MIT files amicus brief concerning executive order restricting travel to US

http://news.mit.edu/2017/amicus-brief-executive-order-restricting-travel-us-0215

94 68 9 years ago

news.mit.edu

DannyBee3• 9 years ago

This is nice, but the thing that is going to hurt them massively here is standing issues. All of the harm to the plaintiffs in these cases is very attenuated compared to direct lawsuits from people affected.

The current 9th circuit one has a large chance of getting reversed on standing issues (en banc most likely), and honestly, probably should be.

Past that ,the real best hope is that folks like Thomas, et al will ask "remind me again why, if the constitution gives this power to congress, you believe it's okay for congress to give all of it to the executive branch"

But that seems unlikely. More likely roberts decides he doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history.

jcranmer2• 9 years ago

MIT filed an amicus curiae brief. This isn't saying "we assert standing" but saying "we have an interest in this case, and here are our thoughts on the matter."

Given that the plaintiffs in the suit are people who have been denied entry by the executive order but have valid visas, I doubt standing would be denied. And I'm pretty sure one of the lawsuits has an affected green card member as a plaintiff, which is going to be very hard to deny standing to.

anigbrowl2• 9 years ago

If I understand the attorneys-general' strategy correctly, they're recycling the same standing argument that the 5th circuit upheld in Texas v. US, just in pursuit of a different objective. Of course a circuit split could ensue but given that Texas had 25 co-plaintiffs there's a good chance that they're now hoist by their own petard.

I'm very weak on civil procedure though so feel free to tell me I'm an idiot.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C15/15-40238-CV0...

anigbrowl2• 9 years ago

Also raises the much more interesting question of where to locate the apostrophe for the possessive case when discussing the actions of attorneys-general. Priorities!

http://abovethelaw.com/career-files/lawprose-lesson-116-what...

WildUtah3• 9 years ago

Trump can just re-word the XO, get it challenged first in Texas by a pliant patsy, and immediately appeal to the 5th Circuit.

Then he'll have a unanimous ruling in his favor in the new circuit.

st3v3r• 9 years ago

The 9th Circuit one was not a decision on the EO itself, rather the temporary restraining order that the judge in Seattle placed on the EO while arguments were heard to determine its legality.

elastic_church• 9 years ago

remind me again why, if the constitution gives this power to congress, you believe it's okay for congress to give all of it to the executive branch

Do you really want to hinge your case on Congress' ability to delegate power? I mean that COULD be a fun court case if you want to have it and make it a constitutional issue, because the whole executive branch, and the executive branches of every single state, would be ripped to shreds :D

1 million unemployed in the federal government, upwards of 15 million in the states!

but thats only possible if you believe the Supreme Court's rulings are based on a strict understanding of the constitution they are all reading, or if it is based on the past of least resistance. (its the latter)

the above argument has a thin chance of surviving in 2017

cderwin• 9 years ago

This case already happened, specifically in reference to immigration, 70 years ago: see Knauff v. Shaughnessy[0] (1950).

The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. When Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.

[0] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/537/

jcranmer2• 9 years ago

Do you really want to hinge your case on Congress' ability to delegate power? I mean that COULD be a fun court case if you want to have it and make it a constitutional issue, because the whole executive branch, and the executive branches of every single state, would be ripped to shreds :D

Trump's argument is not so much that Congress delegated the executive broad powers to decide eligibility of immigrants and visitors but that the powers are literally "unreviewable" by the courts (see https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/vaed/358386/80-0...., I am not making this up). The response of the judge to that argument was basically "nothing can prevent the courts from reviewing constitutional arguments".

DannyBee3• 9 years ago

"Do you really want to hinge your case on Congress' ability to delegate power?"

At some point, yes. Your other arguments are basically handwaved into existence.

Don't get me wrong, some of them even have precedent for that handwaving, but i'm always in favor of arguing based on first principles than "well, you guys have fucked this up for 50 years, so no point in changing this now"

"I mean that COULD be a fun court case if you want to have it and make it a constitutional issue, because the whole executive branch, and the executive branches of every single state, would be ripped to shreds :D"

You know, of course, that the whole point of having different branches was ... to have different branches :)

"the above argument has a thin chance of surviving in 2017 "

Probably, but like most other arguments based on judicially created rights, i think others are even more tenuous over time, and are just kicking the can down the road.

