Re: [Wikimedia-l] Response to recent developments of United States travel ban

[Dennis During]

We are getting down to brass tacks, finally.

The interests of WMF are not whether the immigration regulations
changes "threaten
the ability of the US to attract skilled talent into the country", but
rather whether they have such an effect on the WMF and Wikimedia community
("WMF&Co.").  If WMF and its lobbying allies carved out some kind of
special treatment for a class of workers relevant to WMF&Co.

For WMF to have technical resource centers outside the US is fully
consistent with the global nature of the community.  Should it find it
desirable to move its legal domicile or some or all of its administrative
activities or more of its servers outside the US, it should do so.

The raising-the-drawbridge rhetoric simply clouds the efforts to determine
and do what's actually best for WMF&Co.

On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 4:56 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Mario,
>
> Your argument is not convincing, because:
>
> "The so called ‘travel ban’ that was introduced by President Trump and
> the re-evaluation of the H-1B visa programme threaten the ability of
> the US to attract skilled talent into the country (Mahmud, 2017; You,
> Bohannon, & Stone, 2017). Indeed, Microsoft has already opened a
> satellite office in Vancouver, Canada to mitigate the challenges in
> accessing key talent created by these changes, with many other tech
> companies reported to be considering their options (Dixon, 2017)"
> citing:
>
> Mahmud, A. (2017). Looking beyond H-1B visas to attract technical
> talent. Harvard Business Review [online]. Retrieved June 26, 2017,
> from https://hbr.org/2017/06/looking-beyond-h-1b-visas-to-find-tech-talent
>
> You, J., Bohannon, J., & Stone, R.(2017). Raising the drawbridge.
> Science, 355(6328), 896.10.1126/science.355.6328.896
>
> Dixon, L. (2017). Tighter immigration policy pushes firms to open
> foreign satellite offices. Talent Economy [online]. Retrieved June 26,
> 2017, from http://www.talenteconomy.io/2017/06/19/tighter-
> immigration-policy-pushes-firms-open-foreign-satellite-offices/
>
> Please see also:
>
> https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1e40517da152288614b980cf9087e7dd
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/opinions/trump-travel-ban-
> fuels-terrorism-clapper-geltzer-olsen/index.html
>
> https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/25/trumps-travel-ban-
> might-be-legal-but-its-bad-policy/
>
> Sincerely,
> Jim
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 3:20 AM, Mario Gómez 
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 8:53 PM, James Salsman 
> wrote:
> >
> >> The is between arbitrary border security theater and allowing the
> >> Foundation to recruit and hire the best candidates. If the Foundation
> >> was silent on the matter, there would be less of a chance of retaining
> >> the right.
> >>
> >
> > Not really. IMHO, the choice is between 1) acknowledging that we have a
> > diverse community where everyone may choose to support an organization
> > (other than the WMF) that matches their political position, or 2)
> imposing
> > a very specific political position upon the community.
> >
> > I consider the "best candidate" point a fallacy, since it works with the
> > premise that human talent is so scarce that for every position in an
> > organization there is a single or very few people in the world fit for
> it.
> > I have seen the exact same point used so often to justify positions
> against
> > diversity, equality or economic independence policies that I don't buy it
> > anymore. There are many organizational policies that are more effective
> to
> > increase the pool of candidates, such as being globally distributed
> rather
> > than forcing relocation to the US, and they do not involve this kind of
> > lobbying.
> >
> > PS.- In order to avoid thread hijacking, I will not answer here your
> points
> > about the other thread.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > MarioGom
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Dennis C. During
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Response to recent developments of United States travel ban

[James Salsman]

Mario,

Your argument is not convincing, because:

"The so called ‘travel ban’ that was introduced by President Trump and
the re-evaluation of the H-1B visa programme threaten the ability of
the US to attract skilled talent into the country (Mahmud, 2017; You,
Bohannon, & Stone, 2017). Indeed, Microsoft has already opened a
satellite office in Vancouver, Canada to mitigate the challenges in
accessing key talent created by these changes, with many other tech
companies reported to be considering their options (Dixon, 2017)"
citing:

