10 ms·

Elon Musk seeks “specific amendments” to recommend to Trump on immigration order

33 points by BinaryIdiot 10y ago

astrodust 10y ago
By "specific amendment" he should be saying "throw it out". This policy is misguided and evil from the ground up. If this program had been in place twenty years the number of terrorist attacks it would have prevented is zero.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  Saying "throw it out" isn't productive. Trump won't back down because that means admitting a loss. You get to, in the short term, choose between a substantial win (finding a better middle ground) and a feel-good victory (saying "screw you" and living with this policy).
  - jasonvorhe 10y ago
    The only winning move is not to play. Interacting with Trump's government, unless necessary for legal reasons, is stupid and makes it harder for everyone else to publicly denounce the current government.
    - sremani 10y ago
      Musk is a CEO of multi-billion dollar companies, disengagement for 4 years is not a thing, not with the US government. An activist can tune-out and entrepreneur has to adapt.
      - yarou 10y ago
        It's also a skill to engage with people you disagree with on certain issues, or even if you dislike them personally. These are basic life skills people. Edit: s/work/engage
      - astrodust 10y ago
        He's in a tough spot, but he's also got cards to play.
  - Retra 10y ago
    It should be productive. When you make a mistake, you should be able to admit it, fix it, and live with it, and if Trump had any leadership ability, he would do just that. And gracefully.
  - techterrier 10y ago
    The logic of the appeaser.
    - Noseshine 10y ago
      I would argue the other logic of hammering Trump blindly is the logic that doesn't care about the issues it claims to care about nearly as much as about "feeling good" on a childish level: The main goal seems to be to make Trump angry and not to solve any of those issues. For another example, it's not exactly news that calling Trump supporters (and Trump himself) names does not help, yet that still is what a lot of anti-Trump comments seem to concentrate on. It doesn't help, it doesn't change anything, but it's a main feature of the discussion. Most people on the side of "logic" don't follow logic, they go by emotions. If you cannot remove that president or the people who elected him, and you can't (you don't even have the means to get rid of them, so there's no need to even look at the morals of such a move) you would think that proponents of logical thinking actually use stone-cold logic to find a way, instead they use the biggest hammer they can find and try to use it on the opponents, deriving pleasure not from solutions but from eliciting angry reactions. "I made them angry - my job is done." For example, the downvotes I got immediately for this comment. The anti-Trump camp disappoints me A LOT more than the Trump camp. You guys claim to be better, yet you act exactly the same. Irrational and emotional and out to hurt your perceived "opponents". Maybe the reason some of you dislike Trump so much is because you are looking in a mirror, deep inside yourself you find mostly raw emotions and rage rather than logic and reasoning. As I said, you guys don't care about progress on any issues, only about hurting people you perceive as even slightly different and only superficially so (since I'm not even remotely in the Trump camp).
      - astrodust 10y ago
        I don't give a fuck about what Trump thinks. Nobody should give a fuck about Trump thinks. The number one goal, the main goal, the only goal is to side-step all of his bullshit and get him out of office. Immediately. > If you cannot remove that president ... If your entire argument hingest on this, it's flawed. Presidents can be removed. Deal with it. Bill Clinton was impeached for a fucking affair. Nixon was impeached and removed from office over illegal wiretapping. Those things are hilariously trivial compared to what's going on right now. > You guys claim to be better, yet you act exactly the same. Nobody claimed to be better. In this particular case the anti-Trump crowd is on solid legal ground and Trump isn't. Take that as you will. He's breaking not just tons of protocols and precidents, which alone is grounds for discipline, but laws. Laws which require impeachment. Some even require charges.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    > Trump won't back down because that means admitting a loss. Like I'm supposed to fucking care we're going to hurt his feelings? Pull it. Shred it. Burn it. Launch the ashes into the sun. You're painting a false dichotomy. The only reasonable outcome here is impeachment. I don't throw this around lightly. He's already over the line. He's broken the Constitution, he's in a conflict of interest. No negotiations. This is playing for keeps.
- egopulsus 10y ago
  > This policy is misguided and evil from the ground up. If this program had been in place twenty years the number of terrorist attacks it would have prevented is zero. So what did you say when Obama temporarily (6 months) banned refugees? http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/2011-obama-paused-iraq-refugee-program-for-6-months/ http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/2011-obama-paused-iraq-refugee-pr...
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    So I could be wrong but when I tried looking into it I found that: Obama's suspended the processing of refugee statuses with the United States for 6 months for people in Iraq. This had no affect on those with existing visas, green cards or approved refugee statuses. It's my understanding this process can take from 6 months to 2 years to complete. This means no one would be disrupted / detained during travel as they wouldn't have been approved to travel yet. Trump's executive order, however, applied to multiple countries and to people with green cards (initially) and visas. It was highly disruptive to those already in transit or were soon to be traveling. Please correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I could tell they seem very different.
    - leereeves 10y ago
      May I ask for your source regarding the application of this order to people with green cards? It's so hard to find the actual facts amid the rhetoric.
      - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
