Apple among over 60 tech companies backing away from fight against President Trump’s revised executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’

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

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

“Major tech companies that signed on to the earlier effort but not this week included Microsoft Corp, eBay Inc, Intel Corp, Netflix Inc and Twitter Inc.,” Ingram reports. “U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu on Wednesday ordered an emergency halt to Trump’s executive order that aimed to temporarily bar entry to the United States of most refugees as well as travelers from six Muslim-majority countries. The halt is temporary. Trump says the ban is necessary for U.S. national security, and called Watson’s order ‘unprecedented judicial overreach.'”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take:

SEE ALSO:
Apple CEO Cook speaks out publicly against President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’ – February 9, 2017
Apple joins fight against President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’ – February 6, 2017
Apple, Google, others draft joint letter regarding President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’ – February 2, 2017
Apple mulls legal options against President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’’ – February 1, 2017
President Donald Trump’s next immigration policy to target what Silicon Valley fears most – January 31, 2017
President Trump’s travel ban stirs little outcry beyond Silicon Valley – January 30, 2017
Tim Cook: Apple does not support President Trump’s executive order, ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’ – January 30, 2017
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 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

98 Comments

  1. It’s very entertaining seeing so-called “liberal” American institutions think they are making progress when their country still has a fascist for a president. You Yanks just can’t seem to get off of your high-horses. Are you trying to tell us that you don’t have violent police forces, have manky (and expensive) veg; poisoned water, shitty working conditions etc? Or are you one of those ‘liberals’ who oppose right wing bollocks until someone points out how shitty your country is, then you become a defensive patriot?

    1. You need to look up the word “fascist,” especially if you’re using it to describe a temporary halt to admissions into a country from countries that lack adequate record-keeping, much less the ability to properly vet potential terrorists. You need a passport to get into the U.S. If your passport is meaningless because your country is severely broken then, no, you don’t get in until the issue is fixed. We’ve had enough unnecessary deaths already, thanks.

      1. Thank you. Though i’m not a huge fan of the Trump administration, using words like ‘fascist’ and ‘nazi’ are hyperbolic in the extreme. Additionally, everyone seems to have forgotten or conveniently ignored the fact that it was the previous administration that created that list, not the current one. I can’t help but think the DNC does indeed think we are that stupid. Incidentally, anyone decrying the fascist racist xenophobic ways of the White House should really watch this video from Bill Clinton way back in 1995 bearing in mind that if Hillary had won, he’d have been back in the White House, too. We were able to actually discuss things from the standpoint of reality back then, it wasn’t about xenophobia then, it isn’t about xenophobia now:

      2. Fascism
        a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

        I think Ollie is using the term right, it certainly describes your nation that goes around invading other countries on a whim searching for a weapons of mass destruction program (and finding 5,000 rotting out weapons from a previous program don’t count to those that have more than two synapse firing), torturing people from over 50 nations, signs then totally disregards the Universal Declaration of Human rights, has about 85% of it’s history being at war.

        Now his use of the right (and left) and fascist falls short of the more accurate description I’d used to describe your country, but I can’t use it here anymore cause too many cry babies went to MDN to complain so I tend to use terrorist. It’s close enough, but falls a tad short accurately describe the current state of your nation truly.

  2. Aww, is Pipeline Timmy, Social Justice Warrior extraordinaire, suffering from outrage fatigue already?

    Or did Apple’s BoD finally, wisely tell him to shut up, stop sanctimoniously and selectively pontificating using Apple Inc.’s name instead of his own, and stick to his knitting (i.e. Make and ship some new products for a change)?

          1. Point out what laws are racist. Then, go ahead and fight those.
            Because in the end, racists, bigots, a**holes, and all the bad things will always exist as they always have. The difference is, we’re eradicating laws that are wrong and at least improving.
            You can’t make life “fair”, but you can fight wrongs. But enough of the victim everywhere crap.

      1. The issue Chris is what you and what others consider “equal rights”. What many liberals mean by “equal rights” is that very vocal minorities should be able to do what they want when they want where they want. There’s no consideration given to the rest of us who putter along living our lives.

        Example: look at affirmative action and diversification initatives for businesses, government, and colleges. Oh sure, this helps a few. But, then more qualified people are excluded. What about their rights?

