Trump Immigration Order ‘Inflicting Substantial Harm’ to US Firms, Say Tech Giants

Meanwhile, two dozen House Democrats sent Trump a letter Monday criticizing the order, and 15 states and the District of Columbia filed an amici brief (in Pacer) at the 9th Circuit backing Washington and Minnesota. They included California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia.

Trump’s immigration order is unconstitutional and violates U.S. immigration laws, but also “hinders the ability of American companies to attract great talent,” said the tech companies' brief, signed by Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix, Spotify and Twitter, among 96 companies in all. Trump’s order also “increases costs imposed on business,” makes it tougher for U.S. companies to “compete in the international marketplace,” and gives global competitors “a new, significant incentive to build operations -- and hire new employees -- outside the United States,” it said.

The immigration order had “immediate, adverse effects on the employees of American businesses,” including workers from major companies who became “ensnared” in the order’s travel restrictions, said the brief. Longer term, “this instability and uncertainty will make it far more difficult and expensive for U.S. companies to hire some of the world’s best talent -- and impede them from competing in the global marketplace,” it said. “Businesses and employees have little incentive to go through the laborious process of sponsoring or obtaining a visa, and relocating to the United States, if an employee may be unexpectedly halted at the border.” Tech companies fear “skilled individuals will not wish to immigrate to the country if they may be cut off without warning from their spouses, grandparents, relatives, and friends,” said the brief.

The companies also worry Trump’s order “will incentivize both immigration to and investment in foreign countries rather than the United States,” said the brief. High-skilled immigrants “will be more interested in working abroad, in places where they and their colleagues can travel freely and with assurance that their immigration status will not suddenly be revoked,” it said. “Multinational companies will have strong incentives, including from their own employees, to base operations outside the United States or to move or hire employees and make investments abroad.” Late Monday, in an additional brief (in Pacer), 31 companies added their names to the list of those supporting Washington and Minnesota, among them Adobe, HP, Pandora and Tesla.

The appeals court denied the administration’s emergency motion Saturday to stay a temporary restraining order (TRO) from U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle that blocked enforcement of the immigration order (see 1702030013). “The effects of the TRO were positive and immediate, as immigration procedures began to return to normal, families reunited, stranded students and faculty began returning to our States, and longtime State residents were able to return to their homes,” Washington and Minnesota told the appeals court in a brief (in Pacer) filed in the wee hours of Monday morning in reply to the emergency motion. “Defendants now ask this Court to unleash chaos again by staying the district court order. The Court should decline. Defendants’ appeal is improper, their burden to obtain a stay is high and unmet, and their arguments fail.”

The 9th Circuit gave the administration until 6 p.m. EST Monday to respond to the Washington and Minnesota arguments. In their emergency motion (in Pacer), lawyers for the administration called Robart's TRO an “injunction,” and argued that it “contravenes the constitutional separation of powers.” The TRO also “second-guesses the President's national security judgment about the quantum of risk posed by the admission of certain classes of aliens and the best means of minimizing that risk,” they said.

In a letter sent Friday to Trump, two dozen House Democrats said they "deeply" opposed his immigration order, which not only raises humanitarian concerns, but also could cause "lasting damage" to the U.S. economy. "We would not be 'Googling' had Sergey Brin’s parent’s never left the Soviet Union for American shores," they wrote, referring to the co-founder of Google, who's now president of parent company Alphabet. "As Members of Congress committed to promoting the next century of American led technological innovation, we take issue with efforts that undermine U.S. based tech companies ability to hire the best, most qualified, and skilled workers. This is a recipe for disaster." The letter was spearheaded by Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., ranking member of the House Oversight's Subcommittee on Information Technology.

“Every Member of Congress took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution," said Kelly told us in a statement. "We have an obligation to continue beating the drum and fighting back against this reckless, unconstitutional and un-American Executive Order. The American people deserve to understand how much Trump’s Muslim ban endangers our morals, our economy, and our security.”

MJ Law immigration attorney Gabriel Jack emailed Monday to say he expected Trump's immigration order would be struck down by the Supreme Court -- if a case goes that far -- similar to what happened with President Barack Obama's plan to shield up to 5 million unauthorized immigrants from deportation. In 2016, the court split 4-4 in a case challenging the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, known as DAPA, and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, leaving in place a lower court ruling that blocked Obama's plan. Jack said Obama's argument was that he had "wide authority over the management of immigration" but the conservative justices concluded that Obama's intent "was to effectively pass legislation" without congressional consent.

“Here, Trump is doing the exact same thing," emailed Jack, who is based in Silicon Valley. Though the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president "large overreaching authority to manage immigration," it is clear from Trump's comments" that he is imposing a Muslim ban, "even though he claims it is not" such a ban, Jack said. "That is clearly unconstitutional because he's banning a class based in religion. The justices have an obligation to look at the intent of the president based on his previous comments before he tried to impose this rule just as they did with Obama when they struck down DAPA" and DACA, he said.