Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation United States Politics IT

Microsoft's H-1B Workers Cited In Motion That Successfully Blocked Trump's Travel Ban (geekwire.com) 476

"President Trump's travel ban is on hold," reports WGN. "A federal judge in Seattle blocked the executive order banning travelers from seven predominately Muslim countries." But Slashdot reader theodp noticed that the judge's temporary restraining order might've been responding to something specific: the motion argued Trump's executive order had been harmful because it impacted major tech companies in the state of Washington, including Microsoft. From the motion: Washington's technology industry relies heavily on the H-1B visa program. Nationwide, Washington ranks ninth in the number of applications for high-tech visas. Microsoft, which is headquartered in Washington, employs nearly 5,000 people through the program. Other Washington companies, including Amazon, Expedia, and Starbucks, employ thousands of H-1B visa holders. Loss of highly skilled workers puts Washington companies at a competitive disadvantage with global competitors.
It was in response to the motion from Washington that the judge ultimately ruled that "the States have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of signing and implementation of the Executive Order," citing its harm on the state's public universities -- and on its tax base. And Attorney General Bob Ferguson told GeekWire that he gave some credit for the judge's ruling to the declarations of support filed by Amazon and Expedia which specifically say that "Microsoft's U.S. workforce is heavily dependent on immigrants and guest workers. At least 76 employees at Microsoft are citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, or Yemen and hold U.S. temporary work visas."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft's H-1B Workers Cited In Motion That Successfully Blocked Trump's Travel Ban

Comments Filter:
  • One word (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Skype.

    Work remotely... they have Internet overseas.

    • Do they have broadband in these countries - Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, et al? They'd need that to run Skype. I support the ban - our safety comes ahead of their convenience, but they could have relocated them to Turkey or Dubai and continued from there
      • Do they have broadband in these countries - Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, et al? They'd need that to run Skype. I support the ban - our safety comes ahead of their convenience, but they could have relocated them to Turkey or Dubai and continued from there

        Washington State's tax base is suffering because of a 120 day hold on issuing refugee visas to Somalis and Yemenis?

      • Re:Alternatives (Score:5, Informative)

        by mrclevesque ( 1413593 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @10:46AM (#53802089)

        "I support the ban - our safety comes ahead of their convenience"

        But does it increase your safety. What about other countries, what about those that get through anyway, what about 9/11 terrorists, 15 where from Saudi Arabia, two where from the United Arab Emirates, and one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon.

        • I'm not suggesting the US ban all outsiders, I'm suggesting the value of the ban is highly questionable.

        • Re:Alternatives (Score:5, Informative)

          by ClickOnThis ( 137803 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @12:18PM (#53802493) Journal

          "I support the ban - our safety comes ahead of their convenience"

          But does it increase your safety. What about other countries, what about those that get through anyway, what about 9/11 terrorists, 15 where from Saudi Arabia, two where from the United Arab Emirates, and one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon.

          Not to mention that the number of terror-related deaths on American soil since 1975 caused by people from the seven countries in Trump's travel-ban is ... exactly zero.

          People may feel safer with Trump's ban in force, but that doesn't mean they actually are. Trump played to his base with this order. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE -- all countries with which Trump has business dealings -- are still off the hook.

  • by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @06:26AM (#53801473)

    I think the H-1B program should be expanded to other occupations. If medical insurance companies could import masses of low-paid foreign doctors and dentists, just think of how much that could cut the costs of insurance premiums!?!

    Also, these judges seem and lawyers seem to be scarce and overpaid . . . let's replace them with cheap foreign imports!

    • You hadn't been following have you..

      If you had you would have pointed out how h1b via doctors can increase the profitability of the medical companies.
      Because they sure as hell have not been used to lower costs to the public.. Just to increase corporate profitability by getting rid of those pesky local worker costs.
      While continuing to collect the nice government employment perks of course..

    • by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @08:22AM (#53801697) Homepage Journal

      I can't comment on H1-Bs but I know that the medical industry is already highly reliant upon immigrant doctors and nurses, and yes, the EO has lead to some problems, causing doctors shortages in some areas of the US [scientificamerican.com].

