Sergey Brin joins protest against immigration order at SFO
theverge.com
theverge.com
I stick up for Google a lot --- nobody has done more to improve the security of the web than they have --- but they deserve credit for this kind of thing too.
Brin shows up at the protest at SFO. Kalanick makes a self-congratulatory post on Facebook [1].
No Google execs on Trump's "economic advisory group". Kalanick legitimizes policies of hate by joining the group.
People gave Google a lot of shit for their supposedly naive or hypocritical mantra of "don't be evil". Turns out it's genuine and not so naive after all.
EDIT: Including link to news story as proof:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/coralewis/deleteuber-is-trending-af...
I'm speculating, though! I don't know much about the Delete Uber thing; I'm as curious as everyone else is about it.
If there's a shortage of rides in any event, turning off surge pricing is not a way to maximize income. Makes no sense.
Uber has turned off surge pricing in the past during unexpected events (such as the New York bombing), so as to not be seen as profiting off unfortunate events.
This seems to have been done under the same principles.
(Whether one agrees with the policy is not too relevant. The subject of price increases during disasters has always been a controversial one, even before Uber, and that's a debate for game theorists and ethicists.)
Regardless of which choice Uber makes, they are open to criticism. There could have been articles right now about how Uber is profiting because of the strike by raising rates.
All I'm pointing out is that their action is consistent with how they've handled previous unexpected surges which had potential for bad PR.
To be clear, Uber broke a strike in support of the immigrants and refugees, advertising that they were doing so. Taxis drivers stood in solidarity with the immigrants and refugees by halting service in and out of JFK. Uber sent drivers there. Surge pricing was just an implementation detail of their being scabs.
If you want to argue on behalf of Uber breaking this strike, please, go ahead.
It's long been Uber's policy to disable surge pricing during 'disasters' like this, so I'm not really seeing the need for outrage here. Sure, people can be upset that Uber isnt taking place in the strike, but I don't see anything wrong with disabling surge pricing.
Sure, you can prefer that they did strike as well, but theres certainly no obligation for them to and the reaction was too much over the top.
I strongly disagree. Google, like other companies, is very opportunistic and 100% calculating. Standing up for refugees and against Trump is a no-brainer move in Silicon Valley culture, especially when 1000s of others are doing the same and the majority of the media is on your side. There's only upside and no downside for Google and its employees in doing so.
Sergey could have easily used his connections to get a 1:1 conversation with the president. That would have been 1000x more effective than joining a demo at SFO. He still chose the latter because he knew the effect it would have on social media.
Google could use their resources and power to help with other causes and problems whose negative footprint on American society outclasses the refugee problem by orders of magnitude. But why waste any resources on that, since it's not a hot topic in the media and Google's hiring plans aren't affected? Nothing to gain there...
Meanwhile they're getting close and cuddly with Trump's party to secure their political backing [1].
I'm not pro-Trump, in fact I think his refugee ban is beyond crazy, however I'm very deeply suspicious of people / organizations who tout themselves as the good guys ("don't be evil!") and then only stick their head out of their comfort zone when the cause is no-risk and it's ensured that the world is watching.
I tend to agree with the protesters here, but I absolutely agree with you that there isn't much downside for Brin in taking this stand.
I actually think that tech titans like Zuckerberg and Brin may be in a role similar to Hollywood stars in politics, but maybe even worse. Truth is, the H1B visa isn't really a visa that "allows" foreign workers to come to the US, it's a visa that allows corporate HR departments, largely in high tech, to decide who is and isn't allowed to come to the US - and the conditions under which they are allowed to stay. It's a remarkable power, an unacceptable one in my opinion. Although I'd be opposed to this kind of corporate control over the immigration system in general, I think that google showed itself very specifically unworthy of this power through its involvement in the no-poach collusion. But again, this is what I've come to expect - in fact, I'd say it's very naive to believe that handing corporations control over a big wing of th immigration system wouldn't lead to corporate mischief and an erosion of basic human rights for the workers whose lives they control.
If google, Zuckerberg, and so forth lobbied fiercely for greater freedom for immigrants - freedom to choose what they study, what companies they work for (if any), freedom to move... really, just basic human freedom, then I might be more interested in this sort of stand. Otherwise, I tend to be deeply suspicious of their motives the moment they start to speak, because I know they have a political agenda that involves gaining control over the immigration system.
But as it stands, I think that a lot of Silicon Valley "elites" like to wear the halo of being pro-immigrant while lobbying for a program that allows them to determine the circumstances under which would-be immigrants are allowed to come to the US and stay here. Just like the no-poach agreement, they use this to create a workforce that isn't allowed to participate freely in free labor markets, which I consider to be an essential component of basic human freedom.
As you can tell, I don't care for them much anymore. And yeah, this was a personal transformation that took place over decades - there was a time I admired them.
^^ this. I've had a few friends on H1B, and as far as I can tell they're just "stuck" in their jobs, or "forced" to leave the country.
