16 ms·

Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

246 points by gwintrob 10y ago

chambo622 10y ago
If nothing more, this brief is very informative for those wanting to understand the issues at play here - a good jumping off point to case law, historical context, and current news.
techman9 10y ago
Interestingly missing: Tesla, SolarCity, and SpaceX
- throwaway287391 10y ago
  Makes sense as Elon is a Trump advisor. Also interestingly missing: Amazon.
  - techman9 10y ago
    They already filed a declaration in the original motion for a TRO. http://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Another/News/Press_Releases/Declaration%20of%20Ayesha%20Blackwell-Hawkins.pdf http://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Anot...
  - wonnage 10y ago
    i believe amazon and expedia were part of the suit https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/yet-another-judge-rules-against-trumps-immigration-ban/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/yet-another-judg...
  - mschuster91 10y ago
    I believe Elon Musk is playing (once again) the ultra-long game. He is betting that the court system as well as Congress will limit Donald Trump and his cronies from doing something that is grounds for impeachment - and so Donald Trump will be in office for the entire term. Given this, it makes sense to be in a position that has at least a tiny bit of influence on Trump. Amazon has a similar position: they need large amounts of (immigrant) labor for their warehouses, but also are extremely dependent on free trade, especially import tariffs. So, they're likely afraid of openly defying Donald Trump, because they fear that Trump could retaliate against them. The other companies which are on the list (except Apple!) are a hard target for Trump as they do not depend on overseas goods import and thus cannot be hit by import tariffs - the only way to hit them is by deporting the foreign workers they already have, and the courts have shown they won't let pass deportations of legal immigrants. So, for these companies it's relatively easy to sign.
    - justinv 10y ago
      Amazon was one of the first to file their brief - in the original lawsuit. Bezos has no problem rocking the boat & actually wrote one of the stronger worded condemnations in the industry.
      - sremani 10y ago
        Bezos has been trolling trump using what used to be a respectable publication called Washington Post for about 14 months now ?
        celticninja 10y ago
        Trolling?
    - snotrockets 10y ago
      Musk might outsmart us all, but by going down to that crossroads in Clarksdale, he does not, and will not, outmoral a slug.
      - baq 10y ago
        Morality is like an ass - everybody has their own. Musk wants to see a self sustaining, fossil fuel free civilisation, and a backup off site. I'm not saying it's morally right, in fact it might be straight out of Machiavelli ideas, but you are right in that it's a long position.
        TorKlingberg 10y ago
        Morality, stripped of religious connotations, is just about what is good and bad. If you think fossil fuel independence and Mars colonization are good things, those are moral statements.
        baq 10y ago
        I agree completely. I'm just saying that everyone has his own ideas of what is good or bad (or evil for that matter). One person's good may be the other's bad.
- qzervaas 10y ago
  No Yahoo either.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Beltiras 10y ago
Goodguy YCombinator close to bottom of the list.
- madeofpalk 10y ago
  I would imagine YC is at bottom of most alphabetically sorted lists.
- steeve 10y ago
  Last I checked Y is close to bottom of a sorted list
donaldguy 10y ago
I did a run at the (amateur) math off Google Finance and Crunchbase. With some companies I couldn't find's numbers outright omitted, and using old valuations, I totaled those corps filing as valued at $2.58 trillion in market cap., at least $131 billion of valuation and another $8 billion in investments in un-valuated companies. Assuming those investments hold value at least equal to the total worth of those companies in sum, we can reasonably assume the companies party to this brief represent value of at least 16% of US GDP. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y0VtAf9OpjwU7Haf4dHYCdw4Wj4UmJedVY3MgkDSBGE https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y0VtAf9OpjwU7Haf4dHY... in case anyone else was wondering EDIT: indeed it is > 15% even including only the publicly traded companies, for which the numbers of can be considered less speculative
- akiselev 10y ago
  GDP is the total value of goods flowing through the economy (more or less), not the total value of all property so it's not a very meaningful comparison. By this measure, Vanguard's $1.7 trillion assets under management account for over 10% of US GDP but obviously that's incorrect, that money is just parked across a bunch of assets. The US manufacturing industry is about $3 trillion a year in actual industrial production and the tech industry has way less leverage, let alone political clout. Edit: the total market cap of the S&P 500 broke $15 trillion in 2013 and as of 2015, all of the companies in that index didn't even employ a fifth of US workers. Add in all the spending and investment property that doesn't make it into S&P figures (govt taxes + bonds, real estate, etc) and I bet the total number is probably >$100 trillion.
- lpolovets 10y ago
  It's hard to compare market caps to GDP because GDP is kind of like "aggregate value of everything produced this year" while a market cap is "estimated total profits for a company from now until the end of time." So you might have a company like Walmart with $200b in market cap but ~$500b in annual revenue (3% of GDP by itself!) and $15b in net income. On the other hand there are companies like Adobe with $60b market caps and $6b in annual revenue and $1b in net income. So the GDP vs market cap comparison is somewhat apples to oranges, although there's no disputing the companies in the brief have a large impact on the US economy.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
solipsism 10y ago
