Tim Cook: Apple does not support President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’

Apple CEO Tim Cook has issued a company-wide message regarding U.S. President Trump’s executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” which

Team,

In my conversations with officials here in Washington this week, I’ve made it clear that Apple believes deeply in the importance of immigration — both to our company and to our nation’s future. Apple would not exist without immigration, let alone thrive and innovate the way we do.

I’ve heard from many of you who are deeply concerned about the executive order issued yesterday restricting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. I share your concerns. It is not a policy we support.

Apple CEO Tim Cook at U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's tech roundtable in December
Apple CEO Tim Cook at U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s tech roundtable in December
There are employees at Apple who are directly affected by yesterday’s immigration order. Our HR, Legal and Security teams are in contact with them, and Apple will do everything we can to support them. We’re providing resources on AppleWeb for anyone with questions or concerns about immigration policies. And we have reached out to the White House to explain the negative effect on our coworkers and our company.

As I’ve said many times, diversity makes our team stronger. And if there’s one thing I know about the people at Apple, it’s the depth of our empathy and support for one another. It’s as important now as it’s ever been, and it will not weaken one bit. I know I can count on all of you to make sure everyone at Apple feels welcome, respected and valued.

Apple is open. Open to everyone, no matter where they come from, which language they speak, who they love or how they worship. Our employees represent the finest talent in the world, and our team hails from every corner of the globe.

In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, ‘We may have all come on different ships, but we are in the same boat now.’

Tim

MacDailyNews Note: President Trump issued an official statement on Sunday, regarding his executive order:

America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave. We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days. I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.

Here is President Trump’s executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” verbatim:

Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States

President Trump
President Trump
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security’s determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.

(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), 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).

(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.

(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (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) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.

(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant’s likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant’s ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship — and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.

(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.

Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.

Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.

(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.

Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.

Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:

(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;

(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Donald J. Trump

The White House, January 27, 2017

SEE ALSO:
Tech industry frets over possible H-1B visa program changes under President Trump – January 28, 2017
President Trump eyes an H-1B visa aimed at ‘best and brightest’ – January 27, 2017
Silicon Valley chiefs frozen out of President Trump’s White House – December 3, 2016
Silicon Valley uncertain after Donald Trump wins U.S. presidency – November 10, 2016
Silicon Valley donated 60 times more to Clinton than to Trump – November 7, 2016
99% of Silicon Valley’s political dollars are going to Hillary Clinton – October 25, 2016
Apple CEO Tim Cook and the rest of Silicon Valley throw big money at Clinton and pretty much bupkis at Trump – August 23, 2016
Donald Trump’s most unlikely supporter: Silicon Valley billionaire Pete Thiel – July 21, 2016
Tech investor Peter Thiel’s embrace of Donald Trump for U.S. President has Silicon Valley squirming – July 20, 2016
An open letter from Apple co-founder Woz, other techies on Donald Trump’s candidacy for U.S. President – July 14, 2016
Apple refuses to aid 2016 GOP presidential convention over Trump comments – June 18, 2016
Apple and Silicon Valley employees love Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump? Not so much – May 6, 2016
Trump: We’ll get Apple to manufacture ‘their damn computers and things’ in the U.S.A. – January 18, 2016

140 Comments

  1. Trump going to town. Kinda refreshing for once a politician is actually doing exactly what he said during the elections. And the liberals and media are having coronaries as usual. Pretty damn hilarious.

    1. Wow. If your standard is merely “doing exactly what he said during the elections,” you’re a scary dude.
      One of the biggest things I heard from people who wanted to pretend they weren’t deliberately voting for a bigot was “he doesn’t really mean all the racist things he’s saying. It’s hyperbole.”

      Meanwhile, you’re like “Yay! The genocidal maniac is sticking to his guns! Don’t back down, Hitler!”

      1. Those who recklessly go down the Godwin’s Law path have my utter contempt for their lazy, simple-minded & brain dead political analysis abilities. All lib roads lead to racism & Hitler for those simpletons & morons out there. Makes it easier for your limited comprehension abilities to understand. The equivalent of a shameless cliche catchphrase for idiots. Wow indeed.

        1. Tim, please put your energy and focus into the CEO thing. Your employees need you to lead and unify internal Apple concerns and not divert attn with the cultural/political wave of the day. Instead, please be more laser-like and focus on the credo that’s served Apple well for decades…make the best stuff. I trust that you, VPs, Board and other Directors, can work out the visa matter more directly and to the point behind closed doors.

