<story><title>Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies</title><url>https://cloud.app.box.com/s/mx6vhp0m8c1jyc8fh5yvned3nlu6ihec</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>hajile</author><text>The entire &amp;quot;unreasonableness&amp;quot; is based on the idea that this was Trump randomly banning countries.&lt;p&gt;Obama&amp;#x27;s administration (not Trump&amp;#x27;s) compiled the list of countries. It wasn&amp;#x27;t racial or &amp;quot;because they&amp;#x27;re Muslim&amp;quot; (most Muslims aren&amp;#x27;t banned).&lt;p&gt;What was the common thread between the countries? 6 out of the 7 countries have been on and off the US &amp;quot;State Sponsors of Terror&amp;quot; list for the past 40 years. Somalia (the one that hasn&amp;#x27;t been on the list) has spent most of the last 25 years in anarchy.&lt;p&gt;The law also &lt;i&gt;&lt;/i&gt;explicitly&lt;i&gt;&lt;/i&gt; gives the president the right to make the decision (see section f &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&amp;#x2F;uscode&amp;#x2F;text&amp;#x2F;8&amp;#x2F;1182&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&amp;#x2F;uscode&amp;#x2F;text&amp;#x2F;8&amp;#x2F;1182&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;p&gt;In 1993, SCOTUS ruled that a much longer ban against the poor, non-terrorist, mostly black Haitian immigrants by Bush Sr. and Clinton was legal in an 8-1 ruling (&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;1993&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;22&amp;#x2F;us&amp;#x2F;the-supreme-court-high-court-backs-policy-of-halting-haitian-refugees.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;1993&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;22&amp;#x2F;us&amp;#x2F;the-supreme-court-high-...&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;p&gt;The constitutional claim doesn&amp;#x27;t hold water (foreign nationals have no right to travel in the US and the countries were selected for terrorist connections). That leaves only interpretation of the law, but the law clearly states POTUS has the authority. A 3 month break to find out what policies to put in place against 7 problematic and terrorist sponsoring countries is hardly something SCOTUS will find unreasonable.&lt;p&gt;EDIT: for the record, I think the bans are ineffective at stopping terrorists and are just Trump following through on his populist promises. That&amp;#x27;s different from the legality of the decision. This isn&amp;#x27;t the only thing Trump is doing While everyone has eyeballs here, they miss everything else that&amp;#x27;s happening in DC, and he still gets to look good when SCOTUS agrees with him.</text></item><item><author>chx</author><text>&amp;gt; If this approach were upheld, future orders might apply to any nation, and suddenly and unexpectedly bar its nationals from entering or returning to the United States.&lt;p&gt;Aye, this is the crux of the matter, isn&amp;#x27;t it? I have a plane ticket from Canada to Europe in August, transiting in the USA and I have already contemplated changing my routing because who knows whether I will be admitted? Yes, the chances are heavily slanted towards yes in my specific case but... What I am trying to say: it makes absolutely impossible to plan travel, business into the USA if this order stands for everyone because who knows whether you will be targeted next.&lt;p&gt;I am slightly surprised to not see Boeing here, they are set to lose an enormous amount of money in Iran.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>rayiner</author><text>&amp;gt; The constitutional claim doesn&amp;#x27;t hold water (foreign nationals have no right to travel in the US and the countries were selected for terrorist connections).&lt;p&gt;The Constitutional claims are very strong, at least as applied to certain groups of people affected by the EO: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=13531117&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=13531117&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;p&gt;You are conflating the right to enter the U.S. with due process rights relating to denial of U.S. entry. Only citizens have a right to enter the U.S. (&lt;i&gt;i.e.&lt;/i&gt; they cannot be denied entry, period). But the Supreme Court has squarely held that permanent residents, at least, have a right to due process before being denied re-entry. That doesn&amp;#x27;t mean the government can&amp;#x27;t deny them re-entry, but it does mean that the government cannot do what it did here: deny them re-entry without individualized process (usually, a hearing).&lt;p&gt;The EO is going down. The only question is what parts of it will survive.</text></comment>
<story><title>Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies</title><url>https://cloud.app.box.com/s/mx6vhp0m8c1jyc8fh5yvned3nlu6ihec</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>hajile</author><text>The entire &amp;quot;unreasonableness&amp;quot; is based on the idea that this was Trump randomly banning countries.&lt;p&gt;Obama&amp;#x27;s administration (not Trump&amp;#x27;s) compiled the list of countries. It wasn&amp;#x27;t racial or &amp;quot;because they&amp;#x27;re Muslim&amp;quot; (most Muslims aren&amp;#x27;t banned).&lt;p&gt;What was the common thread between the countries? 6 out of the 7 countries have been on and off the US &amp;quot;State Sponsors of Terror&amp;quot; list for the past 40 years. Somalia (the one that hasn&amp;#x27;t been on the list) has spent most of the last 25 years in anarchy.&lt;p&gt;The law also &lt;i&gt;&lt;/i&gt;explicitly&lt;i&gt;&lt;/i&gt; gives the president the right to make the decision (see section f &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&amp;#x2F;uscode&amp;#x2F;text&amp;#x2F;8&amp;#x2F;1182&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&amp;#x2F;uscode&amp;#x2F;text&amp;#x2F;8&amp;#x2F;1182&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;p&gt;In 1993, SCOTUS ruled that a much longer ban against the poor, non-terrorist, mostly black Haitian immigrants by Bush Sr. and Clinton was legal in an 8-1 ruling (&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;1993&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;22&amp;#x2F;us&amp;#x2F;the-supreme-court-high-court-backs-policy-of-halting-haitian-refugees.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;1993&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;22&amp;#x2F;us&amp;#x2F;the-supreme-court-high-...&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;p&gt;The constitutional claim doesn&amp;#x27;t hold water (foreign nationals have no right to travel in the US and the countries were selected for terrorist connections). That leaves only interpretation of the law, but the law clearly states POTUS has the authority. A 3 month break to find out what policies to put in place against 7 problematic and terrorist sponsoring countries is hardly something SCOTUS will find unreasonable.&lt;p&gt;EDIT: for the record, I think the bans are ineffective at stopping terrorists and are just Trump following through on his populist promises. That&amp;#x27;s different from the legality of the decision. This isn&amp;#x27;t the only thing Trump is doing While everyone has eyeballs here, they miss everything else that&amp;#x27;s happening in DC, and he still gets to look good when SCOTUS agrees with him.</text></item><item><author>chx</author><text>&amp;gt; If this approach were upheld, future orders might apply to any nation, and suddenly and unexpectedly bar its nationals from entering or returning to the United States.&lt;p&gt;Aye, this is the crux of the matter, isn&amp;#x27;t it? I have a plane ticket from Canada to Europe in August, transiting in the USA and I have already contemplated changing my routing because who knows whether I will be admitted? Yes, the chances are heavily slanted towards yes in my specific case but... What I am trying to say: it makes absolutely impossible to plan travel, business into the USA if this order stands for everyone because who knows whether you will be targeted next.&lt;p&gt;I am slightly surprised to not see Boeing here, they are set to lose an enormous amount of money in Iran.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>kevinmchugh</author><text>This doesn&amp;#x27;t appear to be at all responsive to the concern expressed in the comment you&amp;#x27;re responding to.</text></comment>