1. AdRoll, Inc. 2. Aeris Communications, Inc. 3. Airbnb, Inc. 4. AltSchool, PBC 5. Ancestry.com, LLC 6. Appboy, Inc. 7. Apple Inc. 8. AppNexus Inc. 9. Asana, Inc. 10. Atlassian Corp Plc 11. Autodesk, Inc. 12. Automattic Inc. 13. Box, Inc. 14. Brightcove Inc. 15. Brit + Co 16. CareZone Inc. 17. Castlight Health 18. Checkr, Inc. 19. Chobani, LLC 20. Citrix Systems, Inc. 21. Cloudera, Inc. 22. Cloudflare, Inc. 23. Copia Institute 24. DocuSign, Inc. 25. DoorDash, Inc. 26. Dropbox, Inc. 27. Dynatrace LLC 28. eBay Inc. 29. Engine Advocacy 30. Etsy Inc. 31. Facebook, Inc. 32. Fastly, Inc. 33. Flipboard, Inc. 34. Foursquare Labs, Inc. 35. Fuze, Inc. 36. General Assembly 37. GitHub 38. Glassdoor, Inc. 39. Google Inc. 40. GoPro, Inc. 41. Harmonic Inc. 42. Hipmunk, Inc. 43. Indiegogo, Inc. 44. Intel Corporation 45. JAND, Inc. d/b/a Warby Parker 46. Kargo Global, Inc. 47. Kickstarter, PBC 48. KIND, LLC 49. Knotel 50. Levi Strauss & Co. 51. LinkedIn Corporation 52. Lithium Technologies, Inc. 53. Lyft, Inc. 54. Mapbox, Inc. 55. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart 56. Marin Software Incorporated 57. Medallia, Inc. 58. A Medium Corporation 59. Meetup, Inc. 60. Microsoft Corporation 61. Motivate International Inc. 62. Mozilla Corporation 63. Netflix, Inc. 64. NETGEAR, Inc. 65. NewsCred, Inc. 66. Patreon, Inc. 67. PayPal Holdings, Inc. 68. Pinterest, Inc. 69. Quora, Inc. 70. Reddit, Inc. 71. Rocket Fuel Inc. 72. SaaStr Inc. 73. Salesforce.com, Inc. 74. Scopely, Inc. 75. Shutterstock, Inc. 76. Snap Inc. 77. Spokeo, Inc. 78. Spotify USA Inc. 79. Square, Inc. 80. Squarespace, Inc. 81. Strava, Inc. 82. Stripe, Inc. 83. SurveyMonkey Inc. 84. TaskRabbit, Inc 85. Tech:NYC 86. Thumbtack, Inc. 87. Turn Inc. 88. Twilio Inc. 89. Twitter Inc. 90. Turn Inc. 91. Uber Technologies, Inc. 92. Via 93. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 94. Workday 95. Y Combinator 96. Yelp Inc. 97. Zynga Inc.
jondubois 10y ago
I don't know what Americans are protesting about. I don't agree with the bans at all but at least you have a president who is true to his words for once - For me that is a higher moral value. You have to take the good with the bad. I don't agree with Trump on a lot of things but I can respect a politician who does what he says he'll do. It's a refreshing break from the typical Washington charlatans who don't do anything of their own accord and instead just do what their crooked lobbyist friends tell them. All that said, I've had a few Iranian friends/colleagues (fellow engineers) and it's really strange to think that they're not allowed to go to the US now because they're such decent, balanced people - Also, I can't help but think about those people who left Iran 40 years ago before it was under Islamic rule but still have Citizenship.
- tzmudzin 10y ago
  > I don't agree with Trump on a lot of things but I can respect someone who does what he says he'll do. Adolf Hitler was also keeping his promise of eliminating the Jewish "problem" or the lack of the living space for the Germans. Does this increase your respect to him? Of course this is overblown, and Trump is not Hitler. But we should learn our lessons rather than repeat the errors of the past.
  - lucasverra 10y ago
    Good ol' Godwin's law, I've missed you
    - tzmudzin 10y ago
      So should we forget the Holocaust and WWII because of Godwin? Please note I've been very careful to put things into perspective here...
      - scottmf 10y ago
        >If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician -Mike Godwin
qzervaas 10y ago
Does anybody know the process for these companies being involved? Did somebody ring around and organise this, or does word just get around and companies request involvement, or something else?
- jamestnz 10y ago
  Last week Github hosted a meeting of tech industry heads to explore such an action, so this may have fallen out of that. News coverage seems to imply that Github invited chosen companies to participate. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-tech-idUSKBN15F08H http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-tech...
tzaman 10y ago
Someone care to (briefly) elaborate what this is about for us not up to speed?
- leereeves 10y ago
  Trump issued an executive order (EO) temporarily suspending entry to the US for nationals of 7 countries listed by the DHS as "Countries of Concern", and temporarily suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. The State of Washington sued to block the EO. The lower court judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the EO and Trump appealed. Now these 97 tech companies are sharing their opinion with the appellate court: > The Order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United States for more than fifty years—and the Order inflicts significant harm on American business, innovation, and growth as a result. The Order makes it more difficult and expensive for U.S. companies to recruit, hire, and retain some of the world’s best employees. It disrupts ongoing business operations. And it threatens companies’ ability to attract talent, business, and investment to the United States.
  - hueving 10y ago
    >Now these 97 tech companies are sharing their opinion To clarify, this is the leadership of those 97 companies. There is no indication whether or not that this is how the majority of their employees feel. This is the same virtue signaling that resulted in Trump being elected in the first place. An employee of one of these companies wouldn't dare now to express their agreement with Trump's policy because it's against the company's official stance.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - _delirium 10y ago
      Isn't that always the case? I've rarely been in particularly strong agreement with the politics of upper management almost anywhere I've worked, but upper management doesn't care. That's capitalism: we don't work in worker-run organizations (most of us, anyway), and company political stands aren't submitted to an internal vote. Trump supporters disagreeing with their management from the right are hardly a unique case; many of us also disagree with our management from the left (e.g. being union supporters in a company whose management is anti-union, or being in favor of a carbon tax in a company whose management lobbies against one).
belorn 10y ago
> The Order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United States for more than fifty years Can I derive from this that the 97 tech companies accepts the classified Terrorist Watch List (2mil people), Selectee list, and no fly list? The statement would hold more credibility if the companies acknowledged and denounced the previous system and held a bit more consistent view on how travel between nations should work. A good example of this would be ACLU, who in contrast to the 97 companies has shown a consistent view on this kind of government behavior by bringing lawsuits in the past and the present.
- richardwhiuk 10y ago
  The outrage expressed by the public is the large driving factor here - the tech companies are saying 'our potential workforce is outraged so we need to oppose this / be seen opposing this'
  - _delirium 10y ago
    I'm not sure it's only the outrage, also that this impacts their business more than past decisions. Rather than "fairness" (which I agree they don't really credibly care about) I think the key for the companies is the "predictability" part, in that imposing a travel ban for people who already had valid visas and work permits is unwelcome from a corporate-planning perspective. Especially because the initial version applied to even green-card holders, which includes large numbers of people in the tech industry, such as Iranian-Americans. Though the administration seems to have backed down from enforcing the no-entry order in the case of green-card holders. If green-card holders had been exempted from the start, it's possible opposition wouldn't have been galvanized in the same way, because including them brought in opposition from all kinds of people who don't usually see themselves as being impacted by the immigration debate (essentially: affluent, well-integrated immigrant communities with legal residency). The cynical take on it is that Trump screwed up by not confining his hawkish immigration enforcement to the powerless & poor types of immigrants that immigration hawks usually stick to harassing.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