See right to privacy, etc.

At some point, it needs to be grounded in the actual text of the constitution, or it just erodes. There is nothing in the constitution granting green card/etc holders any rights directly at all.

beedogs• 9 years ago

Impeachment cannot happen quickly enough.

gozur882• 9 years ago

There aren't any grounds for impeachment, and even if there were you'd have to convince an awful lot of Republicans it's warranted.

And... "President Pence".

RijilV• 9 years ago

two words: Gerald Ford.

redtree3• 9 years ago

I want to mention the fact the Elon Musk actually supports the Travel ban, but maybe because he has govt contracts with NASA, and wants more contracts and money. Sad to see him stoop to that level.

zackbloom• 9 years ago

This is just not true. His tweet specifically said this was not the best way forward. I appreciate that you have strong opinions, but just because you don't think he's taking a strong enough stand doesn't mean you can put words in his mouth.

anon-caltech• 9 years ago

It's also interesting to note which elite universities are not present as signatories. Notice that Caltech is missing. I'm curious about whether that is due to the significant funding they effectively receive as the managers of JPL and are concerned about retribution.

It's indefensible IMO not to stand behind their community, many of whom are Iranian.

maxerickson3• 9 years ago

Musk doesn't support it:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/825502400454594561

He has continued to have meetings with the current administration since it was issued though.

catwind7• 9 years ago

Not true.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/02/technology/elon-musk-trump-t...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/07/elon-musk...

mikeash2• 9 years ago

Where did you get this idea?

redtree3• 9 years ago

salty?

"Please read immigration order. Lmk specific amendments. Will seek advisory council consensus & present to President." https://t.co/qLpbsP4lEk

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 29, 2017

you know what this sounds like.. "Where in the world does it say that it is un-constitutional, show me proof"

try to read between the lines..

now please send me into a downvote oblivion

mikeash2• 9 years ago

Why read between the lines when you can just read? For example:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/825502618680045568

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/827924171661377536

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/828280866451374085

He doesn't like it, but he thought that specific suggestions for changes would help to mitigate the damage.

redtree3• 9 years ago

We all know what the travel-ban was. Elon didn't have the sacks to come out and speak against it, rather tried to "play" the public..

Now he has deals with NASA and the govt. and is directly being profited. You dont see the conflict of interest ?

wallace_f• 9 years ago

Musk doesn't support it and if he stays true to his business interests wouldn't. He is a capitalist. He would support brain drain from other countries into his, where presumably as one of the leaders in technology, he would have a better talent pool of labor to hire from, rather than compete against abroad.

rebootthesystem8• 9 years ago

I applaud the move. Yet it is important to put all the cards on the table.

I can't help to be bothered by what could pass of hypocrisy at various levels. The article explains that 40% of MIT's grad students are "international". This means MIT's problem is a BUSINESS problem. At well over $50K per year per student the university-as-a-business (rather than an altruistic entity) is concerned about a drop in revenue should immigration policy change. Let's not pretend this is all about good intentions, pink unicorns and ice cream. This is a business fighting for their revenue sources. And they have every right --even the responsibility-- to do so. I respect that. No issues there so long as everyone is honest about it.

The other problem I have with all of these articles/arguments is this image being painted that the US would be dumb as a rock if it weren't for the influx of immigrants. I'm sorry, I don't buy that one bit. We already have great talent in this country. What we don't have is affordable schools (and books, etc.). A school like MIT (don't mean to focus on them, pick any school) can charge exorbitant tuition to foreign-born students and make millions. And the students pay for it. Not so with us-born students. Particularly given the state of the economy, unemployment, etc.

This idea that we better let-in hordes of immigrants for fear of not having businesses launched or any innovation is, well, repulsive. That would mean we are a wasteland of a country, and need to be rescued by immigrants, which clearly isn't the case.

