[ftrflyr]

You all are aware that the past 6 U.S. presidents have done this sort of thing...right?

Obama last did it in 2011.

The hypocrisy here is that because Trump did it, it is wrong.

We are a nation of laws and in order to maintain law and order, we must follow those laws. The minute tech companies (let's not be obtuse here, corporations are in the business of making money and appeasing shareholders) decides they are either for or against certain laws, well...you have anarchy.

This has nothing to do with denying rights to immigrants and everything to do with the far lefts disproval of the elected president of the United States.

[chime]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Obama Admin banned processing applications from Iraqi refugees during a 6 month period [1]. They did not ban approved refugees from entering the US.

Obama Admin never banned permanent residents aka greencard-holders married to US citizens from re-entering the US because they held Iranian passports. The current executive order does. Doesn't matter if they are completing a PhD in Computer Science at Princeton and flew to Canada for a conference. They can now be refused entry for not breaking any laws. The smartest, most-hardworking immigrants and non-immigrant student-visa holders will instead choose Switzerland, Germany, and other places because of blanket bans like this.

1. http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration...

[maxander]

Obama's version of the move wasn't great either, but it's not nearly a direct comparison; he temporarily shut down immigration from one country directly in response to a known and immediate threat, for a set and predetermined period of time. Trump is trying to shut down immigration from seven countries, indefinitely, for no particular reason aside from a general sense of feeling threatened by them. He also, unlike Obama, did so amidst a sea of his own angry rhetoric implying that the ban was entirely due to Islamophobic prejudice.

So, yes, the POTUS can deny rights to humans in all sorts of ways and no one will complain- we're far from perfect. But that he's denying human rights from outright bigotry is especially unacceptable.

Meanwhile, tech companies can decide they're for or against whatever they want- according to the (heinous) Citizens United decision, corporations are people now, and entitled to their political opinions just like you and me. It's not anarchy, its capitalism!

[wvenable]

> indefinitely

Actually, it's currently just 90 days. But I agree with the rest of your post.

[euyyn]

It's technically just 90 days, but the administration presents it as a "first step".

[meowface]

>The minute tech companies (let's not be obtuse here, corporations are in the business of making money and appeasing shareholders) decides they are either for or against certain laws, well...you have anarchy.

Private companies can't protest about unfair laws? Really? That's not the same as disobeying laws.

You can find plenty of examples of more conservative companies opposing left-wing laws.

[gdulli]

How can you not see the difference between ending the program due to institutionalized xenophobia and pausing it temporarily in order to work on its safety? Are you being obtuse?