chx 10y ago
> If this approach were upheld, future orders might apply to any nation, and suddenly and unexpectedly bar its nationals from entering or returning to the United States. Aye, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I have a plane ticket from Canada to Europe in August, transiting in the USA and I have already contemplated changing my routing because who knows whether I will be admitted? Yes, the chances are heavily slanted towards yes in my specific case but... What I am trying to say: it makes absolutely impossible to plan travel, business into the USA if this order stands for everyone because who knows whether you will be targeted next. I am slightly surprised to not see Boeing here, they are set to lose an enormous amount of money in Iran.
- jahnu 10y ago
  I really really wish the U.S. would implement some sort of transit facilities and regulations for airports. Needing a visa just to pass through without ever needing to leave a secure section of an airport is ridiculous and anachronistic.
  - rythie 10y ago
    I agree, the transit visa situation is really odd. I wonder how much money the U.S. loses by requiring visa from those travelling from Central+South America to Europe and the rest of the world. I know people personally that can't pick the quickest/cheapest route because it transits through the U.S.
  - fennecfoxen 10y ago
    - At many smaller US airports, this is more convenient overall. There is no overhead from running a special "international" section, detached from the rest of the terminal facilities like restaurants and lounges and toilets, and US-border-style security for people going back and forth between the two: you just have everyone go through immigration straight after getting off the plane and you're done with it. Unlike Europe, there are relatively few surrounding nations, so more international travellers end up arriving in the US instead of connecting. Canada-to-Mexico and Europe-to-South-America traffic is small in comparison to non-Schengen-zone traffic heading through, say, CDG. - This would still make sense to have at many hub airports (NYC and Atlanta come to mind) - but as the Wall Street Journal points out in this lovely article, "American airports are typically run by politicians in conjunction with the dominant airlines, which help finance the terminals in return for long-term leases on gates and facilities. The airlines use their control to keep out competitors; the politicians use their share of the revenue to reward unionized airport workers. No one puts the passenger first." -- https://www.wsj.com/articles/third-world-u-s-airports-that-insults-the-third-world-1484955696 https://www.wsj.com/articles/third-world-u-s-airports-that-i... - In the case of New York especially, you'll note that the Port Authority runs ALL the airports: JFK, LGA, Newark. Yep, these are the same people who run the world's most favorite bus terminal ever. And (as the same article above notes), "Federal law generally requires that airport revenues be spent on aviation, but that statute, passed in 1982, contains a grandfather provision excluding the Port Authority." So your landing fees are subsidizing the fancy over-budget new World Trade Center PATH terminal, among other nonsense, instead of keeping your airports from falling apart, let alone making improvements for international passengers.
throw2016 10y ago
It's interesting that while we all accept it's ok for businesses, corporates and others to form groups to protect their interests any attempts by individuals to group together is instantly labeled as 'un-american' and socialism. It's odd anytime individuals try to organize hysterical scares about communism are raised in the media and by businesses and it's dismissed as 'anti-american' socialism with ultra aggressive reactions even in places like HN. Individuals are effectively disempowered in society, without groups there is no way to articulate or protect your interests especially when others are organizing and lobbying aggresively to protect their interests.
flexie 10y ago
Some notable American tech companies that didn't sign: - Tesla - SpaceX - Amazon - HP - IBM - Dell - Oracle - VMware - Palantir - Priceline - Expedia - Yahoo - Groupon - TripAdvisor - Symantec - Fiserv - Intuit There could be many reasons. Maybe they weren't invited to participate, maybe they choose to stay out of a political discussion, maybe they thought it could hurt their business interests, and maybe they didn't fully or partially agree with the amicus brief.
- foota 10y ago
  As noted elsewhere, Expedia and Amazon have joined in on the suit against Donald Trump, and so likely can not file an amicus brief.
- rythie 10y ago
  The first two are Elon Musk's companies and he's stated he wants to continue to try to influence Trump directly on this issue in particular: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/827924171661377536 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/827924171661377536
- bertil 10y ago
  I suspect that Telsa, SpaceX and Palantir didn’t sign because Musk and Thiel wanted to talk to Trump in person, and possibly act as (informal) intermediaries. Both have clearly stated they didn’t agree with most of Trump’s comments on the topic (without being crass or litigious) and can reasonably point at comments similar to yours to say that they are willing and encouraged to file a similar brief or join this one.
- puzzle 10y ago
  Is Oracle really a surprise? Safra Catz is an immigrant herself, but she's also on the Trump advisory team and, in the end, it's still Larry's company anyway.
- alex- 10y ago
  Looks like Cisco did not sign either. 9 of the largest 15 IT companies in the world are US owned[1] Looks like 5 of them did not sign up (HP, Amazon, IBM, Dell and Cisco) and 4 did (Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet and Intel) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_information_technology_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_informatio...
bradrydzewski 10y ago
minor edit: 96 companies. Turn Inc is listed twice
downandout 10y ago
While I disagree with the travel ban, let's remember that the primary objection that the tech industry has to it is that it will disrupt the flow of cheap talent that it uses to boost its multi-billion dollar profits at the expense of US-educated engineers that would demand higher salaries and benefits. This group of companies may not garner much sympathy.
- ig1 10y ago
  H1B salaries are public information, if you work at any of these companies it's trivial to check if your company is underpaying H1B holders and report them if that's the case.
