What if a company can't find the skills they require in order to fill a position. That company will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Considering Legal Options Against Immigration Executive Order
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What if a company can't find the skills they require in order to fill a position. That company will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Well, there is apparently legislation that makes it illegal for Apple to publish applications that are related to banking with Iranian banks. There is no legislation that makes it illegal for Apple to try to support their employees. That's a difference.
There was no ban by Obama, the act you mention only made visa-free travel visa-required. That is not a ban in any form or fashion. Sure enough it is an inconvenience for those affected, but rather minor compared to a ban.
Of course it could be that someone coming to their visa-interview with the IS flag tattooed to their forehead would be barred from receiving a visa, but that is not because of the 2015 act, but because the vetting at the interview.
Trumps executive order is an outright ban:
"I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas)."
The exception are only for diplomats, NATO, UN, and for duty in international organizations similar to the UN.
It is quite abhorrent to "proclaim" that all people seeking entry from a country are considered "detrimental".
I think you have forgotten the end game of terrorism. Spread terror. Disruption. It is directed at a body as in government or similar. Significant fatalities do not have to be a part of that.
It isn't personal by definition.
Not for nothing, but over the past 15 years, White extremists have killed more Americans than radical Islamists, and that is going back to since 9/11.
BL.
The President has the Constitutional authority to issue the executive order on immigration. Apple will lose if it tries to sue the federal government.
Not really, I'm just not obsessed with immigration at the risk of American lives. Truthfully, every year that passes, the immigration rate should be getting much closer to zero. Eventually, we will be at a point of equilibrium. Once we're there, the magnitude of all of these political issues will be vastly diminished.
This isn't just regarding immigration. This is also regarding travel, which also impacts Commerce, which falls under the auspice of Congress.
This also falls under civil rights, in which each one of the people from those countries are granted rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, regardless of status in the USA.
BL.
Last edited:
You are forgetting home grown terrorism which accounts for a large portion of terrorist acts...
Travel bans isn't going to stop these...
Travel bans isn't going to stop these...
Not seeing what they are challenging. The Constitutionality? That's a lose position.
You just feel safe.
There are probably over 1,000 ISIS members who were actually born in the UK. There were plenty of people who took the opportunity to convince them that any perceived wrongdoing against muslims meant they had to fight for their case and kill people. Normal but easily influenced people (aka just your average idiot youth) + perceived wrongdoing + unscrupulous people exploiting it => new terrorists. What do you think this ban will do in the USA?
Much more realistic.
Huh? Unless you are talking about US citizens.... travel to/from is a different ball of wax and not part of this.
No. I'm not talking about just US Citizens. SCOTUS affirmed that the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments to the US Constitution applies to non-citizens and non-residents, regardless of citizenship status. That was affirmed at least 3 different times within the past 150 years.
EDIT: 1st amendment as well.
BL.
Last edited:
You're right. Second generation immigrants are more likely to be radicalized and become terrorists.
If immigrants had never come to the USA, there would be a few thousand native Americans feeling very lonely in a big country and nobody else.
I will also inform you that what Obama signed into law, was not an executive order, but an act gone through The Congress before introduced. Also for your information it was cosponsored by around 2/3 republicans and 1/3 democrats. So calling it the Obama-administrations ban is not correct.
We have. Read the New Colossus by Lazarus. If you know your history, you'll remember that it is enshrined on the Statue of Liberty. That can essentially define who comes, not the majority political party; e.g, Tyranny of the Majority.
BL.
However in the US, the majority of domestic terrorism is performed by members of immigrant families who have stayed here a couple of hundred years.
Not broadly like you are stating. Might want to read that decision again.
There were 3 different cases:
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 1973.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886).
Wong Win v. United States (1896).
You may want to read those cases again, or maybe for the first time.
EDIT: More recently, was Zadvydas v. Davis (2001). That ruling caused immigrants, regardless of legality, to be released into the general population of the US. That ruling basically affirmed their 14th amendment right under the Constitution.
BL.
Somebody else using past performance to predict future results. Might want to read that prospectus on terrorism a little more closely before you invest.
Apparently not enough.
[doublepost=1485978987][/doublepost]I hear Apple is coming out with a new logo following the executive order.