Maybe, there should be an app for finding US citizens compatible "life partners" that would enable the acquisition of Green Cards.
I have heard in University one of my wives' friends wondering if she could marry an F-1 student to help him stay. Never inquired further what happened there...
silly side note: I read your comment as "a friend of one of my wives" and lol'd a little inside.
I think "wife's" is correct... but I'm not a grammaritician
If immigrants are free to decide what to study, where to work, who to work for, what jobs they wish to pursue, and so forth, then SV will have to pay enough to convince them to become software developers in the valley, rather than lawyers, real estate agents, drywall installers, dental hygienists, registered nurses, physicians, and so forth.
It turns out we have an immigration system that does this. it's called, wait for it... immigration, and the US takes 1.2 million people into the country annually under just those conditions.
It turns out that immigrants who are free to pursue their own path in life aren't interested in working in loud, open offices and staring at computer screens for hours a day working on JIRA tickets for the salary that SV feels it should pay.
As a result, SV employers have lobbied for a system that allows them to control who is allowed to come into the country, and the conditions under which they are allowed to remain here. They certainly are not lobbying for any system that would preserve freedom for immigrants.
There's a desperate need for immigration reform, as right now, it's mainly based on family reunification, which leaves a lot of people out in the cold.
But really, seriously, don't look to SV, or Zuckerberg, or Brin, for meaningful solutions. They have an agenda, and this agenda runs through their very secretive HR departments.
https://lobste.rs/s/91ah4l/neveragain_tech/comments/yk8l4o#c...
It's almost a joke for people to sign a pledge about not collecting data that can be used against minorities then support either Google or Facebook in any way. They're probably the biggest threat to them that's existed in a long time if they're compelled to share their data. The billions made on their practices ensures they won't change them any time soon. If anything, they've both gotten worse over time in invasiveness and lock-in. Yet, Never Again people will continue making products/services for Google to help them maintain market share doing more of that Orwell shit they do. Quite the moral core [with associated pay, benefits, and fun job].
Whereas, the immigration claim is believable because it impacts them personally and financially if critical people are immigrants. They have quite a bit of skin in the game. It wouldn't surprise me if they'd fight that.
Not: Google employees who sign the pledge have less moral authority than those who don't.
Rather: Google employees who sign the pledge have less moral authority than people who aren't helping collect data on anyone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqggW08BWO0
I remember watching it knowing it was satire but most of the benefits were still true. I bet the people against discrimination and such at those locations are still coding away at the algorithms and data stores to make it happen. Easier to put your name on something than to make real sacrifices. Do email me, though, when a story pops up that Google or Facebook got rid of all saved data that could be used to hurt unpopular groups all thanks to such people in the company.
Do email me, though, when a story pops up that Google or Facebook got rid of all saved data that could be used to hurt unpopular groups all thanks to such people in the company.
At... your gmail address?
Far as Gmail, I use it as an untrusted drop for potentially-malicious traffic with spam filtering and high-availability. Such a setup burdens them more than helps given free email is a loss leader. Dissidents can send me email from anonymous accounts or set up GPG exchanges where I just know them by a key and alias. I also have a private, Swiss-hosted email for users I've vetted to a degree. I pay for that under vote with my wallet concept. Thinking about moving drop address to Fastmail under same concept since I've heard enough feedback about it basically being as good as Gmail. Altogether, Google currently loses money to host my risky emails with anonymous, GPG-protected email available to those that want privacy. Looks morally neutral.
I really don't understand why someone like you who is evidently seriously against surveillance and who values privacy would give Google more ammunition to do that.
So, we start there. I'm currently quite poor with a need for reliable email for business leads. Of the free ones, Gmail is the most reliable. Of the evil companies, Google does more beneficial things than most like with Android & Chrome which we can modify for privacy. My tradeoff, based on pragmatism, is to support the lesser evil to get what I need while going out of my way to ensure people worried about their safety can contact me anonymously & encrypted. This is until I find a Gmail equivalent. Fastmail is best alternative in terms of uptime & performance per comments I've read but also in Five Eyes territory under mass surveillance. I've gotten to the point, esp seeing turn of events in Switzerland past year, that it's best to assume all email is under mass surveillance by governments, that many cooperate on persons of interest, and possibly with any encryption keys compelled out of them. And we work from there with or without email as the medium with focus on anonymization or end-to-end crypto.
Like I said, I'm currently evaluating better options that preserve Gmail's benefits without the surveillance aspects. I've seen a lot of inexpensive, private products (including email) disappear over time with trouble for their users. The recent DDOS attacks also factor into my decision where only the groups with the biggest pipes can take it. Hence, using one such provider as a temporary storage/relay for overall email process. I'm curious what providers you know of have long track record for great uptime, great privacy policies, low cost, and mitigate DDOS attacks we've seen recently. No startups because they disappear all the time.
I've heard good things about ProtonMail, but have not looked deeply in to it.
