5 ms·

Surely all the tech CEOs also took a stand in 2011 when Obama banned refugees from Iraq. Anyone wanna check that... http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kent

by rdtsc 10y ago

Surely all the tech CEOs also took a stand in 2011 when Obama banned refugees from Iraq. Anyone wanna check that... http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-te...

marklyon 10y ago
Or 2015, when the administration put into place the law [1] that the President is using now. If you read the EO [2], you'll note it doesn't actually list the countries. The list was already in place. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158 [2] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3431228/Extreme-Vetting-EO.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3431228/Extreme-V...
TimJRobinson 10y ago
This is about the blanket ban on immigration from 7 countries, not refugees. This ban includes highly skilled workers who already have visas to work in the USA and will have a measurable impact on the economy and future of the USA.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  It is different, sure, but also similar. Given that there was 0 outrage then and now it is up to 11 something doesn't sound right. For them to care so much about immigration, I am sure they at least wrote a toned-down memo, or sent a lobbyist to have a chat with some Congress-person about it. Also, how many CEOs have been lobbying Obama to end the foreign interference which created the suffering and refugee crisis over the years. I am guessing not too many.
  - TimJRobinson 10y ago
    It's different in that this directly affects their companies. This is hurting their own employees many of whom now cannot return to work and restricting the pool of workers they can hire from in the future. It may only be a little pain now but the more the USA restricts immigration (especially with no regards to actual skills these immigrants possess) the less competitive silicon valley will be with the rest of the world.
batbomb 10y ago
Surely this is a false equivalency.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  It is not the same clearly. But the logic behind it is similar. Moreover there is another idea here and that is looking why are there refugees streaming from those countries. It is not because of a natural disaster, it is not random. It is usually because the West had been meddling there directly and via proxies for many years. Obama has been funding rebel groups in Syria probably with full knowledge there is a revolving door between the "rebels" and ISIS. So I see this sudden "support" from the all the tech CEOs a bit hypocritical. How heavily have they been lobbying the administration the last few decades to end foreign interference? Now that Trump did something stupid (and disallowing people who have H1-B visas, already accepted and so on is stupid and counterproductive), they are all happy to jump on the "take a stand platform".
soneca 10y ago
Very different bans, dont you think?
- adventured 10y ago
  This ban was made possible by the last administration. Obama set it all up, in multiple ways. Few seemed to care when he did it. This sudden outrage is the worst type of hypocrisy. Had these people protested Obama's terrible policies, it would have helped the current situation; Obama might have at least listened to his own voters. Liberals will also suddenly re-discover that they don't like the NSA's vast, intrusive spying powers, after the Democrats in the House and Senate barely said a word against Obama's 10x expansion of such over his eight years. Now that all of that power is in Trump's hands, the protests to come are trivial to anticipate.
  - soneca 10y ago
    So you are saying that as Obama's legislation that allowed this to happen wasn't opposed, people shouldn't oppose Trump's use of it for something they are strongly against? I do not live there or perfectly understand American politics, but that does not seem a very robust logical thinking. I am not sure what group of people you refer as "Liberals", but I remember a lot of people, especially in this forum, opposing NSA and privacy threats very fiercely. So I don't know who exactly did not say a word against it. But even if that is true, I still don't get it. The presidential role in itself has a lot of power on presidentialism (is that a word in english?). So if someone I strongly disagree occupy the presidental role do something that is allowed for a president to do that I strongly disagree I can't protest against it because I have not protested against presidentialism before?

by rdtsc 10y ago

marklyon 10y ago

Or 2015, when the administration put into place the law [1] that the President is using now. If you read the EO [2], you'll note it doesn't actually list the countries. The list was already in place. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158 [2] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3431228/Extreme-Vetting-EO.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3431228/Extreme-V...

TimJRobinson 10y ago

This is about the blanket ban on immigration from 7 countries, not refugees. This ban includes highly skilled workers who already have visas to work in the USA and will have a measurable impact on the economy and future of the USA.

rdtsc 10y ago
It is different, sure, but also similar. Given that there was 0 outrage then and now it is up to 11 something doesn't sound right. For them to care so much about immigration, I am sure they at least wrote a toned-down memo, or sent a lobbyist to have a chat with some Congress-person about it. Also, how many CEOs have been lobbying Obama to end the foreign interference which created the suffering and refugee crisis over the years. I am guessing not too many.
- TimJRobinson 10y ago
  It's different in that this directly affects their companies. This is hurting their own employees many of whom now cannot return to work and restricting the pool of workers they can hire from in the future. It may only be a little pain now but the more the USA restricts immigration (especially with no regards to actual skills these immigrants possess) the less competitive silicon valley will be with the rest of the world.

batbomb 10y ago

Surely this is a false equivalency.

rdtsc 10y ago
It is not the same clearly. But the logic behind it is similar. Moreover there is another idea here and that is looking why are there refugees streaming from those countries. It is not because of a natural disaster, it is not random. It is usually because the West had been meddling there directly and via proxies for many years. Obama has been funding rebel groups in Syria probably with full knowledge there is a revolving door between the "rebels" and ISIS. So I see this sudden "support" from the all the tech CEOs a bit hypocritical. How heavily have they been lobbying the administration the last few decades to end foreign interference? Now that Trump did something stupid (and disallowing people who have H1-B visas, already accepted and so on is stupid and counterproductive), they are all happy to jump on the "take a stand platform".

soneca 10y ago

Very different bans, dont you think?

adventured 10y ago
This ban was made possible by the last administration. Obama set it all up, in multiple ways. Few seemed to care when he did it. This sudden outrage is the worst type of hypocrisy. Had these people protested Obama's terrible policies, it would have helped the current situation; Obama might have at least listened to his own voters. Liberals will also suddenly re-discover that they don't like the NSA's vast, intrusive spying powers, after the Democrats in the House and Senate barely said a word against Obama's 10x expansion of such over his eight years. Now that all of that power is in Trump's hands, the protests to come are trivial to anticipate.
- soneca 10y ago
  So you are saying that as Obama's legislation that allowed this to happen wasn't opposed, people shouldn't oppose Trump's use of it for something they are strongly against? I do not live there or perfectly understand American politics, but that does not seem a very robust logical thinking. I am not sure what group of people you refer as "Liberals", but I remember a lot of people, especially in this forum, opposing NSA and privacy threats very fiercely. So I don't know who exactly did not say a word against it. But even if that is true, I still don't get it. The presidential role in itself has a lot of power on presidentialism (is that a word in english?). So if someone I strongly disagree occupy the presidental role do something that is allowed for a president to do that I strongly disagree I can't protest against it because I have not protested against presidentialism before?