8 ms·

> If this approach were upheld, future orders might apply to any nation, and suddenly and unexpectedly bar its nationals from entering or returning to the Unite

by chx 10y ago

> If this approach were upheld, future orders might apply to any nation, and suddenly and unexpectedly bar its nationals from entering or returning to the United States. Aye, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I have a plane ticket from Canada to Europe in August, transiting in the USA and I have already contemplated changing my routing because who knows whether I will be admitted? Yes, the chances are heavily slanted towards yes in my specific case but... What I am trying to say: it makes absolutely impossible to plan travel, business into the USA if this order stands for everyone because who knows whether you will be targeted next. I am slightly surprised to not see Boeing here, they are set to lose an enormous amount of money in Iran.

jahnu 10y ago
I really really wish the U.S. would implement some sort of transit facilities and regulations for airports. Needing a visa just to pass through without ever needing to leave a secure section of an airport is ridiculous and anachronistic.
- rythie 10y ago
  I agree, the transit visa situation is really odd. I wonder how much money the U.S. loses by requiring visa from those travelling from Central+South America to Europe and the rest of the world. I know people personally that can't pick the quickest/cheapest route because it transits through the U.S.
- fennecfoxen 10y ago
  - At many smaller US airports, this is more convenient overall. There is no overhead from running a special "international" section, detached from the rest of the terminal facilities like restaurants and lounges and toilets, and US-border-style security for people going back and forth between the two: you just have everyone go through immigration straight after getting off the plane and you're done with it. Unlike Europe, there are relatively few surrounding nations, so more international travellers end up arriving in the US instead of connecting. Canada-to-Mexico and Europe-to-South-America traffic is small in comparison to non-Schengen-zone traffic heading through, say, CDG. - This would still make sense to have at many hub airports (NYC and Atlanta come to mind) - but as the Wall Street Journal points out in this lovely article, "American airports are typically run by politicians in conjunction with the dominant airlines, which help finance the terminals in return for long-term leases on gates and facilities. The airlines use their control to keep out competitors; the politicians use their share of the revenue to reward unionized airport workers. No one puts the passenger first." -- https://www.wsj.com/articles/third-world-u-s-airports-that-insults-the-third-world-1484955696 https://www.wsj.com/articles/third-world-u-s-airports-that-i... - In the case of New York especially, you'll note that the Port Authority runs ALL the airports: JFK, LGA, Newark. Yep, these are the same people who run the world's most favorite bus terminal ever. And (as the same article above notes), "Federal law generally requires that airport revenues be spent on aviation, but that statute, passed in 1982, contains a grandfather provision excluding the Port Authority." So your landing fees are subsidizing the fancy over-budget new World Trade Center PATH terminal, among other nonsense, instead of keeping your airports from falling apart, let alone making improvements for international passengers.
  - aub3bhat 10y ago
    The WTC PATH Terminal is brilliant infact unlike the boring Penn Station/ Port Authority Bus Terminal, its a piece of architecture fitting to the reputation of the city for next century. You can't complain about Port Authority and then deride the new PATH station in same argument.
    - fennecfoxen 10y ago
      The terminal is pretty. But it was 10 years behind schedule. It costs $3.75 BILLION dollars to build, making it the world's most expensive transportation hub. And it runs about 46,000 passengers a day. (Compare and note that Grand Central does five and a half times that many). It was not worth it. Even the director of the Port Authority (the one in 2015, not the one when it was approved) declined to hold an opening ceremony because he was troubled at the cost overruns, decrying the station as a "symbol of excess".
      - xoa 10y ago
        Not that I disagree with you at all about cost overruns and schedule delays being an issue, or poor incentive structures all around being an even bigger issue, but going by your numbers: >The terminal is pretty. But it was 10 years behind schedule. It costs $3.75 BILLION dollars to build, making it the world's most expensive transportation hub. And it runs about 46,000 passengers a day. (Compare and note that Grand Central does five and a half times that many). It was not worth it. That... doesn't actually sound bad? According to what you wrote there it's serving around 16-17 million passengers a year, which would mean the entire $3.75 billion only works out to ~$220 a passenger for a single year, so it could be entirely recovered by a surcharge or temporary rate bump or whatever of around 50-60 cents a day in just a single year. If built properly so the capex can be amortized across five years or a decade or more, all that drops proportionally. That doesn't seem like a huge ask in NYC. I mean yeah, it certainly apparently is far from the most efficient design. But even so it's worth considering that even a public