This isn't to say immigration isn't good. I am not anti-immigrant at all. That would mean being against what allowed my own family to LEGALLY come to the US eons ago. No. My problem is with the fear-mongering that goes along with these arguments. It's dishonest and unnecessary.

It is OK to say we want immigrants because they are important to our continued cultural and economic growth. It's OK to say we want refugees because it is important to continue to define ourselves as a caring and socially conscious people. These things don't need to be embellished with "if we don't let immigrants in nobody is going to start companies, no jobs will be created and no innovation will be had". Sorry, immigrants don't have a monopoly on this. And they sure as heck don't have magical powers. We have lots of very capable and creating people already in the country. Let's don't diminish them to dumber-than-a-rock status.

As for MIT and other universities. They should be honest and say "we are going to lose a ton of money because we make a killing with foreign students". I can respect that. They are, after all, businesses.

On the other hand, if MIT had no foreign students and charged a LOT less for tuition it would be full of wonderful, capable, creative and eager-to-contribute US residents. The problem is very few can justify spending over $200K on a university education today. That's what these universities are trying to protect.

hypersoar• 9 years ago

The article, as you say, mentions international graduate students. Most of these are probably funded by grants or the university itself (as is the case for most STEM graduate students in the US). So I doubt MIT - or any university - is making money off them.

Undergraduates, however, are a different matter.

tnecniv• 9 years ago

The university gets some income from graduate labor. Grad students write papers about work their PI gets funding from the NSF/whoever for. PIs then write a new grant awarded based on their proposal and prior work. The university then takes some percentage of the grant off the top. How that compares to expenditures needed to pay for the education of PhD students by the school, I do not know.

lkowalcz2• 9 years ago

There is a huge difference in how universities treat their Masters vs. PhD students. Indeed, universities are not making loads of money off international PhD students (most receive free tuition, a stipend, etc). However, international Masters students are cash cows for most universities (most pay full price -- or someone does for them).

enkid• 9 years ago

In order to sue, MIT has to show it was harmed. That's why it's talking about the international students like a statistic. It has to put it in that kind of context.

dragonwriter• 9 years ago

MIT isn't suing (this is an amicus brief [0]), but they are showing the same kind of interest.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae

HarryHirsch2• 9 years ago

It's kind of a weird logic, advocating a nativist position (don't get me wrong, there are arguments for that) in the context of the Trump travel ban.

placeybordeaux2• 9 years ago

In state tuition is 45k a year. Regardless of if the US economy is in a bad state US colleges can charge a huge amount to US students because the US govt is willing to offer huge student loans.

maxerickson3• 9 years ago

Big 10 universities are ~$15,000 a year for in state tuition (for undergraduates). They include excellent research schools.

What schools are you pricing there?

rebootthesystem8• 9 years ago

And that's yet another horrible part of the problem. Loans and grants don't help make tuition and the general cost of an education reasonable. They have an inflationary effect because people are chasing that degree rather than a reasonable ROI.

coderdude• 9 years ago

Very well put. The crux of so much of this comes down to business interests. When you finally wade through the bullshit and get to the heart of it, it's about money. Not ideals or the end of the free world.

Good luck fighting this fight here, though. It's like arguing that Star Trek is good on a Star Wars fanfic forum. They're just not ready to hear that.

dsfyu404ed• 9 years ago

While many people disagreeing with the parent's logic have valid points. The threat to a major profit center is not a small concern to MIT and they are rightfully interested in doing what they can to fight it.

pm902• 9 years ago

Most grad students do not pay full tuition, period. Many US students, and I would imagine those who get accepted to MIT most likely, qualify for NSF grants which cover the cost of graduate education. So your argument that MIT is acting as a "business to maximize its profit" is not very convincing.

I agree with you that some of the positions might be a bit extreme: the US is most certainly capable of producing highly qualified researchers, entrepreneurs etc.

Edit: One more point I would want to add is that currently, US universities, and the US itself, is seen as a very desirable place to live and do research. This might change if the country institutes a policy of (implicit) religious discrimination.

lkowalcz2• 9 years ago

Most NSF grants and the like are for PhD students (the university still welcomes the funds they bring in, but they are a relatively small portion of income).