Mahmud, A. (2017). Looking beyond H-1B visas to attract technical
talent. Harvard Business Review [online]. Retrieved June 26, 2017,
from https://hbr.org/2017/06/looking-beyond-h-1b-visas-to-find-tech-talent

You, J., Bohannon, J., & Stone, R.(2017). Raising the drawbridge.
Science, 355(6328), 896.10.1126/science.355.6328.896

Dixon, L. (2017). Tighter immigration policy pushes firms to open
foreign satellite offices. Talent Economy [online]. Retrieved June 26,
2017, from 
http://www.talenteconomy.io/2017/06/19/tighter-immigration-policy-pushes-firms-open-foreign-satellite-offices/

Please see also:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1e40517da152288614b980cf9087e7dd

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/opinions/trump-travel-ban-fuels-terrorism-clapper-geltzer-olsen/index.html

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/25/trumps-travel-ban-might-be-legal-but-its-bad-policy/

Sincerely,
Jim


On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 3:20 AM, Mario Gómez  wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 8:53 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
>
>> The is between arbitrary border security theater and allowing the
>> Foundation to recruit and hire the best candidates. If the Foundation
>> was silent on the matter, there would be less of a chance of retaining
>> the right.
>>
>
> Not really. IMHO, the choice is between 1) acknowledging that we have a
> diverse community where everyone may choose to support an organization
> (other than the WMF) that matches their political position, or 2) imposing
> a very specific political position upon the community.
>
> I consider the "best candidate" point a fallacy, since it works with the
> premise that human talent is so scarce that for every position in an
> organization there is a single or very few people in the world fit for it.
> I have seen the exact same point used so often to justify positions against
> diversity, equality or economic independence policies that I don't buy it
> anymore. There are many organizational policies that are more effective to
> increase the pool of candidates, such as being globally distributed rather
> than forcing relocation to the US, and they do not involve this kind of
> lobbying.
>
> PS.- In order to avoid thread hijacking, I will not answer here your points
> about the other thread.
>
> Best,
>
> MarioGom
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Response to recent developments of United States travel ban

[Mario Gómez]

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 8:53 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> The is between arbitrary border security theater and allowing the
> Foundation to recruit and hire the best candidates. If the Foundation
> was silent on the matter, there would be less of a chance of retaining
> the right.
>

Not really. IMHO, the choice is between 1) acknowledging that we have a
diverse community where everyone may choose to support an organization
(other than the WMF) that matches their political position, or 2) imposing
a very specific political position upon the community.

I consider the "best candidate" point a fallacy, since it works with the
premise that human talent is so scarce that for every position in an
organization there is a single or very few people in the world fit for it.
I have seen the exact same point used so often to justify positions against
diversity, equality or economic independence policies that I don't buy it
anymore. There are many organizational policies that are more effective to
increase the pool of candidates, such as being globally distributed rather
than forcing relocation to the US, and they do not involve this kind of
lobbying.

PS.- In order to avoid thread hijacking, I will not answer here your points
about the other thread.

Best,

MarioGom
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Response to recent developments of United States travel ban

[James Salsman]

