5 ms·

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 job

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?

pavanky 10y ago
ACLU is challenging this. Read the thread about a stay order from a Federal Judge: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13511348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13511348
- gagmaker 10y ago
  how ironic! Brin's parents escaped communists from Soviet Russia and his son 35 year later marches with the communist-founded organization...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
jusq2 10y ago
Yes you are missing a lot. But you aren't alone. Everyone else is too. This is becoming a characteristic feature of the internet. There is huge information asymmetry at play here that just cannot be communicated through the media, social media or a hn post. Or as I would say to a second grader, if you want to understand things your cousin in college is talking about put in 10 years of work. If the internet gives you the impression that everything that you can't make sense of is one ted talk/one reddit ELI5 post away, that's just wrong. This expectation has to change. Otherwise we end up with more and more people who don't understand the work it takes to know anything deeply.
- mejari 10y ago
  You managed to write a lot about the fact that they are missing something, but didn't even provide an avenue to help them start to try to understand.
  - jusq2 10y ago
    Intentionally. Historically if you want to learn something you have to prove you are worthy of being taught. One comment expressing interest in the matter is not enough. This is the route Trump took to his overconfidence in all matters. There are lots more people who think they are worthy to be taught than people who are. The internet and khan academy isn't going to change that distribution. It's fundamental to nature. Look around at your own families, classrooms and workspaces. Not everyone has the capacity to understand the problem on the blackboard let alone solve it. And such people shouldn't be misled into believing they are contributing when they cant. I'll leave it to Bruce Lee to sum up - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC7XGATDfAo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC7XGATDfAo
  - rtsy 10y ago
    And you failed to understand, that you have to pay your dues. Don't expect others, to do your work for you. This includes 'starting' or 'understanding' anything beyond ELI5.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- scottmmjackson 10y ago
  I actually did put in the work, however, and I agree with parent. You also don't become an authority by pretending you're some mystic wise man without saying anything of substance. It's unconstitutional for many reasons, one of which is that the executive has no authority to block the entry of legal visa and green card holders without due process. And yes, it deals a massive blow to the rule of law and faith in the stability of the nation when legal visitors and immigrants are blocked from entry due to an arbitrary dictate from POTUS.
mc32 10y ago
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.
- aaronbrethorst 10y ago
  It's a constitutional issue because it's a constitutional issue (Due Process and Equal Protection). Not because it's the "new guy."
  - mc32 10y ago
    It's a constitutional issue in some sense (executive orders --but Obama was pretty much unchallenged) due process? Tell me which country will grant me (a foreigner to them) due process upon denial of entry into their ports of entry.
    - aaronbrethorst 10y ago
      No, it's a constitutional issue in the sense that it's a constitutional issue: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3437026/Darweesh-v-Trump-Order-on-Emergency-Motion-For.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3437026/Darweesh-... "The petitioners have a strong likelihood of success in establishing that the removal of the petitioner and others similarly situated violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution"
    - nindalf 10y ago
      Its not unconstitutional to issue Executive Orders. It is unconstitutional to deny equal protection of laws to green card and work permit holders. Or at least, a Federal Judge thinks there is a strong enough case to issue an injunction to this particular Executive Order. I had no issues with the other orders that Trump issued, fwiw.

pavanky 10y ago

ACLU is challenging this. Read the thread about a stay order from a Federal Judge: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13511348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13511348

gagmaker 10y ago
how ironic! Brin's parents escaped communists from Soviet Russia and his son 35 year later marches with the communist-founded organization...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

jusq2 10y ago

Yes you are missing a lot. But you aren't alone. Everyone else is too. This is becoming a characteristic feature of the internet. There is huge information asymmetry at play here that just cannot be communicated through the media, social media or a hn post. Or as I would say to a second grader, if you want to understand things your cousin in college is talking about put in 10 years of work. If the internet gives you the impression that everything that you can't make sense of is one ted talk/one reddit ELI5 post away, that's just wrong. This expectation has to change. Otherwise we end up with more and more people who don't understand the work it takes to know anything deeply.

mejari 10y ago
You managed to write a lot about the fact that they are missing something, but didn't even provide an avenue to help them start to try to understand.
- jusq2 10y ago
  Intentionally. Historically if you want to learn something you have to prove you are worthy of being taught. One comment expressing interest in the matter is not enough. This is the route Trump took to his overconfidence in all matters. There are lots more people who think they are worthy to be taught than people who are. The internet and khan academy isn't going to change that distribution. It's fundamental to nature. Look around at your own families, classrooms and workspaces. Not everyone has the capacity to understand the problem on the blackboard let alone solve it. And such people shouldn't be misled into believing they are contributing when they cant. I'll leave it to Bruce Lee to sum up - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC7XGATDfAo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC7XGATDfAo
- rtsy 10y ago
  And you failed to understand, that you have to pay your dues. Don't expect others, to do your work for you. This includes 'starting' or 'understanding' anything beyond ELI5.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
scottmmjackson 10y ago
I actually did put in the work, however, and I agree with parent. You also don't become an authority by pretending you're some mystic wise man without saying anything of substance. It's unconstitutional for many reasons, one of which is that the executive has no authority to block the entry of legal visa and green card holders without due process. And yes, it deals a massive blow to the rule of law and faith in the stability of the nation when legal visitors and immigrants are blocked from entry due to an arbitrary dictate from POTUS.

mc32 10y ago

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.

aaronbrethorst 10y ago
It's a constitutional issue because it's a constitutional issue (Due Process and Equal Protection). Not because it's the "new guy."
- mc32 10y ago
  It's a constitutional issue in some sense (executive orders --but Obama was pretty much unchallenged) due process? Tell me which country will grant me (a foreigner to them) due process upon denial of entry into their ports of entry.
  - aaronbrethorst 10y ago
    No, it's a constitutional issue in the sense that it's a constitutional issue: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3437026/Darweesh-v-Trump-Order-on-Emergency-Motion-For.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3437026/Darweesh-... "The petitioners have a strong likelihood of success in establishing that the removal of the petitioner and others similarly situated violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution"
  - nindalf 10y ago
    Its not unconstitutional to issue Executive Orders. It is unconstitutional to deny equal protection of laws to green card and work permit holders. Or at least, a Federal Judge thinks there is a strong enough case to issue an injunction to this particular Executive Order. I had no issues with the other orders that Trump issued, fwiw.