        I can't find the DHS release regarding it but multiple news outlets reported on it. Here's the NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-u... From my understanding: DHS initially said this would affect green card holders. Then the administration said green card holders need a special waiver to get through. Then that specific decision was reversed and now all green card holders can get through. But of course if you find anything I said was incorrect please let me know :). I agree it's hard to find good sources with the media in a fury over this story.
- tallanvor 10y ago
  Yes. It's a vile action, and most likely illegal under current immigration law.
  - DefaultUserHN 10y ago
    Except it's not. Trump is just doing what Obama did in 2011, who banned refugees from Iraq and countries with direct ties to terrorism for six months, due to terrorism concerns.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      Stop getting your talking points from Breitbart news: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-o...
      - DefaultUserHN 10y ago
        Stop getting your talking points from biased news too. What he is doing is legal and within his powers as the President.
tbabb 10y ago
If that's his angle, rather than helping an ignoble command become more implementable (and directly playing into a door-in-the-face strategy), I'd love to see some suggested amendments that make it more vulnerable to legal attack.
marcell 10y ago
The problem with this reasonable seeming approach is that it accepts the frame. Trump/Bannon present the following frame: we can combat terrorism by banning refugees from Muslim countries. This claim is factually incorrect, and moreover it is an attempt to set up an "other" group (Muslims) as an enemy. Keep in mind Trumps unapologetic claim on the campaign trail: Donal J Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States -- Donald J Trump, Dec 2015 By proposing "specific ammendments", Musk says the framework as correct, but the details are wrong. In fact, the opposite is the case: the framework is wrong, as well as the details. The entire order should be rescinded, without qualification. Musk and other SV commentators should know better than this, and not lend their credibility to un-American actions by the administration.
- egopulsus 10y ago
  > This claim is factually incorrect Can you back this statement up with facts?
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  Musk is saying "find a face-saving way for Trump to substantively repeal the order without saying that nor making it sound like that to his supporters".
  - StringyBob 10y ago
    "Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across." Sun Zsu, the art of war
- dexen 10y ago
  I'd like to correct the quote: 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 is going on. [1] That's why the current order has set duration of 90 days, and it's announced that subsequent immigration from the affected seven countries will be allowed, subject to tougher vetting. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-u-s/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and... - first hit in Google search.
RealityVoid 10y ago
I think that Musk is trying to be diplomatic. I think he's fully against this measure because: 1) As I know Tesla does hire foreign engineers 2) He, himself is an immigrant to the US, and he was - if not an actual illegal alien, at least in a gray area immigration wise - at some point while building x.com
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  Yeah I agree I think he's against it but realizes the best we can hope for, at least going through the administration which he has access to, is offering amendments to soften the executive order. I get the feeling Musk is trying to do what he can, the best he can, but since he's not directly saying it needs to go away he's going to catch hell for it. I think he's in a very difficult spot either way he goes.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    > but since he's not directly saying it needs to go away he's going to catch hell for it That's, unfortunately, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics[0] at play. "The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster. I don’t subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems pretty popular." [0] - https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...
- egopulsus 10y ago
  1) what does the temporary 90 day ban from 7 countries that export terrorism have to do with Tesla hiring foreign engineers? 2) what does Elon's resume as a legal immigrant have to do with anything? most legal immigrants that I know are covertly/not-covertly pro-Trump
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jakeogh 10y ago
Suggestions on the vetting process will have a potentially greater effect. The obvious goal is the person(s) should on average be a net benefit to the United States. What that means is what needs to be hammered out and it's unknowable if that's the standard. More basic tests like freedom of speech are what I want to be used.
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
Part of the problem is "a 1952 immigration law [giving] the chief executive the power to bar 'any class' of immigrants from the country if allowing them is deemed 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'" [1]. [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/early-wins-against-trump-anti-terror-immigration-order-may-not-last-234348 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/early-wins-against-tru...
chme 10y ago
Because the self proclaimed "born negotiator" hasn't done his job and negotiated before making decisions, a better one has to step in.
mnx 10y ago
I think this can be viewing as harm reduction, analogous to giving needles to drug users. Sure it's easy to just say "They shouldn't be banning immigrants", but if they will anyway, we might as well make sure they do it less harmfully.
SFJulie 10y ago
The muslim ban is probably as effective as the internment of the Japanese during WWII ordered by Roosevelt. Which under Carter have been proven totally illegitimate and useless. Well, segregation in the USA based on religion (Feynman barred from a PhD in Princeton for being jew) or colour of skin (until 1969), or birth (slavery-native americans) is part of the dark side of its history. Nothing new under the sun. Question, is this a new cause of secession between rural and urban america growing up? I mean, if history repeats itself ...