          1. “I trust that you, VPs, Board and other Directors, can work out the visa matter more directly and to the point behind closed doors”

            This was an internal letter to employees – behind closed doors.

      2. Krioni – you need to look up racist and see what it means. Not sure that you have contemplated that one thoroughly. it would be refreshing to have Progressives use their noggins for once. Based upon the definition of racist, Trump is NOT one. You may disagree with his views and his policies, but you aren’t winning any favors with a false narrative.

        1. Don’t listen to the biased liberal liars in the mainstream media. Do not be swayed by George Soros-funded “protesters.” Both are a sham and not indicative of ideas and support of the majority of U.S. voters.

          Most voters approve of President Trump’s temporary halt to refugees and visitors from several Middle Eastern and African countries until the government can do a better job of keeping out individuals who are terrorist threats.

          A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Just 33% are opposed, while 10% are undecided.

          Similarly, 56% favor a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the government approves its ability to screen for likely terrorists. Thirty-two percent (32%) oppose this temporary ban, and 11% are undecided.

          Source: Rasmussen Reports, Jan. 30, 2017

        1. Hitler was not a socialist. He was a fascist. Sweden is an example of a socialist country. Nazi Germany was not.

          Those are facts. Not “OMG the name is similar therefore…” facts, but actual facts. Please read some actual history books about the period. You will learn a lot.

            1. Read it again. It explains National Socialism (Nazis) and Hitler’s role in the socialist movement in Germany.
              Socialism is a totalitarian form of government that relies on militaristic force in order to expand and stay in power.
              Hitler was a socialist and that is an actual historic fact.

      1. The list came from Obama’s administration for one and two it’s for current countries with ISIS in them. What scares me are the kids. Yea, awww poor kids, but they are brainwashed early to hate America and if they get in our borders and 10-20 years from now it will be a bad thing if they are radicalized. No one is talking about this! Iraq and Syria are some of the top ones!

        1. I am also concerned about the kids who are being brainwashed early to hate Muslims (along with “colored folks” and “nasty women,” among others). 10-20 years from now it will be a bad thing if they deal with the rest of the world as they have been taught. No one is talking about this! (Well, obviously they are, just as folks are talking about the risks of radicalization.)

    2. I am ambivalent about this particular policy. I admit that most of the Executive Order is presented in a fairly reasonable manner. Clearly, the President has a responsibility to protect the U.S., and implementing a 90-day stay for the new Administration to review existing policies and implement improvements is within the realm of reason.

      However, I also have some concerns regarding the temporary stay on refugees, the 50,000 cap in 2017 on refugees, and the generally open-ended nature of the EO with regard to endpoints for resuming immigration and refugee movement from the identified countries.

      Part of my concern lies in the rhetoric that Trump and his people employed during the campaign. If you consider what Trump has said in the past, then it is natural to view this EO with great skepticism and concern. As has been demonstrated throughout human history, great evil is often seeded with the best of intentions and the most reasonable of statements and policies associated with “protection” and “safety.”

      I am giving Trump a chance to show his Presidential quality (which was sorely lacking in the election process). However, this EO must end promptly in a few months with clear and positive steps in refining our immigration and refugee policies.

      trondude and kent – your partisan hyperbole just harms your stated objectives. You should chill out and be reasonable for a change. Your label and disparage campaign is pitiful and ineffective. One cannot accurately define “Democrats” or “liberals” in a sound bite any more than one can define “Republicans” or “conservatives.” You are oversimplifying and exaggerating for effect, but it undermines the foundation of a logical argument. It isn’t that simple and you are foolish to believe so.

      1. Take a look the the LAX protests. How many of the 4K protestors do you believe are conservative? Zero. Zulch. Nada. And that is not a conspiracy theory. It is a bunch of LIBERALS. Do you think they are reasonable? Blocking traffic and causing many people to miss flights? Don’t be so blind man….

        1. trondude, what percentage of the total democratic base do those protestors represent? Yet you label all democrats based upon that sample? Ridiculous.

          Should I label all conservatives based on the Tea Party? Or Jerry Falwell’s religious right? Or the radical alt-right groups?

          Don’t be so blind, man. The world is far more complex than you appear to believe. Oversimplification leads to error. Error leads to growing problems.