P.S. The choice* is between

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:53 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
> Mario,
>
> The is between arbitrary border security theater and allowing the
> Foundation to recruit and hire the best candidates. If the Foundation
> was silent on the matter, there would be less of a chance of retaining
> the right.
>
> Thank you for your reply on the other thread about the Executive
> Director's Letter to Donors. I think you raise a few good points,
> which I hope to respond to soon. But your argument isn't compelling
> enough to make it a priority over my work at present. I look forward
> to reading a reply from you responding to more than just the first
> reference on free college. The answers to most if not almost all of
> your questions are in the other three references on free college,
> although they are dense and difficult to read, and require the
> understanding of amortization.
>
> [from that other thread:]
>
>>> I've spoken with perhaps fifty wikimedians over the past couple years,
>>> and I simply do not believe that more than 20% could wish such ill
>>> will on their peers.
>>
>> Let me be bold and suggest that around 99% of the people on this list
>> disagree with the percentages you keep making up.
>
> Why the Foundation wouldn't have already called this question with a
> survey is beyond me.
>
> Best regards,
> Jim
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 5:10 AM, Mario Gómez  wrote:
>> I find these activities by the WMF really disturbing for the community.
>> Looking at previous discussions, I am not the first one to voice these
>> issues, but here is my summary:
>>
>> == It is cherry-picking ==
>>
>> The WMF has no long-term commitment to immigration issues. This leads to
>> the appearance that the WMF is cherry-picking an issue against a specific
>> US administration while ignoring both previous administrations and
>> established bipartisan trends in US foreign policy. When I read these
>> communiqués, there are immediate questions that arise about its consistency:
>>
>> * Why does the WMF remain silent about US immigration policies towards
>> Mexicans, which have been going on for more time?
>>
>> * Why does the WMF position itself against religious discrimination on
>> immigration policies, but ignores ideological discrimination?
>>
>>
>> == It is not necessary ==
>>
>> A lot of us in the community support organizations that engage in advocacy
>> on immigration issues. We chose to support organizations that match our
>> political positions and I encourage other members of the community to get
>> involved in organizations matching theirs. But it does not make sense that,
>> when I support the Wikimedia Foundation, I get to support an organization
>> sustaining political positions that enter in conflict with mine.
>>
>>
>> == It does not respect ideological diversity in the community ==
>>
>> As an extension of previous point: the WMF position does not respect the
>> ideological diversity in the community. We signed up for free knowledge,
>> not to promote a very narrow and particular political position. Some
>> example of issues that raise political conflicts for some members of the
>> community:
>>
>> * When the WMF says "the U.S., where we have unique freedoms that are
>> essential to supporting the Wikimedia projects", what unique freedom are
>> they referring to? Some of us find that plainly offensive from a country
>> that we consider to have severe problems for freedom, and that we consider
>> that play an international role that is damaging to freedom worldwide.
>>
>> * When the WMF specifically refers to Libya: why doesn't it condemn NATO
>> invasion of Libya, which destroyed the country and caused a major
>> immigration crisis in Europe? Some of us find this kind of position
>> offensive too.
>>
>>
>> == It alienates the community ==
>>
>> If the WMF wants to get involved in advocacy activities beyond its core
>> mission, at least, it should perform a global consultation process with the
>> community to approve it. Otherwise, a lot of us are alienated by the fact
>> that we are supporting a project that performs advocacy activities that we
>> might not share, and we didn't even had the chance to get out voices heard.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> MarioGom
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Katherine Maher 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> *This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068
>>> *
>>> *Please consider supporting with translations. *
>>>
>>> Dear friends,
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court,
>>> ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on
>>> travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court
>>> found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of
>>> the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing
>>> comments [3] made by the current administration about the reli

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Response to recent developments of United States travel ban

[James Salsman]

Mario,

The is between arbitrary border security theater and allowing the
Foundation to recruit and hire the best candidates. If the Foundation
was silent on the matter, there would be less of a chance of retaining
the right.

Thank you for your reply on the other thread about the Executive
Director's Letter to Donors. I think you raise a few good points,
which I hope to respond to soon. But your argument isn't compelling
enough to make it a priority over my work at present. I look forward
to reading a reply from you responding to more than just the first
reference on free college. The answers to most if not almost all of
your questions are in the other three references on free college,
although they are dense and difficult to read, and require the
understanding of amortization.

[from that other thread:]

>> I've spoken with perhaps fifty wikimedians over the past couple years,
>> and I simply do not believe that more than 20% could wish such ill
>> will on their peers.
>
> Let me be bold and suggest that around 99% of the people on this list
> disagree with the percentages you keep making up.

Why the Foundation wouldn't have already called this question with a
survey is beyond me.