Universities make much more money off their Masters students, most of whom are international, and pay full tuition (or someone does for them).

rebootthesystem8• 9 years ago

So your argument that MIT is acting as a "business to maximize its profit" is not very convincing.

Please don't put it in quotes because this is not what I said at all. I said it's a business protecting it's revenue source.

ashwinp92• 9 years ago

A lot of your arguments are factually incorrect.

At well over $50K per year per student the university-as-a-business (rather than an altruistic entity) is concerned about a drop in revenue should immigration policy change. Let's not pretend this is all about good intentions, pink unicorns and ice cream. A school like MIT (don't mean to focus on them, pick any school) can charge exorbitant tuition to foreign-born students and make millions. And the students pay for it.

Most international students do not have the resources to pay for graduate school and are either funded via grants, teaching or research assistantships or personal-loans. In particular students from these 7 countries. They might have been doing well in their respective countries but the same money after conversion into dollars doesn't have as much purchasing power in the US.

The other problem I have with all of these articles/arguments is this image being painted that the US would be dumb as a rock if it weren't for the influx of immigrants. I'm sorry, I don't buy that one bit. We already have great talent in this country.

Sure, all international students and faculty are evaluated at par with US citizens. Any bias here is counterproductive to competitiveness and research output of top schools who've signed the brief. So yes, great talent, enough to fill 60% capacity. That is not equivalent to dumb as a rock.

This idea that we better let-in hordes of immigrants for fear of not having businesses launched or any innovation is, well, repulsive. That would mean we are a wasteland of a country, and need to be rescued by immigrants, which clearly isn't the case.

According to the article, "It cites one estimate that international students directly contributed $32.8 billion to the U.S. economy and supported or contributed to the creation of 400,000 American jobs in the 2015-2016 academic year.". So unless you mean that the total contribution to US economy was $32.8 billion and only 400,000 jobs in total were created in 2015-2016 academic year, the article isn't saying US is a wasteland of a country. Moreover students, post-docs and professors doesn't exactly mean hordes of immigrants.

They should be honest and say "we are going to lose a ton of money because we make a killing with foreign students".

Again, most PhD students are funded via grants, which depend on good research output, which depend on a competitive admission process which selects the best talent.

On the other hand, if MIT had no foreign students and charged a LOT less for tuition it would be full of wonderful, capable, creative and eager-to-contribute US residents.

If you say that MIT makes a ton of money by charging more from foreign students, I don't see how you can argue that by taking in none they can charge a lot less for tuition.

Bottom-line: I agree with the general idea of verifying what you read and reading between lines, but based on facts and not assumptions.

rebootthesystem8• 9 years ago

If you say that MIT makes a ton of money by charging more from foreign students, I don't see how you can argue that by taking in none they can charge a lot less for tuition.

You missed my point. All of these institutions are grossly over-priced. This has been discussed on HN in the past. The cost of an education in the US is ridiculous. When a university has 40% foreign students and they --one way or the other-- pay exorbitant rates this only serves to skew the cost scale up for everyone else. Regardless of how it's paid, we are talking about $200K to $250K for an education, that's obscene.

tetromino_• 9 years ago

This idea that we better let-in hordes of immigrants for fear of not having businesses launched or any innovation is, well, repulsive. That would mean we are a wasteland of a country, and need to be rescued by immigrants, which clearly isn't the case.

Go to any research lab in the US; you'll probably see more immigrants than native-born. Far more, in many places. If America cancels visas and closes borders, it will still launch businesses, it will still occasionally produce a unicorn, but it will be crippled in basic science.

dikdik• 9 years ago

Don't we already have a huge surplus of PhDs?

Consultant32452• 9 years ago

If America cancels visas and closes borders, it will still launch businesses, it will still occasionally produce a unicorn, but it will be crippled in basic science.

