
Sergey Brin joins protest against immigration order at SFO - _pius
http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/28/14428262/google-sergey-brin
======
tptacek
Google employees were very heavily represented on the Never Again pledge a few
weeks ago, more than any big tech company. I've been able to talk to several
Googlers since then, several of whom are now directly involved with Tech
Solidarity. Google takes a lot of shit, and some of it is probably deserved,
but there seems clearly to be a moral core to the people working there.

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.

~~~
panarky
Contrast Google's approach with Uber's.

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.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13510054](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13510054)

~~~
alphonsegaston
Uber also sent scabs to break up the taxi strike in support of the refugees at
JFK. Even shut off surge pricing.

EDIT: Including link to news story as proof:

[https://www.buzzfeed.com/coralewis/deleteuber-is-trending-
af...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/coralewis/deleteuber-is-trending-after-taxi-
strike-against-trumps-refu?utm_term=.kta3nNB8ra#.cvN8mVDBJ4)

~~~
nerfhammer
Shutting off surge pricing... reduces the disincentive to strike. Drivers get
paid more when surge pricing is on.

~~~
tptacek
It was Uber's competition striking, right? Disabling surge pricing when they'd
otherwise have it seems like a way of capitalizing on the strike. That kind of
thing is generally frowned upon in the labor movement.

I'm speculating, though! I don't know much about the Delete Uber thing; I'm as
curious as everyone else is about it.

~~~
akamaka
Surge pricing is often derided as price gouging.

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.)

~~~
alphonsegaston
So by your logic, the strike in support of refugees is an unfortunate event
they're trying to avoid profiting from. And they're trying not to profit from
it by...breaking the strike and advertising that they're doing so?

~~~
akamaka
Like I said, it's a matter of debate as to whether raising prices during an
unfortunate circumstance is ethical.

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.

~~~
alphonsegaston
How ethical raising prices is under these circumstances is not what is at
question. I don't know why you keep raising this.

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.

~~~
ekiru
Why should the taxi union's decision to strike impose an obligation to strike
on others who are not part of the union and had no input in the decision to
strike?

~~~
alphonsegaston
There's no obligation. Just a choice to make about with whom one holds
solidarity. The taxi drivers made a choice and so did Uber.

~~~
ekiru
That's fair.

------
akhilcacharya
Relevant part of his background [0]

>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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin#Early_life_and_education)

~~~
rat87
I'm guessing that Brin like me came to the US as a refugee under the
lautenberg amendment (which applied to religious minorities in the USSR,
mostly jews, also protestants, ect.)

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...](http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Trump-s-refugee-clampdown-
stops-Iranian-path-10889096.php)

------
fowlerpower
Well at least people are pushing back.

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?

~~~
mc32
Executive orders. When Obama rode somewhat roughshod with them, people were
okay with them. They didn't complain. Congress hamstrung the president so,
sure, why not let him have those powers. Now that the other guy is following
suit, oh, no, executive power, abuse of power!

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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> When Obama rode somewhat roughshod with them, people were okay with them.

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).

~~~
mc32
You'll have to kindly point me to all the execs writing "op-eds" about those
times Obama issued executive orders, because I don't recall any.

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.

~~~
skuhn
No, they were not 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.

~~~
Manishearth
See also:
[https://twitter.com/courtneymilan/status/825393465995456517](https://twitter.com/courtneymilan/status/825393465995456517)

Most EOs in the past (incl Obama's) have been about relaxing laws, not
inventing new restrictions.

~~~
skuhn
I think it is worth specifically calling out one of the main points of the
Twitter post you linked: people who are upset about Trump's executive order on
immigration were not necessarily fine with everything Obama ever did.

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.

------
markwaldron
It's great to see someone with this much influence joining the masses to
protest these injustices. I understand these companies have shareholders and
tend to avoid politically charged topics, but in this case, it affects not
only Google's employees but people all over the country.

------
ziszis
Of the five largest tech companies in the world, the CEOs of four of them have
come out against the Executive Order targeting specific immigrants:
GOOG/MSFT/FB/AAPL.

AMZN and Jeff Bezos have strangely been absent even though he was the most
critical pre-election.

~~~
developer2
And? All these companies care about is their H-1 Visas being trampled on.
They're worried about importing cheap labor, and being able to lock that
talent in at below-market wages with their employees being physically unable
to change jobs for fear of being deported.

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.

~~~
akiselev
Right, those evil tech CEOs with their underpaid, poor immigrants. /s

[http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=Google](http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=Google)
\- Median salary: $127,000

[http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=Microsoft](http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=Microsoft)
\- Median salary: $119,000

[http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=facebook](http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=facebook)
\- Median salary: $138,000

[http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=apple](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](http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=infosys)
\- $76,000

[http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=tata](http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=tata)
\- $66,000

~~~
delroth
And median salary is only part of the equation at these large companies. After
~3 years at Google, 30-40% on top of this with yearly bonus + stock is fairly
common. I doubt the situation is the same at Infosys and Tata.

