3 ms·

It's great to see Uber come out so publically against this travesty of a Presidential executive order. It's a despicable act and all Americans should be ashamed

It's great to see Uber come out so publically against this travesty of a Presidential executive order. It's a despicable act and all Americans should be ashamed of what's happening. That said, it's interesting to see a company that has regularly ignored the law to build their business dive into the fray. They've also employed many of the same tactics of bullying, just like Trump. Perhaps that's what we need? Perhaps the DNA of fighting and ignoring regulations will come in handy...I just wish it didn't have to. The whole thing is just sad.

edblarney 10y ago
"It's a despicable act and all Americans should be ashamed of what's happening." I think it's rather arrogant to assume that your moral position is 'what all Americans should think or else they are immoral'. I'm weary of the executive order myself ... but it's not entirely irrational to temporarily ban entry of people from nations that are in open conflict and from areas wherein the only 'governance' is that of a jihadist entity. Except Iran - all the others are serious conflict zones, wherein many participants would gladly act against the USA. Have you looked at a political map of Libya or Yemen lately? Scary stuff. What is 'despicable' is the wailing and misrepresentation of the issue across the board. If Obama were to have done this after a terrorist attack (say, a 'shooting' in Cali or whatever) - and it was done quietly and reasonably so that those with green cards etc. would be allowed in - and so that people 'on flights' would not be affected, I don't think there would be such a huge fuss. I believe that after 90 days, most of those who would be coming to America will still be coming in. This will de-facto boil down to a unnecessary political disruption ... but it's both fair and within the bounds of responsible reason to recognize the fact that Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Iraq etc. are very dangerous places, much more so than most places, and that some extra precautions are possibly necessary. I don't really support it, but it's not out of bounds for people to think it's necessary. Iran though - that's purely political (admittedly, it's probably all political). Jihadis don't come from Iran.
- dkarapetyan 10y ago
  The influx is the refugees fleeing the conflict. These are exactly the people that we want to support because they are peaceful and are not contributing to the conflict. In those 90 days lives that could have been saved might be lost all because we have a moron in charge. Inaction is not acceptable and fighting this thing tooth and nail is the right thing to do because historical precedent says it only gets worse from here.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    I agree with your sentiment. But 90 days will not put anyone's lives at risk. The 'waiting process' for most refugee claimants trying to enter the US is years. This idea you might have in your mind of 'people running from Aleppo with their luggage onto airplanes' - is just not how it works. Refugees to the US come mostly from refugee camps, where they have been living a long time. Also - the vast majority of Syrian refugees go elsewhere - as America (unfortunately) does not take on very many refugees, relatively speaking. In the end, there actually might be some process/security adjustments that need to be made. You know the 'no fly list' - that ridiculous 'name based' thing? If you have the same name as a jihadi - you can't fly! It's crazy - and also insecure. Who knows, maybe they'll fix that? I would urge people to keep the details in mind, and to keep things in perspective. If I thought people were going to be 'dying' over this, I'd be wailing. But they won't. It's just some temporary, crude regulation.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      You keep writing as if this act applies only to refugees. That would be bad enough: empirically, virtually none of those refugees are threats to American citizens, and the evidence that those refugees are threatened in their home countries is unimpeachable. Our feckless policies with regards to refugees are a stain on our history and our standing in the world. But, of course, these policies do not simply apply to immigrants. So many green card holders have been stranded as a result of Trump's ill-considered, bigoted executive order that large companies are having to run war rooms to handle their stranded employees: see, for instance, Microsoft's all-hands announcement to their employees, 76 of whom are impacted by the order. You write both stridently and confidently about this issue, in several places on the thread, in some of your messages going so far as to chide other commenters for their thoughts on it. But you yourself do not seem well acquainted with it.
- tptacek 10y ago
  The premise of your comment is that there is a significant risk that the people this ban impacts are likely to commit acts of terrorism in the United States. But of course, that's simply false. Armed toddlers kill approximately ten times more people in the US every year than foreign-born terrorists do. In 2014, more people died falling out of bed, by a factor of almost 2, than in every mass shooting in the country, terrorist or otherwise. Since we know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of immigrants to the US are not in fact terrorists, and that the incidence of terrorism is so low, and that the overall incidence of people coming to the United States from the countries singled out by this executive order are so high --- many orders of magnitude higher --- simple statistically literacy tells us that the ban is irrational and should be evaluated primarily on its moral and precedential terms. But that's besides the point. As the Washington Post reports, this EO was put into effect without consultation with the DOJ or DHS, and apparently without vetting by the President's own OLC. As a result, it bands lawful permanent residents of the United States. Something like 3/4 of the foreign-born spouses of American citizens don't have citizenship but instead simply retain their green cards, and this act prevents many of them from returning to their families from overseas --- so many that big tech companies have had to run war rooms in their HR departments to figure out how to deal with stranded software developers and other employees. No principled American of any ideology can look at this situation and believe it's acceptable.