I'm not sure if there are many good, truly privacy-respecting means of communication on the internet, that aren't a gigantic pain in the ass and don't severely limit who you can securely communicate with (such as, for example, using GPG with a fully vetted web of trust). I also don't have much faith in encryption in the long run. As long as there's a record of your communication, it could be cracked at some point by someone. So I wouldn't place much trust in even the most paranoid digital communication, unless I was forced to. For anything really sensitive, I'd prefer non-electronic, more traditional and primitive means of communication.
Appreciate the feedback. Looking more and more like what I'll switch to as interim solution.
"For anything really sensitive, I'd prefer non-digital, more traditional and primitive means of communication."
This is what high-security engineer Clive Robinson and I been recommending for years now. The only exception is one-time pads on air-gapped machines if you can exchange and protect the pads. The OTP version of Tinfoil Chat combined with that would have very, strong INFOSEC. Still prefer personal communications or messages through trusted people.
Note: The elites that scheme against us all have kept their secrets using couriers and physical meetings with people of aligned incentives. Most effective model of private communication in history. Add bug sweeps or other mitigations these days.
>They formally applied for their exit visa in September 1978, and as a result his father was "promptly fired". For related reasons, his mother also had to leave her job. For the next eight months, without any steady income, they were forced to take on temporary jobs as they waited, afraid their request would be denied as it was for many refuseniks. During this time his parents shared responsibility for looking after him and his father taught himself computer programming. In May 1979, they were granted their official exit visas and were allowed to leave the country.[12] At an interview in October 2000, Brin said, "I know the hard times that my parents went through there and am very thankful that I was brought to the States."[17]
>In the summer of 1990, a few weeks before his 17th birthday, his father led a group of high school math students, including Sergey, on a two-week exchange program to the Soviet Union. His roommate on the trip was future Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor John Stamper. As Brin recalls, the trip awakened his childhood fear of authority and he remembered that "his first impulse on confronting Soviet oppression had been to throw pebbles at a police car." Malseed adds, "On the second day of the trip, while the group toured a sanatorium in the countryside near Moscow, Brin took his father aside, looked him in the eye and said, 'Thank you for taking us all out of Russia.'"
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin#Early_life_and_edu...
Before the USSR collapsed people had to first go to neutral Austria to apply. Afterwards you didn't.
In 2004 Iranian Religious Minorities(Christians, Bahai'i, Jews, Zoroastrians) were added, in the last few days the Austrian office shut down (for how long?) seemingly leaving these Iranians high and dry.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Trump-s-refugee-cla...
What was starting to worry me is that many of the top CEOs were all kissing Trumps ass as to who can bring back more jobs. They were stumbling over themselves, "we are bringing 10000 jobs in the next 2 years".
There needs to be a lot of vocal people against this, immigrants are one the weakest groups in society. Trump just deomstrated and confirmed this.
What I don't get, and maybe someone can explain it, why isn't this un-constitutional? It feels like banning people, people who are perfectly legal not citizens but still legal, based on their religion is against the constitution. Am I missing something? Wasn't this country started by people looking to escape religious persecution?
There is huge information asymmetry at play here that just cannot be communicated through the media, social media or a hn post.
Or as I would say to a second grader, if you want to understand things your cousin in college is talking about put in 10 years of work. If the internet gives you the impression that everything that you can't make sense of is one ted talk/one reddit ELI5 post away, that's just wrong.
This expectation has to change. Otherwise we end up with more and more people who don't understand the work it takes to know anything deeply.
Don't expect others, to do your work for you. This includes 'starting' or 'understanding' anything beyond ELI5.
It's unconstitutional for many reasons, one of which is that the executive has no authority to block the entry of legal visa and green card holders without due process.
And yes, it deals a massive blow to the rule of law and faith in the stability of the nation when legal visitors and immigrants are blocked from entry due to an arbitrary dictate from POTUS.
Nothing against Obama, I voted for him, but I find it a bit odd that because the new guy is the opposition suddenly it's a constitutional issue whereas before cuz it was our guy we let it pass.
It reminds me of the dissonance in some Calexiters --the same people who mourned Brexit. It's only good when you do it.
"The petitioners have a strong likelihood of success in establishing that the removal of the petitioner and others similarly situated violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution"
Accuracy of the characterization aside, no they weren't.
> They didn't complain.
Yes, they did. All the time. Even sued to overturn a number of them, in some cases successfully.
> It reminds me of the dissonance in some Calexiters --the same people who mourned Brexit. It's only good when you do it.
More accurately, people think content matters (for legislation or executive orders), not just the style of action, and context matters (for exiting a larger union).
It has not been uncommon for past presidents, incl. Obama, to issue immigration bans or pauses for certain groups of people. You can argue the immediacy or the reasoning, but the results to travelers were similar.
Obama did not ever ban hundreds of thousands of valid green card or visa holders from re-entering the country where they currently reside full time. Which has also -- effectively -- made those still in the US subject to an exit visa.