  - mrtree 10y ago
    Exactly, and they ARE.
- gcp 10y ago
  Quite a few of the companies on the list are among the highest payers in the USA.
- deanCommie 10y ago
  I don't know where you get your information, but at the kind of top-tier tech companies that are being discussed here, H1B employees are not getting inferior benefits. And as someone that does a lot of hiring I can guarantee you that the interviewing costs, relocation costs, and language barrier trade-offs do not make up for any salary differences that may or may not occur. We're not talking about some low-tech banks and telcos trying to save a few bux by outsourcing work to india. These are companies that have a high enough bar for entry that they truly cannot hire by looking only locally and must consider the entire world. Furthermore, your whole implication that the companies care about this from primarily a financial point of view is deeply cynical. Immigrants are heavily represented amongst the tech sector, and we have a deep faith in the success of western nations being directly tied to absorbing people hungry for a new life in a new world. It's not about screwing over people who are already here, it's about making the whole country better as a result. CAVEAT: Am Canadian citizen, am first-generation immigrant. As mentioned, work for a multi-national tech company that is on this list, and hire from around the world. But I work with counterparts on the US side dealing with H1B and know they agree with me.
aerovistae 10y ago
Contrary to my jubilation at this progress, a cynical friend of mine does not take any reassurance from the power checks the judicial branch has brought against the administration. He believes the administration will just find subtler and less obviously illegal ways to slowly move things in the direction they want. I hope this is not so. It is true that you only seem to see this kind of massive reaction to huge, broad-stroke actions like the travel ban. The quieter legislation passes by unnoticed and (by comparison) unprotested.
- simonh 10y ago
  I'm not a US citizen so I'm just commenting as an observer. I'm a lot less worried about legislation overall because it does get scrutinized by the wider elected legislature. At the end of the day if the US as a nation decides to restrict immigration more then that's your prerogative as a nation. The American people voted in Trump and the current largely Republican legislature fair and square and they do have a right to exercise their legal authority. My concern about the presidential order is that it bypasses due process and in this case may even be illegal. It appears it may not even have been shown to the administration's attorneys before implementation betrays a cavalier neglect for legality or the enormous harm this order has done to the reputation of the US as a fair country under the rule of law.
  - Fej 10y ago
    Was the election fair? I would say so. That being said, Donald Trump received almost three million fewer votes than his main competitor, Hillary Clinton. To say we "voted him in" is only strictly technically correct.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - hajile 10y ago
    US immigration law gives the president explicit right to do exactly what he did (and that has been upheld by the supreme court in the past). See section f https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
Jabbles 10y ago
I don't want to dismiss the other, much larger, concerns people have with this executive order, but I want to highlight another aspect. It further reduces the possibility of tourism to these 7 countries, due to the knowledge that if I want to go to the US, I face a much more invasive immigration check (see Norway PM), and the possibility of denied entry, which carries a lasting stigma. Clearly tourism in Syria is not an option at the moment, but the more adventurous European could certainly want to visit Iran. And of course it was true that immigration officers could have asked about those trips before this order. Nevertheless, I feel that my choices of holiday have been affected by this order. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33648096 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33648096 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norwa...
- Xylakant 10y ago
  It's quite well possible to visit Iran from Europe. My father, who's only moderately adventurous, went last year with a guided bus tour all the way through Turkey (before the latest coup). He absolutely recommended the trip.
- ninjaroar 10y ago
  As a Canadian, i've actually never thought of Iran as any more 'adventurous' of a place to visit than somewhere like Peru or India or Cambodia. Lots of mainstream adventure tourism companies have tours there (e.g.: G adventures, exodus, etc) It has a reputation of being a very friendly place full of hospitable people. It's always been on my 'bucket list' of places to visit one day. However, if a visit means i'll get grilled more than usual every time I visit the US, then I'll likely refrain from visiting. So, yes, the order will reduce tourism.
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    The US explicitly allows people to get a second passport to allow them to visit countries without facing this issue. For example, if you want to visit Lebabon, you can get a second passport if you later want to visit Israel. I don't know if Canada or other countries do the same thing.
hmate9 10y ago
It is pretty interesting to see how a couple of years ago it would be extremely bad PR for companies to get involved in politics and user their corporate power to tip the scales in their favor, but now it is completely the opposite.
patrickg_zill 10y ago
Contrary to what many people think, I will predict that the original Trump order will be upheld. It is absolutely an Executive branch function to handle visas and immigration, and the actual law appears to be very clear. I am not making a statement about Trump or his opponents, otherwise.
- Jabbles 10y ago
  Which "actual law appears to be very clear"?
  - patrickg_zill 10y ago
    I think Section 1182f: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” ( Note that green card holders are still a class of aliens.)
    - pvg 10y ago
      It's not the only law and in addition, there is case law. Reading that one section is a very incomplete and likely inaccurate way to reason about the EO. http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/trump-exceeds-his-plenary-immigration-authority/15790 http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/trump-exceeds-his-plenary-...
anjc 10y ago
Reading this interpretation of the immigrant history of the US, and how this means corporations should be able to dictate public policy now, just shows how arrogant and entitled these companies are, and how necessary it is that this means of hiring needs to be rejuvenated.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
User23 10y ago
The New York Times take on the ruling: "Judge Robart's brisk ruling contained almost no reasoning."

