Apple Not Listed on New Legal Brief Opposing Trump's Second Travel Ban

[MacRumors]

Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and more than 60 other companies have either decided not to sign, or have yet to sign, a new legal brief filed in federal court in Hawaii this week, constituting the makings of a lawsuit looking to block the second version of President Donald Trump's travel ban (via Reuters). Trump referred to the new order as a "watered-down version" of the original, but a federal judge in Hawaii nevertheless blocked the revised order.

Over a month ago, Apple joined 100 U.S. companies in support of a legal brief that opposed the first immigration ban. That order banned Syrian refugees from entering the United States, blocked citizens of seven countries (Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen) from entering the U.S. for 90 days, and suspended entry of all refugees entering the U.S. for 120 days. The new ban removed Iraq from the list, exempted green card and visa holders, and toned down "contentious language referring to religious minorities."

On Tuesday, a new legal brief was filed in a Hawaiian court on behalf of 58 total Silicon Valley companies voicing support for the state's blocking of Trump's order, down from 127 companies on the first brief. A few companies mentioned on the new opposition brief include Kickstarter, Airbnb, and Dropbox. Although the current list is small, hope for the lawsuit to succeed is growing, and New York lawyer Robert Atkins -- who co-authored the new brief -- said "we do expect the group to expand."

Apple Inc, Alphabet Inc's Google and Facebook Inc are among more than 60 technology companies that appear to have backed away from the legal fight against U.S. President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban, deciding not to put their weight behind a lawsuit seeking to block the second version of his executive order.

A legal brief filed in federal court in Hawaii on Tuesday on behalf of Silicon Valley companies listed the support of 58 companies, less than half the 127 signatories to a similar brief filed in an appeals court last month after Trump's first executive order banning travel from a number of countries the administration said posed a security risk.

It was not immediately clear why fewer of them signed on to the "friend-of-the-court" brief this time around.

Apple was a large part of the opposition to the travel ban last month, helping pen an open letter to Trump explaining that the U.S. is a "nation made stronger by immigrants," while Apple CEO Tim Cook said that it "is not a policy we support." Trump himself said he plans to appeal against the federal judge's halting of his revised order and take the case "as far as it needs to go," including the Supreme Court.

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple Not Listed on New Legal Brief Opposing Trump's Second Travel Ban

 

[tunerX]

Tim Cook hates muslims...

 

[iPhysicist]

Tim Cook hates muslims...

Source?
I'd call this fake news otherwise...

 

[chrono1081]

Maybe...just maybe...its because this was just announced and they want time to get the facts straight before commenting.

 

[jerry16]

So Apple is not listed on a legal brief opposing an executive order that has next to nothing to do with Apple.. and there is no rumor... so nothing Apple, no rumors... Yet it is on... MacRumors

 

[2010mini]

I don't get the logic of this travel ban....

Ban people from countries whose citizens have not attacked the US. But let in ones from countries that have....

 

[Rocketman]

law supporting trump immigration

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...immigration-ban-is-clumsy-but-perfectly-legal

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/on-the-muslim-immigration-ban-the-law-favors-trump-2017-02-07

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...-on-trumps-side-with-his-immigration-ban.html

Oops. Facts.

It is not a muslim ban because predominantly muslim countries are not impacted. It is a ban from countries with little or no effective government or databases on population to vet against for determining immigrant identification and background. Despite what a random Hawaiian court says.

 

[Starflyer]

Perhaps Apple realizes that Trump's campaign rhetoric is not a basis for invalidating an EO? If you read the decision that is basically this judge's argument.

 

[Starflyer]

I don't get the logic of this travel ban....

Ban people from countries whose citizens have not attacked the US. But let in ones from countries that have....

These are the countries that the Obama Administration felt were hotbeds for terrorist activities and this temporary ban is to make sure our screening process is not allowing dangerous people through.

 

[mozumder]

law supporting trump immigration

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...immigration-ban-is-clumsy-but-perfectly-legal

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/on-the-muslim-immigration-ban-the-law-favors-trump-2017-02-07

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...-on-trumps-side-with-his-immigration-ban.html

Oops. Facts.