          I laid out the issues quite reasonably. If you don’t like it, then “whatever.” I have dealt with you and Fwhatever and botty and kent for far too many years on this forum. I am not going to go extremist just because you want me to do so. I am a moderate and a rationalist. Emotional appeals and simplistic labeling and arguments will not work with me.

        1. Liberals hate The Constitution because it was written by dead white male Christians and had the effect of creating the most successful and most prosperous and most free country from nothing in the history of the world. Mainly the Left hates freedom which the Constitution protects. The left loves government power as Barack Obama said as a law professor and as he showed while in office. Obama said as a law professor the Constitution puts too many negative limits on the power of the State to tell people how to live. Naturally the Left’s model nation is Cuba, where the inmates (the people) are treated to three hour speeches weekly from Fidel telling them how perfect their lives are. As the people ponder how to turn trash bags into boats to get to America and the founders liberty.

          1. Liberals fight to support the Constitution and rule of law. That’s one of the main purposes of the ACLU (and they fight for conservative’s rights as much as anyone else’s). No, our model nation is not Cuba: it is The US as our founders intended it to be (minus the slavery). Why would a liberal hate freedom? We want freedom as much as you.

            I have conservative friends with whom I disagree with on politics, but I would support them in a time of need, and I know that they would do the same.

            Is it possible for less name-calling and civilized discussion?

            1. You just indicated you are a moron. Liberals HATE the 2nd Amendment. They hate free speech by people they don’t like and have tried many things, like the Fairness Doctrine and others to stop Americans from saying things liberals don’t like. Liberals hate the limited Federal government role and the fact that states have the power to decide most things, like Education, with no Federal control. Liberals now hate the Electoral College and want it eliminated.

              You are just stupid.

      1. On the road to a one-party state, eh?

        “We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause… Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion.”

      2. Hard to believe you’re an American. The right of dissent is inherent to the US Constitution and its 1st amendment. When you label others as “scum”, because their beliefs are different than yours, you degrade the very foundations upon which this country was built. Perhaps a constitutional law class might help educate you about the value and responsibility of citizenship and what it means to be an American citizen.

    1. If there is a serious terrorist attack in this country, Trump will say that he tried to work on our security, in the face of being harassed by a bunch of leftist freaks, while Tim will be silent. That is particularly ironic, since countries such as the seven on that list are the worst human rights abusers in the world.

            1. He won’t wish it, but if it happens he and his team will make the most of it to crack down on civil liberties. It will only take some fake or twisted facts to appear on Fox News about the event and he’ll be implementing impulsive and ill-thought out policies within the hour.

              I only hope the attack when it comes isn’t as serious as the one the last GOP administration allowed to happen through their arrogance and incompetence.

        1. Pre: absolutely nutty. Logic would add Pakistan as well. All of the above have madrassas that educate the minions to execute (pun ok) what the ban is to safeguard. The list was a “left-over “from O’s admin, but that’s no excuse.

          1. Not correct (i.e. “alternative truth”). By request of “your beloved president”, Saudi Arabia has agreed to support the idea of safe zones in side Syria and Yemen, so that those refugees wouldn’t have to leave their countries. Nice try.

            As for hosting (and paying for) Syrian refugees, Saudi Arabia has been housing over 100,000 displaced Syrians. Officially, they are not called refugees by the government; they are simply Arab brothers in need. The distinction without practical difference might mean something to the Saudis, but it obviously created a lot of noise elsewhere in the world, especially around the nationalists, who protested the flow of all those Syrians into the EU, while Arabs presumably accepted none.

            You really need to verify your sources before posting.

            1. “Yet, while Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt have taken in around 5 million refugees, and boatloads of the destitute are making their way to Europe, the Gulf states have taken only a few hundred refugees, according to data from the UN’s refugee agency (UNHCR).”

          2. Oh, and the fact that Saudis are now “supporting safe havens” doesn’t change the other fact that Saudis had bred most of the terrorists responsible for the Twin Towers attack, and that country continues to support terrorist training (logistically and financially).

            Too many oil and real estate interests by presidents of the US (current and prior) are entangled with the Saudis to put it on the list of terror supporters…

            1. Pre…yes again. I can see no rationale consistent with the exec order that wouldn’t include Saudi Arabia…none. Personally, I think they have a place in the ME–financial power, namely– that, if included in the EO, would shake the already wobbling Islamic foundations, to a very uncertain & undesirable end. Besides “membership” and “mindset,” they are likely the main purse for the terrorist nuttiness. As said before, I don’t understand Pakistan’s omission either.

