
Microsoft working with Washington State on suit against Trump immigration order - mpweiher
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-microsoft-idUSKBN15E2IY
======
losteric
Amazon lawyers are also part of this suit

------
piker
For the Con Law/Fed Courts/Civ Pro scholars out there: is there precedent for
standing here with a state suing over immigration?

~~~
geofft
IANAL, but the current _United States v. Texas_ case seems to imply yes.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas)

tl;dr if I'm reading right: Texas and 26 other states sued the federal
government over Obama's DAPA executive order. The district court said Texas
had standing and issued a preliminary injunction against DAPA. The court of
appeals also said Texas had standing and affirmed the injunction, and SCOTUS
4-4 did not reverse them. (Alas, poor Merrick!)

------
jdonaldson
Microsoft has a Vancouver office which is set up to handle H1B candidates that
miss the cut on a given year. I wonder if they believe that is at risk as
well.

------
tomohawk
Cubans are trying to escape a repressive regime and face real consequences if
caught or sent back. Obama sides with the regime and starts sending the
refugees back, unilaterally changing longstanding US policy in the last week
of being in office.

All I heard was crickets.

In this case, we have 7 countries already designated as requiring enhanced
vetting due to terrorist concerns.

Suddenly, outrage.

~~~
tzs
I assume you are referring to the ending of the "wet foot, dry foot" policy,
which gave automatic admittance to Cubans who arrived by boat and managed to
get at least one foot on land before being caught, and sent back those who
were caught before they reached shore?

If so, you are greatly overstating the bad effects of ending that policy.

First of all, that was not the only way Cubans could apply for refugee status.
All other paths to refugee status are still open to them. All that is ending
is giving them a special path.

Second, its use had dropped way off over the last several years. Most Cubans
who come to the US without visas, as refugees or otherwise, come over land
through Mexico now. (Cuba has greatly eased travel restrictions).

Third, most Cubans who come over now are not coming as refugees. They are
coming for jobs, or to visit family, or access American welfare programs. In
short, they are coming for the same reasons that Mexicans come. If they use
"wet food, dry foot" it is more likely to be as a way to jump the line than as
a way to escape oppression.

Here's an article from National Review about why this program had outlived its
usefulness: [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429939/cuban-
immigrati...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429939/cuban-immigration-
surge-stop-it-now)

~~~
tomohawk
The Mexican route appears closed

[http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/world/article/Mexico-
return...](http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/world/article/Mexico-
returns-91-Cubans-who-had-hoped-to-reach-US-10871941.php)

------
Dagwoodie
I know this will be unpopular, but I'm so sick of this topic already. Partly
because there has been so much emotion and as a result, misinformation
disseminated as part of this action from the media to social media. First, it
was alleged that Trump was only banning Muslims from countries he wasn't doing
business in. Then, it turns out it's not even a Muslim ban at all, since ~80%
of the world's Muslim population is unaffected, and the countries chosen were
actually chosen by the Obama administration in 2011. Then, there were major
protests that clogged up the airports this weekend, which turned out to be a
Delta computer failure that stranded everyone. Then there is the usual parade
of cries of fascism and comparison to Hitler, when no evidence can be offered
to support those claims. The simple fact is that these 'refugees' have been
spat upon by their own countries, neighboring countries and muslim
brothers/sisters who have turned them away.

They're desperate and someone should help them, but the US doesn't owe these
people anything, so unless we are sending them straight to death camps or
shooting them right off the boat/plane, the twitter-verse is making a lot of
people act like fools by acting like everyone agrees that these people have
all rights outlined in the constitution.

That said, we should help these people as best we can, but a permanent home in
the US for any people that have no love for our laws, our people or
constitution doesn't do them or us any favors by letting them stay
permanently. The question is, who wants to conform to our way of life and who
doesn't? Can we keep inviting everyone in unconditionally before we pay a very
serious price?

~~~
not_debt
Two counterpoints:

1\. Rudy Giuliani is on record as saying that Trump asked how to 'legally'
implement the Muslim ban he promised in the campaign trail, and that this
executive order is the result. Even if the end result isn't a blanket ban on
all Muslims, the intent remains.

