppose gun rights. They openly hope that people die to give them a pretense on which to base yheir appeals to emotion.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
the* their*
I hate virtual keyboards.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You mean like the dem senator who was rooting for the Northeast to get wacked by the recent snowstorm so it would highlight how Trump would screw the people?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Yes, actually.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
9/11? The attack that was carried out by people from countries not on this list? Meanwhile the countries on this list were responsible for exactly 0 terrorist attacks on US soil?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
9/11 was carried out by people not from the countries affected by the ban: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks
Trump specifically referenced 9/11 to get this approved. Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYtbWWmtVYM
Re: Re: Re:
… the fight is against “illegal immigration” and travel to U.S. by dangerous foreign individuals
About 11 Million persons enter the U.S. illegally every year. That is a major problem.
Sloppy terminology about “immigration” is often used to blur critical distinctintions between legal & illegal immigration … and legal/illegal foreign visitors/workers.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If so, then this executive order is badly mistargeted, as it’s not targeted at "illegal immigration" in the slightest. Instead, it blocks people who otherwise had legal visas.
Seems like a problem, no?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
but only from countries that we are bombing or would like to bomb
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
So you as an american is responsible for and vehemently applauds everything Trump says?
Even in war there is a distinction between right and wrong targets. Putting a population responsible for its government is very sinister. Particularly since most of these countries are autocratic…
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I think perhaps you misread his comment. I did too, initially.
But he didn’t say “countries that are bombing us or would like to bomb us”, he said “countries that we are bombing or would like to bomb”. Clearly in that statement he’s painting the US as the aggressors (and presumably not actually including himself in the “we”).
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Not sure why you assume I don’t include myself in the “we”
Presumably because that is what you do?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
@Mike: The defendant in this case, who’s an Imam, is stating that Trumps EO is unconstitutional because it discriminates against travelers on the grounds of nationality and religion.
As a corollary: If tomorrow the Pope stated to the world all good Christians had to kill Gays, Bisexuals, and transsexuals, and we barred Christians from entering the country temporarily, it’d be unconstitutional. And do note, there’s plenty of indication, intelligence, and empirical evidence showing Imam’s from those countries intend to kill Americans. To satisfy the requirement of proof: [Link]http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/american-attacks.aspx
Frankly, these are a people with a very different belief system. For example, lets say Trump decided to switch gears and go a different route, and went into the business of selling bumper stickers, flags, and lawn signs that depicted a political cartoon of Mohamed (we’ll leave the contents of the cartoon up to your imagination) in order to incite them into killing people as they typically do when you begin depicting their prophet in parchment. Lets also say he went full retard and told people “Do it, carry a gun, and the problem will take care of itself”. It wouldn’t be 10 seconds before every courthouse in every state would be inundated with lawsuits to restrict people’s right to free speech so they can practice free religion. Again, Empirical Evidence of both: Charlie Hebdo, or the Texas “Free Speech Event”.
Here are the facts:
The “mainstream” belief is we’re inviting a people with a very different way of thinking and a completely incompatible belief system to America for the specific purpose of enriching our society through diversity.
The facts are, Islamic terrorism is a real threat, with empirical examples that contain a body count, which presents a cost to that diversity.
Any ideal with a price tag containing a body count that doesn’t either eliminate a real threat (E.G. Declaring war) or produce a empirically demonstrable benefit for society, (E.G. nuclear power vs Coal) is a very hard sale to anyone with functioning brain cells and the capability to do basic arithmetic.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Speaking of basic arithmetic, how many Americans have been killed by immigrants or refugees from the six affected countries?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You’re not just uninformed, but ridiculously so. The documents are included IN THIS ARTICLE. The defendant in the case is Donald Trump. It is not an Imam.
What are you even talking about?
Bullshit. That’s what bigots have said about every new wave of immigrants, including Catholics, Irish, Italians, Jews and more.
What are you even talking about?
Seriously: get off your conspiracy theory sites and maybe join the real world.
Again, no one from any of these countries has been involved in a terrorist attack against the US. Tons of people have been vetted before they were given visas, and those people are still blocked under this order. You are spouting conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with this case whatsoever.
You’re so afraid of Muslim people you apparently can’t even be bothered to read the case you’re screaming about. Incredible. Ignorant, but incredible.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
So what? America itself is a country filled with different belief systems. Are you trying to say that American citizens must be forced into a singular belief system — one that, oh I dunno, has its roots in the Judeo-Christian bible?
Having a different belief system than someone else does not automatically make you a bad person. Practicing a specific religion (or none at all) should not, on its own, be a signifier of whether you deserve to be a social pariah. What those actual beliefs are (and the actions that those beliefs lead someone to take) should be the foundation of any kind of value judgment we can make about a person.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“If tomorrow the Pope stated to the world all good Christians had to kill Gays, Bisexuals, and transsexuals, and we barred Christians from entering the country temporarily, it’d be unconstitutional”
It would be unconstitutional for a foreign citizen living in another country to make a decree to his own followers, most of whom live outside the US?
What the hell are you smoking?
I assume the rest of your rant is as informed and accurate as that nonsense.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I think you misread him. In the part you quoted, he’s not saying that the Pope making such a statement would be unconstitutional; he’s saying it that “we” (the USA) reacting to it by (temporarily) barring Christians from entering the country would be unconstitutional.
And as far as I can see, he’s right.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Ah, I think you’re right. I think I was too busy rolling my eyes at the first paragraph.
Although that does open up something that’s very important to note – the Pope, as important as he is within Catholicism, does not speak for all Christians. So, barring Christians rather than just Roman Catholics would be way too overreaching, even if the US was permitted by its own constitution to perform a religious test. Also, a great many of those Catholics would refuse to carry out the orders. You’d have to recognise the differences between the sects, and the disagreements within the sect making the order.
Same here. Islam is not a monolithic religion, and a lot of the persecution people are fleeing are because while they’re Muslims, they’re of different sects. So, it’s especially unfortunate that some want to paint them all as evil because they’re Muslims, when in fact a great many of them either disagree with the orders from some random Imam or are actively fleeing their violence themselves.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Insightful as ever, PaulT.
I’m a Christian, but not a Roman Catholic. Fun fact: many people who don’t pray, go to church, or read the Bible call themselves Christian on the grounds that they’re white. That’s fraud. It’s like calling myself British because I speak English. I’m Irish. These frauds are the ones committing the violent hate crimes.
You may find it’s the same with the militants associated with religion: they are often the biggest hypocrites. It’s as if they’re hoping they’ll be let off a lifetime of ignoring the rule if they do One Big Thing or die for the cause, or something. Was it Gandhi who said it is easier to die for a cause than to live for it?
In a nutshell, as you have correctly stated, the Pope does not speak for all Christians, and we Protestants don’t have a unifying thought leader as such, though some of our sects are large. Result: some militant Catholics might commit terrorist offences if a rogue Pope told them to but that doesn’t mean the rest of us would join in.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then why did they refuse reentry to green card holders?
Re: Re:
"Overwhelming immigration?" The US allowed 10,000 Syrian refugees in the time that Canada (with 1/10th the population) allowed 40,000. And even that’s a MUCH lower rate than some EU countries.
"Non integrating communities?" Canada avoids a ghetto by having placed the refugees in over 350 communities. Nothing stops the US from doing the same – and indeed its done the same – but "non integrating communities" is a talking point used to con the gullible alt-right.
"Thousands overstaying visas?" A valid issue. But Trump’s Muslim ban does nothing whatsoever to address that.
Re: Re: Re:
Just because you all keep saying MUSLIM ban doesn’t make it so. As there’s Christen’s that are banned just the same. These people are not American’s. Have ZERO rights under our constitution because they are not American’s and have ZERO right to come here. This is OUR country, not theirs. Their’s that they’ve themselves screwed up and turn it into the hell holes that they are. Why bring their crap here?
This is a temp ban to get better vetting. These are country’s with no real government. Kind of hard to actually check these people out. How about they fix their own screwed up country’s.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are completely uninformed.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, Trump saying he intended to impose a Muslim ban, asking Giuliani for the best legal way to impose a Muslim ban, and then banning travel from majority-Muslim countries makes it so.
Is that so?
Then learn English.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct. It’s Trump’s Muslim Ban promise – and his targeting of specifically Muslim countries and no other criteria – ignoring where terrorists were actually coming from – that made it a Muslim ban. Even the courts recognized this.
Nor are ANY immigrants. Nevertheless, America has been built on immigration right from the very beginning. It’s a basic part of American culture.
Incorrect. They lack some rights until they gain citizenship, but once in America they’re covered by the Constitution.
Nonsense. Trump never came up with a plan for better vetting. Not during the election campaign, not between being elected and taking power, not when he signed the ban, and not since.
First a refugee applies to the UNHCR. If they’re one of the less than 1% approved, they get vetted by the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI and the Departments of Defense, State and Homeland Security. THEN they go through the enhanced review process. It takes a couple years.
An actual terrorist would bypass the process and pick up a US tourist visa.
That’s how it worked pre-Trump, and that’s how it’ll work after his ban.
That’s why they’re refugees. Work it out.
In any case the vetting process doesn’t depend on local governments. A lot of the vetting is based on interviews with relatives, former employers etc.
Given the many waves of refugees arriving over the last 250 years – most from very messed up places – in which decade would you have started your policy?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Miss-represent the constitution much?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Just because you all keep saying MUSLIM ban doesn’t make it so."
It’s a Muslim ban because that’s exactly what Trump said he was going to do and exactly what he’s tried to do. I’m sure it was one of the reasons you voted for him, so you can’t get all defensive about an accurate description now. You wanted it, so own it.
"Their’s that they’ve themselves screwed up and turn it into the hell holes that they are. Why bring their crap here?"