        Example: a very small vocal group advocates the right to use restrooms of their choice where they’ll feel more comfortable. The rights of the majority, to not have the wrong gender in their restroom making them uncomfortable or confusing our kids is seemingly unimportant. And there’s no thought to the cost for schools and businesses who have to accommodate the wishes of a few students/coworker at the expense of every other.

        Example: an extremely small minority wants to be able to declare their gender and play sports within the gender of their choice. But what about the rights of the very vast majority who want to compete against their peers, not someone who decided to be a peer. Is there any consideration to the long term impact of letting people decide their gender in admissions, or hiring? And don’t say the best qualified person should win the spot, because I’ll refer you back to Example 1.

        1. > But, then more qualified people are excluded. What about their rights?

          That conservative argument stopped holding any credibility whatsoever when 1) the current administration’s cabinet appointments were picked, and 2) the Republican majority voted to approve every single one. Several of them are the epitome of “not qualified in any way whatsoever” but got the job anyway.

          Forget the *most* qualified, anyone who still supports the current Republican party and president, who then tries to use the “more qualified” line, is a pretty blatant hypocrite.

          1. Maybe you had a valid argument until you started calling people names and labeling them. Not a great way to have debate.

            One could easily argue that liberals didn’t feel like these candidates were qualified because they didn’t agree with their policies. Were the objections to these candidates based on their life/professional/work experience, or because they didn’t have the same belief about the direction of the department.

            Example: Betsy DeVos has a long history of experience in education: Foundation for Excellence in Education, Acton Institute, All Children Matter PAC, etc. She’s certainly qualified. The real issue was that her experience was in school choice. A difference in POLICY, not experience.

            1. Name-calling? Where did mossman do that? Saying “hypocrite”?
              If you try to argue that Trump’s nominees are typically well-qualified, you are either deceiving yourself or pretending to.
              Any honest conservative would have to admit that the majority of Trump’s nominees aren’t qualified for the job, other than professing to hold certain political beliefs. It is arguable about whether certain beliefs are so obviously provably wrong that they would disqualify even someone with experience, but many/most of the nominees don’t even meet the “experienced” qualification.
              Defend Ben Carson as Secretary of HUD, for example.
              These people were picked solely on how loyal and ideologically “pure” they were, not based on whether they could run the various agencies well. Additionally, in DeVos’s case, at least, handing over millions of dollars didn’t hurt.

            2. Because your so-called “qualified” HUD secretaries have done soooo much for the urban poor over the last 5+ decades.

              Carson lived it. And wildly overcame it.

              I’ll take his REAL experience every damn day of the week over some stuffed-suit lifetime government bureaucrat who never missed a $40 steak in his/her life.

        2. ” that very vocal minorities should be able to do what they want when they want where they want. There’s no consideration given to the rest of us who putter along living our lives.”

          The Constitution guarantees this, even without being vocal. Next?
          Majorities have no rights individuals do. DO you want to make a law? That is your right. Currently there is no Federal bathroom law.

          If you tell me about State’s Rights, I’ll tell you about Christian Sharia…

          1. I’ve pretty much given up on arguing with people who think that the Constitution only has one amendment, paradoxically called “Second.”

            A fairly routine exercise for political science students is to set up two booths in a mall and solicit signatures for competing petitions, one of which calls for the adoption of provisions plainly identical with the Bill of Rights and another that calls for the abolition of those same “privileges.” The “Repeal the First Amendment” petition almost always wins in a landslide.

            The Fourteenth Amendment plainly grants the equal protection of the law and due process of law to individuals. Not states, not majorities, not groups, but individuals. Protection only for popular people and opinions is no protection at all, since popular entities don’t need protection. Minorities are constitutionally protected, as is their right to be “very vocal.”

    1. Is there some reason that everyone is always a Social Justice Warrior? One would think that there would be Social Justice Mages, Social Justice Thieves, Social Justice Healers, and the like, but we never seem to hear about them.

    1. I tend to agree.. this will adjudicate itself. I think the issue is that the law is very clear and this will eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court. Every legal expert knows it. What these courts are really doing is slowing down the president, who was elected by the people based on his agenda. And it comes across as petty.

      1. It might be the case that many legal experts think that this order is valid, or even that most experts think so. It is clearly not the case that EVERY legal expert knows it, or there would not be several Federal District Judges, a Court of Appeals, numerous state Attorneys General, and literally hundreds of “Friends of the Court” who have filed opinions to the contrary.