It is not a muslim ban because predominantly muslim countries are not impacted. It is a ban from countries with little or no effective government or databases on population to vet against for determining immigrant identification and background. Despite what a random Hawaiian court says.

It's a Muslim ban, since it was declared as such during the campaign. *ooops* busted haha!

A Muslim ban is illegal, as it violates the first amendment of the constitution, which declares that the government isn't allowed to establish a religion.

 

[yaxomoxay]

It's a Muslim ban, since it was declared as such during the campaign. *ooops* busted haha!

A Muslim ban is illegal, as it violates the first amendment of the constitution, which declares that the government isn't allowed to establish a religion.

A public declaration has nothing to do with what the law says. For the law (or - the EO, to be precise), a Christian Syrian can't enter the country exactly as a Muslim Syrian.

 

[BornAgainMac]

I wonder if the venting analysis can't be done in parallel while the Ban is being disputed by judges since the Ban is temporary. Eventually, the ban would not be needed since it was a temporary measure anyways.

I always laugh when I see Tim Cooks picture in that photo with Trump. A hundred articles could be posted using that image with the headline.

 

[Starflyer]

It's a Muslim ban, since it was declared as such during the campaign.

All public declarations receive authority and derive from law.
[doublepost=1489672687][/doublepost]

Is Trump campaign rhetoric legally binding? SCOTUS ruled Obama flip-flopping on whether Obamacare mandate was a tax was irrelevant.

 

[mozumder]

A public declaration has nothing to do with what the law says. For the law (or - the EO, to be precise), a Christian Syrian can't enter the country exactly as a Muslim Syrian.

All public declarations receive authority and derive from law.
[doublepost=1489672687][/doublepost]

Is Trump campaign rhetoric legally binding? SCOTUS ruled Obama flip-flopping on whether Obamacare mandate was a tax was irrelevant.

Yes, since the judicial branch looks for intent of law when deciding on validity of law.

 

[yaxomoxay]

All public declarations receive authority and derive from law.

Mmmm... no, we are not in a Monarchy. We're in the US. A law derives its authority by the Constitution and the law itself, not by the people writing down the law.
[doublepost=1489672908][/doublepost]

Yes, since the judicial branch looks for intent of law when deciding on validity of law.

It's not criminal or tort law. It's policy we're talking about. Intent is not meant as the mental attitude, it is meant as the ultimate 'problem' that the law itself (and not who writes it) deals with.

 

[TechGeek76]

law supporting trump immigration

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...immigration-ban-is-clumsy-but-perfectly-legal

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/on-the-muslim-immigration-ban-the-law-favors-trump-2017-02-07

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...-on-trumps-side-with-his-immigration-ban.html

Oops. Facts.

It is not a muslim ban because predominantly muslim countries are not impacted. It is a ban from countries with little or no effective government or databases on population to vet against for determining immigrant identification and background. Despite what a random Hawaiian court says.

Legally, he can block anyone from entering this country. People just don't seem to understand this.

 

[macfacts]

So the first time Apple was against the travel ban was "fake"? Just made a big fuss over it at first to make themselves look good.

"Tim Cook doesn't care about Muslims."

 

[DougFNJ]

I don't think I understand the logic of the arguments or the double standard. If this was a permanent ban, it would make total sense, but we are talking 3 months on a list Obama created noting dangerous countries which is believed to have a lot of ISIS terrorists. The 3 month ban is put into place while we put stronger security and vetting measures in place and then the ban will be lifted. Other presidents have done this with no pushback whatsoever, but because it is this president it seems almost mandatory that anything he tries to accomplish, even when it comes down to our safety must be dealt with on the highest level of resistance.

It seems like this country is conditioned to react to major disasters after they happen rather than be proactive and take measures to avoid them before they take place.

 

[manu chao]

It is not a muslim ban because predominantly muslim countries are not impacted. It is a ban from countries with little or no effective government or databases on population to vet against for determining immigrant identification and background.

Sure, but there are other countries with similarly challenged governments (eg, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Afghanistan). And Iran is a pretty well organised country, better than many African countries. Also, in terms of attacks on American soil or even in Europe, you'd be hard-pressed to find any at all with an Iranian connection, I also don't remember any with a Sudanese connection at the top of my head.

