The majority of this answer (excepting my 'personal thoughts' section) is meant to be read in a largely up-beat and positive tone. I was in a mostly positive mood when I wrote it, excepting that one section, and as such I want this answer read light-heartedly. :)

Also, do note: now that the question has an actual question the middle of this answer addresses that.

I want to look at each section of this question in detail (I've already prepared my inbox for the hate-mail that will ensue):

I am extremely upset by President Trump’s executive order on immigration. It is immoral, unconstitutional, and fundamentally un-American. The community on Stack Overflow is made up of users from all over the world. At least 100,000 posts on Stack Overflow were written by users from the seven countries from which President Trump has banned immigration. These posts have been viewed at least 250,000,000 times. That’s a lot of people sharing their knowledge across borders. Stack Overflow is successful because of the contributions of everyone, regardless of nationality or religion. If Stack Overflow were not a free, open, and welcoming community that ignored borders, it would never work. It’s impossible not to see the parallel: the only way to build a successful world today is to allow the contributions of everyone. Carving up the world into us vs. them, building walls, and demonizing religions, nations, and refugees is both morally repugnant and frankly stupid and counterproductive, and it goes so much against the spirit of Stack Overflow that as a community we must speak out.

Alright, so I get your frustration. The area of the U.S. I live in leans very much the opposite way as you, but I want to talk about some of my personal feelings (and a few facts, take them for what they are: salt in a river-bed) while I address each point.

I am extremely upset by President Trump’s executive order on immigration. It is immoral, unconstitutional, and fundamentally un-American.

You, and all other Americans, absolutely have this right and I applaud you for speaking out, I truly do. While I did DV this question (it's only because I think it's something that we shouldn't have to discuss in this venue, like many others) I respect the fact that you've put it out there, the biggest problem I have with this is 'fundamentally un-American'. I apologize in advance Joel if this seems rude, but it's not. It really isn't. This is not the first time, and I really don't think it'll be the last that the U.S. has barred immigration for some or all people.

I want to direct everyone to a very unfortunate part of American history: The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. We (the United States) barred immigration of certain Chinese persons on the basis that it endangered the welfare of other groups of Americans. This executive order is not the first time, and it will not be the last that we bar immigration, or otherwise single-out certain ethnic or religious groups as a nation. It's simply a fact of life. As long as there is violence there will be unfair treatment.

Of course, there are other things we did which were not immigration-status affecting, such as putting Japanese Americans in Internment Camps during WWII. Along with that came The Immigration Act of 1924 where we 'banned all immigration from Japan and other "undesirable" Asian countries.' (Verbatim quote from Wikipedia.)

Now, all this said, I ask you, what is the difference between then and now? Before WWII we were already banning immigration from Japan due to failing foreign relations, and during WWII we were fighting a war there. Do note, fighting a war. They were, at that point in time, the enemy. Racial relations between Asian-Americans and non-Asian-Americans were at an all-time-low. Does this remind us of anything, such as, recent times when relations between Muslim-Americans and non-Muslim-Americans are at an all-time-low?

We are in a war right now, with ISIS/IS especially, but other religious-extremist groups as well. Personally, I don't give a rat's a-- about where you come from or what religion you practice, I really don't. I always assume the best of intentions, but the funny thing about me is that my opinion isn't everyone's. We all have to remember: each and every person on this planet will form a slightly different opinion on something. Do I respect all persons until they demonstrate otherwise? Yes. Do I think that barring immigration from countries where the potential for taking in a terrorist at this current time is higher than normal is acceptable? Yes.

We all need to understand: this crisis in the middle-east is a war, we're fighting an enemy, and it's not truly extreme to bar immigration from countries that we are at war with.

Why? How can I say this? If I'm truly a person who thinks the best of everyone why/how can I justify this? There was a comment on another answer on this question:

...if the US was letting each immigrant be literally God upon entering the country...