Could you be any more ignorant about these people? They are fleeing that crap, why the hell would you think they want to bring it with them?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because you all keep saying MUSLIM ban doesn’t make it so.
I agree. But when Trump says it, it does make it so.
Unless you’re arguing he’s a lying sack of orange colored shit.
At a December 2015 rally in Charleston, South Carolina, just a few days after the San Bernardino shooting, Trump told thousands of supporters:
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."
It’s unfortunate that he can’t keep track of his own bullshit. You look like a fool when you defend him for it.
Re: Re: Re:
Canada is effectively a muslim nation now.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
lol
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? Tell that to my Muslim neighbours. Most of the people around them could care less about religion; there are 6 Christian churches within 5 blocks that are well attended, and most of the people in the area are cultural Christian with Taoist backgrounds.
I’m sure it was meant to be a joke about Canada’s population… but really.
The other thing to note here: many people who immigrate from Muslim nations turn out not to be Muslim in anything but their originating nation; I work with a number of people who are from Muslim nations; they’re anything but Muslim while living in Canada; the Muslim ways only go back on when they visit family.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
In Canada you have more mosques per capita that anywhere else in the western world except the UK. I have worked on places thst shut diwn multiple times per day because the muslim workforce need to stop to pray.
They are generally not integrating. Some do but nost do not. They live in clusters and serve their own with little interest in Canada except as a place that their religious wars have yet to destroy.
Most other cultural communities have integrated. Only the muslim comnunity want the country ti change ti them.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Not even remotely close. And you’re making up the rest too.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
That’s an interesting and highly specific unsourced statistic.
I wonder why you didn’t go with the much more straightforward "3.2% of the Canadian population is Muslim"?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
6 year old information is rarely accurate in current circumstance. The number today is closer to 5% bit even that doesn’t properly reflect the percentages in cities like Toronto and Montreal where that number is close to 10% and growing.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
And your numbers are from what?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Steve Bannon’s rear end.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
He didn’t go with it because stuff he makes up on the spot is more impressive. Like "more mosques per capita that anywhere else in the western world." In reality:
90 mosques in Canada, which has a population of 35 million.
2300 mosques in France, which has a population of 70 million.
453 mosques in the Netherlands, which has a population of 17 million.
810 mosques in Albania, which has a population of 3 million.
Those are the only other western countries I could find stats for. But no doubt Spain among others beats Canada too.
He’s not just telling lies; he’s telling really stupid lies.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Bad bews for you… i onow from personal experience that montreal and toronto both have hundreds of mosques. Not grand ones but snaller ones. Your information is just not a complete list.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I bet your figures are as accurate as your English skills.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
And your information is not a list at all.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
"I have worked on places thst shut diwn multiple times per day because the muslim workforce need to stop to pray."
No you haven’t.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I have. One place hired a number of people frim somalia to work a production. When they went into prayer the line stopped.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Citation? Also, did they do overtime to make up for the lost time? I bet I know smokers who spend more time away from their post than Muslims do praying anyway.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Citation is pers2obal experience and it was written into the collective agreement witg no time lost.
Smokers could not stop the line for a smoke break.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“Citation is pers2obal experience”
So, I can say I have personal experience of Muslims who went to pray and didn’t disrupt production at all and it’s just as valid? Cool.
“Smokers could not stop the line for a smoke break.”
I don’t see it as much any more, but you can bet your ass they did when they were in the majority. In my experience, of course.
Do you have any data, or just the narrow field you happen to have noticed in whatever small area you’ve spent your life? If you don’t have anything wider reaching, I’ll have to go with the cited data from experts, and they disagree with what you’re saying, sorry.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Pwrsonal experience is just that. Sorry it doesn’t meet your standards.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Personal experience is fine for anecdotal stories. When you’re talking about screwing the lives of legal visitors to the country, their family and even natural born citizens, I prefer a higher standard to be held. Sorry if you can’t tell the difference, but that random craphole you happened to work in, whose management allows something you don’t agree with isn’t good enough for national and international policy.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Me too. My workplace shuts down multiples times per day….. oh wait those are breaks required my law.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you legally retarded? Because I’d hate to make fun of someone who’s legitimately brain damaged.
Re: Re:
Is it more important to punish the guilty or protect the innocent?
Re: Re:
And what do you do to help them integrate, treat them as outcastes?
Re: Re:
“Hilighting exceptional cases”
Like Trump’s lot are doing by highlighting very rare terrorist attack and other relatively rare security concerns, none of which are being caused by people from the listed countries anyway?
“the larger issues of overwhelming immigration and non integrating communities”
That’s an important issue. How will making life very difficult for those already in the US and trying to integrate while banning others from countries that don’t make up the majority of immigrants help, again?
“It ignores the thousands overstaying visas”
The ban ignore the majority of people doing that, since they aren’t from those countries affected.
Re: Re:
Please use the form below to contact us about ways to drive connective, useful conversations that offer a real ROI for your advertising dollar. https://www.techdirt.com/advertise.php
Why
Why will it take longer to shoot down than the previous one?
Re: Why
There is much less in this revised ban that has a chance of losing a legal challenge.
Which is what the first ban should have looked like. Incompetence or malice, it’s hard to tell.
Re: Re: Why
Why not both?
Re: Re: Why
Probably malice. There is a name to that technique, but I don’t remember it right now.
The idea is to propose something outrageous, let it get denied, then propose something… less outrageous and present it as a compromise.
It’s still bad, and it would have been rejected outright if presented directly, but it now appears “acceptable” in comparison to the first offer.
Re: Why
Well, it’s already been halted by a federal judge, so…
Re: Why
Everyone knows the intent of the two orders was to ban Muslims. I’m concerned that an order can be drafted with tricky enough language to avoid being stopped by the courts but is still clearly discriminatory.
Re: Why
Trump might be a blowhard reactionary asshole, but he’s not entirely stupid. He will have been advised of the language and outside ranting that forced the first attempt to be shut down, so some of that will be smoothed off, making it harder to reject outright. Now that this has been shut down, the next one will be further refined, and so on.
Re: Re: Why
Just having to write a new one would be losing too much face for Trump. He will likely keep trumping up comments on how the US legal system are the second-most dishonest people after journalists and launch a further attack on constitutional rights through other means.
Controversy from an untenuable position is an amazing negotiation position in politics, since any consession you give will merely direct towards reasonable, while the other sides consessions will be political. Besides, it shadows over the serious issues.
Re: Re: Why
Almost a year ago I read an article claiming that Trump was acting like a 1980s-style machine learning system: Make a bunch of random claims and promises with no analysis about their practicality or consequences. See which ones get the most cheers. Consider those "correct" and double down on them. Repeat.
Apparently he’s still doing it.
“Thousands overstaying visas?”
And so the solution is to restrict travel for people WHO HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE IN THE US PERMANENTLY?
“Dangerous people?”
And so the solution is to ban immigration for people only from a list of countries from whence NO TERRORIST ACTS HAVE COME?
“Non-integrating communities?”
And so the solution is to ban immigration for people who have already demonstrated a track record of working WITH THE US MILITARY?
“Millions of illegal immigrants?”
And so the problem is increase the percent of immigration that’s illegal from 98% to 100%?
“not a muslim ban”–this is true. This is not a muslim ban. It is, in fact, a ban on all those Christians, Jews, Druse, and other neighbors who are victims of vicious muslim oppression.
TRO granted
Just updated the post. The judge has granted a Temporary Restraining Order blocking the executive order.
Re: TRO granted
And I have lost the last bit of faith I have in the legal system.
Re: Re: TRO granted
So the legal system isn’t 100% reliable. Sometimes it breaks the pattern and occasionally does the right thing, as it did here.
On her way to work one morning
Down the path along side the lake
A tender hearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
“Poor thing,” she cried, “I’ll take you in and I’ll take care of you”
“Take me in tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake
She wrapped him up all cozy in a comforter of silk
And laid him by her fireside with some honey and some milk
She hurried home from work that night and soon as she arrived
She found that pretty snake she’d taken to had been revived
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake
She clutched him to her bosom, “You’re so beautiful,” she cried
“But if I hadn’t brought you in by now you might have died”
She stroked his pretty skin again and kissed and held him tight
Instead of saying thanks, the snake gave her a vicious bite
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake
“I saved you,” cried the woman
“And you’ve bitten me, but why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I’m going to die”
“Oh shut up, silly woman,” said the reptile with a grin
“You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in.
Re: Re:
You make a good point.
Why does Techdirt allow Anonymous Cowards to post here even though so many of them have turned out to be xenophobic trolls?
That was the point you were making, right?
Re: Re:
And yet we elected him president anyways.
The End
Re: Re: Re:
we sure did… for like the past 3 administrations.
We LOVE snakes here in America! It doesn’t matter which side you are on… even if the bastard is corrupt we don’t care… they just need to be on YOUR side to get your vote.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s where partisan pattycake and voting for the least worst choice get you.
special price just for you
The tech companies would not be fighting so hard to keep their immigrant employees if they were not getting their labor for cheap. Otherwise it would be no harm to them to hire locally.
The government’s responsibility is to it’s citizens, not to citizens of foreign nations. Citizens pay taxes to support the government that is supposed to be serving their interests. Instead people are paying taxes for a government that is acting against them and for the interests of multinational corporations and foreign countries.
Re: special price just for you
You should talk to the farmers in several states that proposed or passed legislation for going after illegal migrant workers with a vengeance. Those farmers got what they deserved, but it hurt both the availability of produce and the economy. And that actual cheap labour is the vast majority of the illegal immigrants (or simply migrants). That cheap labour is why we can both produce and afford food. There are no damn "Americans" lining up for these jobs.
I also assume you are a 100% First Nations person, yes?
Bonus question: What are your feels about the US and its corporations colonizing, occupying, or meddling in the affairs of so many other nations since its inception? I mean, aside from everything within the current boundaries of the US.