As a result, he also did not sow mass chaos by springing a poorly communicated status change on people in the air coming to a country that had already provided them with documents for entry.
Most EOs in the past (incl Obama's) have been about relaxing laws, not inventing new restrictions.
If it meant we could get Trump out tomorrow, I would gladly vote for Obama a third time. Still, Obama did a number of things while in office that I strongly disagreed with -- and a lot of things that I strongly agreed with. It turns out that life is complicated.
The number of EOs don't matter. What's in them matters.
The problem is only when said executive actions are either a) ultra vires (beyond the power that the law grants to the executive to make these decisions) or b) completely insane. In the case of this particular executive order, it may well be both.
Would you see nothing wrong with segregation, Jim Crow, and slavery? All of those were perfectly legal in the United States at one point.
AMZN and Jeff Bezos have strangely been absent even though he was the most critical pre-election.
Trump on Bezos:
"Amazon is getting away with murder, tax-wise. "[Bezos has] got a huge antitrust problem because he's controlling so much. Amazon is controlling so much of what they're doing," Trump said, describing Amazon as a "monopoly" and complaining that "the whole system's rigged."
"Believe me, if I become president, oh, do they have problems. They're going to have such problems."
http://fortune.com/2016/05/13/trump-attacks-amazon-ceo-jeff-...
https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/703296870521528320?ref_sr...
Seems like he's trying to keep his head down to avoid retribution.
Until we have reasonably well-connected people advocating against the ban, without having any ulterior motive, these PR stunts we're seeing are quite sad.
I don't understand anyone who sees tech CEOs as being central to this kind of debate, as if they have any pull with the general population. Their only followers are us geeks. They don't hold any major weight with the population at large. Sadly, you need "popular" politicians and Hollywood actors on one's side to make any kind of dent.
http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=Google - Median salary: $127,000
http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=Microsoft - Median salary: $119,000
http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=facebook - Median salary: $138,000
http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=apple - Median salary: $120,000
Most of the people in America make a quarter of that. For a family of three or four. Compare the above to:
http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=infosys - $76,000
http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=tata - $66,000
Though I understand the need for discussion about the effects of technology over the workforce.
Why is restricting our borders considered so inhumane as to cause an Internet-wide outcry, while killing people for years hadn't?
The trouble that strikes at home always feels more important than the trouble that strikes far away.
Many people have friends who are immigrants or are immigrants themselves. Few people have friends living in those countries.
What worries me personally is what if this border closing stuff escalates further and further. I'm here on a visa and my country is not on the list, but who knows what they might come up with.
Especially considering the rumors that they're asking questions about allegiance to the regime and checking social media.
Hello future border agent waves
If you're fine with the Executive Order, fine, but please engage more constructively and civilly.
I think his point stands, these refugees didn't appear in a vacuum. It is not a natural disaster or act of God. It was mostly due to destabilization efforts from the West. Wonder what the historical record is of these CEOs lobbying Obama to stop bombing or supporting "rebels" in those parts. I think it is worth having that discussion...
Now I think it a pretty bad decision to prevent Green Card holders to re-enter. I was one for many years, I can imagine how it feel being denied entry.
As for the historical record, we can't do anything about what has happened in the past now. We can learn to do better. I know I'm not perfect and have things I can improve, which means I'm going to have to change and as a result be inconsistent with my past actions. It's true that some people are insincere and continue to be inconsistent and fair weather civil libertarians or what-have-you, but it's also the case that sometimes it takes a serious kick to mobilize people, and once mobilized they remain so. And if those that aren't consistent happen to align with me on an issue I care about, I'm not going to turn them away if it means that a temporary alliance helps a cause I care about. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt as long as is reasonable.
You might disagree with the logic above, but I don't think you'll be winning any arguments by pointing out that it's just "a rhetorical technique".
One thing I want to get out of the way: I personally don't align very well strictly Democrat or Republican. I actually think it's unlikely that anyone aligns perfectly with one or the other. I also find this type of bucketing problematic because it reinforces this us versus them polarization that, among other things, prevents people from seriously considering that they may actually agree with some of the things people on the "other" side might believe.
As for deflecting criticism, as you call it, I'm not sure what realistic alternative there is. One would be to say, for example "oh, you're right! I was so wrong all those years! I should have been doing more!" That's tough for anyone to come out and say. How often do you hear someone actually say that? More likely people will shift their stance and act on it. It would be great if people would come out and say this. Accusing them of hypocrisy (as opposed to more constructive encouraging a change in behavior) makes it even harder for people to do so.
Another alternative could be to flip it around and point out where those who are accusing them of hypocrisy are themselves hypocritical. And assuredly there are cases of this. No one, much less a party, is so self-consistent to be immune from such criticism. But would that be constructive? I don't think so. That would only further polarization and increase the divide, each side thinking the other all the more unreasonable.
I'm sure I'm missing other alternatives here. Feel free to suggest your own.
