[xiangmin]

> No major revelations of political support

They took a kind of strong stance [1] in protesting the recent order that restricted travel from those seven countries, so that's a political statement (whether or not we agree with it.)

Their announcement also included some strawman language, which turned off some people:

"This weekend, Trump closed the country’s borders to refugees, immigrants, and even documented residents from around the world based on their country of origin. Banning people of a particular faith or creed, race or identity, sexuality or ethnicity, from entering the U.S. is antithetical to both Lyft’s and our nation’s core values."

The first sentence was true, the second sentence (while noble and I like it) was a strawman.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/29/lyft-donates-1m-to-the-acl...

[Griffinsauce]

Can you explain how it's a strawman? The Muslim ban (as it has been known for a long time) is a ban on people from a particular faith.

[paulddraper]

Muslims from Algeria (99% of the population) can enter. Christians from Syria cannot.

That's the weirdest Muslim ban I've ever heard of.

[wavefunction]

It's almost as if it were a muslim ban as applied by ignorant people... As if!

[superioritycplx]

It's a temporary ban of seven countries that was drafted by the Obama administration.

[hueving]

That very name is the strawman. The ban doesn't even target the largest Muslim countries.

[erispoe]

Yet it was sold as a Muslim ban by the administration, which is a major reason for San Francisco's federal appeal court to suspend it. The fact that it's not an effective Muslim ban is a different question.

[paulddraper]

> The fact that it's not an effective Muslim ban is a different question.

It is precisely the question. What the ban is is much more important that what it purports to be.

For example, if it purported to be a ban on terrorists but actually was as ban on Muslims (and I mean, a bonafide ban on all Muslims), would that not matter?

[baddox]

No, that would still be illegal, because a ban on Muslims is illegal. It is illegal to ban Muslims, and it is illegal to intend to ban Muslims. The latter reason is the one provided by the Ninth Circuit.

[paulddraper]

> Thoughtcrime, they called it.

- George Orwell, 1984

[humanrebar]

But the ACA mandate was supposed to be a mandate or a penalty, not a tax. The Supreme Court ruled that it looked like a tax and quacked like a tax, so it's legal as a tax.

Why can't the same principals be applied here? That the pitch and language of a rule aren't important, just the implementation.

[paulddraper]

100% agree. It doesn't matter whether Obama intended it to be a tax, or a mandate, or a duck. It was a tax because it was.

It doesn't matter what Trump thinks about the order. It's legality is the same no matter who signed it.

[hueving]

>Yet it was sold as a Muslim ban by the administration

Do you have a source for this? There is so much political noise that the only place I've heard it is second-hand from people trying to avoid the contents of the actual executive order and block it based on feelings.

[patrickyan]

Giuliani said on national television that Trump asked him how he could legally ban Muslims. He boasted that he came up with the idea that banning countries would be legal because it's based on nationality, not religion. When asked why he didn't ban countries that we know sponsored terror attacks like Saudi Arabia, he said they have changed.

[xiangmin]

> a ban on people from a particular faith

Is it though? For example of Muslim, it does not even affect about 88% of the world's Muslims (Bangladesh, Egypt, Nigeria, Turkey, Malaysia, others)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

[sgustard]

It's trivial to find stories of people being detained trying to enter from any of those countries.

Bangladesh: http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2017/02/02/bangladesh...

Egypt: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/26...

Nigeria: http://indianexpress.com/article/world/donald-trump-travel-b...

[baddox]

I don't see why the percentage of Muslims in the world is relevant. The internment of Japanese Americans in the 1940s certainly targeted Japanese people despite that being a small percentage of Japanese people in the world.

[paulddraper]

The US didn't intern Japanese. They interned Japanese Americans, so that is the scope of discussion.

And yes, it would be significant if the US targeted the 99% of the Japanese population vs the 1% most concerning part.

[mi100hael]

No you misunderstand. When they said "no major revelations of political support," they meant "no revelations of political support that I disagree with."

[snowwrestler]

The 2nd sentence is not a strawman because it does not accuse the Trump administration of doing those things. It expresses a core value.

[paulddraper]

A strawman indeed. None of those were used as criteria for the 90-day immigration suspension.

The immigration order was flawed enough as it was. It doesn't need a speck of embellishment in order to criticize it.

[smileysteve]

great point.