That’s the thing with certain mindsets. All real costs are externalized, and the only concern is for one’s own paycheck, taxes, or profits. Doesn’t matter how we got to a place where you were even able to enjoy those things in the first place.
Re: special price just for you
The tech industry would not be even bothering with this if it wasn’t for the lower wages paid to immigrant visa workers.
Re: special price just for you
I can tell you that this is 100% bullshit. 1st of all, there aren’t enough skilled workers locally for the tech industry. Second, in many of the companies that participated, it was the workers themselves pushing for this, rather than management. Sticking your head above water is not good for business on these things.
And this has nothing to do with "cheap" foreign labor — quite the opposite.
Yeah, and one way to best serve the citizens of this nation is to allow more skilled immigrants who help create jobs and boost the economy. The stats on this are overwhelming. Kill off immigration and you hurt the citizens of this country.
Re: Re: special price just for you
Not enough skilled tech workers? Would that include the thousands of workers skilled enough to be forced to train their replacements from India before being let go?
The governments responsibility is to let in more of those ‘skilled workers’? NOT AT ALL. It is OUR governments ability to help US that makes us stronger.
Your catering to this group of people is making it more and more difficult to want to support techdirts lawsuit if this is the sort of stuff that is going to be posted.
Re: Re: Re: special price just for you
“Would that include the thousands of workers skilled enough to be forced to train their replacements from India before being let go?”
India’s on this list? Besides, are you honestly saying that because some companies abuse the H1-B system that no immigrants should be allowed in to provide skills to the tech industry?
“It is OUR governments ability to help US that makes us stronger.”
Which surely includes bringing in skillsets that local works don’t have, rather than watch them set up competing industries elsewhere? You do seem to be suggesting that Sergei Brin, for example, should not have been allowed to enter the US and just go and set up Google somewhere else.
“Your catering to this group of people”
Which group of people? The people in the tech industry, the main focus of this blog? Yeah, weird how he’d take their side after considering all the evidence.
Re: Re: Re:2 special price just for you
“are you honestly saying that because some companies abuse the H1-B system that no immigrants should be allowed in to provide skills to the tech industry?”
If it’s able to be abused, then it’s broken.
IMO. It’s irreverent how many or few people come to the US. It’s not about bringing the skilled labor, it’s about the short term mindset of the big corporations doing the hiring.
My company imports labor, that is then trained by the existing labor who can either do so, or are fired with no severance for insubordination (or something to that effect). When that imported labor figures out that they replaced people that made twice as much as they do and had better benefits, they in turn start asking for more money, and better benefits. They may even start job hopping. When that happens, my company then hires new cheap labor, trained by the old soon to be replaced imported cheap labor, and the cycle continues. On and on it goes. If the original imported labor was smart, they were able to get citizenship or permanent residency, and now get to surf the unemployment and welfare programs until they either find a new job, or just give up.
IMO The only people that these programs help long term, are the big corporations. I’m actually a little surprised Trump is against immigration, legal or otherwise. He stands to benefit from the cheap labor.
Re: Re: Re:3 special price just for you
“If it’s able to be abused, then it’s broken.”
All systems can be abused. The questions are how you deal with those abusing it, and how intent you are at fixing it. The problem here seems to be that the workers are scapegoated, while nothing is done to address the abusers or the system.
“I’m actually a little surprised Trump is against immigration, legal or otherwise”
I doubt he actually is. He pandered to the crowds but he stands to benefit personally either way (for example – Muslim countries with Trump business interests were included in the initial ban attempt even though they had posed more direct danger to the US than the ones on the list). I have no doubt that whatever form the wall takes, someone in his circle will profit, and so on.
Re: Re: Re:3 special price just for you
Tax breaks can be abused! It’s a broken system, abolish it!!!
Re: Re: special price just for you
Calling bullshit on all of this.
” it was the workers themselves pushing for this”
Of course – the workers are from other countries, where they might make pennies compared to what they get in the US. However, what they get in the US is less than what American workers would get.
“one way to best serve the citizens of this nation is to allow more skilled immigrants who help create jobs and boost the economy.”
this is true only if the price for of bringing these immigrants in is to deny an American a job.
Nobody is trying to kill off immigration. That’s a lie. They are trying to stop the harm created when outsiders are hired to replace American workers. That is a whole different game.
Re: special price just for you
“The tech companies would not be fighting so hard to keep their immigrant employees if they were not getting their labor for cheap”
Does that include the many companies that were founded by immigrants?
“Citizens pay taxes”
Immigrants tend to pay more taxes than people like Trump.
“Instead people are paying taxes for a government that is acting against them”
Yeah, and they voted one of the worst offenders into office for some reason.
Re: Re: special price just for you
Pault, you seem to be willing to overlook all the negatives that these people have brought with them.
Tech companies being founded by immigrants has nothing to do with an entire population of people that are openly taught to kill/hurt Americans and any other infidel.
Immigrants paying taxes has nothing to do with an entire population of people who refuse to integrate.
And I am not sure what your opinion of the president has to do many americans not wanting to just leave the front gate open to people that scream on the street corners that americans should be killed.
Re: Re: Re: special price just for you
“Tech companies being founded by immigrants has nothing to do with an entire population of people that are openly taught to kill/hurt Americans and any other infidel.”
Well, when you address a boogeyman version of them, sure. Besides, that’s why there’s an extensive vetting process already in place.
“Immigrants paying taxes has nothing to do with an entire population of people who refuse to integrate.”
Which of these professional workers are refusing to do this? Are you simply conflating all immigrants as one group, or do you have statistics?
Also – how exactly does demonising legal immigrants who are already trying to integrate such as the ones mentioned in the article help your cause? How will preventing people living and working in the US from seeing their families help improve the willingness of immigrants to integrate?
“And I am not sure what your opinion of the president has to do many americans not wanting to just leave the front gate open to people that scream on the street corners that americans should be killed.”
I don’t believe anyone’s proposing what that garbled sentence seems to be suggesting they are. Would you like to provide a citation, or provide a clear version of that word salad?
Re: Re: Re: special price just for you
What "entire population" are you speaking of? Syrian refugees?
Re: Re: Re:2 special price just for you
Not sure about Syrian refugees, but I spent a few years living in Saudi Arabia and I can tell you that the ones I interacted with were indeed “taught” from birth that “Western” societies are evil. They also have public be-headings for people that choose to practice a different religion. Some claim that it’s simply the extremists Muslims that are the problem. I often wondered if the people that say that have ever lived long term in places that are devout Muslims and have had the opportunity to see how many of them think this way. I was very surprised when I did. It was a real eye opener.
I realize that Saudi Arabia may not be on this list of Trump’s or whatever, just thought I would share my thoughts.
Re: Re: Re:3 special price just for you
“I realize that Saudi Arabia may not be on this list of Trump’s or whatever”
That’s actually one of the most suspicious things, and a reason why this should be fought. A country that has posed a direct danger to the US before, has the potential to continue to do so but happens to have Trump business interests among other resources is left off the list. Countries that have not posed a danger, but have no Trump business interests, are put on there. Countries where the locals who disagree with the regime and flee for their lives are treated as if they were the ones committing the atrocities they are fleeing.
“the opportunity to see how many of them think this way”
But, how many actually think this way? I know that if I was in a country where I could be killed for having the wrong opinion, I’d not be telling a random foreigner how much I hated the regime around me.
Re: Re: Re:4 special price just for you
I think trying to draw a direct line between the countries he targeted, and his own personal gain, is a reach. I would suggest grandstanding, or trying to fulfill his promises to his constituents first. The guy’s 70 years old or so. I would think someone at his age would be more concerned about his legacy than money, but that is my opinion.
“But, how many actually think this way?”
Again; I’ve lived there. I can tell you that regardless of what they “think”, they are taught from a very young age that Westerners and their values are evil. Perhaps a few “buck” the system or teachings, who knows. If they do, you’ll never know, the repercussions for bucking the system would be catastrophic and immediate.
You think being black is difficult in the U.S.? Try being female in Saudi Arabia. Try being a foreign agnostic worker in a predominate brainwashed Muslim country. Don’t were a veil? Say something negative towards their religion or god forbid be a Christian? They would have beaten you silly with lashes, put your ass in jail, and if you really pissed them off, stone you to death or cut off your head. Peace loving Muslims my ass.
Re: Re: Re:5 special price just for you
Not really, no. Trump did not fully divest himself from his business interests after he took office. His wanting to keep countries on his side when those countries can help him get wealthier is not a ridiculous conclusion to draw here.
From all the evidence I have seen, Trump believes his legacy begins and ends with his brand. Polished or tarnished, the existence of his brand is all that matters to him. And his brand represents obscene wealth and fame. So why would he refuse a chance to grow his wealth, and thus his brand, at every possible opportunity?
Teaching something is a far cry from getting people to believe that something. To wit: evolution.
Ah, the old “you have it so much better here” argument — the last gasp of a bigot as they try to paint all foreign peoples and cultures as “barbaric” and “backwards”.
Re: Re: Re:6 special price just for you
“Ah, the old “you have it so much better here” argument — the last gasp of a bigot as they try to paint all foreign peoples and cultures as “barbaric” and “backwards”.”
Ah the last gasp of snowflake as they pull out a straw man because they realize they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
I was very specific when I stated I was talking about Saudi Arabia. I didn’t “paint all foreign peoples and cultures” just theirs. I did so because I lived it first hand. How many years did you spend living there exactly?
Re: Re: Re:7 special price just for you
And how many public beatings, lashings, and executions did you personally witness? How many non-Muslims and women were killed right in front of your eyes by the “barbaric” Muslims you want to decry? Do you have any records to prove these supposed first-hand claims, or do you want me to take it on faith?