      Because the discussion of the EO has centered around terrorism (something it's unlikely to have any affect on, given the lack of terrorist incidents in the US committed by people from the affected countries so far), and the tech industry (because it's tech that's been most high profile in attacking the ban), the affect on other industries has been largely ignored. But yeah, doctors are being turned away and doctors living in the US are having their visas canceled, and you can draw your own conclusions as to what the effect of that will be.

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      I did some work for an urgent care clinic network and many of the doctors I ran into at the clinic were immigrants from other countries.

      Knowing how well the healthcare professions have fortified their jobs with barriers to entry, "review boards" controlled by trade group members, etc, I'd guess there's some process whereby they can practice the type of non-invasive medicine common in an urgent care clinic with a "lite" version of the medical boards and under USA doctor "supervision".

      But full-blown licensure

      • Foreign medical degrees are generally respected by US medical licensure boards, but foreign residency training is not. You have to do a residency in the US to practice here except in extraordinary circumstances. And it's very hard for a foreign medical graduate to get a residency in a highly competitive specialty.
    • If medical insurance companies could import masses of low-paid foreign doctors and dentists, just think of how much that could cut the costs of insurance premiums!?!

      I'm going to take "not at all" for $500 thanks.

      None of the insane American medical costs are the result of the cost of doctors or dentists. The only thing that changes by bringing in H1Bs is the average skin colour of the profession.

      Oh wait you thought I was about to say quality didn't you. *psyche*

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Re "Also, these judges seem and lawyers seem to be scarce and overpaid . . . let's replace them with cheap foreign imports!"
      What about expensive and complex role of security cleared US contractors?
      Could expert mil staff not be found in Brazil, South Africa, India, Germany or France with the same design and logistics skills?
      Think of the savings if a multi national could just hire their own lawyers, mil security experts and then sell the final product direct to the US military?
      No US experts, US engineers
  • by golodh ( 893453 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @06:30AM (#53801475)
    Whilst I'm happy that the ban has been rescinded (at least in part and until mr. Trump files an appeal with the Supreme Court after he has molded it to his liking) I feel it's for the wrong reasons.

    Not one word about translators and guides for the US army in Iraq who have served faithfully and got a visa after intense vetting as a reward. Not one word about the reliability of the vetting procedures already in place, the probability of inadvertently admitting terrorists on visa already issued or about substituting security theatre for security. Not one word about the justification (or lack thereof) of a measure that hits people who have lived here for 10+ years without problems and can't travel abroad because they'll be stopped at the border.

    No. The only thing that counted was: Washington state filed a complaint that companies like Microsoft, Amazon, and Starbucks (not people !) have suffered immediate and irreparable (financial) loss. That was decisive.

    Ugh. I'm getting a drink.

    • by guises ( 2423402 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @06:50AM (#53801509)
      That other stuff will probably come, in fact I think some of that was part of the ACLU's argument which won a stay in New York. This was a judge in Washington and was addressing an issue within his jurisdiction, within the boundaries of what was presented to him.

      The fact that these were H-1B workers seems like a flamebait headline - losing 76 employees, all at once and without warning (surprise!), would have been a big issue regardless of the terms of their employment. And also: 5,000 people losing their jobs all of a sudden, without warning - that's a big deal too. Yet it seems like the submitter is trying to spin this as a positive because these particular employees are part of the H-1B program.
      • by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @11:58AM (#53802395)

        should I feel AT ALL sorry for the companies that have been, for YEARS, abusing the h1b program and displacing local workers?

        I could not care less (seriously, I could not) about those companies. they put me and others like me out of work for years at a time and they reaped huge profits.

        if they were smart, they would have saved that money and could rely on it now.

        they did not? really? ok, let me get out my tiny violin and play a tune for them.

        PAIN is a motivating factor. these companies DESERVE to feel pain.

        lots and lots of it.

    • by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @06:55AM (#53801517) Homepage

      Two Iraqi men in their 20s have been convicted of a bloody sex crime in Colorado that left the victim, a woman in her 50s, in need of immediate surgery and a colostomy bag. Three other Iraqi men, also in their 20s,were convicted on lesser charges as accessories.

      Four points set this case apart. First, there is its brutality: Law enforcement officers describe the July 2012 assault as "rare" and "horrific" and "one of the worst in Colorado history." Second, all of these men once assisted U.S. military forces in Iraq as informants and interpreters. Third, every one of them received permanent residency status in the U.S., due in part to efforts made by U.S. military members on their behalf. Fourth, this extraordinary case and the ties that bind it to the U.S. military and the war in Iraq have received little coverage.

