News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies by simonh on Monday February 06, 2017 @07:12AM (#13578723)
I'm not a US citizen so I'm just commenting as an observer. I'm a lot less worried about legislation overall because it does get scrutinized by the wider elected legislature. At the end of the day if the US as a nation decides to restrict immigration more then that's your prerogative as a nation. The American people voted in Trump and the current largely Republican legislature fair and square and they do have a right to exercise their legal authority.

My concern about the presidential order is that it bypasses due process and in this case may even be illegal. It appears it may not even have been shown to the administration's attorneys before implementation betrays a cavalier neglect for legality or the enormous harm this order has done to the reputation of the US as a fair country under the rule of law.

Re:Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies by hajile on Monday February 06, 2017 @09:42AM (#13579788)
US immigration law gives the president explicit right to do exactly what he did (and that has been upheld by the supreme court in the past). See section f

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Re:Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies by dragonwriter on Monday February 06, 2017 @12:57PM (#13582093)
> US immigration law gives the president explicit right to do exactly what he did

Clearly the federal courts (six different district courts, if I've counted correctly) don't believe that the case is as open and shut as you do, or they wouldn't have aisued restraining orders against the EO, one of the explicit considerationa for which is likelihood of prevailing on the merits.

That one section of law appears to be a broad grant of power does not mean that that grant is not constrained by other provisions of law.

Re:Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies by doolsing on Monday February 06, 2017 @12:44PM (#13581932)
US law prohibits discriminating based on national origin except under specific circumstances. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152

(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

Re:Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies by aerovistae on Monday February 06, 2017 @03:39PM (#13583647)
If you read the many arguments made in the amicus curiae brief[1] that was at the top of HN here 12 hours ago, you would learn quite clearly that there is substantial precedent for requiring the executive branch to use its powers on a rational and discreet basis.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/06/17-...

Re:Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies by Fej on Monday February 06, 2017 @07:24AM (#13578803)
Was the election fair? I would say so. That being said, Donald Trump received almost three million fewer votes than his main competitor, Hillary Clinton. To say we "voted him in" is only strictly technically correct.