    2. I don’t see ANY specific countries stipulated in President Trump’s executive order. Where did the list of seven countries that everybody says are covered by the order come from?

  2. Hey MDN, where’s you oft mentioned Franklin quote now?

    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

    Funny thing about fundamental truths, they are always true and applicable. That’s what makes them fundamental.

    1. The seven countries covered in President Trump’s executive order were identified as “countries of concern” by Obama.

      Where were you protesting Soros pawns then?

        1. No “if.”

          In December 2015, Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in what it called an effort to address “the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters.”

          Again, where were you protesting Soros pawns then?

          1. “Limited restrictions on certain travelers to had visited…” does not equal ripping families apart, handcuffing 5 year olds and banning people on the basis of where they were born (which is against the law, the 1965 immigration act).

            1. They handcuffed children. They defied court orders. They banned members of Congress from seeing the detainees.

              How un-American does it have to get before you condemn it?

            2. More hyperbole, please! It’s burying you and your kind. You’re burying yourselves, morons!

              It’s a 90-day pause. You’ll live and, thanks to President Trump, so will more American citizens after our border security is tightened to prevent radical Islamic terrorists from killing innocent victims, unlike what we suffered in multiple acts of carnage under the feckless Obama.

            3. This order won’t prevent terrorists who want to get in the the US.

              What it WILL undoubtedly successfully do is spur rapid radicalization of many young Muslim Americans throughout the US. You know, the ones excluded form the ban, because they were born and raised in the US, but are now rapidly being made to feel hated by the US government and its new president.

              The net result of this ban will be fresh new batch of home-made, American-born terrorists.

      1. Country of concern is different than banning everyone from that country. The problem with the Trump order is that regardless of your character, ability or visa status, you are banned. (Read section 3c of his order). Such a ban based purely on nationality is against the 1965 law. That is why many courts in the country has put a stay on his order.

  3. Whatever is done with the Visa program, Tim Cook and the rest of the Silicon Valley crowd can cry me a river. They sure had no issues whatsoever with outsourcing millions of jobs for cheap labor in India, China and elsewhere over the past 15-20 years to save some bucks.

    Now the chickens are coming home to roost and these hypocrites are only worried about their own bottom line. They don’t care one bit about combating terrorism, protecting citizens or doing what’s right by American workers. It’s all about their profit margins, so Tim Cook can spare us the righteous indignation.

      1. No, it’s okay to have government enforce existing immigration laws and strengthen border security in order to protect the citizens who government officials are sworn to serve.

        Stopping H1-B visa abuse by the likes of Tim Cook isn’t “fixing capitalism.” It’s fixing a visa program that’s been abused by Tim Cook and his ilk for years to the severe detriment of American workers and their families.

  4. No that’s not what Tim Cook Said. Your HEADLINE IS WRONG!! He does not support the ban on muslim immigration. He said nothing about not supporting protecting our nation against terrorists.

    1. Tim Cook: “It is not a policy we support.”

      What is that policy’s name? “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.”

      Hence, the headline is 100% correct.

    2. Wrong. The executive order does not ban Muslim inmigration. It does affect immigration from 7 named nations, but doesn’t affect immigration from more than 40 other nations, where the vast majority of Muslims live.

      Those 7 nations were previously named by the Obama administration, because of concerns about difficulty of confirming information about individuals seeking to migrate to the U.S.

        1. Alan, there’s nothing but emotionalism and silly logic in your statement. You imply: a ban on any country in the world would be “ironic” b/c it would affect 100% of the country of immigrants…to no disrespect to the Native-Americans. It’s the majority wins mindset that’s “jello-izing” the American mind. Ra-Ra My Team…go

      1. For 90-days and, then, Abdulfattah Jandali would have passed improved vetting (since he was obviously not a radical islamist terrorist) and come into the country to premaritally knock up Jobs’ biological mother Joanne Schieble and put Steve up for adoption and we’d all still have Apple and our electronic goodies.

        1. Right, because people are normally perfectly able to put their entire life on pause for 90 days, especially when they don’t know if the original plan will ever pan out.