      Link to full story [townhall.com].

      Have we ever considered it's a BAD thing to steal all these talented people from their own societies and hog them all for ourselves? America, already bursting with money that it just wastes, gets richer while the developing world is robbed of the talented people that they so badly need. Imagine 10,000 enterprising, able people suddenly relocated back to their home countries where they will open businesses, employ their countrymen, and add to their own culture's wealth instead of an imperialist power's. Now imagine the Americans that have to fill the gap - suddenly the employers don't hold all the cards any more and it's a seller's market. Employee abuses go down and worker salaries go up. It's win-win...for everyone but the corporations.

      • Have we ever considered it's a BAD thing to steal all these talented people from their own societies and hog them all for ourselves?

        What part of AMERICA FIRST don't you understand?

        You people aren't even consistent with your own bullshit.

      • Great point. Of course, once the emigres to America get their education and/or employment, they are statistically likely to remain of their own free will... and a significant percentage DO enrich their native country families with regular stipends.
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        We need a mix of perspectives and new ideas to stay competitive. Lots of successful businesses are started by immigrants because they have an outside perspective.

        After they become successful they export some of it back to where they came from. Jobs and innovation in our countries, investment and opportunities in theirs. Win-win for everyone.

        The idea that if we kept them out our own people would step in is bogus. The wages are already too low, and as cheap labour dried up the cost of living would rise and re

        • by Z80a ( 971949 )

          When they come to the country, integrate to it and are able to grow in it yes.
          But when they come to basically create a miniature version of their country or are basically slaves with no chance of fighting or growing, not so much.

    • by alxc ( 853960 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @06:58AM (#53801531)

      Whilst I'm happy that the ban has been rescinded (at least in part and until mr. Trump files an appeal with the Supreme Court after he has molded it to his liking) I feel it's for the wrong reasons.

      Not one word about translators and guides for the US army in Iraq who have served faithfully and got a visa after intense vetting as a reward. Not one word about the reliability of the vetting procedures already in place, the probability of inadvertently admitting terrorists on visa already issued or about substituting security theatre for security. Not one word about the justification (or lack thereof) of a measure that hits people who have lived here for 10+ years without problems and can't travel abroad because they'll be stopped at the border.

      No. The only thing that counted was: Washington state filed a complaint that companies like Microsoft, Amazon, and Starbucks (not people !) have suffered immediate and irreparable (financial) loss. That was decisive.

      Ugh. I'm getting a drink.

      Perhaps the President could convince Microsoft to hire back all of the American workers they laid off before worrying about getting more cheap tech workers into the country.

      • by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @09:26AM (#53801837)

        Perhaps the President could convince Microsoft to hire back all of the American workers they laid off before worrying about getting more cheap tech workers into the country.

        When I saw the headline that said "Microsoft's H-1B workers" I thought, "how many can that really be?" Then I got my answer in the summary: 5,000. Then I thought, "What!?!? Microsoft is so completely unable to find US workers that nearly 5% of their entire (global) workforce consists of people brought to the US under a program specifically designed to help companies bring in specialized skills which cannot be found in the US.

        If anybody doubts that the entire program either needs to be massively reformed or completely eliminated (I think reform is the better route), then this single example should be all you need. According to the Wikipedia article on MS, they have laid off approaching 25,000-35,000 workers in the last three years. How many of those were H-1B visa holders? I'm not saying that H-1Bs should always be the first to go, but I wonder how many of those laid off would be considered to have specialized skills. The whole thing is just disgusting.

    • I suggest you start drinking Brawndo. :(

    • by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @09:16AM (#53801815)

      Not one word about translators and guides for the US army in Iraq who have served faithfully and got a visa after intense vetting as a reward

      That has been reported elsewhere. The pentagon does not appear to be amused by Trump's artificial emergency blocking some of their people and some Iraqi pilots bound for Arizona, and they also deployed lawyers to airports.

    • by gtall ( 79522 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @09:29AM (#53801849)

      You forget the intent of the Trump Ban. It was merely a sop to his supporters. He let his chief bonehead, Bannon, write it up. It never occurred to Bannon there were interpreters, or any others that would get whacked by the order. It doesn't matter to Trump whether the order stands or falls, what matters to him is that he can be seen to being doing something against the Terrorist Threat, no matter how much it is just masturbation.

      • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @12:39PM (#53802547) Journal

        This is what happens when you put national security in the hands of your pals. "Way to go, Brownie!"

        But Bannon isn't merely just some good buddy who gets a high paying job in government. Bannon is effectively a political officer who handed the keys to Breitbart to Trump. But as at least someone in the Administration should now be figuring out, running a successful political campaign has virtually nothing to do with governance. You need your Conways and Bannons, of course, because you need people who can spin your policies, but to give someone like Bannon a position of actual power with what appears to be virtually no oversight at all, well that's insane.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      Not one word about translators and guides for the US army in Iraq who have served faithfully and got a visa after intense vetting as a reward.

      If you follow the news at all, you already know that we've been shitting on those people essentially as often as possible. What's one more insulting injury? I wonder if any of those people helped us knowing how we would treat them afterwards, and did it anyway for love of their country. Me, I'd only do that if I couldn't escape. Hear that, Trump supporters? I'd rather flee than help you correct your mistakes. I did my best to talk you out of your asshattery before it happened.

    • You don't list every possible reason in a situation like this, you list the specific incidents with real harm, that no one can argue the facts. If you have more news reports, they don't count until you have a person showing irreparable harm, in writing, in a court filing.

      Microsoft went to bat first and got the home run. No need to wait for more.

    • by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @12:03PM (#53802429)
      No, it was that the companies were suffering losses for no reason . There's no known threat, nor has there ever been, from the system the US has of allowing people into this country. We already do "extreme vetting", and have for many years.
  • I'm truly amazed (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Trump has done one thing others have not been able to, and that's cut through the baloney. So quickly too. Microsoft participated in this lawsuit now, but yet they said or did nothing when DHS put travel restrictions from these very same countries last year [dhs.gov].

    Let's be honest. This is not about stopping a handful of employees traveling from these countries. It's about taking on Trump in order to protect the importing of cheap labor from abroad. You know the old saying "even the pope is replaceable." If your co

    • by Layzej ( 1976930 )

      Microsoft participated in this lawsuit now, but yet they said or did nothing when DHS put travel restrictions from these very same countries last year

      Maybe travel restrictions != travel ban?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

      DHS put travel restrictions from these very same countries last year

      Oh so announcing an update to some restrictions applying to the ESTA process is the same thing as, and I quote,

      "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"

      So blocking everyone exc

    • by kellymcdonald78 ( 2654789 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @10:25AM (#53802027)
      Ahh yes, when Trump issues an executive order its "getting things done and cutting through the baloney", when Obama did it "it was a step on the road to tyranny and dictatorship" go it
    • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @12:40PM (#53802553) Journal

      Cut through the baloney? It's been so thick in bullshit for the last two weeks I doubt there's anyone in the White House who even knows what's actually happening, or even wants to know. Maybe Trump's predecessors lived in ivory towers. He appears to live at the bottom of a salt mine.

  • Section 1182(f) of the US Code reads: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." In other words, the president has pretty much arbitrary power to
    • by cryptizard ( 2629853 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @07:27AM (#53801581)

      Also, the judge implies that aliens in foreign countries have Constitutional rights, which is complete lunacy.

      Where are you reading that? The judge specifically motivates the stay by saying that the states have sufficiently demonstrated that they are suffering immediate injury from the ban. That is what is in question, the "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States" part. Washington is arguing that the ban itself is detrimental, and the judge is ruling that the White House has not made sufficient justification that the harm avoided by the ban outweighs that which it itself causes.

    • by thesupraman ( 179040 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @07:27AM (#53801583)

      I am pretty sure the judge is ruling in the case of people who holds valid is visas of one form or another.
      Certainly some forms of visa remove the holder from the classification of alien used here.
      Of course that doesn't mean he doesn't have the right.. Just that what you wrote is not enjoying in all these cases.
      The bigger picture here though.. Is he is doing much what he claimed he would do before an election.
      I suspect that is scaring the hell out of the career politicians and public servants.
      It will be interesting to see how long it continues.. The is going to be an internal power struggle within the 'public service'..
      About damn time.

    • by guises ( 2423402 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @07:39AM (#53801599)

      This is why it was lawful when President Obama banned all Iraqi refugees for six months in 2011.