I am well aware of the human rights abuses that happen in countries such as Saudi Arabia. That awareness is still not an excuse to foster an “all people from Saudi Arabia are bloodthirsty backwards savages” attitude. Your personal anecdotes (substantiated or not) will not sway me into such a mindset, either.
Also: Do not pull that “you think you have it bad here” bullshit out again. As an LGBT person who felt insulted by Trump’s attempts to use LGBT people as a shield for his Islamophobia, that argument — such as it is — has no effect on me. It is a transparent disguise for bigotry, and I think even you know that.
Re: Re: Re:8 special price just for you
“And how many public beatings, lashings, and executions did you personally witness?”
I personally witnessed beatings yes. I saw the blood on the street from the previous nights executions.. tho I admit I didn’t see the actual killings. I saw a woman beaten because her veil was on incorrectly as others looked on approvingly. I saw the disgust in the eyes and voices of the people that I dealt with every day because I didn’t believe as they did. I heard the teachings and the anger in the voices of their elders when speaking and dealing with Westerners.
“I am well aware of the human rights abuses that happen in countries such as Saudi Arabia. “
If you are well aware, what reason would you ask me to provide proof? Would it then matter?
““all people from Saudi Arabia are bloodthirsty backwards savages” attitude”
That is not what I said, again with the straw man. I said they were taught this way from childhood. I also said some may think otherwise, but you would never know, at least not in public as the repercussions would be immediate and terrible.
“Also: Do not pull that “you think you have it bad here” bullshit out again. “
Go fuck yourself. I’ll speak my opinion and share my experiences as long as I have a forum to do so. Just because your gay doesn’t give you the right to censor my speech. Speaking of which; I don’t care what or who you fuck, or what parts you have.. none of that has anything to do with the fact that I have a problem with how woman are treated in Saudi Arabia.
I’ve been in the real world, I’ve seen the hatred and abuse towards woman in these countries. I’ve read the stories and talked to the people. You don’t know shit about the real world. LGBT lol, as if anyone cares.
Re: Re: Re:3 special price just for you
No "may not" or "whatever" about it. Saudi Arabia is not on Trump’s list.
You want to make a case for a harder stance on Saudi Arabia? I’m amenable to that. I think that if there were refugees fleeing Saudi Arabia, then it would be foolish to assume that the refugees were terrorists, but scrutiny of Saudi citizens seeking work visas is reasonable.
But that’s not what Trump has proposed here, at all.
Re: Re: Re:4 special price just for you
“You want to make a case for a harder stance on Saudi Arabia?”
“I’m amenable to that.”
Oh… dayum bro… I get it now. As long as it is something you DO like then it is okay for a President to break the law, but if it is something against your ahem “political sycophancy” then awh helll bitches… you be breaking that law and shit…
Yea, I figured you were a hypocrite…
I would prefer all immigration from any primarily Arab nation to be halted, ESPECIALLY SAUDI ARABIA. We should only allow the ones that actually help us come here, but instead we shit on those guys… and I don’t hear you silly twits bitching about that do we?
Re: Re: Re:5 special price just for you
You seem to have gotten overexcited and replied to my post before you finished reading it.
Re: special price just for you
There are two issues at play:
immigrants versus “natives”
educated versus uneducated
Those issues makes further distinctions necessary. In terms of employment the tech-industry are very fond of legal immigrants with an education in their specific niche. They don’t care much about the majority of illegal immigrants since they don’t fit their needs.
The areas where US sees a lot of illegals are predominantly dominated by agricultural activities. If you close for those people it would be great for the rest of the world and for american wages. But it would also hurt the US economy. Ironically that issue has been the main political/economical one in terms of illegal immigration. Trumps level of debate on this issue has made it a completely emotional issue. It no longer has a pro et contra, a balancing point, but has become “my way or the highway”. That is where old politics ends and the age of spin and demagogues begin.
Re: Re: special price just for you
I suspect that some people are unable to process the differences here. Supporting skilled tech professionals coming to the US to fill a skills gap is not the same as supporting huge numbers of unskilled workers who refuse to take part in American society. Yet, I see the same arguments at play here as you would in a thread about Mexican day labourers.
The same logical fallacies as to the solutions are also at play – yes, there’s a problem with companies hiring illegal workers or abusing H1-B standards. But, nobody suggests going after the employers who are committing the abuse, only the workers who happen to make it through.
Eventually everything will start being done under the table
When activist judges like this one act as if they are the one elected to run the country, all it does is entrench the rest of us who agree with the president. Where was this judge when we went to war against countries that had nothing to do with 9-11 yet blamed them for it? I also thought clinton, bush, and obama all had travel bans at one point.
This is going to do nothing but force stuff to be done on the sly instead.
Love or hate trump, he is the president and a judge acting like this just causes me to go further to the right.
Re: Eventually everything will start being done under the table
“When activist judges like this one act as if they are the one elected to run the country”
You do know that your country is founded on three branches of government, of which one is the judiciary, right? Branches that the founders intended to acts as checks and balances upon each other.
“I also thought clinton, bush, and obama all had travel bans at one point.”
Before throwing a tantrum at a judge doing his job, you may wish to educate yourself on the differences between those and the one the orange one has been trying to push through. It’s those differences people are opposing, and they’re extremely important (as is the timing – which activity from those countries is this is reaction to, again?).
“Love or hate trump, he is the president and a judge acting like this just causes me to go further to the right.”
Further ignorant of the way your country’s government operates, you mean?
Re: Eventually everything will start being done under the table
Yoi should try taking a civics class sometime. It might enlighten you as to the basic structure of our government. Our president isn’t above the law. And honestly say “judge who does things I don’t agree with.” Not “activist judge” that’s just lazy right wing nut job talk.
Re: Eventually everything will start being done under the table
Whenever I hear this phrase, I am always left wondering something about people who use that phrase in complete sincerity: Do they believe the President (or Congress) should have unfettered, unchecked, unlimited power to do whatever they please?
Re: Re: Eventually everything will start being done under the table
I think they do. Unless the president is on the “other team”, of course, in which case nothing he does is acceptable even if he bends backwards to compromise.
Re: Re: Re: Eventually everything will start being done under the table
Case in point: the Affordable Care Act. Which is the compromise of the compromise of the original Obama-administration health-care-reform proposal, except that “compromise” should be in quotes because the other side never really made any concessions at either of the two stages.
Re: Re: Re:2 Eventually everything will start being done under the table
Well, they compromised to accept basically what the other side proposed in the 1990s, despite it being a far cry from what they actually wanted. But, it’s now the worst thing ever and needs to be repealed immediately because the side being compromised with regained power. It’s pretty sad.
Re: Re: Re:3 Eventually everything will start being done under the table
Out with Obamacare, in with Don.T.Care.
Re: Re: Re:4 Eventually everything will start being done under the table
“Don’T. Care.”
Fixed it for you.
Re: Re: Eventually everything will start being done under the table
Yes, as long as they’re Republicans.
When a judge blocks a President they don’t like, he’s a patriot who upholds the Constitution. When a judge blocks a President they do like, he’s an unelected activist.
Re: Re: Re: Eventually everything will start being done under the table
That works both ways you wannabe democrat.
There are more than enough on both sides fucking with people and just like the republicans… you democrats are more than willing to be the EXACT SAME when it benefits you to do so.
Hypocrisy is one of the most distasteful human attributes around. You will fall into the ditch… no scratch that… you dumb-asses are jumping in on your own!
Re: Re: Re:2 Eventually everything will start being done under the table
There’s plenty of hypocrisy among the Democrats, but I would argue that complaining about "activist judges" is way more of a Republican problem than a Democratic one.
Re: Eventually everything will start being done under the table
Activist judges exist. But usually the judges getting blamed aren’t bypartisan or more than single examples. In the case of this law, there are several legal concerns about the constitutionalities in it.
If you want to change what you and the president percieve as a great injustice, then get congress to change the constitution. That would be far more productive than calling judges activistic for siding on the conservative side in terms of constitutional rights.
You responsible for them being here? You are also responsible for what they do while they are here. See you in court.
Re: Re:
So if an born-and-raised American adult commits a crime, their parents should be charged for it?
Re: Re:
I think you too need a remedial civics lesion. Also a grammar lesson wouldn’t hurt.
Trump is a bigot and this will not change. Expect him to keep trying for the next 4 years. It hasn’t been 2 months since the moron started and most of the world (and the sane Americans) already think he’s been on the job 2 months too much.
Re: Re:
“Trump is a bigot and this will not change.”
When American finally wake up and stop electing them… we might have some change. But for now… we are only going to get Obama 2.0 after Trump, and then Trump 2.0 after Obama 2.0.
This of course hardly started with Obama, but Americans have already grown willfully ignorant of how their government is supposed to operate.
it is Samuel 1:8 all over again. The People WANT a King, and they are going to have it. Maybe not today… but possibly tomorrow… maybe tomorrow.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s what happens when you can’t be bothered to exercise your democratic duty to participate in the process by holding elected officials to account. Result: responsibility outsourced to politicians ruled by corporate and special interests. In a democracy that works as intended politicians are kept on a choke-chain.
So let me get this right....
Obama can break immigration law by letting people in illegally and granting stays (because prerogative), but Trump is wrong by doing the same… just in the opposite direction?
Yea, got it TD is biased and constantly states that Tech Companies stay far away from politics. ah ah… yea right
The tech companies only care about having cheap labor… they don’t give a flying fuck about social justice or equality. They just play you simpletons like fools and feed you cool-aid to get you sycophants behind them.
So Typical!
I don’t like Trump, but you suckers are wearing everyone out just like the boy that cried wolf and all the perpetual outrage. Stick to the real serious stuff like the police state and surveillance, no OMG some non-citizen is not being let in its such a travesty!!! OMG!