        A lot of these people are in nonpartisan positions and have nothing to gain by supporting a legal position that they know to be wrong and expect to be overturned. They may be wrong, but they do exist.

        I personally think that an Executive Order that only applies to people outside the U.S. that do not already have a visa is an enormously closer case than the original, which is why there is less opposition for this order than the last one. The Silicon Valley firms can function without much damage for 90 days, so long as the existing visas and grants of permanent residency are honored and some sort of screening mechanism eventually emerges.

        The worry, of course, is that the “temporary” ban will be repeatedly extended until it becomes effectively permanent. That, it can be argued, would be illegal unless Congress amends the law to remove the principle of equal protection for all nationalities.

  3. No one has absolute right to claim U.S. citizenship or asylum just because their own countries are corrupt, hazardous, or economic basket cases. I wonder if Tim Cook would allow me permanent residence in his home, free food and clothing, and an iPhone just because I wanted to?

    1. You are stretching the argument beyond the breaking point. The travel ban is not just about immigration but includes just plain travel (for business or pleasure) for short duration. It does not guarantee travelers free food & clothing either, let alone iPhones.

      Take your straw man and go home.

    2. However if a country is a signer of the Geneva convention, as the USA and all other civilized nations are, then refugees from recognized war regions are allowed to emigrate for their personal safety. There is a process for this and the USA has welcomed many thousands of new citizens thereby. Now the paranoid administration refuses to continue using the time proven procedures and has issued executive orders that do nothing to protect Americans. In the long run it will probably harm the USA as tourism declines and trade slows.

      1. “Now the paranoid administration refuses to continue using the time proven procedures and has issued executive orders that do nothing to protect Americans.”

        What a perfect world you live in. If it was outside your head, I would agree.

        These are not WWII refugees. We live in a different and dangerous world dictated by ISIS in 2017.

        So, can you or the government account for all of these people? Of course not. Spare us the idealistic sophistry of a bygone era. I mean that in a good way. 🙂

        I don’t think the administration is paranoid at all. Common sense elected President Donald Trump. And he is following through on his many campaign promises. Imagine that as contrasted to false hope and change slogan.

        Executive orders work both ways — good and bad. As time goes on, I believe they will work much better in the current administration …

    3. Millions of children are adopted every year. I don’t think Cook would be a very good single parent. He would bore the poor child to death.

      But the point is, America is a multicultural society and there is nothing constitutional about denying an American family the right to adopt a Yemeni (or whatever origin) child. Period. The courts aren’t going to allow this or any other paranoid president the ability to redefine America as a nation for white christians only. And human travel is also a natural right that cannot be taken away based on your race religion or whatever. The founding fathers wisely knew that would never work. Trump didn’t get the message. America is more than secure enough without Trump stomping all over individual freedoms and national traditions.

      1. “The courts aren’t going to allow this or any other paranoid president the ability to redefine America as a nation for white christians only.”

        First off, President Trump is an optimistic populism leader for ALL Americans. Only in the darkest recesses of a Libtard brain (debatable), without PROOF, do these silly theories exist.

        “And human travel is also a natural right that cannot be taken away based on your race religion or whatever. ”

        I refer you back to @Frank’s golden words, “No one has absolute right to claim U.S. citizenship or asylum just because their own countries are corrupt, hazardous, or economic basket cases.”

        Well said, Frank!

        Absolute freedom to travel? And that would be where? Your naive idealism does not trump established international law …

  4. It is notable that fellow graduates of the 1991 Harvard Law School, Judge Derrick K. Watson and The Muslim Usurper were within minutes of each other on Monday and Tuesday [Watson’s unconstitutional edict was published Wednesday afternoon]…The Usurper’s visit to Omaha, Silicon Valley and Hawaii went unpublicized by The Yellow Stream Media. More “Justice by Tarmac” from the Obama Shadow Government.

    I sent Watson an email this morning asking if The Muslim Usurper bought lunch Tuesday.

    Judge Derrick K. Watson · (808) 541-1470
    Chambers Contact
    Phone Number: (808) 541-1470
    Orders Email: watson_orders@hid.uscourts.gov

  5. If the original order was blocked by the courts, I’m not sure how this second one will fare any better. The argument seems to go along the lines of “you may call it “protection from foreign terrorist entry”, but you can’t erase all the talk about the promise of a Muslim ban during the election. I can’t imagine anyone successfully arguing that Muslim ban was just campaign talk, and this order is something completely different.