          Abdulfattah Jandali would never even bother with Trump’s America. After this travel ban, many other developed countries will benefit from the talented migrants that originally sought better life in America, but had the wrong passport.

          Exactly how many terrorists have been caught so far by this ban? Zero. And how many more will be caught? Another big fat zero.

          America doesn’t need to import its terrorists. It is perfectly capable of growing their own: from McVeigh (Oklahoma), to Syed Rizwan Farook (San Bernardino), Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez (Chattanooga), Dylann Storm Roof (Charleston, SC), Nidal Malik Hasan (Ft. Hood, TX), plus several smaller-scale anti-government terrorists, all home-grown. The two Boston Marathon bombers were born in Russia (Chechnya), but came to the US as little kids and were raised in the US.

          There is no doubt in my mind that some potential terrorists may be dissuaded from traveling to the US after this ban, but the total net effect on terrorism in the US will be at best negligible, and quite likely a major recruiting point for radical islamists. Nothing radicalizes misguided youth than messages that people like you are banned just because of your religion. While the order itself is clear that it is NOT about the religion (it only talks about countries), that will be impossible to explain to most Americans, who see it clearly as the fulfillment of the campaign promise of the Muslim ban.

          In other words, rather than protecting America and reducing the flow of terrorists, this ban will very likely fast-track radicalization of many young Muslim Americans who would have otherwise grown up to become ordinary law-abiding citizens.

  5. Tim Needs to stay out of politics and repair Apple.

    Mac pro not updated in years.
    iPhone 6 battery problems.
    No current tech wireless routers.
    No Apple monitors.
    Outdated iMacs, Mac Minis, and macbook airs.

    If Cook wants to be a politician, leave Apple and run for office. Otherwise STFU and deliver products that are worth buying.

      1. That is quite a persecution complex that you have, trondude. You should carefully read and consider my post above. A bit of introspection might lead you to the realization that you are floating down conspiracy creek towards the bay of insanity.

        1. Dude, seriously…tune into any Hollywood ceremony. The first thing out of anybody’s mouth is political diatribe. Why can’t they just focus on their work(films and acting) and leave the politics out of it? I’ll tell you why, because Hollywood hates Trump and republicans, and will always take the opportunity to slam them every which way they can. They cannot resist or help themselves. You are blind man.

          1. There is nothing unusual, new or even fundamentally wrong with that. Most of intelligent people tend to have a political opinion one way or the other. Americans’ political position has been growing increasingly polarised over the recent decades, and everyone with an opinion has becoming more and more passionate about their own side. And those who are in the public eye tend to take advantage of that exposure and make it a point to advocate for their side. This is in no way exclusive to Hollywood; others do the same thing. All those mega-church leaders, with following perhaps as large as the Hollywood’s audience, tend to very vocally profess their political support for candidates (or office holders) of their perfered political party , as well as against those of the opposite party. It is often profoundly annoying for someone who is simply spiritually religious to try to attend a religious service, only to have to listen to political diatribe against some candidate (or office holder), or promoting someone else’s political campaign.

            1. Your opinion means nothing.

              You are a waste of my time.

              Enjoy your manipulated high star ratings that mean the world to you. And I will enjoy my manipulated low star ratings that mean absolutely NOTHING to me.

              I know you don’t believe that, but frankly my dear — I don’t give a damn!

              Adios … 🐎🔫🌵😎

            2. I think you may be paranoid. To actually believe that there are people here who dedicate the time to visit MDN from multiple browsers (or hire clickfarms to do this for them) and click on various comments, just to they could feel better about themselves among a few dozen other people who tend to post regularly on MDN, that’s tin-foil, conspiracy-theory loony.

              In other words, while it is true, as I said, the comment ratings have very little value, what is also true is that they are organic. Other than Botvinnik always immediately rating his own comments with five stars, I haven’t seen any evidence to indicate that there is a conspiracy to rate specific type of comments higher than others. Let us not forget the perspective here: this is a small, one-man-show tech blog with a few dozen regular readers who post comments. It is not a national election.

              It seems to me that you are quite hung up on those star ratings and it hurts you very much that you can’t get them to go higher. Since I had apparently been blessed with consistently higher ratings, I will offer advice: lose the vulgar, insulting, offensive tone and stars will come. If you argue intelligently, and present your case articulately, I’ll be the first to give you five stars. Not in a single post here had I ever said anything insulting or offensive to you personally, or anyone else on this forum.

