The President Trump Immigration Thread

[Dean C.]

Watching the live stream, the Judge is currently smacking down the complaining states lawyers about how the alleged "Muslim" ban only affects 15% of the Muslim population, so how in fact can the complaining states feasibly allege that the travel ban is aimed specifically at Muslims. There is NO way this survives

[video=youtube;DhtmDFSGwyE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhtmDFSGwyE[/video]

 

[KG1]

Watching the live stream, the Judge is currently smacking down the complaining states lawyers about how the alleged "Muslim" ban only affects 15% of the Muslim population, so how in fact can the complaining states feasibly allege that the travel ban is aimed specifically at Muslims. There is NO way this survives

[video=youtube;DhtmDFSGwyE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhtmDFSGwyE[/video]

Nothing in Trumps EO specifically states that the ban has anything to do with a particular religion. No one can make that argument according to the actual wording of the EO.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Watching the live stream, the Judge is currently smacking down the complaining states lawyers about how the alleged "Muslim" ban only affects 15% of the Muslim population, so how in fact can the complaining states feasibly allege that the travel ban is aimed specifically at Muslims. There is NO way this survives

[video=youtube;DhtmDFSGwyE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhtmDFSGwyE[/video]

I'm not so sure. The judges have been very thorough. They gave the WH lawyer just as much grief.

 

[Trigger Time]

I think the govt lawyer sucked

 

[T.Lex]

I think the govt lawyer sucked

I don't know what division is litigating this WA case, but I tend to agree. Either they are that bad, or they're getting bad instructions.

 

[KLB]

I don't know what division is litigating this WA case, but I tend to agree. Either they are that bad, or they're getting bad instructions.

Could they just not be trying very hard?

 

[T.Lex]

Could they just not be trying very hard?

Anything's possible.

Generally, if you don't want to litigate one of the biggest cases in the country, someone else will.

So, no, I don't think that's the issue. But it could be.

 

[Twangbanger]

Well, in the recent past, its mostly been via their mother's womb. From what I see on TV, that's beyond reach of any statute.

As we've now seen, if the mother's womb isn't in the country yet (but is trying to be), it's within the reach of the system.

 

[BugI02]

I thought that was firmly established on August 4, 1961

 

[T.Lex]

So, looking through all the companies that have filed amicus briefs (basically, "friend of the court" briefs to bring a different perspective for/against one side or the other) and there are some interesting names. Since part of the Super Bowl commercial talk was about companies walking the line between political stances, some of these are quite clearly taking a side.

Small list:
Go Daddy
SoundCloud
Fitbit
Akamai Technologies
CREDO Mobile
Quantcast
Groupon

Lots of "new economy" type companies that maybe haven't had the fun of getting smacked in the market for taking a political stand.

 

[KLB]

I still want to see all of the IT consultants that are from these countries. They are not exactly hotbeds of technology.

 

[HoughMade]

So, looking through all the companies that have filed amicus briefs (basically, "friend of the court" briefs to bring a different perspective for/against one side or the other) and there are some interesting names. Since part of the Super Bowl commercial talk was about companies walking the line between political stances, some of these are quite clearly taking a side.

Small list:
Go Daddy
SoundCloud
Fitbit
Akamai Technologies
CREDO Mobile
Quantcast
Groupon

Lots of "new economy" type companies that maybe haven't had the fun of getting smacked in the market for taking a political stand.

Staking out their ground on the "right" side even though they really have nothing to add and no reason to become involved.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I still want to see all of the IT consultants that are from these countries. They are not exactly hotbeds of technology.

Meaning that the people from those countries are idiots who were educated in their local mud hut schools? Don't assume that their national origin prevented their access to education and opportunity.

 

[BugI02]

One thing I don't get is the size of the actual harm the ban causes. I look at that list of seven countries and, out of IIRC 65000 H1Bs, I would bet the number of technical employees is well under 500

None of these companies is really small, either. If they were a small start-up I could see perhaps one critical/crucial person could make all the difference. But it is hard to visualize such a situation at MicroRip or FaceTube, nor am I aware of any cutting edge researchers in bleeding edge areas like AI or machine learning being from the gang of seven

So is it just another form of virtue signaling, a way to push back against a policy they don't agree with? I really think any potential 'harm' is more like an inconvenience

 

[T.Lex]

Check out these companies, Adobe and HP, even.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...hnology Companies Amicus Motion and Brief.pdf

The Amicus brief that they join, which is well researched and written.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/06/17-35105 amicus tech companies.pdf

And ultimately makes the argument that this EO makes it harder for them to recruit and retain talent. The legal argument starts on page 27 or so of the pdf. The first half is more or less marketing. The legal argument is that the ban is "invidious discrimination" which really is a bad thing. Seems like it is easily countered with empirical evidence (if it is available) about the geographic source of security concerns.

It also re-asserts the rational basis test in implementation of the broad executive power to regulate immigration.

 

[foszoe]

Check out these companies, Adobe and HP, even.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...hnology Companies Amicus Motion and Brief.pdf

The Amicus brief that they join, which is well researched and written.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/06/17-35105 amicus tech companies.pdf

And ultimately makes the argument that this EO makes it harder for them to recruit and retain talent. The legal argument starts on page 27 or so of the pdf. The first half is more or less marketing. The legal argument is that the ban is "invidious discrimination" which really is a bad thing. Seems like it is easily countered with empirical evidence (if it is available) about the geographic source of security concerns.

It also re-asserts the rational basis test in implementation of the broad executive power to regulate immigration.

I just canceled 2 laptop orders from HP. One that is in transit will be returned on delivery.

 

[Woobie]

Meaning that the people from those countries are idiots who were educated in their local mud hut schools? Don't assume that their national origin prevented their access to education and opportunity.

I hear all the good programmers come from Syria and Iraq. They start them out debugging remote-activated IEDs. Only the best of the best complete the program.

 

[amboy49]

If this has been asked and answered I apologize. My question is why is Trump's executive order unconstitutional ? That seems to be the question before the 9th court. As I understand it only those without valid citizen status, passports, or visa are restricted for 90 days. Those critical state his is a Muslim ban and don't seem to mention anything about the 90 day portion of the restriction. Why is that ?

 

[Kutnupe14]

If this has been asked and answered I apologize. My question is why is Trump's executive order unconstitutional ? That seems to be the question before the 9th court. As I understand it only those without valid citizen status, passports, or visa are restricted for 90 days. Those critical state his is a Muslim ban and don't seem to mention anything about the 90 day portion of the restriction. Why is that ?

Did the Federal AWB have an expiration? If so, why was it called a ban, rather than simply a restriction?

 

[BugI02]

Byron York: The challenge to Trump's order? It's a lot about money | Washington Examiner