Non-Citizens do not have rights and it is bankrupt to believe that they should be able to constantly expect to free move between nations without restriction. the 4th is being broken constantly and some law breaking illegal is the bigger issue…
this is why every nation gets the government it deserves! everyone butt hurt over trump deserves it, and everyone butt hurt over obama deserves it too!
Re: So let me get this right....
Obama did not “let people in”. He may not have kicked people out at a rate you preferred, but he did not “let people in”. And even if he were to have done that, he would have done so without limiting who came in based on their religion.
Trump’s entire plan from the start was to ban Muslims from (at least) certain countries from entering the country. Even if you support stronger immigration enforcement and more stringent immigration laws, you could probably agree that letting people in based only on their religious beliefs is both unconstitutional and horrific.
[citation needed]
If you do not like hearing about people resisting the presidential administration of a man who can make accusations without evidence and have those accusations treated as something worth taking seriously — a man who is wholly and vastly unqualified to run a business, let alone an entire country — you can try avoiding the news.
I recommend reading a book. Try “The Handmaid’s Tale”.
If you do not like the articles that appear on Techdirt…well, in the words of The Gord, “Door’s to your left.”
The Constitution would be meaningless if the government and its agents (e.g., the police) could openly violate the civil rights of undocumented immigrants. America’s laws exist to protect citizens and non-citizens alike.
Re: Re: So let me get this right....
“Trump’s entire plan from the start was to ban Muslims from (at least) certain countries from entering the country. Even if you support stronger immigration enforcement and more stringent immigration laws, you could probably agree that letting people in based only on their religious beliefs is both unconstitutional and horrific.”
{citation needed in the Current order}
otherwise, you are doing the same thing you accuse other of.
(have a herts doughnut)
Re: Re: Re: So let me get this right....
So if he targets predominantly Muslim countries and asks Rudy Giuliani how to craft a legal “Muslim ban”, it is not an attempt to ban Muslims from entering the country based only on their religion? (Because it sure as hell is not based on immigrants from those targeted countries committing terrorist acts in the United States.)
Re: Re: Re:2 So let me get this right....
So, you can site such in the current order, please do so.
Re: Re: Re:3 So let me get this right....
I do not have to. Trump and his administration cronies have said, in reference to the original order, that the administration would place a higher priority on Christian refugees and immigrants than it would on Muslims. That is a blatant attempt by the federal government to favor one religion over another. That is unconstitutional, which is (in part) why the original order was banned. That the fools in the Trump regime went and spoke about it being a “Muslim ban” and whatnot did not help them with the revised order — even with the changed wording, the intent remained the same.
Re: Re: Re:4 So let me get this right....
“That is a blatant attempt by the federal government to favor one religion over another. That is unconstitutional,”
Ahem, you need to cite where in the Constitution that the US Government is now allowed to select immigration based on religion.
Oh right… I keep forgetting, you don’t ready it… you just pull stupid shit out of your ass and repeat it until someone dumb, like a judge on your side will believe it.
This is not a nation of laws any longer, it is a nation ripping itself apart over political ideology. George Washington was right about what is going to happen if we keep up with parties.
Re: Re: Re:5 So let me get this right....
Assuming you meant "not" and not "now", that’d be the establishment and free exercise clauses. Bill of Rights, literally the first sentence.
Re: Re: Re:6 So let me get this right....
Non sequitur clown!
Do you lack all manor of all comprehension?
The 1st has nothing to do with Immigration Law PERIOD! Additionally, 1st only protects us from a government making a law “Establishing” or “prohibiting free exercise” and says nothing about them classifying entire religions as unsuitable for immigration.
I need someone with more than a 3rd grade education to talk to here… can you put your parents on instead?
Re: Re: Re:7 So let me get this right....
What is this Manor of All Comprehension you speak of? Sounds like a superhero base, like the Rock of Eternity or the Sanctum Sanctorum.
It does if that immigration law involves religion, speech, press, assembly, or petition.
Yes, exactly.
In other words, the government can’t favor one religion over another.
Good idea; they can help you with your spelling.
Re: Re: Re:8 So let me get this right....
Blocking a person from becoming a citizen is NOT in breach of the 1st. Not even by a mile, are you even an American Citizen? It would explain your serious lack of understand of the 1st, but still does not excuse your lack of comprehension.
The 1st specifically states that the Federal Government cannot.
Make a law telling you that you must practice a certain religion.
Make a law saying that you cannot practice a certain religion.
There is nothing in there that says America must allow anyone to immigrate, travel through, or depart regardless of age, religion, gender, affiliation, or some other bias. They can even say people with purple hair are not allowed, or people named Thad.
And only a person that knows they are going to lose needs to fall back on “omg, your spelling sucks”. I am trying to squeeze your education into a nut shell for forgive me if I make a few mistakes along the way… trust me, they are no where near as great as the mistake that is you.
Re: Re: Re:9 So let me get this right....
It doesn’t mention immigration at all. It doesn’t have to. It concerns all laws that involve any of the five freedoms it lists.
Your theory that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to immigration law because reasons is baffling. Do you also believe that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to immigration law? Maybe you believe the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to tax law, or the Sixth Amendment doesn’t apply to traffic law? Wait, I’ve got it: the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t apply to liquor laws!
…you…seriously think that banning immigration based on a person’s name would pass constitutional scrutiny? Seriously?
In other words, when you engage in ad hominem attacks implying I’m uneducated, it’s because you have such an ironclad and well-reasoned argument, but when I point out that your spelling sucks, it’s because my argument is weak and puny. Despite, y’know, my argument being an actual argument and yours being "nuh-uh" over and over again.
Anyway. Since you keep putting your fingers in your ears and swearing that the First Amendment only applies to laws you say it does, let me just quote from the temporary restraining order. It wasn’t written by me, it was written by a judge. (Pardon the copy-paste from a PDF.)
Damn uneducated judges, thinking the First Amendment applies to laws! Are they even American citizens?
Anyway, it’s been fun, but done with you now. Go ahead and take your (poorly-spelled) last word. Clearly you need it more than I do.
Re: Re: Re:10 So let me get this right....
These anonymous trolls who all showed up around the last election are fascinating. This is a Monty Python script come to life!
Now, Anonymous, when you can explain this joke (regardless of whether you think it’s funny), we’ll at least understand that you are capable of truly "grokking" the English language. Perhaps then, you might take a moment to self-reflect on how you are represented by this joke. Then the adults might take you moderately more seriously.
Until then, please do go on entertaining us. Reading your posts is like watching a dog try to figure out what a mirror is.
Re: Re: Re:5 So let me get this right....
You need to read the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The whole point of Trump’s “Muslim ban” was to deny Muslims entry into the United States based almost explicitly on their religion. His original order on the matter gave preference to refugees who belonged to a religious minority (and were persecuted for their religion) in their country — in other words, a Christian refugee from Syria was given more of a chance to enter the country than a Muslim refugee from Syria based only on religion.
The United States does not have religious tests for things like holding political office, gaining citizenship, or travelling to and from the country. Trump and his regime tried to change that. The courts smacked down his orders as unconstitutional based on how those orders would have established a governmental preference for one religion (Christianity) over another (Islam).
Re: Re: Re:6 So let me get this right....
I am still waiting for you to show where they cannot block someone from immigrating on those grounds.
There are ‘other’ laws, yes, but not any Constitutional ones.
“The United States does not have religious tests for things like holding political office, gaining citizenship, or travelling to and from the country. Trump and his regime tried to change that.”
Well, there are not official tests of religion for holding office, a voter can hold any test they like when choosing who to vote for, it just means that Government cannot have a test. But they can have that test for non-citizens. The constitution does not protect non-citizens, and neither does it address the process by where people are citizens either. You are stretching the credibility of your understanding. We can make any law we like against non-citizens because that is our sovereign right to do so. Sure, some of it can be inhuman, but it can never be unconstitutional. It is damn important to be correct here. It is people with your logic that allows for the constitution free zone, allows for stop and frisk, do everything a cop says or else, let your balls be played with by TSA because we said, watch all of your communications because 3rd party doctrine.
The Constitution is specific. All attempts to corrupt its clearly defined passages renders it entirely pointless.
Re: Re: Re:7 So let me get this right....
The entire point of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from showing either favor or disfavor toward any specific religion. Doing so would prevent people from practicing whichever one they choose.
A religious test for citizenship sends the following message: “Either stop practicing your religion or get the fuck out.” The First Amendment was written to prevent such a thing from happening.
Re: Re: Re:8 So let me get this right....
“The entire point of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from showing either favor or disfavor toward any specific religion.”
No, religions can be favored, that is not what is says at all.
It just says that Government cannot make a law requiring or blocking the exercise of religion. Not letting a person in based on their religion does not qualify period.
Did you know that there is a Christian prayer before congress? Did you know that that can be change to another religion if enough congress critters decide to change it? Did you also know that it is perfectly Constitutional as well? did you also know that congress commissions one of the first bibles for school?
You know nothing, and your reading of the 1st reveals that you cannot be trusted with instructions to pour piss out of a boot.
Any non-citizen can be removed from the United States for any reason. The Constitution does not address immigration or the process for how people can become citizens. Therefore nothing involving immigration can be classed as Unconstitutional. As long as you folks keep corrupting what the constitution is and says, the more rights we are going to lose, because you are too busy making up crap, which is why the Government shits on every bit of it… because none of you know anything about it and that makes it easy to take your liberty right out of your hands!
Re: Re: Re:9 So let me get this right....
Show me the First Amendment caselaw that says so.
Such a move would show how the government wants to refuse letting someone who practices that religion into the country. It effectively puts a religious test on both citizenship and legal entry into the country (e.g., “stop being a Muslim and you can come in”). The First Amendment is meant to prevent that from happening.
Prove it.
Remind me to never clean your boots.