Best regards,
Jim


On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 5:10 AM, Mario Gómez  wrote:
> I find these activities by the WMF really disturbing for the community.
> Looking at previous discussions, I am not the first one to voice these
> issues, but here is my summary:
>
> == It is cherry-picking ==
>
> The WMF has no long-term commitment to immigration issues. This leads to
> the appearance that the WMF is cherry-picking an issue against a specific
> US administration while ignoring both previous administrations and
> established bipartisan trends in US foreign policy. When I read these
> communiqués, there are immediate questions that arise about its consistency:
>
> * Why does the WMF remain silent about US immigration policies towards
> Mexicans, which have been going on for more time?
>
> * Why does the WMF position itself against religious discrimination on
> immigration policies, but ignores ideological discrimination?
>
>
> == It is not necessary ==
>
> A lot of us in the community support organizations that engage in advocacy
> on immigration issues. We chose to support organizations that match our
> political positions and I encourage other members of the community to get
> involved in organizations matching theirs. But it does not make sense that,
> when I support the Wikimedia Foundation, I get to support an organization
> sustaining political positions that enter in conflict with mine.
>
>
> == It does not respect ideological diversity in the community ==
>
> As an extension of previous point: the WMF position does not respect the
> ideological diversity in the community. We signed up for free knowledge,
> not to promote a very narrow and particular political position. Some
> example of issues that raise political conflicts for some members of the
> community:
>
> * When the WMF says "the U.S., where we have unique freedoms that are
> essential to supporting the Wikimedia projects", what unique freedom are
> they referring to? Some of us find that plainly offensive from a country
> that we consider to have severe problems for freedom, and that we consider
> that play an international role that is damaging to freedom worldwide.
>
> * When the WMF specifically refers to Libya: why doesn't it condemn NATO
> invasion of Libya, which destroyed the country and caused a major
> immigration crisis in Europe? Some of us find this kind of position
> offensive too.
>
>
> == It alienates the community ==
>
> If the WMF wants to get involved in advocacy activities beyond its core
> mission, at least, it should perform a global consultation process with the
> community to approve it. Otherwise, a lot of us are alienated by the fact
> that we are supporting a project that performs advocacy activities that we
> might not share, and we didn't even had the chance to get out voices heard.
>
>
> Best,
>
> MarioGom
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Katherine Maher 
> wrote:
>
>> *This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068
>> *
>> *Please consider supporting with translations. *
>>
>> Dear friends,
>>
>> On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court,
>> ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on
>> travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court
>> found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of
>> the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing
>> comments [3] made by the current administration about the religious basis
>> for some of these restrictions.
>>
>> Of the seven countries named, at least three have active Wikimedia
>> communities. The Wikimedia chapter in Venezuela, Iranian Wikimedians user
>> group, and proposed L

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Response to recent developments of United States travel ban

[Mario Gómez]

I find these activities by the WMF really disturbing for the community.
Looking at previous discussions, I am not the first one to voice these
issues, but here is my summary:

== It is cherry-picking ==

The WMF has no long-term commitment to immigration issues. This leads to
the appearance that the WMF is cherry-picking an issue against a specific
US administration while ignoring both previous administrations and
established bipartisan trends in US foreign policy. When I read these
communiqués, there are immediate questions that arise about its consistency:

* Why does the WMF remain silent about US immigration policies towards
Mexicans, which have been going on for more time?

* Why does the WMF position itself against religious discrimination on
immigration policies, but ignores ideological discrimination?


== It is not necessary ==

A lot of us in the community support organizations that engage in advocacy
on immigration issues. We chose to support organizations that match our
political positions and I encourage other members of the community to get
involved in organizations matching theirs. But it does not make sense that,
when I support the Wikimedia Foundation, I get to support an organization
sustaining political positions that enter in conflict with mine.


== It does not respect ideological diversity in the community ==

As an extension of previous point: the WMF position does not respect the
ideological diversity in the community. We signed up for free knowledge,
not to promote a very narrow and particular political position. Some
example of issues that raise political conflicts for some members of the
community:

* When the WMF says "the U.S., where we have unique freedoms that are
essential to supporting the Wikimedia projects", what unique freedom are
they referring to? Some of us find that plainly offensive from a country
that we consider to have severe problems for freedom, and that we consider
that play an international role that is damaging to freedom worldwide.