I completely agree with you regarding the level of disbelief and bad faith that's currently abundant. How do we get beyond that? At some point if you're not willing to believe people at their word, can you at least believe their actions? You may, for a while, think they're insincere while they go about doing things that you might actually agree with, but if they continue to do so, even if you don't believe their sincerity, does it make sense not to work with them, at least on the projects that further your goals and don't require you to compromise on any of your other goals?
As for virtue signaling, 'tptacek had a very insightful comment on this today (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13512522):
Serious question: have you noticed how there's no way to level that accusation without feeling like a jerk? It's because it's hard to accuse someone of doing something good for the wrong reason without behaving like a jerk.
There's more, and I think the whole thing is worth reading.
I honestly don't know how to bridge the gap, to reduce the polarization we're now experiencing. I do believe that continuing to act in bad faith, to obstruct and name-call is definitely not going to help.
If you don't think this gap can or should be bridged (and I don't mean "convince everyone to agree with me"), feel free to dismiss everything I say. If there were a way on HN to hide all comments from a particular member, I'd encourage you to block me, as that's really all I'm about.
For one, there's genuine concern now that the next step will be action against "internal dissidents" or "malcontents" or "nonconformists" - or whatever language this administration decides to use against people who protest actively, or even just on FB and Twitter.
There's already an internal no-fly list. How happy will voters be when friends and family start appearing on it because they criticised the administration?
For another, freedom of movement - within the limits of immigration and the visa system - is a basic human right. With this action Trump has crossed the line from party politics to an attack on human rights in general. That's a protest-worthy step change in itself.
Finally, there has actually been quiet but steady agitation against foreign wars all the way back to 2003. (If not before.) It's never been as high profile, and it's been considered a "far left" effort.
The Democrats in the US are an unfortunate amalgam of incompatible interests, and there's always been a solid pro-war core of financial and political opportunists in the party who are consistently at odds with the ethical position of many mainstream D voters.
If "people see this as virtue signalling" that's up to them. I don't think they do, because this level of protest is unusual.
And also, to point out the glaringly obvious, it's not as if talk of building a wall or locking out people with green cards can't be even more easily dismissed as virtue signalling itself. For some reason the right seems to believe virtue signalling is purely a left wing pastime - which is a curious conceit, and is clearly incorrect.
I think we as commenters on HN should hold ourselves to a higher bar.
Pointing out hypocrisy changes the conversation in a way that avoids discussing the relative merits of an argument. It doesn't invalidate the original argument - it's just that, rhetoric.
For example, I'm sure there were other hypocritical posts today. Isn't it hypocritical to try and fight hypocrisy by commenting on specific political points in a discussion but not others? (please dont take this argument seriously as I'm just offering it as an example of rhetoric)
It's like a game theory problem. Rhetoric becomes meaningless: there needs to be a track record that shows that you cooperate.
That's why hypocrisy is invoked in the debate; rather than an argumentative tool, I see hypocrisy accusations as "flags" that say "I can't cooperate because of your low credibility"
If this sounds harsh, I sincerely apologize.
I did suggest we are all smart enough here that we can have rich discussions without committing clear logical fallacies. HN is special in that the majority cares about thoughtful discussions and reasoning. Because of this I often read the comments in HN before the article, where historically the signal to noise ratio is quite high.
There are plenty of other forums for rhetoric or fun conversations.
But demonstrating against Trump when he proves their worst fears (including being anti Muslim in the dumbest of ways possible) is "virtue signaling" somehow?
I think you need to take a break and work on your Logic 101.
Proof?
"...If we kept the oil you probably wouldn't have ISIS because that's where they made their money in the first place. So we should have kept the oil, but OK. Maybe we'll have another chance."
---
Where were they during the 2006 Secure Fence Act? [1] Where were the vast protests when Obama pushed through the NSA data sharing policy during his last days in office? Violate the liberties of hundreds of millions of people, and they don't bat an eyelash.
It's not very productive of course, to only point out that so many liberals are extreme hypocrites on civil liberties. Democrats won't get my vote until they can act consistently on such, including against their own President. The effort now should be on encouraging the left to remold itself strictly when it comes to protecting civil liberties again, rather than turning a blind eye when it's convenient. There needs to be consequences for Dem politicians that support/ed the abuse of civil liberties, whether now or in the recent past (as so many of them have).
[1] https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/01/27/in-2006-demo...
It is completely another to attack your own country.
Right now American liberties and values are under attack from a rightist presidency. I'm selfish, give me the latter over the former any day of the week.
I really can't judge why we do stuff abroad, but I can totally see what is happening in front of my face.
At the same time the Democrats wanted my vote for Clinton against Trump (I voted for neither). One of the lesser reasons Trump is President, is that vast hypocrisy by the left on civil liberties. It does matter. Clinton was a war hawk that supported bombing only Muslim countries (she supported bombing something like eight different Muslim nations in the last 15 years; but I'm to believe she's not anti-Muslim) and overwhelmingly anti-privacy, she isn't getting my vote on the argument that she's the lesser of two devils. Sanders by contrast, has historically been very consistent on civil liberties for decades, and I'd have considered voting for him.
