
MIT files amicus brief concerning executive order restricting travel to US - technologyvault
http://news.mit.edu/2017/amicus-brief-executive-order-restricting-travel-us-0215
======
mhneu
This brief is interesting because of the MIT president's personal engagement.
Rafael Reif is a Venezuelan immigrant who has been moved to speak out against
an immigration ban . Reif understands the immigration issues well as a Jew
whose ancestors were refugees to Venezuela, and who has watched his home
country disintegrate under Chavez.

~~~
ue_
What's happening in Venezuela is indeed saddening, and I say this as a
Communist.

------
rebootthesystem
I applaud the move. Yet it is important to put all the cards on the table.

I can't help to be bothered by what could pass of hypocrisy at various levels.
The article explains that 40% of MIT's grad students are "international". This
means MIT's problem is a BUSINESS problem. At well over $50K per year per
student the university-as-a-business (rather than an altruistic entity) is
concerned about a drop in revenue should immigration policy change. Let's not
pretend this is all about good intentions, pink unicorns and ice cream. This
is a business fighting for their revenue sources. And they have every right
--even the responsibility-- to do so. I respect that. No issues there so long
as everyone is honest about it.

The other problem I have with all of these articles/arguments is this image
being painted that the US would be dumb as a rock if it weren't for the influx
of immigrants. I'm sorry, I don't buy that one bit. We already have great
talent in this country. What we don't have is affordable schools (and books,
etc.). A school like MIT (don't mean to focus on them, pick any school) can
charge exorbitant tuition to foreign-born students and make millions. And the
students pay for it. Not so with us-born students. Particularly given the
state of the economy, unemployment, etc.

This idea that we better let-in hordes of immigrants for fear of not having
businesses launched or any innovation is, well, repulsive. That would mean we
are a wasteland of a country, and need to be rescued by immigrants, which
clearly isn't the case.

This isn't to say immigration isn't good. I am not anti-immigrant at all. That
would mean being against what allowed my own family to LEGALLY come to the US
eons ago. No. My problem is with the fear-mongering that goes along with these
arguments. It's dishonest and unnecessary.

It is OK to say we want immigrants because they are important to our continued
cultural and economic growth. It's OK to say we want refugees because it is
important to continue to define ourselves as a caring and socially conscious
people. These things don't need to be embellished with "if we don't let
immigrants in nobody is going to start companies, no jobs will be created and
no innovation will be had". Sorry, immigrants don't have a monopoly on this.
And they sure as heck don't have magical powers. We have lots of very capable
and creating people already in the country. Let's don't diminish them to
dumber-than-a-rock status.

As for MIT and other universities. They should be honest and say "we are going
to lose a ton of money because we make a killing with foreign students". I can
respect that. They are, after all, businesses.

On the other hand, if MIT had no foreign students and charged a LOT less for
tuition it would be full of wonderful, capable, creative and eager-to-
contribute US residents. The problem is very few can justify spending over
$200K on a university education today. That's what these universities are
trying to protect.

~~~
pm90
Most grad students do not pay full tuition, period. Many US students, and I
would imagine those who get accepted to MIT most likely, qualify for NSF
grants which cover the cost of graduate education. So your argument that MIT
is acting as a "business to maximize its profit" is not very convincing.

I agree with you that some of the positions might be a bit extreme: the US is
most certainly capable of producing highly qualified researchers,
entrepreneurs etc.

Edit: One more point I would want to add is that currently, US universities,
and the US itself, is seen as a very desirable place to live and do research.
This might change if the country institutes a policy of (implicit) religious
discrimination.

~~~
lkowalcz
Most NSF grants and the like are for PhD students (the university still
welcomes the funds they bring in, but they are a relatively small portion of
income).

Universities make much more money off their Masters students, most of whom are
international, and pay full tuition (or someone does for them).