* When the WMF specifically refers to Libya: why doesn't it condemn NATO
invasion of Libya, which destroyed the country and caused a major
immigration crisis in Europe? Some of us find this kind of position
offensive too.


== It alienates the community ==

If the WMF wants to get involved in advocacy activities beyond its core
mission, at least, it should perform a global consultation process with the
community to approve it. Otherwise, a lot of us are alienated by the fact
that we are supporting a project that performs advocacy activities that we
might not share, and we didn't even had the chance to get out voices heard.


Best,

MarioGom


On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Katherine Maher 
wrote:

> *This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068
> *
> *Please consider supporting with translations. *
>
> Dear friends,
>
> On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court,
> ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on
> travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court
> found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of
> the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing
> comments [3] made by the current administration about the religious basis
> for some of these restrictions.
>
> Of the seven countries named, at least three have active Wikimedia
> communities. The Wikimedia chapter in Venezuela, Iranian Wikimedians user
> group, and proposed Libyan user group represent the reality that our
> movement has no borders. Our mission does not discriminate, it unites: in
> these and other countries, we have friends, allies, and fellow Wikimedians.
>
> To our fellow Wikimedians, particularly those from or with family in
> affected countries: we stand with you and reject the premise of this
> outcome. Our movement is possible because of the belief that everyone,
> everywhere, should be able to contribute to shared human understanding. We
> believe in a world where every country, language, and culture can freely
> collaborate without restriction in our shared effort of making free
> knowledge accessible to every person. Wikipedia is proof of what can happen
> when these freedoms are unrestricted. When our ability to come together is
> limited, the world is a poorer place.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has opposed the restrictions since earlier
> versions were first introduced. We responded to an executive order in early
> 2017[4] by joining many other organizations and companies in signing a
> series of amicus briefs before the courts hearing these cases.[5] We have
> posted an update on the Wikimedia blog detailing our position on the most
> recent outcome of this case. [6]
>
> We are mindful that these restrictions may have real impacts on individual
> staff and community members, as well as our families and communities. The
> Wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Response to recent developments of United States travel ban

[Mario Gómez]

Hello,

I would suggest to update Wikimedia sites to reflect the fact that
Wikimedia Foundation is active in lobbying in the area of immigration
public policies:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_policy
https://policy.wikimedia.org/

Best,

MarioGom

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Katherine Maher 
wrote:

> *This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068
> *
> *Please consider supporting with translations. *
>
> Dear friends,
>
> On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court,
> ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on
> travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court
> found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of
> the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing
> comments [3] made by the current administration about the religious basis
> for some of these restrictions.
>
> Of the seven countries named, at least three have active Wikimedia
> communities. The Wikimedia chapter in Venezuela, Iranian Wikimedians user
> group, and proposed Libyan user group represent the reality that our
> movement has no borders. Our mission does not discriminate, it unites: in
> these and other countries, we have friends, allies, and fellow Wikimedians.
>
> To our fellow Wikimedians, particularly those from or with family in
> affected countries: we stand with you and reject the premise of this
> outcome. Our movement is possible because of the belief that everyone,
> everywhere, should be able to contribute to shared human understanding. We
> believe in a world where every country, language, and culture can freely
> collaborate without restriction in our shared effort of making free
> knowledge accessible to every person. Wikipedia is proof of what can happen
> when these freedoms are unrestricted. When our ability to come together is
> limited, the world is a poorer place.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has opposed the restrictions since earlier
> versions were first introduced. We responded to an executive order in early
> 2017[4] by joining many other organizations and companies in signing a
> series of amicus briefs before the courts hearing these cases.[5] We have
> posted an update on the Wikimedia blog detailing our position on the most
> recent outcome of this case. [6]
>
> We are mindful that these restrictions may have real impacts on individual
> staff and community members, as well as our families and communities. The
> Wikimedia Foundation rejects the spirit of this ban and similar
> restrictions in place around the world that treat some more equally than
> others. Our commitment to our global ethos and shared vision will continue
> to guide our policy efforts into the future, as we strive to uphold the
> values that make our movement possible.
>
> Katherine
>
> [1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780
> [2]
> https://www.apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf53539
> 3b/High-court-OKs-Trump's-travel-ban,-rejects-Muslim-bias-claim
> [3]
> https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump-
> calls-halt-muslims-entering-151207220200817.html
> [4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/
> [5] See
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel-
> restrictions/,
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us-travel-restrictions/
> ,
> and
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/09/18/amicus-brief-us-travel-immigration/
> [6]
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/07/02/supreme-court-
> immigration-wikimedia-values/
>
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
>
> Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> San Francisco, CA 94104
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kma...@wikimedia.org
> https://annual.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Response to recent developments of United States travel ban