Shit in my yard, I care a lot about that. There is nothing hypocritical about expecting your country to look out for your interests, while other countries can look out for the interests of their own citizens and residents.
This is nothing about "party". Bush would have never done this, neither would McCain and Romney have been so stupid if they were elected. No, this transcends republican and democrat to a new level of damaging politics unseen since the 1930s.
You only care because of who's doing it.
The mass immigration problem is there because of the consistent, bad, misguided, systematic intervention the US committed in the last 30 years in the middle east. Most of the immigrants this executive action is screwing over are leaving their country because of the results of US intervention.
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/us...
Well, from the point of view of Trump's supporters, that's what Trump is doing - making things difficult for people who are not American citizens.
not even an ability to understand what the problem is
Do you really, honestly believe that so many people are completely unreasonable? If so, what do you think the path forward is? Do you write all of these people off? What do you do with them then?
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I think Trump is the problem. I think the problem is that people aren't willing to look beyond some of their differences to work towards the goals they have in common.
Though from you comment, it's not clear to me what you consider the problem to be. Would you elaborate?
Once you're at the point where you no longer consider others reasonable, you're effectively stuck. You can't reach them, nor are you open to being reached by them. This is a position from which no civil progress can be made. I'm willing to accept such a position with only the greatest reluctance.
You're putting words into my mouth.
I completely agree with your assesment:
"About a little of a year ago, when I worked in a lab, some of my colleagues routinely laughed and mocked Trump and boasted how he had no chance in hell (as well as fueling fire with continued patronage of sites and news that gave them more of the same "entertainment" [in their words]), and no amount of me pointing out to them the environment that enabled a such a persona to exist/rise to fame/power should be the topic of conversation rather than on the team $x circus ring leader de jour."[0]
>Anyone who is out there protesting now but would have been cool with Clinton doesn't get it.
Part of me thinks that, just some (most?) people never will. It seems like there will always be those who are quick to believe those who will pander to them only to be sold out for later tbd date or possibly in the same transaction!
Faux diametric ideological battle field lines are being drawn stateside (and arguably globally) and led by the same people that have benefited and continue to do so from the status quo, and we are expected to Coke and Pespi this and most take up such role willingly…
I'm taking the wait and see approach: if people are as fired up and eventually willing to fight and kill each other, might as well take the practical route as P&G did during the civil war and sell metaphorical glyceryl trinitrate to both sides and wait for the dust to settle while lurking in the shadows of the madness.
When he ran, he ran on a platform to do good by America and Americans --none of the world shaping vision other presidents had (which then led them to foreign interventions which then lead to people calling America imperialistic and other tangling messes). So, it should be of little surprise he does not care very much about non-Americans (I think he takes that belief literally) and will try to deliver on it.
When the ACLU gets involved, I don't even see the "American" part of the civil liberties in there. I mean, good on them for caring, but at the moment it's doing work on behalf of foreign nationals, rather than Americans, directly.
While this may affect some friendships and relationships for Americans the impact is indirect.
Where is this policy affecting the civil liberties of American citizens? Obviously it's affecting some foreign nationals negatively.
> "The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...
In that particular case the court was referring to illegal aliens, not permanent residents, who logically would be at least as protected.
Arguably Saudi Arabia and Pakistan need to be added to this list.
This order wouldn't have prevented 9/11 or any of the recent attacks. This order isn't designed in any way to protect our security. Frankly, I have no idea what it was meant for, but our country feels like it is under attack from the Trump administration.
I don't think Trump is doing stuff at random here.
>But among the jackals, the panthers, the bitch hounds,
>The apes, the scorpions, the vultures, the serpents,
>The yelping, howling, growling, crawling monsters,
>In the filthy menagerie of our vices,
>
>There is one more ugly, more wicked, more filthy!
>Although he makes neither great gestures nor great cries,
>He would willingly make of the earth a shambles
>And, in a yawn, swallow the world;
>
>He is Ennui! — His eye watery as though with tears,
>He dreams of scaffolds as he smokes his hookah pipe.
>You know him reader, that refined monster,
>— Hypocritish reader, — my fellow, — my brother!
We could spend endless hours debating the the gray areas of warfare, but that discussion aside, that is essentially the answer to your question.
If I invite someone to live with me and they stay for ten years, it is not evil for me to kick them out afterwards.
> If I invite someone to live with me and they stay for ten years
If you sign a contract saying they're allowed to live with you for ten years, and kick them out after 3 years, I would argue that it is evil (not to mention illegal).
I can think of several reasons. I don't necessarily think they are all good reasons.
1) U.S. bombings are seen as a good-faith effort to stop terrorism, based on intel etc.