------
johansch
Here's a great photo:

[https://twitter.com/SmellTheTea/status/825577114871140352](https://twitter.com/SmellTheTea/status/825577114871140352)

~~~
refurb
Love that photo. "Do it for the children!"

------
potatosoup
Where were all these millionaires and billionaires when we were droning people
in some of these countries? They all donated to Clinton's election campaign
and under her watch as Secretary of State we dropped thousands of bombs. They
supported the _pro-war_ candidate.

Why is restricting our borders considered so inhumane as to cause an Internet-
wide outcry, while killing people for years hadn't?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
It is one thing to attack another country.

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.

~~~
potatosoup
(deleted)

~~~
ajmurmann
I thought this immigration ban was taking place independent of the visa
process. I understood this ban to happen even for people with valid visas and
even valid green cards. If this was "just" about visas not being granted the
process would be much less of an issue. People would have found out long
before they got to the border and people with existing green cards, etc. would
be fine. But for some reason that couldn't happen and we had to rush into this
half thought through mess.

------
meshr
Something wrong with this world. I wish it to be vice a versa. Brin should be
in the president chair, making America great as Google, and Trump should be
outside joining protest against modernization.

~~~
anjc
Yes, Brin, who campaigns to let in more cheap workers from emerging economies
via H1B should be in charge of America.

~~~
johansch
I really don't think Google is a H1B abuser.

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.

~~~
anjc
Of course I know the type of people Google hire. Google are
irrelevant...Google campaign for an extension of H1B issuances full stop...not
for more just for great companies.

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.

------
dredmorbius
I applaud this and very much wish to see more like this.

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.

------
tn13
Silence of other powerful people today will be remembered by history.

------
known
Inevitable since [https://qz.com/889524/the-us-says-oracle-is-encouraging-
indi...](https://qz.com/889524/the-us-says-oracle-is-encouraging-indians-to-
hire-others-indians-and-its-killing-diversity/)

------
quakeguy
And so should you, go out on the streets, be heard. Don't be ruled, rule for
you.

------
ftrflyr
You all are aware that the past 6 U.S. presidents have done this sort of
thing...right?

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.

~~~
maxander
Obama's version of the move wasn't great either, but it's not nearly a direct
comparison; he temporarily shut down immigration from one country directly in
response to a known and immediate threat, for a set and predetermined period
of time. Trump is trying to shut down immigration from seven countries,
indefinitely, for no particular reason aside from a general sense of feeling
threatened by them. He also, unlike Obama, did so amidst a sea of his own
angry rhetoric implying that the ban was _entirely_ due to Islamophobic
prejudice.

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!

~~~
wvenable
> indefinitely

Actually, it's currently just 90 days. But I agree with the rest of your post.

~~~
euyyn
It's technically just 90 days, but the administration presents it as a "first
step".

------
kareldonk
This is what statism looks like. Hopefully people learn the right lessons
quickly now. Statism is enslavement. Google it.

------
robotresearcher
The constitution only applies to citizens.

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.

~~~
Epenthesis
That's a... heterodox interpretation of things.

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).

~~~
sb057
Shouldn't non-citizen foreign nationals be granted the right to keep and bare
arms, then?

~~~
dvt
They are. My father owned several guns (we used to go hunting) before we were
naturalized (in 2007). I think he owned a .30-06 rifle even before we had our
green cards.

~~~
knz
I believe the 4473 form for transferring a firearm asks residency status and
requires an alien number if you are not a citizen. I'm 99% sure PR status is
required...

~~~
dvt
He bought them from gun shows. In Georgia, all you need is a bill of sale with
the gun's serial number signed by both parties.

~~~
knz
Oh, duh. Private sales don't require a 4473 in my state either. Or does
Georgia not do 4473's at all?

Edit. We both made edits - that makes sense!

~~~
dvt
Haha yep! I'm not sure what the processes is getting it from a vendor.

------
missbit
Jack, take that twitter account away from Trump.

OK, this doesn't have much to do with Brin.

Just saying.

------
ftrflyr
American citizen here:

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

~~~
yongjik
> ... people on the right who are for less government and rule, but respect
> the rule of law ...

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.

~~~
grzm
No matter how wrong you think others may be, please strive to be even more
civil during contentious discussions.

~~~
davesque
I think what he said was entirely appropriate. You don't have to look very
hard to find pretty convincing evidence that Republicans are not the law and
order party that they claim to be. Gerrymandering, obstructionism, racist and
anarchist dog whistling. There's so much there it's hard to know where to
start.

~~~
grzm
You've written a much more substantive and civil comment than did 'yongjik
while raising the same issue. My point was not that the sentiment was
unjustified, but that the manner in which it was expressed was uncivil.
Especially with politics, we need to strive to be even more civil rather than
less so.

