Apple Joins Nearly 100 U.S. Firms to File Legal Brief Opposing Trump's Immigration Ban

[5684697]

That is a specious, silly argument that is being made by incompetent media and demagogic politicians.

Your premise is that a country must have already perpetrated a successful attack before people attempting to enter can face increased scrutiny. In reality, it's based on intelligence showing that certain countries have inferior vetting and records, making them exploitable by operatives seeking a back door to infiltrate the US.

A lot of noise in this debate that is meant to mask the situation while assuming that there isn't a threat.

 

[jlc1978]

Your premise is that a country must have already perpetrated a successful attack before people attempting to enter can face increased scrutiny. In reality, it's based on intelligence showing that certain countries have inferior vetting and records, making them exploitable by operatives seeking a back door to infiltrate the US.

The premise is that countries who have had their nationals launch attacks would be logical places to start if you want to prevent bad actors from entering. Instead, a list of 7 countries was picked, and then defended as "the previous administration identified them as threats and banned them, when the truth was they removed them from the expedited visa process while leaving in the ability to get visas and travel; and expedited visas could still be gotten in emergencies. If you want to limit the threat it makes sense to include countries that actually have posed a threat, such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc. but they were left off the list.

In short, it was a poorly thought out and stupid idea that the administration then tried to rationalize by trying to equate it to the previous administration's actions. Fortunately the Federal courts took a rational and sane position and put a stay on its execution.

 

[5684697]

The premise is that countries who have had their nationals launch attacks would be logical places to start if you want to prevent bad actors from entering. Instead, a list of 7 countries was picked, and then defended as "the previous administration identified them as threats and banned them, when the truth was they removed them from the expedited visa process while leaving in the ability to get visas and travel; and expedited visas could still be gotten in emergencies. If you want to limit the threat it makes sense to include countries that actually have posed a threat, such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc. but they were left off the list.

In short, it was a poorly thought out and stupid idea that the administration then tried to rationalize by trying to equate it to the previous administration's actions. Fortunately the Federal courts took a rational and sane position and put a stay on its execution.

So what if the intel is showing that known bad guys who are part of a known plot are using those seven other countries to "delouse" and change their identities?

Apply the logic to past enemies. Doesn't make much sense. In fact, the media and pols sort of make the point that ALL Muslim countries should have stringent vetting, which is kind of ironic, isn't it? Trump wasn't for a blanked ban, but it appears on face value that Saudi Arabia et al should be subjected as well?

The logic of the court wasn't exactly air tight, and applied broadly, there is a goofy notion that basically anyone has a right to enter the US if some third party can feign injury. You can bet that universities will become a new clearing house for shady entry into the country. I hope at least they will make some money off of it for their endowments and gold plated faculty lounges.

My guess is that Trump re-writes the EO and has another go.

Either way, the ruling was inept.

JUDICIAL TYRANNY: 5 Biggest Legal Stupidities In The Ninth Circuit's Decision To Stop Trump's Executive Order

 

[jlc1978]

So what if the intel is showing that known bad guys who are part of a known plot are using those seven other countries to "delouse" and change their identities?

If ou have a known plot then you focus in on the bad guys instead of targeting everyone. The blanket ban argument is like saying "We know X is may use a strawman to buy a gun in TX to use to kill someone; therefore we will ban anyone from buying a gun in TX to prevent that."

Apply the logic to past enemies. Doesn't make much sense.

It doesn't make sense to take similar action against known sources of terrorism if you believe it is effective? Trump, or his advisors as he has complained they didn't clearly explain the order to him, apparently thought using a list compiled by the previous administration, even though it didn't do what they claimed, would give them top cover. When it failed they fall back on the "Bad things will happen and it won't be our fault..." How about actually listening to experts in the intelligence and diplomatic community and coming up with effective measures instead of grandstanding to gain adulation?

As I said before, I think Trump is finding out that running a small, in terms of staff, family company is very different from running the US, and that all the back stabbing, personal attacks, leaks, inability to decree something and have it happen, etc. will extract a severe psychological tool. He seems to need to be send as the most powerful and successful person in the room and have constant reassurance he is liked and adored; something that doesn't happen in our politics. He's not used to having someone say "Yes" when they really are saying "Screw yo;" and the weaker he is perceived to be the more "Screw you's" he'll get.

He's already weakening himself; not just with the EO. He waded into the delicate China-Taiwan relationship by saying he spoke with the President of Taiwan, causing China to protest his actions; he then backed down and reaffirmed the One-China policy. So China is learning that, despite his talk about getting tough on China, he can be rolled. Now his National Security Advisor is in trouble over leaked details of his conversation with Russia. All of this, and other things, point to a very dysfunctional White House staff and unless Trump fixes that he will sink deeper and deeper and find fewer and fewer "friends" in Washington.

 

[5684697]

The problem is that the countries listed are either dysfunctional or known enemies. Yemen and Somalia are places that an American would be in great danger for just being there. It isn't racist or bigoted to apply due diligence before allowing anyone into the US with a hand written passport signed by "Epstein's Mother..." (some will get the reference).