infrastructure project here with huge scheduling delays and cost overruns that produces a big upfront bill isn't necessarily that inefficient compared to other forms of competing transport (like cars). It's easy to get too silo'd and forget the fundamental efficiencies and reliability vs the wider world, and in many cases it might be worth "reinvesting" some of those gains in the form of making something more aesthetically pleasing (and thus attractive to the public users) or politically greased, because even if it's worse relative to an internal ideal it might still be better for society. And humans are humans, sometimes some "inefficiency" is necessary from a practical standpoint. The real question I'd have isn't the one time capex, it's ongoing maintenance. If all that money went into building something that'll be extremely reliable and have either equal or lower maintenance structures vs the rest of the stations, amortization can take care of the rest all right. If however delays and other issues result in higher running costs, that's a much much bigger deal and would be more interesting to know about then the $3.75 billion upfront.
- amelius 10y ago
  Also ridiculous in many countries is the requirement that your passport is valid for X months in the future, where X is usually at least 6.
  - TenOhms 10y ago
    That does strike me as odd too, so do they at least let you renew them 6 months prior to the passport's expiration?
richardwhiuk 10y ago
The Boeing Iran deal is exempted under the Iran nuclear deal (the JCPA). I expect Boeing also doesn't want to raise the administrations hackles regarding various defence contracts.
- chx 10y ago
  Hrm, I am apparently wrong, http://presstv.com/Detail/2017/02/02/508809/Iran-says-Trump-cannot-kill-Boeing-deal http://presstv.com/Detail/2017/02/02/508809/Iran-says-Trump-... it seems by now they don't want to cancel.
  - peteretep 10y ago
    Bombardier, Embraer, and Airbus must be salivating
hajile 10y ago
The entire "unreasonableness" is based on the idea that this was Trump randomly banning countries. Obama's administration (not Trump's) compiled the list of countries. It wasn't racial or "because they're Muslim" (most Muslims aren't banned). What was the common thread between the countries? 6 out of the 7 countries have been on and off the US "State Sponsors of Terror" list for the past 40 years. Somalia (the one that hasn't been on the list) has spent most of the last 25 years in anarchy. The law also explicitly gives the president the right to make the decision (see section f https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182). In 1993, SCOTUS ruled that a much longer ban against the poor, non-terrorist, mostly black Haitian immigrants by Bush Sr. and Clinton was legal in an 8-1 ruling (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/22/us/the-supreme-court-high-court-backs-policy-of-halting-haitian-refugees.html http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/22/us/the-supreme-court-high-...). The constitutional claim doesn't hold water (foreign nationals have no right to travel in the US and the countries were selected for terrorist connections). That leaves only interpretation of the law, but the law clearly states POTUS has the authority. A 3 month break to find out what policies to put in place against 7 problematic and terrorist sponsoring countries is hardly something SCOTUS will find unreasonable. EDIT: for the record, I think the bans are ineffective at stopping terrorists and are just Trump following through on his populist promises. That's different from the legality of the decision. This isn't the only thing Trump is doing While everyone has eyeballs here, they miss everything else that's happening in DC, and he still gets to look good when SCOTUS agrees with him.
- kevinmchugh 10y ago
  This doesn't appear to be at all responsive to the concern expressed in the comment you're responding to.
  - hajile 10y ago
    > > If this approach were upheld, future orders might apply to any nation, and suddenly and unexpectedly bar its nationals from entering or returning to the United States. > Aye, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I have a plane ticket from Canada to Europe in August, transiting in the USA and I have already contemplated changing my routing because who knows whether I will be admitted? It is a direct response to "the crux of the matter". Trump isn't going to be banning countries on a whim. I read in the news that the police detained up a murder suspect. Now I'm afraid that the police are coming for me even though I haven't hurt anyone. Logical? Country A is temporarily banned for sponsoring or harboring terrorists. Person in Country B is afraid of being banned too even though their country doesn't support terrorism. Logical? People are wrongly arrested every day. Few if any countries have been banned unjustly. If we cry out against a temporary ban, why not cry out even more about the wrongful arrests that take place much more frequently?
ams6110 10y ago
Is there any precedent for overturning a legal order based on what "future orders" might be?
JMCQ87 10y ago
Might be because Boeing only is seen as a tech company in the DC area, if at all. ;)
bmelton 10y ago
> I am slightly surprised to not see Boeing here, they are set to lose an enormous amount of money in Iran I suspect that a likely reason is that Boeing is headquartered in Chicago, which doesn't fall under the purview of the Ninth Circuit. They may or may not be party to a similar filing for the Seventh Circuit.