      There was no refugee ban under Obama, I don't know where you all are getting this from. There was a period in 2011 when vetting was increased for refugees from Iraq, and... that's it. At no point was there a ban, at no point were Iraqi refugees prohibited from entering the country, there was never a time when Iraqi refugees were not entering the country.

      • by msauve ( 701917 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @08:13AM (#53801663)
        "the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011" - ABC News [go.com]
        • by guises ( 2423402 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @08:41AM (#53801743)
          Okay, thanks for answering my question anyway. Apparently that article is indeed where that rumor started (link [heavy.com]), though the only thing that actually happened was that they stopped taking new applications for a while while they redid the existing applications. There were no bans, and new refugees continued come in during this time.
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            "Stopped taking new applications" is a de facto ban.

            And it was also reported in the New York Times if you care to do a cursory search.

            Also - in a related item, did you realize the DHS under Obama deported more illegal immigrants than his predecessor? Fact.

            Silence from the left while Obama did some worse shit than Bush. You should all be ashamed.

          • by msauve ( 701917 )
            Hey, just like now! Despite colloquially calling it a "ban," it is in fact a temporary suspension. And, there have been people from those countries allowed in since it went into effect.
          • Similarly Trump also did not really ban people from the seven countries right? Green card holders can come in, people already en-route are allowed.
            • Well, so badly written and executed was the EO that the Administration had to clarify that Green Card holders were allowed back in. The way the EO was communicated, it was initially interpreted as a blanket ban. Doesn't Trump have somebody who understands how the government he's been elected to run works?

              • Well, so badly written and executed was the EO that the Administration had to clarify that Green Card holders were allowed back in. The way the EO was communicated, it was initially interpreted as a blanket ban. Doesn't Trump have somebody who understands how the government he's been elected to run works?

                Worse than that, as written the EO applied to "Nationals" of the seven countries, which on its face even includes people with dual US/EvilSeven citizenship.

    • by chill ( 34294 )

      The Executive Order included green card holders, which are permanent residents. They are considered "nationals" and not "aliens" under the same law you quoted, and the President does NOT have the authority to arbitrarily refuse entry of U.S. Nationals into the United States.

      Back up a few sections to read the official definitions.

      8 U.S. Code 1101 - Definitions [cornell.edu]

      (a) As used in this chapter --
      (3) The term âoealienâ means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

      (22) The term "national of the United States" means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

      The judge is not the one who needs to learn the law. For an injunction to be granted the plaintiff has to demonstrate standing [cornell.edu], and convince the judge

      • Even assuming all the legal things you say are correct, they don't protect H-1B visa holders, or their employers, from executive determination that the visa holder's entry is contrary to national security interests. You've only explained why a judge could block enforcement of the order as to permanent residents.

        • by chill ( 34294 )

          The judge has the ability to block the entire order by injunction until it can be properly heard by a court. It will be the court's decision on whether the entire thing is voided or only parts.

          All this judge is saying is "wait -- you're right, this looks wrong on its face and you will suffer harm. I'll suspend it until we can go through the process and figure it all out."

          The President could amend or clarify the order any time he wants to make it clear it is only aliens and the court case would probably be d

          • by Entrope ( 68843 )

            Before issuing a TRO or emergency injunction, a court is supposed to require that a movant show likelihood of success on the merits. How did that happen here?

            • The complaint want exclusively based on H1-B visa holders. The judge doesn't have two faces ruling on everything just the totality. So he may look at it and say "something in this is going to stand, I'm not going to go through the details and tell you what will and what won't. Will let a full court do that."

              You're right in assuming that part may not stand, but even that part is vague enough to warrant full heading by a court. That same section of law refers to refusing entry by refusing the issuance of visa

              • by Entrope ( 68843 )

                Any TRO must "describe in reasonable detail—and not by referring to the complaint or other document—the act or acts restrained or required." [cornell.edu] Thus, when a court issues one, it specifically is not an all-or-nothing decision.

                Between the facts that the executive order on immigration is facially legal, that the movants (Microsoft et al.) cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits, and that the injunction is broader than necessary, can we agree that the court's order is deeply flawed?

                • Not until I read the order itself and see some details on what the complainants presented. :-) Give me a bit...

                • Third paragraph in the introduction section presented by the AG of WA directly address the impact on legal, permanent residents.