246 points by gwintrob 10y ago

If nothing more, this brief is very informative for those wanting to understand the issues at play here - a good jumping off point to case law, historical context, and current news.

techman9 10y ago

Interestingly missing: Tesla, SolarCity, and SpaceX

throwaway287391 10y ago
Makes sense as Elon is a Trump advisor. Also interestingly missing: Amazon.
- techman9 10y ago
  They already filed a declaration in the original motion for a TRO. http://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Another/News/Press_Releases/Declaration%20of%20Ayesha%20Blackwell-Hawkins.pdf http://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Anot...
- wonnage 10y ago
  i believe amazon and expedia were part of the suit https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/yet-another-judge-rules-against-trumps-immigration-ban/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/yet-another-judg...
- mschuster91 10y ago
  I believe Elon Musk is playing (once again) the ultra-long game. He is betting that the court system as well as Congress will limit Donald Trump and his cronies from doing something that is grounds for impeachment - and so Donald Trump will be in office for the entire term. Given this, it makes sense to be in a position that has at least a tiny bit of influence on Trump. Amazon has a similar position: they need large amounts of (immigrant) labor for their warehouses, but also are extremely dependent on free trade, especially import tariffs. So, they're likely afraid of openly defying Donald Trump, because they fear that Trump could retaliate against them. The other companies which are on the list (except Apple!) are a hard target for Trump as they do not depend on overseas goods import and thus cannot be hit by import tariffs - the only way to hit them is by deporting the foreign workers they already have, and the courts have shown they won't let pass deportations of legal immigrants. So, for these companies it's relatively easy to sign.
  - justinv 10y ago
    Amazon was one of the first to file their brief - in the original lawsuit. Bezos has no problem rocking the boat & actually wrote one of the stronger worded condemnations in the industry.
    - sremani 10y ago
      Bezos has been trolling trump using what used to be a respectable publication called Washington Post for about 14 months now ?
      - celticninja 10y ago
        Trolling?
  - snotrockets 10y ago
    Musk might outsmart us all, but by going down to that crossroads in Clarksdale, he does not, and will not, outmoral a slug.
    - baq 10y ago
      Morality is like an ass - everybody has their own. Musk wants to see a self sustaining, fossil fuel free civilisation, and a backup off site. I'm not saying it's morally right, in fact it might be straight out of Machiavelli ideas, but you are right in that it's a long position.
      - TorKlingberg 10y ago
        Morality, stripped of religious connotations, is just about what is good and bad. If you think fossil fuel independence and Mars colonization are good things, those are moral statements.
        baq 10y ago
        I agree completely. I'm just saying that everyone has his own ideas of what is good or bad (or evil for that matter). One person's good may be the other's bad.
qzervaas 10y ago
No Yahoo either.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Beltiras 10y ago

Goodguy YCombinator close to bottom of the list.

madeofpalk 10y ago
I would imagine YC is at bottom of most alphabetically sorted lists.
steeve 10y ago
Last I checked Y is close to bottom of a sorted list

donaldguy 10y ago

I did a run at the (amateur) math off Google Finance and Crunchbase. With some companies I couldn't find's numbers outright omitted, and using old valuations, I totaled those corps filing as valued at $2.58 trillion in market cap., at least $131 billion of valuation and another $8 billion in investments in un-valuated companies. Assuming those investments hold value at least equal to the total worth of those companies in sum, we can reasonably assume the companies party to this brief represent value of at least 16% of US GDP. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y0VtAf9OpjwU7Haf4dHYCdw4Wj4UmJedVY3MgkDSBGE https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y0VtAf9OpjwU7Haf4dHY... in case anyone else was wondering EDIT: indeed it is > 15% even including only the publicly traded companies, for which the numbers of can be considered less speculative

akiselev 10y ago
GDP is the total value of goods flowing through the economy (more or less), not the total value of all property so it's not a very meaningful comparison. By this measure, Vanguard's $1.7 trillion assets under management account for over 10% of US GDP but obviously that's incorrect, that money is just parked across a bunch of assets. The US manufacturing industry is about $3 trillion a year in actual industrial production and the tech industry has way less leverage, let alone political clout. Edit: the total market cap of the S&P 500 broke $15 trillion in 2013 and as of 2015, all of the companies in that index didn't even employ a fifth of US workers. Add in all the spending and investment property that doesn't make it into S&P figures (govt taxes + bonds, real estate, etc) and I bet the total number is probably >$100 trillion.
lpolovets 10y ago
It's hard to compare market caps to GDP because GDP is kind of like "aggregate value of everything produced this year" while a market cap is "estimated total profits for a company from now until the end of time." So you might have a company like Walmart with $200b in market cap but ~$500b in annual revenue (3% of GDP by itself!) and $15b in net income. On the other hand there are companies like Adobe with $60b market caps and $6b in annual revenue and $1b in net income. So the GDP vs market cap comparison is somewhat apples to oranges, although there's no disputing the companies in the brief have a large impact on the US economy.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

