Tech Companies Continue To Tell Courts To Reject Trump Travel Exec Order

from the speaking-up dept

Earlier this week we noted that 162 tech companies (including us) had signed an amicus brief for the appeal in the 4th Circuit (in Virginia) arguing that President Trump’s travel ban executive order was unlawful. The same group of companies (plus one more — as it looks like Pandora was added to the latest) have filed basically the same amicus brief in the appeal in the 9th Circuit (which is the appeal of the decision in Hawaii that a smaller group had filed an amicus brief on as well). As with last time, people are going to come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories over this, but the fact is this is an issue that matters to many, many people who work at these companies, and the companies have committed to speaking out about it.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Tech Companies Continue To Tell Courts To Reject Trump Travel Exec Order”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

It's just more human failure

Tech execs are not necessarily consciously bad people they just believe woo like uploading our brains into the network and similar stupid, so of course they object to things that are obviously discriminatory mostly because reasons but though insane and damaging to the world at large they are not intrinsically evil

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: It's just more human failure

yes I can see how I was unclear, tech execs though fully on the side of Fascism are not intrinsically evil, they are mostly just not to bright and are deeply confused about reality, so because they do not actually hate Muslims etc, they oppose discriminatory practices, but their net effect on the planet is pretty much destroying the world

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 It's just more human failure

We know the answer to this question, being against fascism and asserting that individual human life has value will get you universally banned from society, all of silicon valley agrees, as well as the three letter agencies, workers for military contractors, senators, congressmen, and media moguls how could all those rich and beautiful people be wrong?

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Even if it is for a good cause, isn’t this type of moneyed influence the kind of thing we should be wary of?

I’m not clear on how this is moneyed influence? Amicus briefs do not involve money. They are third parties weighing in with the court to provide outside perspective and lots of different groups have done so (in fact, it’s probably more common for non-profit/civil society groups to file amicus briefs than businesses).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Amicus briefs do not involve money.

Companies pay gobs of money to these lawyers to advance persuasive interpretations of the law that serve their own interests. This is real power that comes from wealth generated by these firms.

I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but surely you can see how it is undemocratic.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Here’s an example: Bowman v. Monsanto:

You wrote: “Given the fire power that came out in support of Monsanto — including the federal government — it shouldn’t come as a huge surprise that the Supreme Court just gave a complete and total victory to Monsanto.”

A key part of that support were those briefs.

Winston says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

When Mike is referring to “moneyed influence” I think he is referring to traditional lobbying efforts where companies or groups use money to influence members of Congress. Comparing this kind of moneyed influence to filing an amicus brief doesn’t make a lot of sense. The judge who is going to be reading and taking into account the amicus brief is not the beneficiary of that money spent, where as in traditional lobbying the member of Congress is the beneficiary as they are receiving campaign donations and most likely voting on bills on way or another to benefit the highest paying constituents.

I don’t dispute the fact that an amicus brief can influence the decision of a court and if your amicus brief has merit, I would assume it will be taken into consideration. Surely, one can pay a lot of money to a law firm in getting an amicus brief written to support their position but that money spent is not benefiting the court or judge.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

To be fair these companies and this sector is not exactly neutral on this topic, they have a real vested interest in importing cheap(er) labour and open borders for capital so although I think the motivation here is probably not purely financial it’s silly to say they have no interest the politic of immigration are of great importance to tech companies

Digitari says:

Anti American

It’s a shame that so many of you, (that enjoy the freedoms this country has set the standard for) want to put others that come from countries with fewer freedoms, before the citizens of this country. How fortunate for you others are willing to die for your freedom to feel and do this.
The sad part is these same people that do come here will not try and make their own countries better.
Some of them even protest because we are not more like their countries of origin.

I’m not making a judgment per se, I just don’t see what the end result would be that benefits the whole.

Vel the Engimatic says:

Re: Anti American

Did you just completely skip history classes as a kid? Cause I can’t see any other way that you would think like this, or you simply just completely forgot your history classes as a kid. Let me break it down for you.

Allowing foreign nationals from the middle-east is not being anti-American. It never has been, and it never will be no matter how much you try to twist things. Being inclusive of other races and cultures is the main reason the United States truly started to thrive and build. It is because of immigrants that we even have the country we do today.

So the only thing anti-American here, is trying to strip people of the freedom of choice to come here.

The people who want to come here to get away from the shit happening in their own country are doing so because they feel powerless to stop what is happening there. It’s kinda hard to make a united front against a terrorist group who basically came into vogue after Al Queda took a hit when Bin Laden went down.

The people coming here are too scared to face ISIS, and after the shit we’ve seen the past few years since Bin Laden was killed, it’s kinda hard not to see why unless you’re just generally apathetic to the plights of people from other countries. You know, like <b>nationalist who only cares about the country they live in.</b> The truth of the matter is that the majority of the Muslim community in the Middle East (make no mistake, that’s what the ban is all about) are powerless to fight ISIS. They may outnumber them, but how much do numbers matter when the said terrorists have military guns, ammo, and munitions on their side?

The things you say here are completely and utterly thoughtless and made without care.