33 points by BinaryIdiot 10y ago

By "specific amendment" he should be saying "throw it out". This policy is misguided and evil from the ground up. If this program had been in place twenty years the number of terrorist attacks it would have prevented is zero.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
Saying "throw it out" isn't productive. Trump won't back down because that means admitting a loss. You get to, in the short term, choose between a substantial win (finding a better middle ground) and a feel-good victory (saying "screw you" and living with this policy).
- jasonvorhe 10y ago
  The only winning move is not to play. Interacting with Trump's government, unless necessary for legal reasons, is stupid and makes it harder for everyone else to publicly denounce the current government.
  - sremani 10y ago
    Musk is a CEO of multi-billion dollar companies, disengagement for 4 years is not a thing, not with the US government. An activist can tune-out and entrepreneur has to adapt.
    - yarou 10y ago
      It's also a skill to engage with people you disagree with on certain issues, or even if you dislike them personally. These are basic life skills people. Edit: s/work/engage
    - astrodust 10y ago
      He's in a tough spot, but he's also got cards to play.
- Retra 10y ago
  It should be productive. When you make a mistake, you should be able to admit it, fix it, and live with it, and if Trump had any leadership ability, he would do just that. And gracefully.
- techterrier 10y ago
  The logic of the appeaser.
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    I would argue the other logic of hammering Trump blindly is the logic that doesn't care about the issues it claims to care about nearly as much as about "feeling good" on a childish level: The main goal seems to be to make Trump angry and not to solve any of those issues. For another example, it's not exactly news that calling Trump supporters (and Trump himself) names does not help, yet that still is what a lot of anti-Trump comments seem to concentrate on. It doesn't help, it doesn't change anything, but it's a main feature of the discussion. Most people on the side of "logic" don't follow logic, they go by emotions. If you cannot remove that president or the people who elected him, and you can't (you don't even have the means to get rid of them, so there's no need to even look at the morals of such a move) you would think that proponents of logical thinking actually use stone-cold logic to find a way, instead they use the biggest hammer they can find and try to use it on the opponents, deriving pleasure not from solutions but from eliciting angry reactions. "I made them angry - my job is done." For example, the downvotes I got immediately for this comment. The anti-Trump camp disappoints me A LOT more than the Trump camp. You guys claim to be better, yet you act exactly the same. Irrational and emotional and out to hurt your perceived "opponents". Maybe the reason some of you dislike Trump so much is because you are looking in a mirror, deep inside yourself you find mostly raw emotions and rage rather than logic and reasoning. As I said, you guys don't care about progress on any issues, only about hurting people you perceive as even slightly different and only superficially so (since I'm not even remotely in the Trump camp).
    - astrodust 10y ago
      I don't give a fuck about what Trump thinks. Nobody should give a fuck about Trump thinks. The number one goal, the main goal, the only goal is to side-step all of his bullshit and get him out of office. Immediately. > If you cannot remove that president ... If your entire argument hingest on this, it's flawed. Presidents can be removed. Deal with it. Bill Clinton was impeached for a fucking affair. Nixon was impeached and removed from office over illegal wiretapping. Those things are hilariously trivial compared to what's going on right now. > You guys claim to be better, yet you act exactly the same. Nobody claimed to be better. In this particular case the anti-Trump crowd is on solid legal ground and Trump isn't. Take that as you will. He's breaking not just tons of protocols and precidents, which alone is grounds for discipline, but laws. Laws which require impeachment. Some even require charges.
- astrodust 10y ago
  > Trump won't back down because that means admitting a loss. Like I'm supposed to fucking care we're going to hurt his feelings? Pull it. Shred it. Burn it. Launch the ashes into the sun. You're painting a false dichotomy. The only reasonable outcome here is impeachment. I don't throw this around lightly. He's already over the line. He's broken the Constitution, he's in a conflict of interest. No negotiations. This is playing for keeps.
egopulsus 10y ago
> This policy is misguided and evil from the ground up. If this program had been in place twenty years the number of terrorist attacks it would have prevented is zero. So what did you say when Obama temporarily (6 months) banned refugees? http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/2011-obama-paused-iraq-refugee-program-for-6-months/ http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/2011-obama-paused-iraq-refugee-pr...
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  So I could be wrong but when I tried looking into it I found that: Obama's suspended the processing of refugee statuses with the United States for 6 months for people in Iraq. This had no affect on those with existing visas, green cards or approved refugee statuses. It's my understanding this process can take from 6 months to 2 years to complete. This means no one would be disrupted / detained during travel as they wouldn't have been approved to travel yet. Trump's executive order, however, applied to multiple countries and to people with green cards (initially) and visas. It was highly disruptive to those already in transit or were soon to be traveling. Please correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I could tell they seem very different.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    May I ask for your source regarding the application of this order to people with green cards? It's so hard to find the actual facts amid the rhetoric.
    - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
      I can't find the DHS release regarding it but multiple news outlets reported on it. Here's the NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-u... From my understanding: DHS initially said this would affect green card holders. Then the administration said green card holders need a special waiver to get through. Then that specific decision was reversed and now all green card holders can get through. But of course if you find anything I said was incorrect please let me know :). I agree it's hard to find good sources with the media in a fury over this story.
tallanvor 10y ago
Yes. It's a vile action, and most likely illegal under current immigration law.
- DefaultUserHN 10y ago
  Except it's not. Trump is just doing what Obama did in 2011, who banned refugees from Iraq and countries with direct ties to terrorism for six months, due to terrorism concerns.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Stop getting your talking points from Breitbart news: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-o...
    - DefaultUserHN 10y ago
      Stop getting your talking points from biased news too. What he is doing is legal and within his powers as the President.