solipsism 10y ago

1. AdRoll, Inc. 2. Aeris Communications, Inc. 3. Airbnb, Inc. 4. AltSchool, PBC 5. Ancestry.com, LLC 6. Appboy, Inc. 7. Apple Inc. 8. AppNexus Inc. 9. Asana, Inc. 10. Atlassian Corp Plc 11. Autodesk, Inc. 12. Automattic Inc. 13. Box, Inc. 14. Brightcove Inc. 15. Brit + Co 16. CareZone Inc. 17. Castlight Health 18. Checkr, Inc. 19. Chobani, LLC 20. Citrix Systems, Inc. 21. Cloudera, Inc. 22. Cloudflare, Inc. 23. Copia Institute 24. DocuSign, Inc. 25. DoorDash, Inc. 26. Dropbox, Inc. 27. Dynatrace LLC 28. eBay Inc. 29. Engine Advocacy 30. Etsy Inc. 31. Facebook, Inc. 32. Fastly, Inc. 33. Flipboard, Inc. 34. Foursquare Labs, Inc. 35. Fuze, Inc. 36. General Assembly 37. GitHub 38. Glassdoor, Inc. 39. Google Inc. 40. GoPro, Inc. 41. Harmonic Inc. 42. Hipmunk, Inc. 43. Indiegogo, Inc. 44. Intel Corporation 45. JAND, Inc. d/b/a Warby Parker 46. Kargo Global, Inc. 47. Kickstarter, PBC 48. KIND, LLC 49. Knotel 50. Levi Strauss & Co. 51. LinkedIn Corporation 52. Lithium Technologies, Inc. 53. Lyft, Inc. 54. Mapbox, Inc. 55. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart 56. Marin Software Incorporated 57. Medallia, Inc. 58. A Medium Corporation 59. Meetup, Inc. 60. Microsoft Corporation 61. Motivate International Inc. 62. Mozilla Corporation 63. Netflix, Inc. 64. NETGEAR, Inc. 65. NewsCred, Inc. 66. Patreon, Inc. 67. PayPal Holdings, Inc. 68. Pinterest, Inc. 69. Quora, Inc. 70. Reddit, Inc. 71. Rocket Fuel Inc. 72. SaaStr Inc. 73. Salesforce.com, Inc. 74. Scopely, Inc. 75. Shutterstock, Inc. 76. Snap Inc. 77. Spokeo, Inc. 78. Spotify USA Inc. 79. Square, Inc. 80. Squarespace, Inc. 81. Strava, Inc. 82. Stripe, Inc. 83. SurveyMonkey Inc. 84. TaskRabbit, Inc 85. Tech:NYC 86. Thumbtack, Inc. 87. Turn Inc. 88. Twilio Inc. 89. Twitter Inc. 90. Turn Inc. 91. Uber Technologies, Inc. 92. Via 93. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 94. Workday 95. Y Combinator 96. Yelp Inc. 97. Zynga Inc.

jondubois 10y ago

I don't know what Americans are protesting about. I don't agree with the bans at all but at least you have a president who is true to his words for once - For me that is a higher moral value. You have to take the good with the bad. I don't agree with Trump on a lot of things but I can respect a politician who does what he says he'll do. It's a refreshing break from the typical Washington charlatans who don't do anything of their own accord and instead just do what their crooked lobbyist friends tell them. All that said, I've had a few Iranian friends/colleagues (fellow engineers) and it's really strange to think that they're not allowed to go to the US now because they're such decent, balanced people - Also, I can't help but think about those people who left Iran 40 years ago before it was under Islamic rule but still have Citizenship.

tzmudzin 10y ago
> I don't agree with Trump on a lot of things but I can respect someone who does what he says he'll do. Adolf Hitler was also keeping his promise of eliminating the Jewish "problem" or the lack of the living space for the Germans. Does this increase your respect to him? Of course this is overblown, and Trump is not Hitler. But we should learn our lessons rather than repeat the errors of the past.
- lucasverra 10y ago
  Good ol' Godwin's law, I've missed you
  - tzmudzin 10y ago
    So should we forget the Holocaust and WWII because of Godwin? Please note I've been very careful to put things into perspective here...
    - scottmf 10y ago
      >If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician -Mike Godwin

qzervaas 10y ago

Does anybody know the process for these companies being involved? Did somebody ring around and organise this, or does word just get around and companies request involvement, or something else?

jamestnz 10y ago
Last week Github hosted a meeting of tech industry heads to explore such an action, so this may have fallen out of that. News coverage seems to imply that Github invited chosen companies to participate. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-tech-idUSKBN15F08H http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-tech...

tzaman 10y ago

Someone care to (briefly) elaborate what this is about for us not up to speed?

leereeves 10y ago
Trump issued an executive order (EO) temporarily suspending entry to the US for nationals of 7 countries listed by the DHS as "Countries of Concern", and temporarily suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. The State of Washington sued to block the EO. The lower court judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the EO and Trump appealed. Now these 97 tech companies are sharing their opinion with the appellate court: > The Order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United States for more than fifty years—and the Order inflicts significant harm on American business, innovation, and growth as a result. The Order makes it more difficult and expensive for U.S. companies to recruit, hire, and retain some of the world’s best employees. It disrupts ongoing business operations. And it threatens companies’ ability to attract talent, business, and investment to the United States.
- hueving 10y ago
  >Now these 97 tech companies are sharing their opinion To clarify, this is the leadership of those 97 companies. There is no indication whether or not that this is how the majority of their employees feel. This is the same virtue signaling that resulted in Trump being elected in the first place. An employee of one of these companies wouldn't dare now to express their agreement with Trump's policy because it's against the company's official stance.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - _delirium 10y ago
    Isn't that always the case? I've rarely been in particularly strong agreement with the politics of upper management almost anywhere I've worked, but upper management doesn't care. That's capitalism: we don't work in worker-run organizations (most of us, anyway), and company political stands aren't submitted to an internal vote. Trump supporters disagreeing with their management from the right are hardly a unique case; many of us also disagree with our management from the left (e.g. being union supporters in a company whose management is anti-union, or being in favor of a carbon tax in a company whose management lobbies against one).

belorn 10y ago

> The Order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United States for more than fifty years Can I derive from this that the 97 tech companies accepts the classified Terrorist Watch List (2mil people), Selectee list, and no fly list? The statement would hold more credibility if the companies acknowledged and denounced the previous system and held a bit more consistent view on how travel between nations should work. A good example of this would be ACLU, who in contrast to the 97 companies has shown a consistent view on this kind of government behavior by bringing lawsuits in the past and the present.

