5 ms·

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 t

• _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
  "potential workforce", or "public"? Because polls suggest many Americans support the ban.
  • richardwhiuk 10y ago
    The arguments presented in the brief suggest they care more about the impact on their ability to recruit than negative general PR for not supporting the ban.