    The ideological battle continues. The more important question is what practical consequences this may have for the security of the US. Existing data seems to suggest that these kinds of moves are very efficient at recruiting and nurturing domestic, US-born extremists (people like Omar Mateen, or Syed Rizwan Farook, or Anwar al-Awlaki — all US born, domestic terrorists).

    Meanwhile, the number of foreign-born perpetrators of terrorist attacks in the US from the countries blocked by this ban currently stands at 0 (zero).

      1. Even if it were true, which it isn’t, it would not be reasonable to take an unnecessary risk just because something hadn’t happened yet.

        In reality:

        The November 2016 Islamic terrorist attack at Ohio State University was perpetrated by a Somali refugee who had lived in Pakistan before coming to the United States. Abdul Razak Ali Artan, 18, was shot dead by a police officer after he slammed his car into pedestrians and injured others with a butcher knife.

        In a September 2016 Islamic terrorist attack, Dahir Adan was shot dead after stabbing nine people in a Minnesota shopping mall. Adan was identified by his father as Somali but born in Kenya.

        In a 2006 slamic terrorist attack, Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar ran a Jeep Cherokee into a crowd of people at his alma mater, the University of North Carolina. Thinking he would be killed during the attack, Taheri-Azar left a letter in his apartment saying he wanted revenge for the deaths of Muslims across the world caused by the United States, the AP reported. Taheri-Azar is naturalized citizen born in Iran. He was sentenced in 2008 for up to 33 years in prison.

        1. Which part is not true? You are arguing my point!

          None of those attacks would have been prevented by this kind of a travel ban, since they were all either naturalised citizens, or legal residents for quite some time.

          1. This part is not true:

            You: “The number of foreign-born perpetrators of terrorist attacks in the US from the countries blocked by this ban currently stands at 0 (zero).”

            Fact: I provided three such cases of Islamic terrorist attacks in the US from the countries blocked by this ban (Somali, Iran).

            Your statement is demonstrably false. Untrue. Wrong.

            Furthermore, the order would likely have prevented such attacks as the terrorists would either not be in the country with the order in effect or the countries from which the terrorists I cited came would have had to improve their screening and vetting protocols in order to weed out potential terrorists and to have their visas recognized as safe and valid by the U.S.

            1. Ok, apparently the number stands at three.

              The argument remains; the ban does NOT prevent legal residents (green card holders) or naturalized citizens. When they entered the country, they weren’t radicalized, and even the most extreme vetting would have allowed them in.

              The main point of my message remains uncontested: this ban will do very little to prevent potential foreign terrorists from entering the US (countries that had in the past furnished most foreign-born terrorists aren’t on the list). What it will undoubtedly accomplish is accelerate radicalisation of US-born Muslims.

              I don’t think anyone here has been able to argue on that point yet.

            2. Given that, as I’ve already proven, there have been terrorist attacks from countries listed on the order, the stoppage of any and all entries from said countries would by necessity “prevent potential foreign terrorists from entering the U.S.”

            3. Here are a couple suggestions:

              MoveOncynic (no need for the .org)

              Soroscynic

              Huffingcynic

              Saloncynic

              LivesMattercynic

              Illegalcynic

              AttackConservativescynic
              (Your personal m.o.)

              StalkRightcynic

              LiberalLovecynic

              SuckUpLeftcynic

              I’ll stop there with plenty to choose from. But as you said you have your own …

            4. Yes, it is true, there have been three terrorist acts committed by people who were originally from one of the six countries.

              However, statistical data (and common sense) doesn’t support your conclusion. Over the past years, the number of terrorists who arrived from these six countries is practically negligible, compared to the number of home-grown terrorists, or the ones from other countries (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc).

              It is quite baffling how can Trump administration hide behind Obama administration’s list, rather than making their own one, when the list cannot be defended by rational arguments.

              Meanwhile, plenty of young Muslim men, born in USA, increasingly feel that the country hates them (the president clearly does), and find answers in radical Al Qaeda / ISIS web sites…

  6. Tech companies lying low means that they either are funding opposition via third parties to keep hands clean, or they are backing off due to the fear that Trump is going to nix the visas and the offshoring where possible.
    That’s the CHEAP labor folks that all these companies demand so their returns/mansions can grow and grow while the rest of us in the middle fight each other for the scraps.

Reader Feedback

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