That's what Trump does, he disrupts the OODA loop of his opponents. He has China, Mexico, the Media, the Left (same thing), even government bureaucrats chasing their tails. No one knows what the hell is coming next. He'll end up issuing a less restrictive EO and those entities will declare victory. Meanwhile, the CBP will simply start detaining whomever they want.

Look at how the argument was reshaped. It is being called a Muslim Travel Ban, which is wasn't, in order to rile the ignorant, or at least the willfully ignorant. When a party must misconstrue the situation to the point of fake tears, it is a sign that they are desperate and losing.

Same with turmoil in the Trump Administration. Likely that it isn't the case. Sort of like the Democrats blocking the cabinet appointments, to the point of slander and lies, and then criticizing the administration for being tardy in building their cabinet.

I must say that I find it amazing that the Americans who are protesting vetting before entry from some of these countries would not be able to survive as a known American (or maybe not even as a non-Muslim) in those same countries. Kind of ironic, isn't it?

 

[jlc1978]

That's what Trump does, he disrupts the OODA loop of his opponents.

Boyd, however, focused on planned, deliberate actions to achieve superiority, focusing on a faster decision making process. Trump appears simply to do things to do things. Big Difference.

I must say that I find it amazing that the Americans who are protesting vetting before entry from some of these countries would not be able to survive as a known American (or maybe not even as a non-Muslim) in those same countries. Kind of ironic, isn't it?

Many Muslims are not able to survive there either, simply because of their religion as well. Your point is?

 

[5684697]

Boyd, however, focused on planned, deliberate actions to achieve superiority, focusing on a faster decision making process. Trump appears simply to do things to do things. Big Difference.



Many Muslims are not able to survive there either, simply because of their religion as well. Your point is?

Are you sure about Trump v Boyd? And Boyd's premise has been so distorted and co-opted that it is almost unrecognizable. He was describing what happens, not creating a structural doctrine. It is a mistake to assume that Trump is stupid. Boorish and egotistical, but traditional biases are foolish. He is a conservative Democrat, a populist, not a fascist. That is a meme because some oxen's are being gored.

There are places throughout the world that are full of misery and death. The question is, why is the solution mass exodus and immigration to civilized nations. Those problems shouldn't be imported, they should be solved in situ, and those who are accepted need to assimilate, or the result will naturally be another disaster.

I've always said- Immigration should be driven by whether the people will be assets or liabilities, long term. Welcome the former, reject the latter.

America had that policy for a long, long time. Easy to research and verify.

 

[jlc1978]

Are you sure about Trump v Boyd? And Boyd's premise has been so distorted and co-opted that it is almost unrecognizable. He was describing what happens, not creating a structural doctrine.

I agree. Boyd was describing a process for decision making, and his disdain for doctrine was well known; his theory is the opposite of doctrine in many ways. Take the first O - Observe. He speaks of taking in information that challenges your mental model and keeps you open to new information. This leads directly to the second O - Orient. At this point you need to rethink your mental model(s) and reconstruct them based on what was observed. Then you go to the Act and Decide phases.

Based on what I've seen, read, and heard, Trump isn't doing the first two O's very well, if at all. He has a mental model of how things are and that stifles his decision making process; which is why I say merely doing things that confuse people is not necessarily following Boyd's theory.

It is a mistake to assume that Trump is stupid. Boorish and egotistical, but traditional biases are foolish. He is a conservative Democrat, a populist, not a fascist. That is a meme because some oxen's are being gored.

I agree he isn't stupid, but many smart people are lead astray by a faulty decision making process. As for leanings, I think Trump is an opportunist that will be whatever he thinks best suits Trump at the moment.

I've always said- Immigration should be driven by whether the people will be assets or liabilities, long term. Welcome the former, reject the latter.

It would seem a blanket ban does just the opposite, which makes your statement ironic.

 

[bradl]

Apple is now a political machine taking the left progressive liberals side and fighting for their party.

This is even more obvious since Tim never opposed any of the Obama policies and he agreed 100% with every policy the previous government did in the last 8 years.

I guess Tim and Obama have the exact same brain and ideology.

I wonder what happens to any of the over 100,000 Apple employees that may disagree with Apple's left ideology

Ah ah ah....

Corporations are people too, my friend. -Mitt Romney

Your faux rage is misplaced. That anger should be directed at Citizens United.

BL.

 

[5684697]

I agree. Boyd was describing a process for decision making, and his disdain for doctrine was well known; his theory is the opposite of doctrine in many ways. Take the first O - Observe. He speaks of taking in information that challenges your mental model and keeps you open to new information. This leads directly to the second O - Orient. At this point you need to rethink your mental model(s) and reconstruct them based on what was observed. Then you go to the Act and Decide phases.

Based on what I've seen, read, and heard, Trump isn't doing the first two O's very well, if at all. He has a mental model of how things are and that stifles his decision making process; which is why I say merely doing things that confuse people is not necessarily following Boyd's theory.