If you have the precedent for the removal of legally-in-the-country non-citizens based only on their religion, I would love to see it. But until you produce that precedent, you have no argument.
Re: Re: Re:3 So let me get this right....
Actually the judge in the current order cited Trumps own words calling it a Muslim ban.
Re: Re: Re:4 So let me get this right....
Well this wont be the first or the last time Trump sticks his dirty foot in his mouth.
Re: Re: Re: So let me get this right....
Are you seriously suggesting that (1) a policy isn’t discriminatory if it doesn’t actually explicitly define the ways it’s discriminatory in its text and (2) the past statements of the person responsible for the policy are not germane to determining his intent in crafting it?
Because if that’s the best you can do in defending the yes-it’s-definitely-a-Muslim-ban, then I don’t even have to make a point here, because you’ve already made it for me.
Re: Re: Re:2 So let me get this right....
About the only way Trump could make the claim that these executive orders are not (the first seeds of) his promised Muslim ban be plausible would be to come out with something else which is explicitly stated to be his promised Muslim ban, is plausible in that role, and clearly is not simply a refined or derived version of these same executive orders.
Of course, if he did that, it would die in the courts (and possibly even in the legislature, if it needed to go that route) so fast it would make what happened with these executive orders look pokey..
Re: Re: Re:2 So let me get this right....
Are ou saying a Private Citizen is not able to speak freely? That sounds like a dictatorship.
That you speaking your opinion is more important than someone else? We are supposedly equal in this country when did that change?
Re: Re: Re:3 So let me get this right....
Where the hell did he say that.
Re: Re: Re:4 So let me get this right....
Having read his other posts, it was clearly a mistake for me to respond to him at all. I recommend just flagging his gibberish from here on in; that’s what I’ll be doing.
Re: Re: So let me get this right....
We the People
For the People
By the People
I did not catch “for everyone else” in there did you?
People like you are a cancer for any nation. You ignore its most basic laws and bitch about it enforcing the ones it has a sovereign right to enforce.
Here, take your logic to Mexico chump… see how far it gets you. Don’t forget to take some cash… you have a lot of people payoff to stay alive as an illegal!
Re: Re: Re: So let me get this right....
I actually have no problem with the United States enforcing immigration law. But there are concerns beyond “illegals are crossin’ the border!” that have to be considered. For example: If the Trump regime could round up and deport the millions of people who are in this country illegally, what would that do to the American economy?
There are undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for years and actually contributed to the economy and whatnot. How should we treat people like that? What path to citizenship, if any, should the government grant to an undocumented immigrant who (undocumented status aside) has proven their worth to the country?
And this still does not get down to the issue of families. How much humanity (or a lack thereof) should we show to undocumented families — do we deport them all, do we only deport the parents, or do we give them all a chance to earn their citizenship?
I am all for enforcing immigration law — but I am for enforcing it with a sense of humanity and an eye toward the overall effect such enforcement will have on the country.
Re: Re: Re:2 So let me get this right....
Okay, I cannot get past the whole illegal entry thing.
I have a friend who has been fighting this bullshit for more than 30 fucking damn years. Where are his rights? I see people fighting harder for the illegal than the legal all day long.
Additionally, how is it my fault that a foreigner invaded my country and brought their kids? How is that my problem and why am I the bastard for doing that to their kids? I get that they are wanting to make a better life for themselves but so are bank robbers and drug dealers. There is only so much we can take in year after year before we break. And that process needs to be meticulously controlled for the obvious reasons.
Additionally, we are supposed be a melting pot… and right now all I see is a salad bowl. People I cannot even communicate with because they refuse to learn my language, but I am the one in the wrong for not learning theirs.
I have no tolerance for blame shifting, when you subject YOUR children and family to the risk of deportation then that YOUR fault, not the nation sending them back for breaking the law! Your logic is utterly corrupted!
Re: Re: Re:3 So let me get this right....
People I cannot even communicate with because they refuse to learn my language, but I am the one in the wrong for not learning theirs.
Additionally, we are supposed be a melting pot.
If you had a better grasp of the language you so desperately want them to learn, you would’ve caught the irony in those sentences.
Re: Re: Re:4 So let me get this right....
There is no irony there.
Cultures that cannot communicate cannot melt together. Look at Europe and America right now. There are large divisions threatening to tear us apart.
Or are you just going to sit there and act like we are still melting? I just watched a white guy or white looking guy take a beating for offering to pay for a black mans meal, and those guys do speak the same language. If those guys cannot melt, there is no fucking way people that cannot communicate will melt. People get agitated when hearing only 1/2 of a conversation when someone is on a phone nearby. You lack any serious introspection on the problem here.
Re: Re: Re:5 So let me get this right....
There is no irony there.
There certainly is. Is English your second language?
Cultures that cannot communicate cannot melt together.
Your refusal to even bother entertaining that there is a language other than English and you might have to (gasp!) try to communicate is directly contributing to the problem.
Stop being so god damned lazy.
Or are you just going to sit there and act like we are still melting?
Well, you "speak English or die" folks certainly aren’t. And ironically enough, you typically have the worst speaking and writing skills.
I just watched a white guy or white looking guy take a beating for offering to pay for a black mans meal, and those guys do speak the same language.
So then language isn’t as big a deal as you’re making it out to be?
If those guys cannot melt, there is no fucking way people that cannot communicate will melt.
Of course, because they’re exactly the same thing (that’s sarcasm, in case you missed it).
People get agitated when hearing only 1/2 of a conversation when someone is on a phone nearby.
Which has nothing to do with any of what is being discussed, but OK.
You lack any serious introspection on the problem here.
It’s hard to be serious when your "arguments" are so ridiculous.
Re: Re: Re:6 So let me get this right....
“There certainly is. Is English your second language?”
Then explain it o wise one.
“Your refusal to even bother entertaining that there is a language other than English and you might have to (gasp!) try to communicate is directly contributing to the problem. “
yea I already addressed this problem. I am the one that has to learn, but never them. You twit, one would think you would not have been dumb enough to confirm one of my complaints.
“So then language isn’t as big a deal as you’re making it out to be?”
Ahem… I am thinking you didn’t grok anything I said. I made the point that if we cannot even melt WHEN we can communicate, what type of drugs must you consume to believe that we can when we CANNOT communicate. Is that clear enough for ya Einstein?
“Which has nothing to do with any of what is being discussed, but OK.”
I guess Science is not a big deal for ya huh? Communication is the foundation of a cohesive society, or are you saying otherwise?
“It’s hard to be serious when your “arguments” are so ridiculous.”
Ah well, it does take being a little serious to understand logic that exceeds your mental capacities, even if I am trying to make them clear enough for a juvenile.
So lets make it clear, people that want to only live in their original culture and language should not migrate anywhere. If they want to migrate, they should learn the language of the destination nation and understand that its culture is different and attempt to melt into it, not carve out a little mexico, mecca, or chinatown. I hope this makes it easy for you to understand now. If we need to get a Jack and Jill book, maybe you should got back to 1st grade and leave the big complex grown up talk for the grown ups.
Re: Re: Re:7 So let me get this right....
Or they can learn the language, understand the differences in culture, and still try to keep some of their original culture in their lives while sharing that culture with others and integrating new aspects of culture into their lives. “Integration” does not mean “conformity”, after all.
Re: Re: Re:7 So let me get this right....
I am the one that has to learn, but never them.
Assumption much?
I made the point that if we cannot even melt WHEN we can communicate, what type of drugs must you consume to believe that we can when we CANNOT communicate.
You made the point that those people couldn’t melt. Speaking for everyone?
I guess Science is not a big deal for ya huh?
It’s a pretty big stretch to conflate hearing half of a cell phone conversation with science. But yeah, sure. OK. I’m sure in your head there’s some significance to this.
So lets make it clear, people that want to only live in their original culture and language should not migrate anywhere.
So they need to be assimilated? Like the Borg? You want them all to think like you?
Now that’s fucking scary, and not beneficial to the overall gene pool.
Re: Re: Re: So let me get this right....
Hey if you don’t like you the consititutiin is set up here. You are perfectly free to leave.
Re: Re: So let me get this right....
“The Constitution would be meaningless if the government and its agents (e.g., the police) could openly violate the civil rights of undocumented immigrants. America’s laws exist to protect citizens and non-citizens alike.”
Non-citizens do have rights, but they only have some rights under the Constitution.
Re: So let me get this right....
I like that you don’t let your obvious lack of a basic grasp of the constitution, foreign policy, domestic policy, technology, or current affairs get in the way of your writing.
Re: Re: So let me get this right....
I guess he figured that if Trump could become president by doing the same thing…
Re: Re: Re: So let me get this right....
Or Obama or Trump…
I just watched the past 3 administrations get voted in by you clowns. Yea, I am totally going to expect you retards know more than jack shit about anything.
Re: Re: Re:2 So let me get this right....
I just watched the past 3 administrations get voted in by you clowns. Yea, I am totally going to expect you retards know more than jack shit about anything.
Which begs the question as to why you even fucking care?
Go fuck off in your own country and leave us "retards" here to figure things out. We have enough free-loading do nothings without adding you to the list.
Re: Re: Re:3 So let me get this right....
“Which begs the question as to why you even fucking care?”
Because I am in this Country suffering from watching your stupidity. If I were not an American Citizen, you are damn skippy, I would not care.
So I spend my paltry time trying to enlighten you idiots. You all hate the constitution and you hate liberty. You ask for people to save you from yourselves and suffer from some of the worst cases of Stockholm syndrome and Dunning-Kruger effects I have seen in a lot of places. You constantly blame the incorrect idea or object for a problem and screech constant ad hominem attacks on people you disagree with and refuse to critically think about anything while claiming to have an open mind and tolerance.