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Dear Katherine,

Members of INGOs can normally apply to special visas. Has such legal status
been considered for the Wikimedia movement as a whole?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_non-governmental_organization

Regards,
Micru

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:42 AM Katherine Maher 
wrote:

> *This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068
> *
> *Please consider supporting with translations. *
>
> Dear friends,
>
> On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court,
> ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on
> travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court
> found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of
> the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing
> comments [3] made by the current administration about the religious basis
> for some of these restrictions.
>
> Of the seven countries named, at least three have active Wikimedia
> communities. The Wikimedia chapter in Venezuela, Iranian Wikimedians user
> group, and proposed Libyan user group represent the reality that our
> movement has no borders. Our mission does not discriminate, it unites: in
> these and other countries, we have friends, allies, and fellow Wikimedians.
>
> To our fellow Wikimedians, particularly those from or with family in
> affected countries: we stand with you and reject the premise of this
> outcome. Our movement is possible because of the belief that everyone,
> everywhere, should be able to contribute to shared human understanding. We
> believe in a world where every country, language, and culture can freely
> collaborate without restriction in our shared effort of making free
> knowledge accessible to every person. Wikipedia is proof of what can happen
> when these freedoms are unrestricted. When our ability to come together is
> limited, the world is a poorer place.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has opposed the restrictions since earlier
> versions were first introduced. We responded to an executive order in early
> 2017[4] by joining many other organizations and companies in signing a
> series of amicus briefs before the courts hearing these cases.[5] We have
> posted an update on the Wikimedia blog detailing our position on the most
> recent outcome of this case. [6]
>
> We are mindful that these restrictions may have real impacts on individual
> staff and community members, as well as our families and communities. The
> Wikimedia Foundation rejects the spirit of this ban and similar
> restrictions in place around the world that treat some more equally than
> others. Our commitment to our global ethos and shared vision will continue
> to guide our policy efforts into the future, as we strive to uphold the
> values that make our movement possible.
>
> Katherine
>
> [1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780
> [2]
>
> https://www.apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf535393b/High-court-OKs-Trump's-travel-ban,-rejects-Muslim-bias-claim
> [3]
>
> https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump-calls-halt-muslims-entering-151207220200817.html
> [4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/
> [5] See
>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel-restrictions/
> ,
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us-travel-restrictions/
> ,
> and
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/09/18/amicus-brief-us-travel-immigration/
> [6]
>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/07/02/supreme-court-immigration-wikimedia-values/
>
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
>
> Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> San Francisco, CA 94104
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kma...@wikimedia.org
> https://annual.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Response to recent developments of United States travel ban

[Mardetanha]

Thanks, Katherine, This is very heartwarming and encouraging.