edblarney 10y ago

"It's a despicable act and all Americans should be ashamed of what's happening." I think it's rather arrogant to assume that your moral position is 'what all Americans should think or else they are immoral'. I'm weary of the executive order myself ... but it's not entirely irrational to temporarily ban entry of people from nations that are in open conflict and from areas wherein the only 'governance' is that of a jihadist entity. Except Iran - all the others are serious conflict zones, wherein many participants would gladly act against the USA. Have you looked at a political map of Libya or Yemen lately? Scary stuff. What is 'despicable' is the wailing and misrepresentation of the issue across the board. If Obama were to have done this after a terrorist attack (say, a 'shooting' in Cali or whatever) - and it was done quietly and reasonably so that those with green cards etc. would be allowed in - and so that people 'on flights' would not be affected, I don't think there would be such a huge fuss. I believe that after 90 days, most of those who would be coming to America will still be coming in. This will de-facto boil down to a unnecessary political disruption ... but it's both fair and within the bounds of responsible reason to recognize the fact that Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Iraq etc. are very dangerous places, much more so than most places, and that some extra precautions are possibly necessary. I don't really support it, but it's not out of bounds for people to think it's necessary. Iran though - that's purely political (admittedly, it's probably all political). Jihadis don't come from Iran.

dkarapetyan 10y ago
The influx is the refugees fleeing the conflict. These are exactly the people that we want to support because they are peaceful and are not contributing to the conflict. In those 90 days lives that could have been saved might be lost all because we have a moron in charge. Inaction is not acceptable and fighting this thing tooth and nail is the right thing to do because historical precedent says it only gets worse from here.
- edblarney 10y ago
  I agree with your sentiment. But 90 days will not put anyone's lives at risk. The 'waiting process' for most refugee claimants trying to enter the US is years. This idea you might have in your mind of 'people running from Aleppo with their luggage onto airplanes' - is just not how it works. Refugees to the US come mostly from refugee camps, where they have been living a long time. Also - the vast majority of Syrian refugees go elsewhere - as America (unfortunately) does not take on very many refugees, relatively speaking. In the end, there actually might be some process/security adjustments that need to be made. You know the 'no fly list' - that ridiculous 'name based' thing? If you have the same name as a jihadi - you can't fly! It's crazy - and also insecure. Who knows, maybe they'll fix that? I would urge people to keep the details in mind, and to keep things in perspective. If I thought people were going to be 'dying' over this, I'd be wailing. But they won't. It's just some temporary, crude regulation.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    You keep writing as if this act applies only to refugees. That would be bad enough: empirically, virtually none of those refugees are threats to American citizens, and the evidence that those refugees are threatened in their home countries is unimpeachable. Our feckless policies with regards to refugees are a stain on our history and our standing in the world. But, of course, these policies do not simply apply to immigrants. So many green card holders have been stranded as a result of Trump's ill-considered, bigoted executive order that large companies are having to run war rooms to handle their stranded employees: see, for instance, Microsoft's all-hands announcement to their employees, 76 of whom are impacted by the order. You write both stridently and confidently about this issue, in several places on the thread, in some of your messages going so far as to chide other commenters for their thoughts on it. But you yourself do not seem well acquainted with it.
tptacek 10y ago
The premise of your comment is that there is a significant risk that the people this ban impacts are likely to commit acts of terrorism in the United States. But of course, that's simply false. Armed toddlers kill approximately ten times more people in the US every year than foreign-born terrorists do. In 2014, more people died falling out of bed, by a factor of almost 2, than in every mass shooting in the country, terrorist or otherwise. Since we know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of immigrants to the US are not in fact terrorists, and that the incidence of terrorism is so low, and that the overall incidence of people coming to the United States from the countries singled out by this executive order are so high --- many orders of magnitude higher --- simple statistically literacy tells us that the ban is irrational and should be evaluated primarily on its moral and precedential terms. But that's besides the point. As the Washington Post reports, this EO was put into effect without consultation with the DOJ or DHS, and apparently without vetting by the President's own OLC. As a result, it bands lawful permanent residents of the United States. Something like 3/4 of the foreign-born spouses of American citizens don't have citizenship but instead simply retain their green cards, and this act prevents many of them from returning to their families from overseas --- so many that big tech companies have had to run war rooms in their HR departments to figure out how to deal with stranded software developers and other employees. No principled American of any ideology can look at this situation and believe it's acceptable.