The current executive order seems more like a rash decision based on xenophobia and poorly implemented (in the early hours, border officials were giving confused and contradictory info on whether green card holders were affected, etc.)
2) The collateral damage from the bombings, added up over a decade, has probably been hundreds of innocent civilians' lives in some of these countries. This is upsetting but distant.
On the other hand, the collateral damage from this executive order is that 500,000 expats living in the US can't leave the country, or are stranded outside the country. For American "coastal elites", myself included, these are not remote people but our friends, coworkers, professors. Everyone in my social circle seem to have at least a second-degree connection to someone from Iran.
3) The current executive order threatens the standing of the communities "coastal elites" are part of: top American universities, Silicon Valley, the medical community, etc. These institutions are world-class due in no small part to how welcoming they are to foreign talent. That could change if the smartest around the world start heading to universities, hospitals, and companies in Canada or Germany instead...
The core word here is mistakes. No one knows what the right way to react to a international crisis is (though the argument for complete military non-interventionism gets stronger every time a military intervention just makes things worse...).
You have to distinguish between decisions made in good faith that backfire (or perhaps the alternative would have been even worse?), and malicious decisions like what Trump is doing
How not? Just the fact that it made news in outlets like nytimes and guardian means that people did care and feel outraged. Things that people don't care about aren't read.
But you're correct the outrage wasn't aimed at Obama. Why? Because there's a difference between a president that acknowledges there's complexities to immigration and refugees, and works on a compromise, and one that seems to treat anyone from the Middle East as of no moral value.
How did Obama make that decision not to follow his promise on crossing "red line" by Assad? What were the pros and cons for that decision? How can we be sure that it were not purely U.S. internal politics arguments for giving up? Questions like that do not allow us to forgive mistakes: they force us to hold the governments to account.
And questions like that are asked and answered? Obama had good reasons for not following up on that threat. Read, for example, theatlantic's 'Obama Doctrine' article. It was never obvious that a heavier US intervention in Syria would help the people in Syria at all - in fact, history suggests that the opposite.
On the other hand, it's hard to imagine how the US refusing refugees would make the Syrian situation worse.
Drone strikes stats can be seen at https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/dron...
This is whataboutery, and you're also trying to reduce serious issues to the shallow dichotomy of American political parties. Don't do that.
America's economy benefits from bringing some of the best brains in the world here. If America screws that up, other countries will be happy to accept smart workers and students.
I, for one, would(or would have before Trump) gladly worked even for 66000 $/year in the US, considering I'm currently making 1/5th of that in my home country. And it would be advantageous for me and would not see myself as a slave - people go there using H1B because it makes sense financially. And there you go, saying you're against H1B because you want to protect those people from what they want to do? The argument doesn't make sense! Just say already you want to protect your wages and don't hide behind "good will".
Of course it's rational for people to go to the US on H1b visas. I would be of the exact same opinion as you in this sense.
This isn't the issue though. One of the issue is the abuses that are occurring due to companies ability to hire many H1B workers at the expense of their own. Another issue is that large corporations are practically dictating government policy on visas. None of these are right imo.
And these are not the issues I'm attacking. I'm arguing against the self-richeous statements of some people that are against H1B visas because of the poor poor immigrants that come here[there] to earn such low salaries. They care about their own salaries, and that's fine, but just say so. In my post, I didn't take an issue with protectionism (although I don't agree with it either, even if I were either side of the border) but name that as your reason, don't hide behind a false one.
No, it doesn't mean that.
The bucket companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon or Microsoft are trying to hire from is the highest skillset. The supply is so short that starting salaries out of college are 6 figures; the situation is gentrifying the whole Bay Area. There's no way random shady company X can abuse any of these candidates, nor treat them like slaves, rather the opposite.
The other end of the H1B spectrum, these companies aren't interested in hiring. Their shareholders wouldn't want to spend a dime lobbying to extend those buckets.
I know all this from my own experience going through the process.
They are very much not in the low-to-medium end sysadmin/"IT person" consulting business.
The mere fact that you don't already understand this honestly kind of makes me wonder what you are doing here.
Unless, of course you are really against importing very competent people that will have high salaries, pay a lot of tax and be great benefit to the US, just for the selfish reason that it doesn't drive up your own salary... even more?
Let's just say there are quite a few smaller wannabe "Silicon Valleys" outside of the US that are picking up steam. If your government will continue to behave this erratically they will be quite happy.
The abuses and pitfalls of these visas are open for you to examine and you should be aware of them if you're in the industry...there have been numerous studies on wage suppression, graduate unemployment, numerous court cases, instances of mass-firings, large displacement, etc.
I'm not a US citizen and don't live in the US so my salary is irrelevant.
That's from someone who finds plenty of opportunity to criticise Google. Including presently for the company's support of the GOP, now a de-facto fascist party. Yes, I'm aware the situation's a complex one, and Google isn't a garage operation any more.
Regardless: thank you, Sergey.
