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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: donald trump, executive order, immigration, tech companies, travel ban
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's just more human failure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's just more human failure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's just more human failure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's just more human failure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's just more human failure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's just more human failure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's just more human failure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's just more human failure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's just more human failure
naw, pretty sure it's you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get ready for the reality pill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not about the regular people, which makes it as money influenced as it gets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/12113523062/monsanto-wins-case-seed-patents-plan ting-your-own-legally-purchased-grown-seeds-can-be-infringing.shtml
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.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bowman-v-monsanto-co/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember this discussion next time there is a decision influenced in this matter that troubles you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hackers from Elbonia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti American
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anti American
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anti American
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anti American
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anti American
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anti American
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anti American
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anti American
"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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anti American
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anti American
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anti American
So to use that as an argument now seems false and self serving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anti American
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anti American
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anti American
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not clear on how this is moneyed interests? That's because you're 1 percenter steeped in Ivy League corporatism.
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.
https://copia.is/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sponsors.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not clear on how this is moneyed interests? That's because you're 1 percenter steeped in Ivy League corporatism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not clear on how this is moneyed interests? That's because you're 1 percenter steeped in Ivy League corporatism.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not clear on how this is moneyed interests? That's because you're 1 percenter steeped in Ivy League corporatism.
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not clear on how this is moneyed interests? That's because you're 1 percenter steeped in Ivy League corporatism.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not clear on how this is moneyed interests? That's because you're 1 percenter steeped in Ivy League corporatism.
Microsoft and Oracle are just tips of the iceberg.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not clear on how this is moneyed interests? That's because you're 1 percenter steeped in Ivy League corporatism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unedifying Gesture Politics
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.
https://digitalempire.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/the-missing-tomahawk-missiles-hit-a-nearby-village-an d-killed-innocent-civilains/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unedifying Gesture Politics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i dont believe it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]