~~~
WildUtah
* Universities make much more money off their Masters students, most of whom are international, and pay full tuition (or someone does for them).*

It's a scam.

The Ph.D. is the real graduate degree in US schools. If you get a MS, people
who know the system expect that you flunked out in quals (it's the parting
gift for those that couldn't handle the work). Terminal MS degrees at serious
schools are just outright selling prestige to the naïve.

A MS from MIT or Stanfurd is much, much less prestigious than a BS degree from
the same school and requires less academic rigor.

~~~
pm90
I'm sorry, but your understanding of Masters degrees seem to be dangerously
misinformed. There is a wide spectrum of MS degrees offered by US
universities, from leading-to-PhD to Professional-degree-for-Software-Devs. I
agree there are some who "flunk out" their quals and leave with a Masters, but
the selection process for a PhD is stringent enough that this is a very small
minority of all MS degrees.

Personally, a research oriented MS degree allowed me to work closely with a
researcher and contribute to that research leading to paper publications and a
thesis. The goal of the program seems to have been to allow people to get a
taste of doing research and then move on to a PhD program if they found that
appealing.

------
beedogs
Impeachment cannot happen quickly enough.

~~~
gozur88
There aren't any grounds for impeachment, and even if there were you'd have to
convince an awful lot of Republicans it's warranted.

 _And_... "President Pence".

~~~
RijilV
two words: Gerald Ford.

~~~
gozur88
Good luck with that.

------
DannyBee
This is nice, but the thing that is going to hurt them massively here is
standing issues. All of the harm to the plaintiffs in these cases is very
attenuated compared to direct lawsuits from people affected.

The current 9th circuit one has a large chance of getting reversed on standing
issues (en banc most likely), and honestly, probably should be.

Past that ,the real best hope is that folks like Thomas, et al will ask
"remind me again why, if the constitution gives this power to congress, you
believe it's okay for congress to give all of it to the executive branch"

But that seems unlikely. More likely roberts decides he doesn't want to be on
the wrong side of history.

~~~
elastic_church
> remind me again why, if the constitution gives this power to congress, you
> believe it's okay for congress to give all of it to the executive branch

Do you really want to hinge your case on Congress' ability to delegate power?
I mean that COULD be a fun court case if you want to have it and make it a
constitutional issue, because the whole executive branch, and the executive
branches of every single state, would be ripped to shreds :D

1 million unemployed in the federal government, upwards of 15 million in the
states!

but thats only possible if you believe the Supreme Court's rulings are based
on a strict understanding of the constitution they are all reading, or if it
is based on the past of least resistance. (its the latter)

the above argument has a thin chance of surviving in 2017

~~~
cderwin
This case already happened, specifically in reference to immigration, 70 years
ago: see Knauff v. Shaughnessy[0] (1950).

> The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do
> so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive
> power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. When Congress prescribes
> a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone
> with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.

[0]:
[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/537/](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/537/)

~~~
DannyBee
Yeah, i'm aware. But there's a lot of cases where the constitutional power has
been handwaved into existence, and then snuffed out x years later. ;)

------
redtree
I want to mention the fact the Elon Musk actually supports the Travel ban, but
maybe because he has govt contracts with NASA, and wants more contracts and
money. Sad to see him stoop to that level.

~~~
redtree
salty?

"Please read immigration order. Lmk specific amendments. Will seek advisory
council consensus & present to President."
[https://t.co/qLpbsP4lEk](https://t.co/qLpbsP4lEk)

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 29, 2017

you know what this sounds like.. "Where in the world does it say that it is
un-constitutional, show me proof"

try to read between the lines..

now please send me into a downvote oblivion

~~~
mikeash
Why read between the lines when you can just read? For example:

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/825502618680045568](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/825502618680045568)

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/827924171661377536](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/827924171661377536)

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/828280866451374085](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/828280866451374085)

He doesn't like it, but he thought that specific suggestions for changes would
help to mitigate the damage.