The funny thing is, we are. I hate to be seen as the 'bad guy', but every single person who is allowed into this country (and every single person already here) is allowed to play God. Understand: when people have the opportunity to decide who lives and who dies, they are God. Please forgive the verbiage in this next sentence, I'm using it to demonstrate a point: while it may be true that not all of these immigrants...hell...not even many of these immigrants...let's just go ahead and say that barely any of these immigrants are potential terrorists, assume 1/100,000 , that seems fair: while barely any of these immigrants are potential terrorists/violent persons, barring them from entering is the only sure-fire way to guarantee our safety. If we allow even one of these potential terrorists in we have allowed them to play God.

The community on Stack Overflow is made up of users from all over the world. At least 100,000 posts on Stack Overflow were written by users from the seven countries from which President Trump has banned immigration. These posts have been viewed at least 250,000,000 times. That’s a lot of people sharing their knowledge across borders.

And that's excellent, a truly miraculous feat to accomplish. Stack Overflow is one of many places that you can demonstrate that the contributions other countries, religious and political ideologies are extremely valuable. That's a wonderful achievement, it really is. :)

Stack Overflow is successful because of the contributions of everyone, regardless of nationality or religion. If Stack Overflow were not a free, open, and welcoming community that ignored borders, it would never work.

Absolutely true, and I'll describe more detail of this in the next section, but if we did create 'fundamental' borders with these countries, it's true that this would be a far less appealing environment in all facets.

It’s impossible not to see the parallel: the only way to build a successful world today is to allow the contributions of everyone. Carving up the world into us vs. them, building walls, and demonizing religions, nations, and refugees is both morally repugnant and frankly stupid and counterproductive, and it goes so much against the spirit of Stack Overflow that as a community we must speak out.

The problem I have with this is that you cannot use that to create a blanket statement that we should not prevent the possibility of dangerous persons entering this country from these countries, you truly cannot. To do so is to disregard even the most fundamental facets of human life: that all persons are created equal. (Seems hypocritical? It's not, I'll demonstrate.)

By trying to use the fact that 'almost all (that seems like a fair number) of our contributing users from these countries create positive content and atmosphere' as a blanket statement means you're disregarding two very fundamental facts of the situation:

The users we attract are generally more well-rounded and less-likely to be dangerous to the general world-wide community; We do not know if any of these users are islamic-extremists;

By disregarding both of these we create a dangerous precedent: just because our users from these countries are seemingly positive doesn't mean all people from these countries are. There is a fine line and that statement crosses it.

I encourage everyone to share their opinion, even if it differs from my own. The respectful discourse of these issues between persons is how we resolve a situation like this in a manner that is fair to everyone. While, I am of the persuasion that this for the moment is not an entirely bad solutions to a deeply-troubling situation, there may be a better solution. Is the current solution unfair to the good people in these other countries trying to come over here? Yes. But we have a responsibility to protect ourselves and our fellow Americans first, we cannot deny that.

Where do we go from here? (Answering the new, actual question.)

All personal views aside, the question finally has an actual question to be answered, so let's answer it.

Jeff has a long blog post on how he feels and, more importantly, how he will take action. I don't care to discuss his opinion (I completely disagree with it and this) but you want to know what can be done, so let's talk about what you, as a taxpaying citizen, and what other United States Citizens (most of the list cannot be done by those who aren't citizens, well, should not be done - let's not spam our congress with opinions of people who don't reside in this country) can do:

Write a letter, phone call, email, fax to your local House and Senate members. The United States House of Representatives website has a nice tool to find your representatives. The United States Senate has a similar tool. It should be trivial to find their contact information from there. Email works, I've used it before to contact my congress members for a merit badge in Boy Scouts, usually your first response is from a member of their staff but sometimes you can actually get a picture of George Bush's dog. :)

The United States House of Representatives website has a nice tool to find your representatives. The United States Senate has a similar tool. It should be trivial to find their contact information from there. Email works, I've used it before to contact my congress members for a merit badge in Boy Scouts, usually your first response is from a member of their staff but sometimes you can actually get a picture of George Bush's dog. :) Participate in protests. This has been, and will remain to be, less effective when fighting Trump's policies than almost any other method. If there's one thing we know about Donald J. Trump, it's that he feeds on this negative energy. Staging a protest will show other Americans that you don't support his views, but he'll continue to do everything he promised.