I agree he isn't stupid, but many smart people are lead astray by a faulty decision making process. As for leanings, I think Trump is an opportunist that will be whatever he thinks best suits Trump at the moment.



It would seem a blanket ban does just the opposite, which makes your statement ironic.

It wasn't a blanket ban...

My personal application is -

Observe, Overreact, Destroy, Apologize.

 

[jlc1978]

It wasn't a blanket ban...

Considering only very specific visas were not included (Diplomatic, NATO, International organizations) it pretty much was a blanket ban.

My personal application is -

Observe, Overreact, Destroy, Apologize.

Not an uncommon application.

 

[bradl]

My personal application is -

Observe, Overreact, Destroy, Apologize.

Can this be applied congruently with "Eat, Sleep, DAMN! Repeat."?

BL.

 

[trainwrecka]

Someone said the majority voted for Trump, and the majority is the popular vote, and Trump didn't win the popular vote, so anyone who says "the majority voted for Trump" is just plain wrong. It doesn't matter what strategies they used, and who got the most votes in the Electoral College - fact is that anyone says "the majority voted for Trump" is wrong.

Uhhh... I'm guessing you didn't read and process my original comment. I never said the "majority voted for Trump". The "majority" didn't vote for Hillary either, unless we say the statement as "The majority of people that voted in the Electoral College election process voted for Hillary. The true popular vote cannot be determined unless this was a popular vote election."

So many people on both sides of the aisle sit these things out, because certain States go certain ways. How many folks sit out in Cali, because it goes blue? Same with Texas being red. Don't you think a lot of folks - both red and blue - would've came out if they knew their votes would be counted differently?

So again, saying "she won the popular vote" might make you feel better, but it is at best a twisting of the truth. It wasn't a popular vote election.

 

[Karma*Police]

That is a specious, silly argument that is being made by incompetent media and demagogic politicians.

Your premise is that a country must have already perpetrated a successful attack before people attempting to enter can face increased scrutiny. In reality, it's based on intelligence showing that certain countries have inferior vetting and records, making them exploitable by operatives seeking a back door to infiltrate the US.

A lot of noise in this debate that is meant to mask the situation while assuming that there isn't a threat.

No one is saying there isn't a threat, and the argument is no more specious than the people who said that invading Iraq would destabilize the region and create more threats, which is exactly what happened.

Of course, a lot of people who sided with Bush made the same mistake as the people who support the ban today; they focused on short term outcomes instead of looking at the big picture.

Trump wasn't going to stop terrorism with the ban but he likely created new threats by further enraging many Muslims worldwide, including some who live amongst us. History has shown us that ostracizing or treating a person or group unfairly usually leads to bad outcomes.

 

[5684697]

It-is-not-a-ban.

The problem is, that the region is unstable, as you said in Iraq. A mess, caused by a variety of problems, some are deeply ingrained and not solvable. So many on the left and right, advocate getting out of the Middle East, leaving it completely, and minding our own business (especially as fracking had severely diminished the reliance on unstable areas for energy).

So if that is the solution, get the heck out, then doesn't it make sense to bring the people who helped the US over and keep the rest out of the country? People want to get out, but then import the problems they are advocating fleeing.

 

[jlc1978]

It-is-not-a-ban.

If it walks like a duck, quack likes a duck, you can say it's not a duck but it's still a duck.

 

[5684697]

It quacks like Muslims are welcome from country's that don't have dysfunctional, tribal governments.

 

[jlc1978]

It quacks like Muslims are welcome from country's that don't have dysfunctional, tribal governments.

Progress . You admit it bans a religious group, which is illegal under US law.

 

[5684697]

Progress . You admit it bans a religious group, which is illegal under US law.

No, it bans no religious group, not even the victimized Muslims that YOU are referencing. If it banned a religious group of ducks, then why are those migratory foul allowed into the US from countries where there is enough of a government to ascertain that they aren't actually armed drones pretending to be Mallards?

Oh well. This will all be moot in a few days.

 

[jlc1978]

No, it bans no religious group, not even the victimized Muslims that YOU are referencing. If it banned a religious group of ducks, then why are those migratory foul allowed into the US from countries where there is enough of a government to ascertain that they aren't actually armed drones pretending to be Mallards?

Because the order ducked the issue of stopping terrorists from entering from countries that have already sent some and thus was not all it was quacked up to be, and the courts, despite being accused of fowl play, refused to let it fly.

 

[5684697]

The order was poorly implemented and overreaching. The 9th circuit ducked the real issue.

However, the 9th Circuit also made a goofy ruling, taking into account Trumps campaign remarks and idiotic premise that stopping immigration hurt universities. By that standard, I can create all sorts of rights for non citizens that could have come here to buy my products.

But even then, your premise is incorrect there were people admitted from those countries with terrorist crimes. It isn't primary or required for increased vetting, because that should be intel based, not a late reaction to historical events that require that people are already murdered before action is warranted.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13468/whoa-wapo-fact-check-admits-33-terrorists-came-7-john-nolte