2\. International law, and treaties that the US have signed, oblige them to
shoulder some of the collective responsibility for refugee resettlement in the
international community. Banning refugees based on their country of origin
works against that, and may well be illegal.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Curious. Did Trump promise a Muslim ban on the campaign trail? If so, how does
he claim with a straight face that this isn't the Muslim ban he promised? I
mean, what do people expect? He's doing basically what he promised to do, as
racist as that sounds (because...it's meant to be).

~~~
not_debt
Yes, he is recorded on video as saying it, the most mentioned quote being:
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims
entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out
what the hell is going on."

------
melling
It's a 90 day travel ban. How fast can a lawsuit reach the courts? It'll be
over before it goes to trial. I guess it could be ready if the ban is
extended.

~~~
hermitdev
Good luck, Trump's executive order is perfectly legal within his delegated
executive authority, whether you agree with it or not. The only point of
contention is that it's Trump that originated the order instead of when Obama
the same thing with Iraq for 3 months, and Clinton called for something
similar during his 8 years. The countries that are currently (temporarily)
banned are effectively failed states, lack an effective government, or are
effectively hostile to the US, and lack the infrastructure or cooperation to
provide proper background checks for entry into the US. Entry is a privilege,
not a right.

It is not a religious ban, and it's not a blanket ban. Most people so far
delayed have been cleared for entry.

~~~
matthewmcg
An executive agency can be acting within its delegated authority and still be
acting unlawfully. An executive action can't violate the subject's*
constitutional rights and the Administrative Procedure Act bars "arbitrary or
capricious" actions.

Several courts have already found that the ban is likely arbitrary or
capricious. In other words, the order appears to have been made on
unreasonable grounds or without proper consideration.

*Some provisions apply to "citizen" while others, including the 14th amendment, apply to "all persons."

~~~
hermitdev
I think you're referring to Section 1 of the 14th amendment, which does not
apply to "all persons", but only to citizens:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."

People not within our borders that are not also citizens are not within the
US's jurisdiction, and those are not afforded the same protection under the
Constitution.

~~~
matthewmcg
Correct, but keep reading.... "nor shall any state deprive _any person_ of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Also yes, the Constitutional status of foreign nationals in U.S. custody
within and without U.S. territory is a much litigated rabbit hole.

------
imchillyb
If none of these companies hired non US citizen cheap-labor, would they still
be suing? Would they still care?

Cheap-labor is the only reason any of these companies gives a rat's-ass about
the 90day travel restrictions. President Obama signed heavy travel-
restrictions into law in 2015, not a peep from this forum. Not a peep from
Microsoft. Not a peep from Amazon.

But all of a sudden, NOW we care! Yeah right...

\-------

[http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-
adminis...](http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-
administration-chose-the-7-countries/)

\-------

> In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited
> restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or
> Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration
> added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in what it called an effort to
> address "the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters."

> The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by
> those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time
> period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a
> visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of
> the seven countries.

> Under the law, dual citizens of visa-waiver countries and Iran, Iraq, Sudan,
> or Syria could no longer travel to the U.S. without a visa. Dual citizens of
> Libya, Somalia, and Yemen could, however, still use the visa-waiver program
> if they hadn't traveled to any of the seven countries after March 2011.

\-------

Trump's order is much broader. It bans all citizens from those seven countries
from entering the U.S. and leaves green card holders subject to being
rescreened after visiting those countries.

\-------

President Trump may have enhanced the restrictions, but he's not the President
that enacted them. Where were you Armchair Justice Warriors then? You sure
weren't here posting about the -exceedingly heavy- restrictions in 2015. Nope,
not a single one of you...

~~~
slededit
As someone on a work permit at Microsoft, I'm far from "cheap labor".

~~~
geofft
But you _do_ lower the market value of people less competent than you, which
is apparently a problem to such people.

~~~
mavelikara
How?

~~~
slededit
Because if they couldn't get me, they'd be forced to hire the next best person
from my interview cohort. That would reduce the pool available to all the
other companies.

~~~
serge2k
Or keep looking until they find someone else. They aren't just going to hire
someone unqualified. If they find someone qualified they will also try to find
a place for them, because it's hard to find qualified people.

~~~
slededit
Ultimately they need people. At some point they will be forced to hire
somebody. This happens today with C/C++ knowledge. Ideally somebody joining to
work on a massive C++ code base would know the language. 10 years ago it was
practically a requirement to get hired. But very few people are coming out of
university with that knowledge these days.

Interview tip: Come in knowing C++ and your interviewer will be impressed
(assuming the team uses it).