This has been, and will remain to be, less effective when fighting Trump's policies than almost any other method. If there's one thing we know about Donald J. Trump, it's that he feeds on this negative energy. Staging a protest will show other Americans that you don't support his views, but he'll continue to do everything he promised. Sign any one of the online petitions. This will be just as ineffective as a protest, as this requires Trump himself to act on it. These petitions are also non-authoritive, they can't guarantee that only American citizens will sign it, and the problem with an online petition is that I can sign it dozens of times in almost every case with just a different email.

This will be just as ineffective as a protest, as this requires Trump himself to act on it. These petitions are also non-authoritive, they can't guarantee that only American citizens will sign it, and the problem with an online petition is that I can sign it dozens of times in almost every case with just a different email. Vote during the next election. Another election will be held in 2018 (this is a long time) to reseat the House of Representatives and the Senate, vote for whom you think will best represent your views during this election. This doesn't help today, but it can help in the future.

Another election will be held in 2018 (this is a long time) to reseat the House of Representatives and the Senate, vote for whom you think will best represent your views during this election. This doesn't help today, but it can help in the future. Donate to organizations trying to fight this. This may or may not be more effective than the other options. Doing this option would mean you can put your money where your beliefs are, and find organizations (ACLU, for example) that will try to spend your money, and many other people's money, to fight this "injustice" that is occurring. They can afford very good lawyers, as well as having a lot more pull with the political advisors. (The ACLU, for example, directly interacts with many politicians regularly, they already know these people and can help get in touch with them.)

This may or may not be more effective than the other options. Doing this option would mean you can put your money where your beliefs are, and find organizations (ACLU, for example) that will try to spend your money, and many other people's money, to fight this "injustice" that is occurring. They can afford very good lawyers, as well as having a lot more pull with the political advisors. (The ACLU, for example, directly interacts with many politicians regularly, they already know these people and can help get in touch with them.) Join the organizations trying to fight this. Go out and actually join the ACLU (or your organization of choice). Put your actions where your beliefs are. Joel, you and Jeff are influential figures. I guarantee that if you both start supporting these organizations (especially by participation) you will garner a lot of support from the American people already sympathetic to your cause, and maybe convince others to join it.

Go out and actually join the ACLU (or your organization of choice). Put your actions where your beliefs are. Joel, you and Jeff are influential figures. I guarantee that if you both start supporting these organizations (especially by participation) you will garner a lot of support from the American people already sympathetic to your cause, and convince others to join it. Go to another country that has refugees/immigrants who cannot get into the U.S. and help them. Don't help them enter illegally, but use your human compassion to help them with their situation. Most of us in this thread are far better off than a lot of these immigrants, especially refugees. If even half of the people who up voted your question (time of writing there are 1887 up votes, half that is 943.5, so banker's round to even for 944) went to these other places and actually helped these people personally you would make the biggest difference in the world! Is this expensive? Yes. Is this risky? Absolutely. But every political battle worth winning has a lot of risk. If you can't fight the executive order, you can go out and help the people affected. And if you publicized that? Imagine the support, Joel. Just imagine it.