richardwhiuk 10y ago
The outrage expressed by the public is the large driving factor here - the tech companies are saying 'our potential workforce is outraged so we need to oppose this / be seen opposing this'
- _delirium 10y ago
  I'm not sure it's only the outrage, also that this impacts their business more than past decisions. Rather than "fairness" (which I agree they don't really credibly care about) I think the key for the companies is the "predictability" part, in that imposing a travel ban for people who already had valid visas and work permits is unwelcome from a corporate-planning perspective. Especially because the initial version applied to even green-card holders, which includes large numbers of people in the tech industry, such as Iranian-Americans. Though the administration seems to have backed down from enforcing the no-entry order in the case of green-card holders. If green-card holders had been exempted from the start, it's possible opposition wouldn't have been galvanized in the same way, because including them brought in opposition from all kinds of people who don't usually see themselves as being impacted by the immigration debate (essentially: affluent, well-integrated immigrant communities with legal residency). The cynical take on it is that Trump screwed up by not confining his hawkish immigration enforcement to the powerless & poor types of immigrants that immigration hawks usually stick to harassing.
- Chris2048 10y ago

chx 10y ago

> If this approach were upheld, future orders might apply to any nation, and suddenly and unexpectedly bar its nationals from entering or returning to the United States. Aye, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I have a plane ticket from Canada to Europe in August, transiting in the USA and I have already contemplated changing my routing because who knows whether I will be admitted? Yes, the chances are heavily slanted towards yes in my specific case but... What I am trying to say: it makes absolutely impossible to plan travel, business into the USA if this order stands for everyone because who knows whether you will be targeted next. I am slightly surprised to not see Boeing here, they are set to lose an enormous amount of money in Iran.

jahnu 10y ago
I really really wish the U.S. would implement some sort of transit facilities and regulations for airports. Needing a visa just to pass through without ever needing to leave a secure section of an airport is ridiculous and anachronistic.
- rythie 10y ago
  I agree, the transit visa situation is really odd. I wonder how much money the U.S. loses by requiring visa from those travelling from Central+South America to Europe and the rest of the world. I know people personally that can't pick the quickest/cheapest route because it transits through the U.S.
- fennecfoxen 10y ago
  - At many smaller US airports, this is more convenient overall. There is no overhead from running a special "international" section, detached from the rest of the terminal facilities like restaurants and lounges and toilets, and US-border-style security for people going back and forth between the two: you just have everyone go through immigration straight after getting off the plane and you're done with it. Unlike Europe, there are relatively few surrounding nations, so more international travellers end up arriving in the US instead of connecting. Canada-to-Mexico and Europe-to-South-America traffic is small in comparison to non-Schengen-zone traffic heading through, say, CDG. - This would still make sense to have at many hub airports (NYC and Atlanta come to mind) - but as the Wall Street Journal points out in this lovely article, "American airports are typically run by politicians in conjunction with the dominant airlines, which help finance the terminals in return for long-term leases on gates and facilities. The airlines use their control to keep out competitors; the politicians use their share of the revenue to reward unionized airport workers. No one puts the passenger first." -- https://www.wsj.com/articles/third-world-u-s-airports-that-insults-the-third-world-1484955696 https://www.wsj.com/articles/third-world-u-s-airports-that-i... - In the case of New York especially, you'll note that the Port Authority runs ALL the airports: JFK, LGA, Newark. Yep, these are the same people who run the world's most favorite bus terminal ever. And (as the same article above notes), "Federal law generally requires that airport revenues be spent on aviation, but that statute, passed in 1982, contains a grandfather provision excluding the Port Authority." So your landing fees are subsidizing the fancy over-budget new World Trade Center PATH terminal, among other nonsense, instead of keeping your airports from falling apart, let alone making improvements for international passengers.

throw2016 10y ago

It's interesting that while we all accept it's ok for businesses, corporates and others to form groups to protect their interests any attempts by individuals to group together is instantly labeled as 'un-american' and socialism. It's odd anytime individuals try to organize hysterical scares about communism are raised in the media and by businesses and it's dismissed as 'anti-american' socialism with ultra aggressive reactions even in places like HN. Individuals are effectively disempowered in society, without groups there is no way to articulate or protect your interests especially when others are organizing and lobbying aggresively to protect their interests.

flexie 10y ago

Some notable American tech companies that didn't sign: - Tesla - SpaceX - Amazon - HP - IBM - Dell - Oracle - VMware - Palantir - Priceline - Expedia - Yahoo - Groupon - TripAdvisor - Symantec - Fiserv - Intuit There could be many reasons. Maybe they weren't invited to participate, maybe they choose to stay out of a political discussion, maybe they thought it could hurt their business interests, and maybe they didn't fully or partially agree with the amicus brief.

foota 10y ago
As noted elsewhere, Expedia and Amazon have joined in on the suit against Donald Trump, and so likely can not file an amicus brief.
rythie 10y ago
The first two are Elon Musk's companies and he's stated he wants to continue to try to influence Trump directly on this issue in particular: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/827924171661377536 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/827924171661377536
bertil 10y ago
I suspect that Telsa, SpaceX and Palantir didn’t sign because Musk and Thiel wanted to talk to Trump in person, and possibly act as (informal) intermediaries. Both have clearly stated they didn’t agree with most of Trump’s comments on the topic (without being crass or litigious) and can reasonably point at comments similar to yours to say that they are willing and encouraged to file a similar brief or join this one.
puzzle 10y ago
Is Oracle really a surprise? Safra Catz is an immigrant herself, but she's also on the Trump advisory team and, in the end, it's still Larry's company anyway.
alex- 10y ago
Looks like Cisco did not sign either. 9 of the largest 15 IT companies in the world are US owned[1] Looks like 5 of them did not sign up (HP, Amazon, IBM, Dell and Cisco) and 4 did (Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet and Intel) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_information_technology_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_informatio...

