97 companies throw support behind lawsuits against Trump’s travel ban
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Tawfik Assali, 21, center, of Allentown, Pa., embraced his sister Sarah Assali, 19, upon her and other family members’ arrival from Syria at Terminal at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York today. Mathew Assali, right, 17, arrived today. Attorneys said Dr. Assali’s brothers, their wives and their two teenage children returned to Syria after they were denied entrance to the United States on Jan. 28 although they had visas in hand after a 13-year effort.
NEW YORK >> Apple, Google and more than 90 other companies are pushing back in court against President Donald Trump’s temporary travel ban, calling it unconstitutional, un-American and bad for the economy.
The companies filed briefs Sunday to back lawsuits from Washington state and Minnesota fighting Trump’s travel ban. The ban keeps refugees and travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S.
Trump has said his Jan. 27 executive order is necessary to prevent “radical Islamic terrorists” from coming to the U.S. The White House did not respond to a request for comment today.
The 97 companies are mostly in the technology industry and include social media companies Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. Non-tech companies participating include yogurt maker Chobani and jeans-seller Levi Strauss & Co.
Here’s some of the reasons why they oppose the travel ban:
IT HURTS THE U.S. ECONOMY
Immigrants will avoid the U.S. and want to work in other countries where “their immigration status will not suddenly be revoked,” the companies argued. They also said the ban makes it more likely that big companies will move employees overseas or make investments outside the U.S.
“Ultimately, American workers and the economy will suffer as a result,” the companies said.
IT HURTS THEIR BUSINESS
The travel ban makes it harder for companies to “recruit, hire, and retain some of the world’s best employees,” according to the court filings.
The companies also say the ban disrupts day-to-day operations by making it more difficult to send employees to meetings and conferences abroad because of uncertainty over whether they can return.
IT’S UNLAWFUL
The companies said the executive order violates immigration laws and the U.S. Constitution because it bans people from entering the country based on their place of origin.
IT WILL HURT ENTREPRENEURSHIP
According to the court documents, 200 of the 500 companies on Fortune magazine’s list of largest U.S. companies were founded by immigrants, or children of immigrants. That includes iPhone maker Apple and search company Google, both of which joined the court filing.
“The energy they bring to America is a key reason why the American economy has been the greatest engine of prosperity and innovation in history,” the companies said.
13 responses to “97 companies throw support behind lawsuits against Trump’s travel ban”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Vancouver has some (not all) similar problems to those of Honolulu when it comes to unaffordable housing.
Here is an interesting analysis of the problem including the effects of mass immigration.
It also accounts for the attitude of some companies who oppose restrictions.
http://vancouversun.com/opinion/opinion-mass-immigration-fuels-demand-for-housing
Steve Jobs was the son of a Syrian immigrant. If Trump had been president back then, there would be no Apple.
Was he legal? It does make a difference.
No, it doesn’t. Trump stopped all LEGAL immigration from Syria.
You really need to read more. A lot more.
IRT Cabot17, and all 97 companies, controlled by Democrats, will be embarrassed when the 9th decides with President Trump.
Embarrassed? You think that fighting for what’s right is embarrassing?
What, exactly, is wrong with you?
There wasn’t an ISIS “back then” either.
Cabot17, you did not give much thought to your Trump bashing comment. It is true that Steve Jobs’ biological father was an immigrant from Syria who came to this country in the early 1950s when Syria and the rest of the Middle-East was very peaceful compared to today and before Islamic terrorists’ groups were organized to kill us.
Can somebody please advise me on where in our Constitution it protects “Non US Citizens” from their rights?
I realize it protects our rights, but, how or where is it written it protects those from other countries?
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Among others.
Fifth: In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws.
Fourteenth: Verbatim – “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This is settled law
Mr. trump hasn’t read the Constitution. Obviously.
Klastri, you did a nice job tap dancing around GONEGOLFIN’s question. He used the term “non US citizens,“ but I believe he meant people who are not residents of the US. I agree that all aliens living in the U.S. are entitled to protection under the Constitution. However, that is not the major issue with people opposed to Trump’s Executive Order. The major issue is refugees and foreigners living outside the U.S. who want to come here being temporarily banned from doing so under Trump’s EO. What right or rights do they have under our Constitution? I say, NONE. What do you say?
I didn’t tap dance around anything, so please write truthfully. The main problem I have with the EO is that it was specifically and narrowly targeted at Muslims. It was clearly a Muslim ban, which was confirmed by Mr. Guiliani. Trump and you can now lie about that, but it’s a Muslim ban. Trump campaigned on doing that, and spoke about it constantly. He cannot change his story now that he has been caught.
The Constitution protects everyone, everywhere to some degree because it restrains what the President can do and not do. That is very important now that the President appears each day to be increasingly mentally ill. The ban would not be temporary, since he has no plan to end it. He doesn’t know what he’s doing – obviously.
I’ve tried debating the law with you before, but it never works. You just don’t understand the subject matter, so it’s just too heavy a lift.
Klastri, I must admit that the travel restrictions effect Muslims more than non-Muslims, but if it truly is a Muslim ban, why does it not effect the majority of Muslims who live in other countries? I am interesting in learning more about the Constitution, so could you please cite the provision or provisions in the Constitution that give rights to foreigners living outside the U.S.?