Digitari says:

Re: Re: Anti American

Please enlighten me as to where I said anything about the mid-east, and also enlighten me as to what benefit the American populous gets from 4th-century thinking, how is that progressive seeing as You brought it up. Yes, legal immigrants are fantastic, but bring folks into the country for cheap labor does not promote progress at all.It hurts everyone, including your standard of living. I’m sorry you feel the need for “immediate gratification”, I could understand a permanent ban, that is not what this is. Maybe you should visit some of the places you are trying so hard to defend, I’ve been around the world, 3 times, in the Military, and never fired a shot in anger once.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Anti American

The ban is not targeted enough.

If you want to ban cheap illegal labour, there are much more targeted and better ways to do it:

– Make it far easier to file for entrance abroad, so as to avoid illegals entering the country.

– Restrict work visas a lot further to reduce the entrance of uneducated/unwanted workforce.

– Actually enforce the existing laws by visiting suspected hosts of illegals and halt their employees activities (this is by far the hardest, but also the only way to get the situation under control if that is the way you want to deal with it)!

If those things do not work, you are not doing it correctly. Banning someone on account of origin is not really dealing with the overacrhing issues of illegal imigrants or fanatic beliefs for that matter. Fanatical beliefs are an issue regarding visa restrictions and law enforcement agencies coordinating.

Tin-Foil-Hat says:

Re: Re: Anti American

I certainly don’t question the right of immigrants’ and the validity of their plight. I question why the only time anything gets done is when moneyed interests are using their influence. It’s more of the same. People in this country deserve to be represented and not only when someone wealthy and influential gives the OK.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Anti American

wow.”trying to strip people of their freedom to come here.” wow.this from someone pointing a finger at another poster as someone who “skipped history lessons”.

Of course you realize foreigners have no “freedom” to come here which can be stripped away in the first place. Entry into the US or any other nation isn’t a freedom or a right foreigners to that nation possess. It is a priviledge which can be withdrawn, suspended as President Trump is doing or qualified by the host country at will.

Maybe you and the sad sacks at the crappy schools you went to who indoctrinated you should read actual laws instead of succumbing to empty globalist talking points and feelz.

Digitari says:

Re: Re: Anti American

yes because Americans like Thomas Paine were so wrong, The immigrants from the past century embracing American society were so wrong.

“But ISIS is scary” the British empire at the time was the dominant military on the planet.

“But they are outnumbered”
only 10% of the population started the American revolution

who didn’t study history?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Anti American

Your making a “there are starving children in Africa” argument while it is true it’s a stawman, allowing people into the country for places “…with fewer freedoms…” is not putting them “…before the citizens of this country…” unless you believe that allowing people to live in not warzones or in conditions of deprivation is putting them before us.

“The sad part is these same people that do come here will not try and make their own countries better.”
Well this is true since most of the people that ARE let in are collaborators against their own countries so like you I regret their treason and even more that we encourage, coerced and demanded that they be traitors.

Digitari says:

Re: Re: Anti American

I have no problem with women and children first, that is the law of lifeboats we are a “lifeboat”(this country). H1B visas are a horse of a different color entirely. Corporations are not concerned with “women and children” in general, they are and always will be concerned with profit. H1B visas are tied to profit, not humanitarianism.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Anti American

Well this is a new argument since the one that started this thread was a jingoistic piece of nonsense, while I agree that corporations are not concerned with ‘Women and children” I would suggest that by your own argument you are also not concerned with them and that you have no oblivious interested in humanitarianism either.
So to use that as an argument now seems false and self serving

Digitari says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Anti American

Of course, you do, because I was so against everything you feel, Sorry but I’ve seen the world, tell ya a little secret no matter how much you want to save the world, the world doesn’t want to be saved.
When you go out and experience it, you will find it to be true.

I admit I am unconcerned, to the point I didn’t have children myself because I know the world. I saw all this coming 25 years ago.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Anti American

“We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold. I remember saying something like “I feel a bit lightheaded; maybe you should drive….” And suddenly there was a terrible roar all around us and the sky was full of what looked like huge bats, all swooping and screeching and diving around the car, which was going about a hundred miles an hour with the top down to Las Vegas.”

your hallucinatory world my have taught you many things but real things about real people seems unlikely you come up with a different argument each time like throwing things against the wall to see what will stick.

I have no idea what makes you think I want to save the world, I never said that, and your not against anything I feel your against making a rational argument and not in a fun drunk way but in a profoundly sad and incapable way and as for seeing it all 25 years ago.. you might have used that time to develop a coherent argument instead of just spouting jingoistic none sense and think of the children idiocy

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Anti American

as if H1B labor flooding tactics were some kind of humanitarian gesture by the likes of Google and Adobe, both caught dead to rights literally fixing wages through highly illegal no poaching agreements.

There is exactly nothing wrong or unconstitutional about suspending immigration from nations Obama singled out as producers of terrorists until we can tighten up our screening process more.

Smells like common sense to everyone outside of globalist coke snorter “visionaries” and SJW leftards.