Conversely, we saw in the now (in)famous Princeton study that Congress doesn't care what you or I want. They only care what the wealthy want. We need the wealthy to advocate for proper education at the primary and secondary levels. And more to the point, we need them to fund it. This won't happen as long as they continue to have relatively cheap access to foreign labor via loose immigration, H-1B visas, etc. I'm not an advocate of closing the border, but the more we pressure corporations to need better local talent the better. Maybe a nudge in the other direction over time wouldn't be the end of the world.

dangerboysteve• 9 years ago

I don't think MIT would charge US citizens $200K when they have a $13+B endowment along with healthy company research sponsorship and licencing revenue ($60M/year).

But yes, as soon as I read the article I immediately thought of lost revenue from foreign students from certain countries.

drodgers• 9 years ago

The other problem I have with all of these articles/arguments is this image being painted that the US would be dumb as a rock if it weren't for the influx of immigrants.

That's a silly straw-man.

The reasonable form of the argument is about marginal effects: for each smart immigrant you remove, America becomes dumber, for each smart immigrant you add, America becomes smarter. That form of the argument is evidently true regardless of how many smart people were born in America.

This idea that we better let-in hordes of immigrants for fear of not having businesses launched or any innovation

It's not that there wouldn't be any, just less. America will be poorer — not destitute, but less rich — if it keeps out smart immigrants.

rebootthesystem8• 9 years ago

I disagree with both your premises. You could also argue that, by not allowing an immigrant in you can open up another slot for someone already in the US to attend MIT (or any other university).

If you read enough of these articles they all sound the same: We need immigrants because otherwise we will not have innovation and we will not have new businesses.

These arguments are not being made as mathematical or statistical realities, they are simple fabrications to produce emotional response.

I take offense to that. I'd rather we agree we need immigration and not justify it through fabricated logic.

It's not that there wouldn't be any, just less. America will be poorer — not destitute, but less rich — if it keeps out smart immigrants.

I think you bought into the fallacy. We don't stop thinking, innovating or creating just because person X didn't come into the country. If Musk didn't get involved with Tesla someone else would have (another bit of misinformation, he isn't the founder). Would we have had SpaceX? Well, maybe not. But that doesn't mean we would have no new rocket companies at all. Look at what Jeff Bezos is doing.

Again, I am not anti-immigrant...I just want honesty in the discussion.

mattnewton2• 9 years ago

Is it really that hard to believe that the US enjoys a disproportionate number of smart immigrants that isn't sustainable with the US's population alone, and that we are at risk of losing this extremely valuable population? To believe keeping out immigrants won't harm the competitiveness of American talent means you believe that the natives are some how exceptional compared to the rest of the worlds population by place of birth alone. Or do you just not care if smart people live, work and defend another nation if it means people who got here first have higher employment?

WildUtah3• 9 years ago

The overwhelming majority of us would be pleased if smart people did their work anywhere they find accommodating. Why should it have to be in the USA? Science and tech innovations are quickly shared around the world in the present day.

And the present system means that Americans are almost entirely blocked from pursuing careers in science by the awful economic prospects. Foreigners that come here can always get good appointments back home that will support a family if they can't get tenured in the USA. Americans would be out of work with zero savings and mediocre prospects at 40.

If you think Americans have something valuable to contribute to the world of science beyond than our cash support, then you can't support the level of mass foreign migration into science schools and professions.

mhneu2• 9 years ago

No, that's not right. MIT takes few foreign undergrads, and the graduate students are almost all paid for by grants. It is actually harder for MIT to find funding for foreign than domestic grad students. The The principal issues are

- MIT values the skills and intelligence of foreign grad students, who contribute greatly to the research enterprise.

- MIT's president is a Jewish immigrant from Venezuela who understands well illiberalism and is horrified by seeing in the US some of the things he saw in Chavez. Reif has been quite apolitical (see his bland letter after election), but the immigration ban has riled him up.

mhneu2• 9 years ago

This brief is interesting because of the MIT president's personal engagement. Rafael Reif is a Venezuelan immigrant who has been moved to speak out against an immigration ban . Reif understands the immigration issues well as a Jew whose ancestors were refugees to Venezuela, and who has watched his home country disintegrate under Chavez.

ue_• 9 years ago

What's happening in Venezuela is indeed saddening, and I say this as a Communist.

MIT files amicus brief concerning executive order restricting travel to US

Related Stories