Obama last did it in 2011.
The hypocrisy here is that because Trump did it, it is wrong.
We are a nation of laws and in order to maintain law and order, we must follow those laws. The minute tech companies (let's not be obtuse here, corporations are in the business of making money and appeasing shareholders) decides they are either for or against certain laws, well...you have anarchy.
This has nothing to do with denying rights to immigrants and everything to do with the far lefts disproval of the elected president of the United States.
Obama Admin banned processing applications from Iraqi refugees during a 6 month period [1]. They did not ban approved refugees from entering the US.
Obama Admin never banned permanent residents aka greencard-holders married to US citizens from re-entering the US because they held Iranian passports. The current executive order does. Doesn't matter if they are completing a PhD in Computer Science at Princeton and flew to Canada for a conference. They can now be refused entry for not breaking any laws. The smartest, most-hardworking immigrants and non-immigrant student-visa holders will instead choose Switzerland, Germany, and other places because of blanket bans like this.
1. http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration...
So, yes, the POTUS can deny rights to humans in all sorts of ways and no one will complain- we're far from perfect. But that he's denying human rights from outright bigotry is especially unacceptable.
Meanwhile, tech companies can decide they're for or against whatever they want- according to the (heinous) Citizens United decision, corporations are people now, and entitled to their political opinions just like you and me. It's not anarchy, its capitalism!
Actually, it's currently just 90 days. But I agree with the rest of your post.
Private companies can't protest about unfair laws? Really? That's not the same as disobeying laws.
You can find plenty of examples of more conservative companies opposing left-wing laws.
Edit: apparently I was mistaken. It applies to 'the people' of the US, which is anyone with 'substantial connection' to the US and under US jurisdiction. Green card holders would seem to be pretty clearly of 'the people' then.
Of course, it's a damn shame to treat any legal immigrant or legitimate asylum seeker this way. Seems to be absolutely against the long standing traditions of the country.
The vast majority of the constitution makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens subject to American jurisdiction (the exceptions, of course, being for voting and holding office).
Edit. We both made edits - that makes sense!
OK, this doesn't have much to do with Brin.
Just saying.
I was denied a entry visa into Paraguay left to be stranded in Brazil. I barely made it to my grandmothers funeral. I had to call the embassy and spend several days in limbo. I understood that I was powerless because I was not a citizen of Brazil nor Paraguay. I wasn't entitled to representation by either country nor would they provide it.
I was jailed in Mozambique for refusing to pay a bribe at the border. I did not expect nor receive any special treatment. This is the way things are.
I overstayed my visa in Chile by less than 24 hours, was forced to remain at the border between Argentina and Chile for the day and threatened with jail. I did not fight and riot nor protest. Why would I? I need to follow the laws of the country I am in.
What we have here is a nation so divided that you have people on the right who are for less government and rule, but respect the rule of law and people on the left who have no regard for the law and demand more regulations and laws.
Disappointing
Because things are laws is the reason the US has been able to maintain its democracy (constitutional republic) for as long as it has. So yes.
Picking and choosing what laws you want to follow based on how popular or pc they are is why Hillary lost and is why we have sanctuary cities and is why welfare wiped out the American family.
It's a good thing not all laws are enforced equally. Otherwise most of us apparently would be on jail because of obscure, old laws that were never revoked.
Also, how did the welfare state destroy the Martian family?
Have you ever been outside the US? Edit: nvm saw you were the same poster who talked about their border experience in other countries. There goes that prejudice of mine.
People who are legal permanent residents of the US, with lives and jobs here, are being denied entrance.
Since we all love Godwin's law, those people who man the gas chambers in Nazi Germany were also respecting the rule of law. I'd rather be on side of good and decent than have respect for an unjust law.
Godwin's law...try listening to some Freedman - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCnxOICRtLE It might do you some good.
Poor reading comprehension; I did no such thing. It was merely a very strong counter-example to your idea that one should not question the rule of law.
Please don't make the thread even worse.
Protesting and reaching out to the people affected by actions like this is absolutely within the bounds of American civil society's responsibilities.
The right has just elected this guy into WH:
> "Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said.
"Respect the rule of law," my ass.
Well, I'd like to think our little exchange made things a little better. I know it helped reinforce for me that people can step back and reflect, which it's easy to lose sight of. And figuring out ways to do so is increasingly important.
see e.g. - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio... . one can parse words but the whole thing seems clearly intended and specifically designed to make laws with respect to people of a specific religious faith, contrary to the First Amendment.
authorizing torture, proposing Muslim registries, intimidating the media, threatening to send troops to Chicago, bullying companies to score PR points ... all of these things, if Obama had done them, some would have said it was incipient dictatorship. it's plain as day that this Administration falls on the authoritarian end of the spectrum, not for 'less government and rule'.
The only reason I can see why this was done in this fashion, side stepping regular process as if some disaster wag imminent is so that our new president can own this news cycle and make his fanatic voters happy.