In America, hypocrisy is the name of the game. Corruption is more than welcome, but only IF that corruption serves you or your ideologies never realizing that shit stacked on lies and deceit come crumbling down sooner or later.
Re: Re: Re:4 So let me get this right....
Well, then you got the government you deserve.
Re: Re: Re:5 So let me get this right....
WE ALL DID!
And it will take us all to change it.
Re: Re: Re:6 So let me get this right....
No use changing it. You deserve it. Now suffer.
Re: Re: Re:6 So let me get this right....
And it will take us all to change it.
But in the end, won’t we still get the government we deserve?
And even after that, if we change yet again, won’t it still be the government we deserve?
Re: So let me get this right....
Periodic reminder: Do not feed "every nation" guy.
Re: Re: So let me get this right....
You retards need constant reminding that you are the cause of this mess. I am already aware that you refuse the responsibility but like everyone with a problem… they first have to admit that they have one in order to solve it.
Made in the USA
So, why are you so opposed to hiring from the USA? Are you saying foreigners are better for the local economy? 90 days is not an “Unreasonable” burden to anyone.
(the Saudi terrorists from 911 were born in SA but were kicked out for being too extreme, Just saying)
Marine Corps Boot camp is 110 days, oh the horror!
Re: Made in the USA
No one is opposed to hiring from within the country. But other countries have people who are skilled in specific areas (e.g., technology), and recruiting those people to come here can potentially improve our country (and its tech sector). That recruiting those people can sometimes be cheaper than training Americans who lack those skills is not lost on tech companies. And yes, that sucks — but until you can find a way to make techbros and CEOs give up their multi-million-dollar salaries so companies can afford to train Americans, cheaper will always be “better”.
Re: Re: Made in the USA
and yet it all President Trumps fault, I see!
Re: Re: Re: Made in the USA
No, it is the fault of a capitalist society that values making as much money as possible, general welfare be damned, over helping as many people as possible live better lives. That a man who represents this idea happens to be in charge is a coincidence.
Re: Made in the USA
It is when the narrow time window during which all of the authorizations which take years to acquire are valid all at once falls during those 90 days, meaning you have to start all over and spend years getting the same approvals you’d just finished getting.
Also, "reasonable" depends entirely on their being a "reason" for the action. If there is
that’s one thing – but in this case, there has been
If you want to convince people that these executive orders are an appropriate solution, please explain what problem it is they solve, and how it is that they solve it, from first principles. If there are assumptions which you’re making and your interlocutors are not making, you’ll need to address those assumptions, and try to explain why you believe your assumptions are valid.
Re: Re: Made in the USA
“properly vetted” that is the key here what was “properly Vetted” is now subject to a different standard now with there is a new admin in Washington DC, like you said, “But other countries have people who are skilled in specific areas (e.g., technology)” the standard for Vetting has changed so the old standard does not apply now.
Re: Re: Re: Made in the USA
Okay, and what are the new standards? What is different about the way America currently vets of immigrants and refugees as opposed to, say, the way it vetted immigrants and refugees during the Obama administration?
Re: Re: Re:2 Made in the USA
I do not know personally, I do not vet them, it’s not my Job. I hired (elected) someone else to do that for me.
Re: Re: Re:3 Made in the USA
“I do not know personally”
So, you oppose the way things are being done, but don’t know what that consists of nor how it’s changed? Why, then, do you oppose it?
“I hired (elected) someone else to do that for me.”
As did the people who voted for his predecessor. So, what was wrong about what has been done before and what needs to be changed? If this issue is important to you, surely you have a reason that caused you to vote the way you did?
Re: Re: Re:3 Made in the USA
I do not know personally, I do not vet them, it’s not my Job. I hired (elected) someone else to do that for me.
So there’s been 40-something days between the original EO and this one. What progress has been made on the new standards, since they’re the main reason according to you?
Curious that we haven’t heard anything on twitter.
Re: Re: Re:4 Made in the USA
It’s not just 40 days. It’s the additional 6-8 months where Trump ways saying that the current standards weren’t good enough and that he had experts, nothing but the best experts, helping him create new ones.
Re: Re: Re:2 Made in the USA
It would be one thing if the Trump administration had said "We don’t think the vetting standards used during the Obama administration are good enough, so we’re going to revamp those standards, and we want to put a hold on people coming in until we’ve managed to do that".
That would at least give the basics of a rationale, and would make it possible to focus the discussion on the proposed revised standards, on whether they make sense, on whether there’s any need to revise those standards at all, and on whether there’s sufficient difference in the standards being proposed for a halt to immigration in the meantime to be reasonable.
But the administration has not done any such thing. To the best of my awareness, they have provided no explanation for why they want to block people coming in from these countries except for a vague and general "because terrorism". That lack of specificity is part of the reason why this is a problem.
The closest the administration has come to saying any such thing, that I’m aware of, has been Trump’s own oft-quoted statements about "we’re going to have extreme vetting" – which, in the discussions I’ve encountered, have almost invariably been followed in short order by someone pointing out that the vetting we’ve had under the Obama administration already is fairly extreme. Without proposals for what kind of vetting they want to replace it with, we can’t evaluate this in terms of vetting people coming in; we can only evaluate it in terms of what its effects and apparent intents are, and that has the results that you see.
Re: Made in the USA
“So, why are you so opposed to hiring from the USA?”
Has anyone stated that they are? I can see people opposed to kicking out people already employed or destroying important parts of their lives while there. But, nobody saying that you shouldn’t also hire Americans.
“Are you saying foreigners are better for the local economy?”
I also don’t see that, but it depends on the economy. Is there a real shortage of people locally? Then hiring a talented qualified person from elsewhere is better than not hiring anyway, sure. Also, not all people are interchangeable. If you have a star Iranian researcher lined up who’s working on something revolutionary, you need him, not some random local grad who happens to have a similar degree. Blocking him will help other economies at the expense of your own.
“90 days is not an “Unreasonable” burden to anyone.”
It is if there’s no real reason behind it on top of all the other vetting they have to go through. Plus, 90 days is not the entire level of difficulty these people are being threatened with. Even after they get into the US, as the example above show.
Re: Re: Made in the USA
“Has anyone stated that they are? I can see people opposed to kicking out people already employed or destroying important parts of their lives while there. But, nobody saying that you shouldn’t also hire Americans.”
By you Own words
Not All Muslim countries are banned, so it’s all good.
Re: Re: Re: Made in the USA
“By you Own words”
Huh?
“Not All Muslim countries are banned, so it’s all good.”
So, screw the people contributing to your society because they’re from the wrong country, but it’s OK to get people from other countries instead? That makes sense to you?
Bear in mind that it’s often the Americans making the decisions to hire foreigners, not the immigrants themselves. That system won’t be fixed by demonising a couple of handy countries.
Re: Re: Re:2 Made in the USA
you stated they could “also hire Americans” well, they are not banning all Muslims either.
I was not born rich, should I be upset that there are Rockefellers because I was not born rich as well?
Should I be upset that I am 6’4″ and not 5’7″, that my eyes are not brown but blue, that is just not fair.
(sounds silly when it’s in another context doesn’t it)
Re: Re: Re:3 Made in the USA
…what in the blue blazing hell do those two things have to do with one another.
Re: Re: Re:3 Made in the USA
I honestly can’t figure out what any of those things have to do with the “also hire Americans” fragment that you quoted.
Re: Re: Re:4 Made in the USA
the reasons the Federal Judges are overturning Presidents Trumps order is because it’s a Muslim Ban. Not because of it being unlawful.
Re: Re: Re:5 Made in the USA
Except it is unlawful because it is a “Muslim ban” — that is, it is an attempt to add a religious test to immigration, which is unconstitutional.
Re: Re: Re:6 Made in the USA
However, it has already been stated that it doesn’t say that, just like “Hillary has never been convicted” See how that works?
Re: Re: Re:7 Made in the USA
Too bad for Trump that he and his administration cronies have actually called it a “Muslim ban”. And that Trump himself said he planned to target predominantly Muslim countries (which both orders did). But I suppose his outright stating the intent of those orders does not matter, huh?
Re: Re: Re:7 Made in the USA
Hillary has never been convicted
Bringing up yet another thing he said he would do, then decided not to because he’s a liar?
Great job you! Way to make a point!
Re: Re: Re:6 Made in the USA
You can lie all day long, but it will not make you right.
A Muslim ban might be illegal if there are laws against it, but it cannot be unconstitutional because the Constitution does not address immigration or the process of citizens ship. That is left entirely to Congress, and in some cases the Executive.
Re: Re: Re:7 Made in the USA
Well that’s a relief.
You should give that judge a call. He obviously needs your advice.
Re: Re: Re:8 Made in the USA
Who said the judge made the right call? If judges made the right decision all the time, we wouldn’t need SCOTUS.
Re: Re: Re:7 Made in the USA
But the Constitution does address religion. In particular, it says (in more archaic language) that Congress cannot make a law which gives any religion, or religious belief, more privileges than any other.
Thus, when Congress makes immigration laws, it cannot privilege one religion ahead of another one in those laws; if it tries, the resulting law will be unconstitutional.
One place where you might be partly right is that it’s not immediately apparent that the constraints of the First Amendment apply to the powers inherent to the executive branch, rather than those which the executive has by way of authorization from the legislative branch; however, I seem to recall that there’s jurisprudence establishing that Constitutional limitations on the powers of Congress (such as the ones in the First Amendment) limit the powers of executive branch as well.
Re: Re: Re:8 Made in the USA
So the judge ruled that because of past statements, this was a religious ban. A ban against Muslims.
Would that judge have the same right to rule against any bombings targeting ISIS or others with exactly the same logic?
The case was brought by an American citizen (which the ban didn’t address) from Egypt (which was not a country affected by the ban.) How did this person even have standing to bring the suit? Because his mother in law couldn’t visit and that made him sad. Making him sad was actually used in the judges ruling.