                  Note the AG only requested restraint on portions of the order. First paragraph, second to last sentence.

                  I followed the link to the PDF in the summary. Filename AGOWA-Trump-TRO.pdf

                  • by Entrope ( 68843 )

                    I do not think that helps the judge's order at all. The AG's motion says that the administration has changed its positions and has applied the executive order (EO) to cover lawful permanent residents, which I can believe. However, the judge enjoined all enforcement of Section 3(c) of the EO, as well as other sections that can have nothing to do with green card holders. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and some lawyer named Mark Bradshaw [stevenslee.com], an injunction is only supposed to be issued if there is either "no other avai

      • Not even close dude.

        Although all U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals, the reverse is not true. As specified in 8 U.S.C. 1408, a person whose only connection to the U.S. is through birth in an outlying possession (which is defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101 as American Samoa and Swains Island (which is administered as part of American Samoa)), or through descent from a person so born, acquires U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship. This was formerly the case in only four other current or former U.S. overseas p

        • I'm well aware of that section. It came up a great deal in Obama's initial election. However, when quoting law definitions you need to use the definitions given the in the same section of Law and not bounce around too much. Read the section I quoted. There's enough wiggle room in there that green card holders permanent residence, are considered Nationals.

          This is why each major section of the US code starts out with definitions. You'll find a different definition in the IRS tax code section.

          • Shall we see what Black's [thelawdictionary.org] has to say on the matter?

            What is ALLEGIANCE?

            [B]y allegiance is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renoun

            • by chill ( 34294 )

              From your own quote they owe allegiance, even though only temporary.

              The alien, while domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence. Carlisle v. U.S.

              That quite possibly may be good enough, and would seem to need further clarification by the courts, which in turn along with the economic harm to the complainants, along with the demonstrated confusion by the Executive Branch, seems enough to justify the TRO.

      • by Entrope ( 68843 )

        I have seen a lot of claims that the order covered legal permanent residents, and assumed there was some factual basis for that (rather than Fake News, alternative facts, etc.).

        Here is what looks like the relevant part of the executive order:

        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 th

        • By the poor interpretation of overzealous DHS and immigration agents border checkpoints. You're right that on its face it looks perfectly legal, however the guidance given was improper and was implemented improperly. The ruling may simply be not that the order is overturned but the way it's being handled by the people at the border needs to be changed.

      • I think we need a bit more detail, here. Green card holders are resident aliens, not nationals - even Wikipedia says so (ha, ha). Have anything to back up the idea that they're actually nationals? I mean,

        (20) The term “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” means the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having changed.

        Seems to me that isn't the same as owing allegiance to the US. It's explicitly called a privilege, not a right, in the law.

        • by chill ( 34294 )

          Not without digging through court precedent, and I'm not that motivated. I can see there is ambiguity, but will let the lawyers fight this one out and do all the research. I am interested in how it comes out, though it is mostly just idle curiosity.

    • Also, the judge implies that aliens in foreign countries have Constitutional rights, which is complete lunacy.

      Those are not constitutional rights, exhaustively enumerated in the constitution for your edification. Those are human rights, and we put the ones we thought were most important in the document to try to explicitly protect them, not just wave our hands and say we care about human rights. As such, aliens in foreign countries have the same rights guaranteed to us by our constitution, or they are not rights at all.

      Which elements of the bill of rights have been extended to non-citizens varies somewhat; the fi

      • by Entrope ( 68843 )

        The Second Amendment does not extend to non-citizens generally. None of the privileges of permanent residency do. The judge's order was vastly overbroad, in that only one of the sections it enjoined enforcement of could be even arguably read to apply to lawful permanent residents. People who are not US nationals have no right (human, constitutional, or otherwise) to enter the United States -- they may be granted that privilege, and federal immigration law authorizes the president to revoke that privilege

        • The Second Amendment does not extend to non-citizens generally. None of the privileges of permanent residency do.

          You have a reading comprehension problem, don't you? Firearm ownership is not a privilege of permanent residency. Temporary residency is sufficient.

          People who are not US nationals have no right (human, constitutional, or otherwise) to enter the United States

          That's correct. So what? That doesn't reflect on whether the rights non-exhaustively enumerated in the Bill of Rights apply to noncitizens. Please try to stay on topic.