Don't help them enter illegally, but use your human compassion to help them with their situation. Most of us in this thread are better off than a lot of these immigrants, especially refugees. If even half of the people who up voted your question (time of writing there are 1887 up votes, half that is 943.5, so banker's round to even for 944) went to these other places and actually helped these people personally you would make the biggest difference in the world! Is this expensive? Yes. Is this risky? Absolutely. But every political battle worth winning has a lot of risk. If you can't fight the executive order, you can go out and help the people affected. And if you publicized that? Imagine the support, Joel. Just imagine it. Go door to door (or to local gathering areas) spreading awareness. You tell us that Stack Overflow has people from all over the world, and that's good, but I assume that we also have people from all over the country, and that's also good. Go door to door (or to local gathering places) and garner support for the cause. (This may or may not be a good idea, some people may slam the door in your face, or worse.) I don't necessarily recommend this, but it's another thought. We have a very large community, if the 1887 (same up vote number from before) people from Stack Overflow went out and did this you would probably have a much more fighting chance.

You tell us that Stack Overflow has people from all over the world, and that's good, but I assume that we also have people from all over the country, and that's also good. Go door to door (or to local gathering places) and garner support for the cause. (This may or may not be a good idea, some people may slam the door in your face, or worse.) I don't necessarily recommend this, but it's another thought. We have a very large community, if the 1887 (same up vote number from before) people from Stack Overflow went out and did this you would probably have a much more fighting chance. Spread 'swag' supporting the topic. Stack Overflow / Stack Exchange has a very long history of using 'swag' as a medium for encoring users to do things, so you could build a swag campaign with one of two options: the first option is to give swag out that is designed to support the topic. (Not sure how you would design it, what slogans, etc. but something to the effect of 'Repeal Trump's Executive Orders on Immigration' is pretty dry, but a moderately solid start.) The second option would be to reward users who are spreading awareness with SE/SO/their choice of swag that's reasonable. The nice thing about the first option is you can do give-aways in public with that. Go to a college campus, setup a booth, give visitors a T-Shirt supporting your cause. Easy-peasy. We already have a fair number of users who are uni/college students in the U.S., this would definitely help them participate.

Some things I would advise against:

Removing or reworking the electoral college. This is a horrible idea only from the stance that the people who voted for Trump are already so mad at the fact that they have been written off entirely for 8 years that it's unbelievable . Many of these people are in less-populated areas. If you remove/rework the electoral college system in any of the manners that have been proposed you will most certainly create a great deal of tension, and very possibly a war, with the people who live in these areas (many of whom did support Trump).

This is a horrible idea only from the stance that the people who voted for Trump are already so mad at the fact that they have been written off entirely for 8 years that it's . Many of these people are in less-populated areas. If you remove/rework the electoral college system in any of the manners that have been proposed you will most certainly create a great deal of tension, and very possibly a war, with the people who live in these areas (many of whom did support Trump). Staging violent protests. This is never a good idea: if you want to support the idea of peace and such, and convince others to join your cause, violence will not do it. You may garner a very small amount of radicalism support, but you will cause yourself more harm in the long run. (Part of this is why the Trump supporters are very much against the Democratic party right now.)

This is never a good idea: if you want to support the idea of peace and such, and convince others to join your cause, violence will do it. You may garner a very small amount of radicalism support, but you will cause yourself more harm in the long run. (Part of this is why the Trump supporters are very much against the Democratic party right now.) Disregarding/disrespecting the Republican party, and Trump camp, in general. I've seen way more of this than there should ever have been, period in the last few weeks. I've been called racist, xenophobic, anti-American, and some more much nastier terms just because I support some of what Trump stands for, and I'm telling you right now this is exactly why I left the Democratic party. If you want to get people like me back, treat our respect with the same respect. I've not once (even in this long answer, or the long chat discussion, or anywhere) disrespected your (the Democratic party / other liberal groups) ideas, opinions or beliefs. You may help convince people like me to come back to supporting the Democratic party with this. Respect the point of view of the other side, and you might be surprised at how much support you regain. You truly might. (I would very possibly be one of them.)

This whole issue arose because of radicalization; if anyone thinks, even for a moment, that trying to solve it with radicalization will fix it, well, I hate to say it, but you're very wrong.