by chx 10y ago

jahnu 10y ago

I really really wish the U.S. would implement some sort of transit facilities and regulations for airports. Needing a visa just to pass through without ever needing to leave a secure section of an airport is ridiculous and anachronistic.

rythie 10y ago
I agree, the transit visa situation is really odd. I wonder how much money the U.S. loses by requiring visa from those travelling from Central+South America to Europe and the rest of the world. I know people personally that can't pick the quickest/cheapest route because it transits through the U.S.
fennecfoxen 10y ago
- At many smaller US airports, this is more convenient overall. There is no overhead from running a special "international" section, detached from the rest of the terminal facilities like restaurants and lounges and toilets, and US-border-style security for people going back and forth between the two: you just have everyone go through immigration straight after getting off the plane and you're done with it. Unlike Europe, there are relatively few surrounding nations, so more international travellers end up arriving in the US instead of connecting. Canada-to-Mexico and Europe-to-South-America traffic is small in comparison to non-Schengen-zone traffic heading through, say, CDG. - This would still make sense to have at many hub airports (NYC and Atlanta come to mind) - but as the Wall Street Journal points out in this lovely article, "American airports are typically run by politicians in conjunction with the dominant airlines, which help finance the terminals in return for long-term leases on gates and facilities. The airlines use their control to keep out competitors; the politicians use their share of the revenue to reward unionized airport workers. No one puts the passenger first." -- https://www.wsj.com/articles/third-world-u-s-airports-that-insults-the-third-world-1484955696 https://www.wsj.com/articles/third-world-u-s-airports-that-i... - In the case of New York especially, you'll note that the Port Authority runs ALL the airports: JFK, LGA, Newark. Yep, these are the same people who run the world's most favorite bus terminal ever. And (as the same article above notes), "Federal law generally requires that airport revenues be spent on aviation, but that statute, passed in 1982, contains a grandfather provision excluding the Port Authority." So your landing fees are subsidizing the fancy over-budget new World Trade Center PATH terminal, among other nonsense, instead of keeping your airports from falling apart, let alone making improvements for international passengers.
- aub3bhat 10y ago
  The WTC PATH Terminal is brilliant infact unlike the boring Penn Station/ Port Authority Bus Terminal, its a piece of architecture fitting to the reputation of the city for next century. You can't complain about Port Authority and then deride the new PATH station in same argument.
  - fennecfoxen 10y ago
    The terminal is pretty. But it was 10 years behind schedule. It costs $3.75 BILLION dollars to build, making it the world's most expensive transportation hub. And it runs about 46,000 passengers a day. (Compare and note that Grand Central does five and a half times that many). It was not worth it. Even the director of the Port Authority (the one in 2015, not the one when it was approved) declined to hold an opening ceremony because he was troubled at the cost overruns, decrying the station as a "symbol of excess".
    - xoa 10y ago
      Not that I disagree with you at all about cost overruns and schedule delays being an issue, or poor incentive structures all around being an even bigger issue, but going by your numbers: >The terminal is pretty. But it was 10 years behind schedule. It costs $3.75 BILLION dollars to build, making it the world's most expensive transportation hub. And it runs about 46,000 passengers a day. (Compare and note that Grand Central does five and a half times that many). It was not worth it. That... doesn't actually sound bad? According to what you wrote there it's serving around 16-17 million passengers a year, which would mean the entire $3.75 billion only works out to ~$220 a passenger for a single year, so it could be entirely recovered by a surcharge or temporary rate bump or whatever of around 50-60 cents a day in just a single year. If built properly so the capex can be amortized across five years or a decade or more, all that drops proportionally. That doesn't seem like a huge ask in NYC. I mean yeah, it certainly apparently is far from the most efficient design. But even so it's worth considering that even a public infrastructure project here with huge scheduling delays and cost overruns that produces a big upfront bill isn't necessarily that inefficient compared to other forms of competing transport (like cars). It's easy to get too silo'd and forget the fundamental efficiencies and reliability vs the wider world, and in many cases it might be worth "reinvesting" some of those gains in the form of making something more aesthetically pleasing (and thus attractive to the public users) or politically greased, because even if it's worse relative to an internal ideal it might still be better for society. And humans are humans, sometimes some "inefficiency" is necessary from a practical standpoint. The real question I'd have isn't the one time capex, it's ongoing maintenance. If all that money went into building something that'll be extremely reliable and have either equal or lower maintenance structures vs the rest of the stations, amortization can take care of the rest all right. If however delays and other issues result in higher running costs, that's a much much bigger deal and would be more interesting to know about then the $3.75 billion upfront.
amelius 10y ago
Also ridiculous in many countries is the requirement that your passport is valid for X months in the future, where X is usually at least 6.
- TenOhms 10y ago
  That does strike me as odd too, so do they at least let you renew them 6 months prior to the passport's expiration?