tbabb 10y ago

If that's his angle, rather than helping an ignoble command become more implementable (and directly playing into a door-in-the-face strategy), I'd love to see some suggested amendments that make it more vulnerable to legal attack.

marcell 10y ago

The problem with this reasonable seeming approach is that it accepts the frame. Trump/Bannon present the following frame: we can combat terrorism by banning refugees from Muslim countries. This claim is factually incorrect, and moreover it is an attempt to set up an "other" group (Muslims) as an enemy. Keep in mind Trumps unapologetic claim on the campaign trail: Donal J Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States -- Donald J Trump, Dec 2015 By proposing "specific ammendments", Musk says the framework as correct, but the details are wrong. In fact, the opposite is the case: the framework is wrong, as well as the details. The entire order should be rescinded, without qualification. Musk and other SV commentators should know better than this, and not lend their credibility to un-American actions by the administration.

egopulsus 10y ago
> This claim is factually incorrect Can you back this statement up with facts?
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
Musk is saying "find a face-saving way for Trump to substantively repeal the order without saying that nor making it sound like that to his supporters".
- StringyBob 10y ago
  "Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across." Sun Zsu, the art of war
dexen 10y ago
I'd like to correct the quote: 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 is going on. [1] That's why the current order has set duration of 90 days, and it's announced that subsequent immigration from the affected seven countries will be allowed, subject to tougher vetting. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-u-s/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and... - first hit in Google search.

RealityVoid 10y ago

I think that Musk is trying to be diplomatic. I think he's fully against this measure because: 1) As I know Tesla does hire foreign engineers 2) He, himself is an immigrant to the US, and he was - if not an actual illegal alien, at least in a gray area immigration wise - at some point while building x.com

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
Yeah I agree I think he's against it but realizes the best we can hope for, at least going through the administration which he has access to, is offering amendments to soften the executive order. I get the feeling Musk is trying to do what he can, the best he can, but since he's not directly saying it needs to go away he's going to catch hell for it. I think he's in a very difficult spot either way he goes.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > but since he's not directly saying it needs to go away he's going to catch hell for it That's, unfortunately, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics[0] at play. "The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster. I don’t subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems pretty popular." [0] - https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...
egopulsus 10y ago
1) what does the temporary 90 day ban from 7 countries that export terrorism have to do with Tesla hiring foreign engineers? 2) what does Elon's resume as a legal immigrant have to do with anything? most legal immigrants that I know are covertly/not-covertly pro-Trump

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jakeogh 10y ago

Suggestions on the vetting process will have a potentially greater effect. The obvious goal is the person(s) should on average be a net benefit to the United States. What that means is what needs to be hammered out and it's unknowable if that's the standard. More basic tests like freedom of speech are what I want to be used.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

Part of the problem is "a 1952 immigration law [giving] the chief executive the power to bar 'any class' of immigrants from the country if allowing them is deemed 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'" [1]. [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/early-wins-against-trump-anti-terror-immigration-order-may-not-last-234348 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/early-wins-against-tru...

chme 10y ago

Because the self proclaimed "born negotiator" hasn't done his job and negotiated before making decisions, a better one has to step in.

mnx 10y ago

I think this can be viewing as harm reduction, analogous to giving needles to drug users. Sure it's easy to just say "They shouldn't be banning immigrants", but if they will anyway, we might as well make sure they do it less harmfully.

SFJulie 10y ago

The muslim ban is probably as effective as the internment of the Japanese during WWII ordered by Roosevelt. Which under Carter have been proven totally illegitimate and useless. Well, segregation in the USA based on religion (Feynman barred from a PhD in Princeton for being jew) or colour of skin (until 1969), or birth (slavery-native americans) is part of the dark side of its history. Nothing new under the sun. Question, is this a new cause of secession between rural and urban america growing up? I mean, if history repeats itself ...