Personally, I think that garnering more support (Joel and Jeff, SO, SE are all high-visibility entities) would be a very good start. It would be more drawn-out than getting directly involved, but if you use the community to garner support for your topic you will eventually end up gathering the support of much higher-ranking individuals, persons that are more enabled to help make effective, positive change than going it alone. (Groups tend to oppose other groups doing the same thing politically because every group wants the credit for fixing it.)

Personal Thoughts

By request, I'm adding my comments on me personal feelings of the issue in a more consolidated form to this answer.

Any country (every, even) is responsible for protecting itself above all others. It's responsible for ensuring the safety of it's citizens above all others. It's responsible for protecting itself, first. Unfortunately, any country (regardless of origin) that ends up having to make this decision has to make some sort of compromise. "Where do we draw the line?"

For the first 90 days after the order was signed immigration from the 7 countries of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia will be restricted significantly for all persons, excepting some of those who are citizens of the United States currently.

Now, 90 days is not a significantly long time. That's three months, 1/4 of a year, one season. That's it. In my opinion, all things considered, it's reasonable. (Is it right? I'll get to that.)

Now, anyone who followed the United States presidential election between Hillary R. Clinton and Donald J. Trump knows that this was a huge issue brought up by Trump during the campaign many times. He said he was going to do this from the beginning. I can't help but wonder why everyone is in so much 'shock and awe' over this. We knew it was going to happen, we freaking knew.

The purpose of this order (and I'm going to use name-calling one time here) is to help our freaking dysfunctional government work out a better procedure for filtering out potentially-harmful persons from potentially dangerous areas. Is that too much to ask? It is too much to ask our president (well, some of us have this president) to limit the amount of work an already understaffed government has to do to protect us?

And so I want to share a bit of personal information: I had a very dear friend who joined the U.S. armed forces (to anyone present/prior/future service: thank you all) and was killed in Iraq due to the violence from one of these terrorist groups over there. I couldn't help but be eternally upset about it. My friend died trying to protect us.

And you might say 'well I know people who have died too', but the issue isn't that people have died or sacrificed, the issue is that we have the possibility to prevent this from happening here. Don't we owe that to ourselves, our friends and family?

I want to end this (sad) section with the following snippet from a comment I made on this answer:

It's absolutely not fair, I agree with that. I can agree that it's unfair to the people being barred. The thing is, it's also unfair for me, a U.S. citizen, to disregard the safety and security of other citizens. We all saw what happened with France, I'd prefer to avoid having that here. I really would. We don't have a major terrorism problem yet because of our aggressive laws. Hell, we should outright bar immigration period, until we resolve our internal crises. We have way more problems in our country than not, and no one can dispute that.

That's all, that's my plea. That's my sad, somber message.

The Actual Order

First, the full text of the first order which was omitted from the original question, and the full text of the second order, which was also omitted. (Whether or not that's by-design I am not discussing/alluding to, let's not make this any more painful than it already is.) Do note that the White House website is a pita to navigate: click an order, the first time you'll hit a splash page, click out of it, then go back to this answer and click the order again and you should make it to the expected order. (Maybe one of the items on the bullet list above should be to send a top web-based contributor of SO to Trump and work from the inside to fix the White House website first, so that we can all have a better site to use when trying to find factual data to use in our favor.)

First and foremost: the immigration ban is to ease the burden on agencies to allow them to create a more robust method of filtering out those who may be potential harm to the U.S., not to disallow people from these countries in general.

If we find the appropriate U.S.C. for this regard, we find that it states:

whether the presence of an alien in the country or area increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to the national security of the United States; whether a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence in the country or area; and whether the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists.

These countries and areas are determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security on an annual basis.

I know that this will probably be the 'unpopular opinion' on the subject, and I'm not trying to tell you that any one point of view is better, all I'm trying to say is that there are always two-sides to a story. We can't just say 'this is outrageous' without understanding the other side, it's unfair to ourselves, and unfair to our friends, family and fellow citizens.

Yes, this is a long answer, but there is a lot of information to discern and, hopefully, help us all come to a deeper understanding of the issue and work together to solve it.