richardwhiuk 10y ago

The Boeing Iran deal is exempted under the Iran nuclear deal (the JCPA). I expect Boeing also doesn't want to raise the administrations hackles regarding various defence contracts.

chx 10y ago
Hrm, I am apparently wrong, http://presstv.com/Detail/2017/02/02/508809/Iran-says-Trump-cannot-kill-Boeing-deal http://presstv.com/Detail/2017/02/02/508809/Iran-says-Trump-... it seems by now they don't want to cancel.
- peteretep 10y ago
  Bombardier, Embraer, and Airbus must be salivating

hajile 10y ago

The entire "unreasonableness" is based on the idea that this was Trump randomly banning countries. Obama's administration (not Trump's) compiled the list of countries. It wasn't racial or "because they're Muslim" (most Muslims aren't banned). What was the common thread between the countries? 6 out of the 7 countries have been on and off the US "State Sponsors of Terror" list for the past 40 years. Somalia (the one that hasn't been on the list) has spent most of the last 25 years in anarchy. The law also explicitly gives the president the right to make the decision (see section f https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182). In 1993, SCOTUS ruled that a much longer ban against the poor, non-terrorist, mostly black Haitian immigrants by Bush Sr. and Clinton was legal in an 8-1 ruling (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/22/us/the-supreme-court-high-court-backs-policy-of-halting-haitian-refugees.html http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/22/us/the-supreme-court-high-...). The constitutional claim doesn't hold water (foreign nationals have no right to travel in the US and the countries were selected for terrorist connections). That leaves only interpretation of the law, but the law clearly states POTUS has the authority. A 3 month break to find out what policies to put in place against 7 problematic and terrorist sponsoring countries is hardly something SCOTUS will find unreasonable. EDIT: for the record, I think the bans are ineffective at stopping terrorists and are just Trump following through on his populist promises. That's different from the legality of the decision. This isn't the only thing Trump is doing While everyone has eyeballs here, they miss everything else that's happening in DC, and he still gets to look good when SCOTUS agrees with him.

kevinmchugh 10y ago
This doesn't appear to be at all responsive to the concern expressed in the comment you're responding to.
- hajile 10y ago
  > > If this approach were upheld, future orders might apply to any nation, and suddenly and unexpectedly bar its nationals from entering or returning to the United States. > Aye, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I have a plane ticket from Canada to Europe in August, transiting in the USA and I have already contemplated changing my routing because who knows whether I will be admitted? It is a direct response to "the crux of the matter". Trump isn't going to be banning countries on a whim. I read in the news that the police detained up a murder suspect. Now I'm afraid that the police are coming for me even though I haven't hurt anyone. Logical? Country A is temporarily banned for sponsoring or harboring terrorists. Person in Country B is afraid of being banned too even though their country doesn't support terrorism. Logical? People are wrongly arrested every day. Few if any countries have been banned unjustly. If we cry out against a temporary ban, why not cry out even more about the wrongful arrests that take place much more frequently?

ams6110 10y ago

Is there any precedent for overturning a legal order based on what "future orders" might be?

JMCQ87 10y ago

Might be because Boeing only is seen as a tech company in the DC area, if at all. ;)

bmelton 10y ago

> I am slightly surprised to not see Boeing here, they are set to lose an enormous amount of money in Iran I suspect that a likely reason is that Boeing is headquartered in Chicago, which doesn't fall under the purview of the Ninth Circuit. They may or may not be party to a similar filing for the Seventh Circuit.