Hell, the government does a lot of things that make me sad, like taking my money, does that give me standing to sue the government?
Re: Re: Re:4 Made in the USA
It’s probably best to stop feeding him.
Re: Re: Re:5 Made in the USA
yes, it does suck when your circular logic is used against you.
Re: Re: Re:6 Made in the USA
Circular, circular logic! It must be twice as good as circular!
I am actually quite impressed at the level of trolling you deliver. It is rare to see someone so completely ignore others points and still get them infuriated while you remain calm. You may have a future in marketing. I hear Phillip Morris has fired Aaron Eckhart!
Re: Re: Re:3 Made in the USA
“you stated they could “also hire Americans” well, they are not banning all Muslims either.”
Never said they were. You asked why people thought they shouldn’t hire Americans. I said people haven’t said that.
Do you have a point, or are you addressing a fiction again?
“(sounds silly when it’s in another context doesn’t it)”
Yes. Mainly because what you’re saying bears no relationship to anything others have said here.
Why not all Muslim countries?
If you think it’s right to ban all Muslims from entering the country, consider this:
– Somalia is on the list of banned countries. When has a Somali nationalist ever done anything in the US?
– Saudi Arabia is not on the list, even though most of the 9/11 hijackers came from that country.
Could it be because Trump has hotels in Riyadh and Mecca?
– Egypt is not on the list, even though the country has been unstable for a while.
Could it be because Trump has hotels in Cairo?
– Indonesia is not on the list even though they have a huge Mulsim population.
Could it be because Trump has hotels in Jakarta and Bali? Or is it because these people are Asian and not Middle-Eastern?
So why not apply the ban to all Muslim countries?
Re: Why not all Muslim countries?
To be fair, Indonesia and Egypt are relatively minor players in terms of ISIS/Al Quaida sympathies. That you don’t find Tunesia (Jihadist mecca) and Algeria (The home of several jihadist leaders) on the list is a bigger surprise since Afghanistan, Algeria, Chad, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan and Tunesia have delivered some of the most known terrorists in the last decade and are part of the supply-chain of smuggling of humans, guns, oil, metals etcetera across Sahara as well as the homelands of some of Al Quaidas/ISIS’ most coordinated groups. Sahara is where terrorists earn a lot of money and where they can regroup in relative peace. Particularly Libya and Tunesia are interesting as transport routes from and to Africa. The rest are mostly transport states for weapons seeking deeper into Africa and human trafficing away from Africa…
Re: Why not all Muslim countries?
Somalia is on the list of banned countries. When has a Somali nationalist ever done anything in the US?
Ummm, November, Ohio State. a knife and car attack that injured 11?
Using the court’s logic, Trump can only restrict immigration from majority atheist countries. Every country that has a majority religion of any sort cannot be restricted. What a bunch of maroons in the 9th Circus…
Re: Re:
Technically, that would probably get him dinged as well, as atheism (or a general lack of practicing religion) is as protected as the practicing of a given religion.
Re: Re:
Trump can only restrict immigration from majority atheist countries
But then he’d be alienating people that make his ties…
Star Trek
“The good of the few do not outweigh the good of the many, or the one”
Obviously, enough people thought the “Muslim ban” was a good Idea in the states the counted in the last Election.
“You mad bro?”
the level of vitriol in this thread and hypocrisy is astounding no, some things I was referring to were not in this thread, just like there is nothing in the Order calling it a Muslim ban, but that didn’t stop any of you now did it?
You don’t see how this is hypocrisy?
Re: Star Trek
Obviously, enough people thought the "Muslim ban" was a good Idea in the states the counted in the last Election.
Well, not quite. Trump still lost the popular vote, despite what he thinks personally.
Nice try, though 🙂
Re: Re: Star Trek
If the “popular vote” counted, he would have won that as well, but, we Both know it doesn’t just ask Bill Clinton.
Re: Re: Re: Star Trek
Last I checked, Trump lost the popular vote by between three to four million votes. Are you doing “alternative math” now, where having fewer votes actually means having more votes?
Holy shit, Betsy DeVos is working quick.
Re: Re: Re:2 Star Trek
I think he’s referencing the idea that if the popular vote was what counted, Trump would have campaigned differently so as to win that vote – that the reason he only won the electoral college is because that’s the only vote that actually matters, so he targeted his campaigning to the places where it would make a difference, and didn’t bother wasting resources on also winning the popular vote.
Re: Re: Re: Star Trek
If the "popular vote" counted, he would have won that as well
I see – so then 65 million is now less than 62 million.
Typical Trump voter right here folks!
Marginally retarded vocabulary, sucks at math.
Re: Re: Re:2 Star Trek
Now, now. You shouldn’t mock people who are suffering from addition problems.
It’s integral to their recovery that we find a common denominator and look at sum of their feelings as a whole.
Re: Star Trek
As pointed out by numerous other commenters here — not to mention the TRO against the new order — Trump and his administration cronies have said, out loud and on the record, that the intent of both travel orders was to be a “Muslim ban”. Trump himself campaigned on the notion that he would carry out this ban. The order does not explicitly have to say “this is a Muslim ban” if the intent of the order is clear. Trump and his cronies made the intent quite clear themselves; now they have to deal with their own words being used against them.
You have two people. The first one is an extremist that wants to come to this country to kill people, the second one is someone that wants to get the fuck far away from the first person because they don’t agree with the first person and is in fact being persecuted by them.
Do you let both of them in? Do you try to figure out which one is which? How do you do that? By asking?
Personally, I would err on the safe side, and by safe side, making sure Americans are not put at risk.
Re: Re:
What if the "safe side" is recognizing that letting in refugees and others who want to come to America (1) prevents more people from joining extremist groups and (2) helps grow our economy and create more opportunities for peace?
It’s not as simplistic as you make it out to be. Telling anyone not in the US to fuck off is a pretty damn good way to build even greater resentment towards the US. That doesn’t make us safer.
Re: Re: Re:
I would argue that bombing the shit out of them would create greater resentment than leaving them the fuck alone.
Look, we stuck our dick in a bee hive cuz we thought it would be fun and that the bees would like it and we could become their god. Turns out some of those fuckers sting when we do what we want in their honey pot. Now we are faced with some options. Should we:
1) Trump: keep sticking our dick in the hive but put some pants on first (zipper down is ok)
2) Anti-Trump: keep sticking our dick in the hive but make the butt hole available to the bees that seem like they won’t sting
3) Alternative: Stop sticking our dick in the hive and say we are sorry about not stopping when we realized they did not want to be fucked by us
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What is your argument here? The analogy is so far off that it doesn’t even compute.
AQ was left alone in Afghanistan and coordinated 9/11 (which would not be prevented by the politics Trump proposes). Leaving these people alone is not solving anyhing in the short term and it is unlikely to solve the groupings dislike for “the west” even in the long term. Hindsight is 20/20. It is very unlikely that isolationism is going to solve things.
Re: Re: Re:
There are two different arguments, refugees and others who want to come into America. How many do we let in? Everyone? Is there any qualifications to be able to come here or do we let in everyone who wants to come?
Sure, we have done things that have pissed people off and now if given the chance, would kill us. Letting them into the country would be stupid. How do you know which is which? Saying there are already people here that want to kill people doesn’t work, because it doesn’t make sense to let more of them in.
How do you vet someone from Syria? I can’t imagine that we are getting good information from the Syrian government, so how do you ensure that a person coming in is who you want coming in?
It is not an easy issue, but is a 90 day ban really all that bad to ensure the system of letting some in is where it should be.
Re: Re: Re:
Allowing or denying people refugee status has nothing to do with people “joining extremist groups.” The US has plenty of extremist groups that include immigrants and native persons. As we see with other countries, people can move about, get welfare, and still decide to kill a bunch of whatever for doing or not doing something.
Trying to counter simplifications with childish idealism is no solution.
Re: Re:
Or we could follow our own laws and still vet them as we already do.
Re: Re:
Well, there is the two-year vetting process that we already put refugees through, which involves numerous interviews and background checks and whatnot. So I suppose that could be a start…
Re: "Life IS risk. Anyone who says differently is selling something." - The (sorta) Dread Pirate Roberts
Countless things put americans at risk.
Allowing people to drive puts americans at risk.
Allowing people to swim, run, walk and fly puts americans at risk.
Allowing people to use tools puts americans at risk.
Allowing people to own guns puts americans at risk.
Allowing people to smoke and/or drink alcohol puts americans at risk.
Allowing people to eat unhealthy food(or even lots of healthy food) puts americans at risk.
Risk is a part of life, one you cannot get away from, which means the question isn’t ‘How do you make sure americans are not put at risk?’ as that’s simply not possible, but ‘How big is a given risk, what can reasonably be done to lessen it’s impact, and what are the costs to doing so, both to yourself and others?’
Sure there are people in other countries that would be perfectly happy killing a few americans(or anyone not in their ‘group’ really) if they could. Most people in other countries however I’d imagine would be quite happy not killing people no matter what country they’re in, and/or would really rather like to get away from those that do want to do that sort of thing.
Unless you plan on closing the borders entirely, such that no-one is able to enter, there will always be the possibility that someone with bad intentions will come through. Whether that be someone masquerading as a tourist or someone so incredibly stupid that they deliberately put themselves through a process of extensive screening by multiple government agencies that are involved in immigration, the possibility that someone will slip through will always be there.
If closing the borders entirely isn’t an option, and it really isn’t, then the question becomes ‘how do you realistically lesson the risks presented by allowing people to come to the country?’, and we’ve already got processes for that in the form of vetting and screening. You can argue that they aren’t tight enough, or are too tight, but that’s a separate discussion.
The risk is there, you can’t realistically get rid of it, so you should instead focus on ‘What can we reasonably do to lessen it?’