Anonymous Coward says:

Not clear on how this is moneyed interests? That's because you're 1 percenter steeped in Ivy League corporatism.

1) Corporations are NOT persons; they are legal fictions that request from the public permission to even exist.

2) Corporations are supposed to serve us the public, not invite in foreigners in order to undermine domestic wages.

3) Corporations exist solely to “legalize” presence in public markets, so that a select few natural persons can gain profit without personal liability; therefore ALL that any corporation does is about gaining MONEY.

Then there’s your Freudian slip that these corporations are TELLING another court what to do.

We live under full-blown fascism, it’s just not mentioned as such by corporate-owned media outlets.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Not clear on how this is moneyed interests? That's because you're 1 percenter steeped in Ivy League corporatism.


Look while I don’t think I agree with a bunch of the parent post, a NO YOU! response is unhelpful and verging on ad hominem, it is a legitimate question of why so many tech companies are spending money and signing on

Christenson says:

Re: Not clear on how this is moneyed interests? That's because you're 1 percenter steeped in Ivy League corporatism.

Corporations exist to allow enterprises larger than any single individual to do large projects which are beneficial to everyone.

No single individual could have built many of the things we depend on — who should own the electric company? A giant steel mill? Google?

With stock, they also allow the profits to be spread around.

Now, those are ideals…..not to be confused with corruptions in practice…like Microsoft or Oracle, to name a few of our worse corporate citizens.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Not clear on how this is moneyed interests? That's because you're 1 percenter steeped in Ivy League corporatism.

I am personally unclear why people are so unclear about so many things…

Many things have been built by multiple individuals throughout history before the corporation Rome for instance built an entire civilization with no corporations in about 1000 years, corporations in early America existed to make a method of many (or in most cases several) people to combine their monetary resources to achieve some objective, the Brooklyn bridge latter to become such a joke is actually a good example) to share risk often on uncertain and difficult things, this is nothing like the current managed aggregated HFT that goes on mow, the Romans for all their faults built things that are still in use today aqueducts in Spain and well mostly water related stuff but they did real things and so did the Brooklyn bridge builders I doubt we will be able to say as much for facebook or even IBM in 100 years

Christenson says:

Re: Re: Re: Not clear on how this is moneyed interests? That's because you're 1 percenter steeped in Ivy League corporatism.

The Brooklyn Bridge is a wonderful example of what can be accomplished with a corporation…it is also clearly not the only way to do it.

Not that there aren’t some wierd distortions. Recall Chief Seattle: “You cannot eat money!”. It’s a means to an end..I do like my drinkable water, being able to drive around, not having to worry about polio…and not having to seriously worry about getting murdered when I leave my village.


Re: Re: Not clear on how this is moneyed interests? That's because you're 1 percenter steeped in Ivy League corporatism.

Corporations are not people. They are the opposite of people. They are machines that shield their members from responsibility. They have no intelligence or conscience. Because of current permissive social norms, they are actively encouraged to be as destructive as possible.

Microsoft and Oracle are just tips of the iceberg.

Richard (profile) says:

Unedifying Gesture Politics

This is unedifying gesture politics – on both sides –

Trump made a knee-jerk statement about muslims following the San Bernardino attack. This played rather well in th polls – not surprising since the vast majority of US politicians – esp Obama – still espouse (at least publicly) the fantasy version of Islam which denies its history and attempts to disengage it from all responsibility for violent incidents.
Those who know better supported him (even if they disagreed with him on almost every issue) because for them he was the only show in town.

Now a couple of points about the proposal

1. Even Trump’s original idea would have been ineffective as a practical measure, because the number of Muslims immigrating to the US is tiny compared to those already there.

2. The version actually proposed was clearly designed to be a sop to those who had backed them over the issue – whilst the use of the list of countries already identified by Obama was intended to get it through the legal process. Of course this proposal would have been even more ineffective because the list omits Saudi Arabia (source of the 9/11 attack) and Pakistan (source of the San Bernardino attack). Whilst most of the listed countries have never been the source of a terrorist (unless you include Steve Jobs!).

So Trump’s ban was never ore than a gesture.

Similarly the legal challenges to it are pure gesture politics. Lots of people in prominent political/business positions don’t like Trump and will do anything to slap him down. To my eyes the judgements against the ban look partisan and not an honest reading of the law. Similarly the Amicus briefs look like nothing more than virtue signalling.

True a few people have been unfairly treated because of the ban – but this is mostly the effect of the crass way in which US petty authority operates.

Of course now the same bunch of politicians who opposed the ban and tried to blame Russia for Trump’s victory have provoked him into attacking a Syrian airbase – which turned out to be militarily ineffctive and just added to the toll of human misery in the country.

Anonymous Coward says:

The travel ban wasn’t judged illegal because of banning immigration, as the ruling stated that it was a ban because of religion. Even though there was nothing in the ban that talked of religion, the judge ruled that because of speeches by Trump during the campaign and later, it was a Muslim ban.

Of course, couldn’t someone use this exact same logic to claim that Trump was bombing certain countries because they are Muslims? Could a court rule that his military action is unconstitutional?

Tell me why they wouldn’t be the same?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...