bradrydzewski 10y ago

minor edit: 96 companies. Turn Inc is listed twice

downandout 10y ago

While I disagree with the travel ban, let's remember that the primary objection that the tech industry has to it is that it will disrupt the flow of cheap talent that it uses to boost its multi-billion dollar profits at the expense of US-educated engineers that would demand higher salaries and benefits. This group of companies may not garner much sympathy.

ig1 10y ago
H1B salaries are public information, if you work at any of these companies it's trivial to check if your company is underpaying H1B holders and report them if that's the case.
- mrtree 10y ago
  Exactly, and they ARE.
gcp 10y ago
Quite a few of the companies on the list are among the highest payers in the USA.
deanCommie 10y ago
I don't know where you get your information, but at the kind of top-tier tech companies that are being discussed here, H1B employees are not getting inferior benefits. And as someone that does a lot of hiring I can guarantee you that the interviewing costs, relocation costs, and language barrier trade-offs do not make up for any salary differences that may or may not occur. We're not talking about some low-tech banks and telcos trying to save a few bux by outsourcing work to india. These are companies that have a high enough bar for entry that they truly cannot hire by looking only locally and must consider the entire world. Furthermore, your whole implication that the companies care about this from primarily a financial point of view is deeply cynical. Immigrants are heavily represented amongst the tech sector, and we have a deep faith in the success of western nations being directly tied to absorbing people hungry for a new life in a new world. It's not about screwing over people who are already here, it's about making the whole country better as a result. CAVEAT: Am Canadian citizen, am first-generation immigrant. As mentioned, work for a multi-national tech company that is on this list, and hire from around the world. But I work with counterparts on the US side dealing with H1B and know they agree with me.

aerovistae 10y ago

Contrary to my jubilation at this progress, a cynical friend of mine does not take any reassurance from the power checks the judicial branch has brought against the administration. He believes the administration will just find subtler and less obviously illegal ways to slowly move things in the direction they want. I hope this is not so. It is true that you only seem to see this kind of massive reaction to huge, broad-stroke actions like the travel ban. The quieter legislation passes by unnoticed and (by comparison) unprotested.

simonh 10y ago
I'm not a US citizen so I'm just commenting as an observer. I'm a lot less worried about legislation overall because it does get scrutinized by the wider elected legislature. At the end of the day if the US as a nation decides to restrict immigration more then that's your prerogative as a nation. The American people voted in Trump and the current largely Republican legislature fair and square and they do have a right to exercise their legal authority. My concern about the presidential order is that it bypasses due process and in this case may even be illegal. It appears it may not even have been shown to the administration's attorneys before implementation betrays a cavalier neglect for legality or the enormous harm this order has done to the reputation of the US as a fair country under the rule of law.
- Fej 10y ago
  Was the election fair? I would say so. That being said, Donald Trump received almost three million fewer votes than his main competitor, Hillary Clinton. To say we "voted him in" is only strictly technically correct.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- hajile 10y ago
  US immigration law gives the president explicit right to do exactly what he did (and that has been upheld by the supreme court in the past). See section f https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Jabbles 10y ago

I don't want to dismiss the other, much larger, concerns people have with this executive order, but I want to highlight another aspect. It further reduces the possibility of tourism to these 7 countries, due to the knowledge that if I want to go to the US, I face a much more invasive immigration check (see Norway PM), and the possibility of denied entry, which carries a lasting stigma. Clearly tourism in Syria is not an option at the moment, but the more adventurous European could certainly want to visit Iran. And of course it was true that immigration officers could have asked about those trips before this order. Nevertheless, I feel that my choices of holiday have been affected by this order. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33648096 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33648096 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norwa...

Xylakant 10y ago
It's quite well possible to visit Iran from Europe. My father, who's only moderately adventurous, went last year with a guided bus tour all the way through Turkey (before the latest coup). He absolutely recommended the trip.
ninjaroar 10y ago
As a Canadian, i've actually never thought of Iran as any more 'adventurous' of a place to visit than somewhere like Peru or India or Cambodia. Lots of mainstream adventure tourism companies have tours there (e.g.: G adventures, exodus, etc) It has a reputation of being a very friendly place full of hospitable people. It's always been on my 'bucket list' of places to visit one day. However, if a visit means i'll get grilled more than usual every time I visit the US, then I'll likely refrain from visiting. So, yes, the order will reduce tourism.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  The US explicitly allows people to get a second passport to allow them to visit countries without facing this issue. For example, if you want to visit Lebabon, you can get a second passport if you later want to visit Israel. I don't know if Canada or other countries do the same thing.

hmate9 10y ago

It is pretty interesting to see how a couple of years ago it would be extremely bad PR for companies to get involved in politics and user their corporate power to tip the scales in their favor, but now it is completely the opposite.

patrickg_zill 10y ago

Contrary to what many people think, I will predict that the original Trump order will be upheld. It is absolutely an Executive branch function to handle visas and immigration, and the actual law appears to be very clear. I am not making a statement about Trump or his opponents, otherwise.

Jabbles 10y ago
Which "actual law appears to be very clear"?
- patrickg_zill 10y ago
  I think Section 1182f: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” ( Note that green card holders are still a class of aliens.)
  - pvg 10y ago
    It's not the only law and in addition, there is case law. Reading that one section is a very incomplete and likely inaccurate way to reason about the EO. http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/trump-exceeds-his-plenary-immigration-authority/15790 http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/trump-exceeds-his-plenary-...

anjc 10y ago

Reading this interpretation of the immigrant history of the US, and how this means corporations should be able to dictate public policy now, just shows how arrogant and entitled these companies are, and how necessary it is that this means of hiring needs to be rejuvenated.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

User23 10y ago

The New York Times take on the ruling: "Judge Robart's brisk ruling contained almost no reasoning."