Mohsen

Mardetanha

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 3:12 AM, Katherine Maher 
wrote:

> *This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068
> *
> *Please consider supporting with translations. *
>
> Dear friends,
>
> On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court,
> ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on
> travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court
> found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of
> the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing
> comments [3] made by the current administration about the religious basis
> for some of these restrictions.
>
> Of the seven countries named, at least three have active Wikimedia
> communities. The Wikimedia chapter in Venezuela, Iranian Wikimedians user
> group, and proposed Libyan user group represent the reality that our
> movement has no borders. Our mission does not discriminate, it unites: in
> these and other countries, we have friends, allies, and fellow Wikimedians.
>
> To our fellow Wikimedians, particularly those from or with family in
> affected countries: we stand with you and reject the premise of this
> outcome. Our movement is possible because of the belief that everyone,
> everywhere, should be able to contribute to shared human understanding. We
> believe in a world where every country, language, and culture can freely
> collaborate without restriction in our shared effort of making free
> knowledge accessible to every person. Wikipedia is proof of what can happen
> when these freedoms are unrestricted. When our ability to come together is
> limited, the world is a poorer place.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has opposed the restrictions since earlier
> versions were first introduced. We responded to an executive order in early
> 2017[4] by joining many other organizations and companies in signing a
> series of amicus briefs before the courts hearing these cases.[5] We have
> posted an update on the Wikimedia blog detailing our position on the most
> recent outcome of this case. [6]
>
> We are mindful that these restrictions may have real impacts on individual
> staff and community members, as well as our families and communities. The
> Wikimedia Foundation rejects the spirit of this ban and similar
> restrictions in place around the world that treat some more equally than
> others. Our commitment to our global ethos and shared vision will continue
> to guide our policy efforts into the future, as we strive to uphold the
> values that make our movement possible.
>
> Katherine
>
> [1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780
> [2]
> https://www.apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf53539
> 3b/High-court-OKs-Trump's-travel-ban,-rejects-Muslim-bias-claim
> [3]
> https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump-
> calls-halt-muslims-entering-151207220200817.html
> [4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/
> [5] See
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel-
> restrictions/,
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us-travel-restrictions/
> ,
> and
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/09/18/amicus-brief-us-travel-immigration/
> [6]
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/07/02/supreme-court-
> immigration-wikimedia-values/
>
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
>
> Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> San Francisco, CA 94104
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kma...@wikimedia.org
> https://annual.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Response to recent developments of United States travel ban

[Katherine Maher]

*This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068
*
*Please consider supporting with translations. *

Dear friends,

On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court,
ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on
travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court
found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of
the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing
comments [3] made by the current administration about the religious basis
for some of these restrictions.

Of the seven countries named, at least three have active Wikimedia
communities. The Wikimedia chapter in Venezuela, Iranian Wikimedians user
group, and proposed Libyan user group represent the reality that our
movement has no borders. Our mission does not discriminate, it unites: in
these and other countries, we have friends, allies, and fellow Wikimedians.

To our fellow Wikimedians, particularly those from or with family in
affected countries: we stand with you and reject the premise of this
outcome. Our movement is possible because of the belief that everyone,
everywhere, should be able to contribute to shared human understanding. We
believe in a world where every country, language, and culture can freely
collaborate without restriction in our shared effort of making free
knowledge accessible to every person. Wikipedia is proof of what can happen
when these freedoms are unrestricted. When our ability to come together is
limited, the world is a poorer place.

The Wikimedia Foundation has opposed the restrictions since earlier
versions were first introduced. We responded to an executive order in early
2017[4] by joining many other organizations and companies in signing a
series of amicus briefs before the courts hearing these cases.[5] We have
posted an update on the Wikimedia blog detailing our position on the most
recent outcome of this case. [6]

We are mindful that these restrictions may have real impacts on individual
staff and community members, as well as our families and communities. The
Wikimedia Foundation rejects the spirit of this ban and similar
restrictions in place around the world that treat some more equally than
others. Our commitment to our global ethos and shared vision will continue
to guide our policy efforts into the future, as we strive to uphold the
values that make our movement possible.

Katherine

[1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780
[2]
https://www.apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf535393b/High-court-OKs-Trump's-travel-ban,-rejects-Muslim-bias-claim
[3]
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump-calls-halt-muslims-entering-151207220200817.html
[4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/
[5] See
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel-restrictions/,
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us-travel-restrictions/,
and
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/09/18/amicus-brief-us-travel-immigration/
[6]
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/07/02/supreme-court-immigration-wikimedia-values/


-- 
Katherine Maher

Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kma...@wikimedia.org
https://annual.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,