          • by Entrope ( 68843 )

            I reject your alternative facts. [cornell.edu] Non-immigrant aliens (i.e. temporary residents) need specific authorization to legally possess or carry firearms. You can read there the conditions for that authorization. States can, and some do, apply further restrictions on firearm possession by non-citizens, including permanent residents. Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Washington are among the states that default that to being a felony. (Why are liberal states such cesspools of repression?)

            This whole thread is about the

    • Courts have repeatedly ruled that aliens have constitutional rights, wherever US government has jurisdiction. The Law of the United States will treat all fairly, with due process. Even traitors, even people who have actively worked to undermine the very constitution that promises to give them due process. It also holds that where USA has jurisdiction, our constitution will trump override any other law. Thus a Mexican illegal immigrant in USA will be tried under US laws, not Mexican laws.

      Then some court in

  • Taxes are not collected immediately and the injury to the State of Washington is barely noticable from that perspective over the course of a few days or weeks or months.

    This temporary restraining order should be thrown out on that alone.

    • by BBCWatcher ( 900486 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @08:03AM (#53801637)

      Washington State has a sales tax. If an individual cannot enter the United States, that individual buy a pair of sneakers in Washington State, and the state is nearly instantaneously deprived of sales tax revenue. Retailers in Washington must file sales tax returns, and pay sales tax, as frequently as once per month. The State of Washington has already lost some sales tax revenue from the end of January, 2017, that would be owed in about 10 days (mid-February, 2017).

      Washington's Solicitor General made a 100% factually correct argument about one aspect of the harm to the State, and the judge agreed.

  • I didn't know tech workers came from those countries in any large numbers unless all they are is slave production workers.
  • Some good news re. H-1Bs: N.R. Narayana Murthy, the president of Infosys, said [breitbart.com]

    Indian software companies must truly become multicultural. They must recruit American citizen [and] American residents in the U.S., they must recruit Canadians in Canada, British people in Britain, etc. . . . we should stop using H-1B visas and sending a large number of Indians to those countries to deliver services.

    I don't know if he means it, or if he's just talking. But the fact that he's at least admitting the possibility of hiring Americans is a step in the right direction. We'll see what he follows up his words with deeds.

    The article also says,

    U.S. officials say the H-1B program suffers from fraud and extensive corruption, especially in India where inflated resumes and faked documentation are used to get poorly trained and poorly paid Indian workers into American job sites.

  • by IHTFISP ( 859375 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @08:58AM (#53801775)

    So let me get this straight: a judge rules that since Microsoft in WA state relies on H-1B Visa slave labor—and Microsoft constitutes a large chunk of the WA state tax base—therefore the federal H-1B slave labor program cannot be suspended in the U.S. in any way because that would adversely impact some states' economies.

    Didn't we already fight one civil war over this sort of issue? And this ruling was issued during Black History Month?

    Consider my mind officially boggled by the blatant irony of this decision.

    P.S. Lest you imagine I am just trolling, this was ironically the same appeals judge who proclaimed that “Black Lives Matter” in a hearing involving Seattle police reform.
    Ref: http://www.washingtontimes.com... [washingtontimes.com]
    ...... Just sayin'. This judge has a tendency to preach from the bench.

  • Scam (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @09:15AM (#53801811)

    "Microsoft, which is headquartered in Washington, employs nearly 5,000 people through the program."

    Yes, and those are ~4,999 jobs that could be filled by American workers instead of low-cost imported labor.

    Sorry, but the H-1B program has become so abused that it's just a fucking joke. Apparently no one in America knows how to program in Java, Go, C#, or C++, and no one knows how to administer a database or a file system. We're all just too stupid to work on stuff we invented so we need to import "skilled" people from places where toilets are still a novelty.

  • "Starbucks" and "highly skilled workers" in the same sentence?
    Isn't the H1B system just a massive piss take to import cheap foreign labour?
  • What is it about low cost staff from other nations that big US brands really want in the USA?
    Why not just go with what the big US brands really want.
    Say a project needs 3 months of computer work done.
    Fly in staff from a really low wage nation on a new very short term US visa.
    Pay the staff the same wages they get back in their own nation while working in the USA due to the very short term nature of the winning bid.
    When the work is done, the low cost staff return home.
    All the costs of 3rd world wages

Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives.

Working...