              Good luck!

            3. Preachy, tedious, blah, blah, blah 🐂💩!!! You are one SICK KEYBOARD ELITIST TROLL.

              How is this for upping my approval ratings? STFU! 😜

              Come on now, get with the program people — pretty please — down votes in 3… 2… 1… 🚀

              Thank you, thank you very much … 😴

    1. Right on Chris!!! Tim needs to try to help Apple do better!! I’m done with that stupid coffee place in Seattle because of their jerk CEO ranting about politics. I’m fed up with these filthy rich jerks acting like they know so much about everything!

  6. Not only did the CEO of Apple but Google, Oracle, FaceBook, and many other companies are against this idiot ban. Basically the world is against it. Obama did not do this because it is not the right way to go about removing terrorist and it is not right for America. The origin of terrorist maybe from some of these countries but not all the people from these countries are terrorists.

    1. Obama allowed all the terrorist sleeper cells to proliferate here already. Soon, something will happen. Trump is just fixing it now, so all you whining little panties grabbers need to deal with it. Blocking access to airports and such, just show how stupid democrats and liberals are. Wake up, it won’t change anything except showing how ass-holish and intolerant they really are. Every time they protest, they lose.

      1. Trump is just making it worse. This Muslim ban won’t catch any terrorists coming in, nor it will prevent those hell-bent on coming. What it WILL do is spur radicalization of American-born Muslims, who now have one more (and big) reason to hate other Americans (and their new president).

  7. For crying out loud Tim!

    As John Sununu pointed out on cable news this morning — Obama passed similar restrictions on countries like Iran, etc., not once, but twice during his presidency!

    I don’t recall a corporate activist letter from you to your snowflake peeps, either time.

    You have crossed over into partisan politics and choosing sides. Steve would fire you for these continued partisan actions that chooses sides, winners and losers. That is not inclusive.

    I would rather you concern yourself with getting the bugs out of the code, yearly updates to the Mac line and an upgradeable Mac Pro that bests every other desktop computer ever made, once and for all.

    Activist hypocrisy politics is not good … 😡

    1. John Sununu dis not tell the entire story. Obama did not have a blanket ban on all citizens of a particular country, only on those with war crimes, those on UN travel ban list, those with human-right violations. Such measures are necessary as America should not allow war criminals. Trump’s blanket ban (read section 3c of his order) is on the all citizens of a particular country regardless of their ability, character or visa status (except diplomats, those with NATO visa, or those having business with the UN). Such as blanket ban based on nationality is unconstitutional according to a 1965 law, that is why many courts in the country granted a stay on the executive order.

    2. And let us not forget, that wasn’t Obama’s executive order; it was a law, passed by the US government (congress / senate). Obama did sign it into law, but when the president signs an executive order without bothering to ask the congress or senate is not the same as when those two bodies make the law of the land and ask the president to sign it.

        1. That is EXACTLY what I said. He did NOT sign an executive order. It was a LAW of the land, passed by both houses of your parliament.

          Again, had Obama vetoed this law, you would have been at his throat for that veto.

  8. Great news for Syrian refugees, your odds for being relocated to a nation of the free and civilized world have just went up substantially.
    It’s hard to believe but it’s true, your travel plans will be changing, pretty well ensuring that you will be going to a peace loving nation of the free and civilized world now, one that respects the sovereignty of others.

    But wait there’s more, this tentative offer is also being made available to those from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen. It’s an unbelievable deal an incredible deal, especially for those from Iraq. Frankly, do you really want to be relocated to the so called country that actually disregarded the sovereignty of your nation so that it could look for an IWMDP (Imaginary Weapons of Mass Destruction Program), brutally tortured your fellow citizens in the process, probably murdered members of your family, and caused you to be a refugee in the first place?

    We didn’t think so!!!

    Yes it’s true, you too might be relocated to the truly great nations of the world, but you won’t hear them saying that, they are way too humble to go out and boast about it.

    With love and determination, hopefully one day you’ll experience the joys and benefits of belonging to the free and civilized world, yes the one with real working moral compasses and humanitarian ethics!

    It’s a declaration of peace. You bet the free and civilized world will be coming together to do even more than it can to save your lives.

    For those of you from the free and civilized world, please do what you can to help these people, show them that there is room at your inn.

    It’s the humane thing to do.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.