If you look for common factors in that list of countries, you'd find:
1) Muslim-majority
2) Islam plays a very important role for at least some state or rebel elements
3) Economically (and politically) not important (Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are politically too important to the U.S., to some degree also economically)

You could add civil war, which applies to Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan but not to Iran.

 

[You are the One]

Legally, he can block anyone from entering this country. People just don't seem to understand this.

Liberals don't care much about what is legal, they care about their feeelings (even when those feelings are expressed as violence). Funny thing, they aren't even aware that those feeelings are implanted in their mass-controlled minds by the less than 1% ruling elite.

Anyway, it's good Apple if keeps to making devices and not politics. Businesses are loosing business due to their CEO's coming out as braindead liberals. Apple shouldn't do that mistake.

Hopefully globalism will be self regulated into a trash can somewhere far away in an another galaxy. On a planet for liberal misery and fascism.

The list of tech companies boycotting a legal action of the President is similar to the list of "fake-media" outlets (made by the real fake media). The tech list is a list of companies to avoid, the other list is a list over news-outlets to read since they don't agree with the globalism narrative.

 

[manu chao]

I don't think I understand the logic of the arguments or the double standard. If this was a permanent ban, it would make total sense, but we are talking 3 months on a list Obama created noting dangerous countries which is believed to have a lot of ISIS terrorists. The 3 month ban is put into place while we put stronger security and vetting measures in place and then the ban will be lifted.

Because the danger is so high and imminent that we couldn't allow people (that have passed existing vetting measures) to enter the U.S. while we are putting stronger security and vetting measures in place? Or is it simply that everything that existed before Trump took office is the worst xxx ever, and everything that Trump will create is the best ever thing?

And can you point me to ISIS terrorists in Iran? Or Sudan?

This is at best security theatre and at worst the best implementation of the entry ban of Muslims promised by Trump that the administration thought they could get away with (with a Muslim ban as promised during the campaign itself being at best security theatre and at worst something much worse).

Other presidents have done this with no pushback whatsoever, but because it is this president it seems almost mandatory that anything he tries to accomplish, even when it comes down to our safety must be dealt with on the highest level of resistance.

Can you point me to such a nationality-based entry ban by previous presidents?
[doublepost=1489675290][/doublepost]

Hopefully globalism will be self regulated into a trash can somewhere far away in an another galaxy. On a planet for liberal misery and fascism.

Yeah, let's hope every country will be designing and manufacturing their own smartphones and American global companies like Apple will be shrunk back to serve only their own national market. Is that what you mean?

 

[yaxomoxay]

And Iran is a pretty well organised country, better than many African countries.

Iran is a very well organized country, with a functional bureaucracy. One of its missions, declared officially for many years which included a proxy war, is the end of America (and Israel). It is therefore plausible that the Iranian bureaucracy might not be willing to cooperate with the American bureaucracy in vetting refugees and those asking for a visa, thus exponentially increasing the risk of issuing a visa to a dangerous element of the Iranian nation.

 

[Bigsk8r]

A lot of people seem to have missed the second point with regard to the 7 countries (on the list created by Mr Obama), besides Syria. That point being that for all or part of the last 8 years we have been bombing and/or drone striking locations in each country and the collateral damage (read: civilian loss) has not been zero.

I can't imagine why anyone from one of those countries might want to come here and do anything but hold our hand and sing Kum By Yah... /s

 

[Jimmy Bubbles]

I don't get the logic of this travel ban....

Ban people from countries whose citizens have not attacked the US. But let in ones from countries that have....

Why is it that when this President does this, it makes top headlines but when many presidents before him have done the same, no one seems to remember?

 

[TechGeek76]

A lot of people seem to have missed the second point with regard to the 7 countries (on the list created by Mr Obama), besides Syria. That point being that for all or part of the last 8 years we have been bombing and/or drone striking locations in each country and the collateral damage (read: civilian loss) has not been zero.

I can't imagine why anyone from one of those countries might want to come here and do anything but hold our hand and sing Kum By Yah... /s

A lot of people miss the only fact that matters, Trump has legal authority to do this, no matter who or what country. That's a simple fact.