Google, Apple, and Microsoft among 97 companies to legally oppose Trump's travel ban

97 tech companies — including Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and Uber — have signed an amicus brief in opposition to Donald Trump's recent executive order on immigration. The legal brief highlights the role played by immigrants on America's economy, stating that the travel ban will negatively impact businesses in the country:

Immigrants make many of the Nation's greatest discoveries, and create some of the country's most innovative and iconic companies. America has long recognized the importance of protecting ourselves against those who would do us harm. But it has done so while maintaining our fundamental commitment to welcoming immigrants—through increased background checks and other controls on people seeking to enter our country.The tremendous impact of immigrants on America—and on American business—is not happenstance. People who choose to leave everything that is familiar and journey to an unknown land to make a new life necessarily are endowed with drive, creativity, determination—and just plain guts. 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 Executive Order abandons those principles—and 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.

Trump's travel ban drew widespread criticism from several quarters, with Washington state mounting the fiercest opposition. The state's attorney general called the order "unlawful and unconstitutional", stating that it would "cause irreparable harm" to the entire state. A federal judge in Seattle was able to temporarirly block the immigration ban, and the government's request to have it reinstated was denied earlier today.

The tech sector also voiced strong opposition of the executive order, calling it "unconstitutional." Last week saw protests at several prominent tech companies, with several donating huge sums of money to human rights organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco — where the legal brief was filed — is expected to make its decision shortly. Here's the full list of companies that are fighting the executive order:

  • AdRoll
  • Aeris Communications
  • Airbnb
  • AltSchool
  • Appboy
  • Apple
  • AppNexus
  • Asana
  • Atlassian
  • Autodesk
  • Automattic
  • Box
  • Brightcove
  • Brit + Co
  • CareZone
  • Castlight Health
  • Checkr
  • Chobani
  • Citrix Systems
  • Cloudera
  • Cloudflare
  • Copia Institute
  • DocuSign
  • DoorDash
  • Dropbox
  • Dynatrace
  • eBay
  • Engine Advocacy
  • Etsy
  • Facebook
  • Fastly
  • Flipboard
  • Foursquare
  • Fuze
  • General Assembly
  • GitHub
  • Glassdoor
  • Google
  • GoPro
  • Harmonic
  • Hipmunk
  • Indigogo
  • Intel
  • JAND d/b/a Warby Parker
  • Kargo
  • Kickstarter
  • KIND
  • Knotel
  • Levi Strauss & Co.
  • LinkedIn
  • Lithium Technologies
  • Lyft
  • Mapbox
  • Maplebear d/b/a Instacart
  • Marin Software
  • Medallia
  • Medium
  • Meetup
  • Microsoft
  • Motivate International
  • Mozilla
  • Netflix
  • Netgear
  • NewsCred
  • Patreon
  • PayPal
  • Pinterest
  • Quora
  • Reddit
  • Rocket Fuel
  • SaaStr
  • Salesforce
  • Scopely
  • Shutterstock
  • Snap
  • Spokeo
  • Spotify
  • Square
  • Squarespace
  • Strava
  • Stripe
  • SurveyMonkey
  • TaskRabbit
  • Tech:NYC
  • Thumbtack
  • Turn
  • Twilio
  • Twitter
  • Turn
  • Uber
  • Via
  • Wikimedia Foundation
  • Workday
  • Y Combinator
  • Yelp
  • Zynga
Harish Jonnalagadda
Senior Editor - Asia

Harish Jonnalagadda is a Senior Editor overseeing Asia at Android Central. He leads the site's coverage of Chinese phone brands, contributing to reviews, features, and buying guides. He also writes about storage servers, audio products, and the semiconductor industry. Contact him on Twitter at @chunkynerd.

  • So whos gonna boycott these companies?
  • Not me. I have scruples.
  • Just no brains
  • I'm sure you applauded loudly when Bill Clinton expelled a 5 year old child refugee from Cuba at gunpoint . Your hypocrisy is laudable
  • Me, that's who. I will attempt to use every piece of freeware available in order to NOT patronize as many of those companies as possible!
  • Cheap labor is hard to come by
  • How is the travel ban affecting these companies? It's a temp ban on countries with ties to terrorism. Green card holders can still travel here
  • it's not, but they will protest whatever the president does. Cause they know that this president will do what he says he is going do unlike the former president
  • Because the former president never got attacked for doing things he said he'd do...
  • What attackers came from these countries? And green card holders were initially blocked.
  • many of the Muslim terrorists come from. these 7 countries
  • If there are so many, it should be easy for you to list them.
  • list the countries or the Muslim terrorists?
  • Either one.
  • If 200 muslim immigrants come through can you pick out the terrorists, no its impossible until its to late, and just in my state alone there has been a couple syrian immigrants that killed a couple of Americans and one women was raped by a Syrian refugee, and this **** happens all the time in europe, isis posing as refugee's and bombing and killing people, why do liberals think that cannot happen to us, the country's that are banned hate us, i would say isis is hitler and we americans are jews (nothing wrong with jewish people)
  • So, which attacks took place on US soil due to refugees?
  • so you're saying we need to wait for someone to die on US soil before acting? Thanks for the clarification.
  • And what about the Americans that die from other naturally born Americans?
  • Just like most just hate our country. So move out-go to these countries and we'll see how safe you feel.
  • Before 9/11 you could say which attacks have ever involved planes? And the answer would be none. So just because it hasn't happened does not mean you shouldn't prepare for it
  • And just because one attack happened doesn't mean we need to live in fear of something else. Side note, most of the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Why aren't those countries on this list?
  • So what you are saying is all the protocols put in place after 9/11 were pointless? Got it.
  • A good amount were just to increase the executive branch's power and keep people afraid. Remember the useless color charts that told people how afraid to be on a particular day? And again, if this is about 9/11, why aren't Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan and Pakistan on the ban list?
  • Did I say it was about 9/11? No I didn't. Come on Hilary, learn to read. The 7 countries were identified by the Obama administration and the Trump administration expanded on the Act already in place.
  • That's the ONE question Trump supporters avoid like the plague. They can't answer that.
  • The reason those countries weren't included have been stated many times. You liberals always wanting people to give you everything.
  • Actually, they have answered it. Go check out recent interviews with Sebastian Gorka. After frequently appearing in the media as an expert on this, he recently joined Trump's administration and is advising him. 1. The Obama administration already identified these 7 countries as warranting travel restrictions. Sure, Trump's administration could wait until they conduct their own analysis before acting or they could build off of this existing recommendation in the short-term while they simultaneously conduct further analysis.
    2. To my understanding, 3 primary criteria were used to identify these 7 countries: 1. U.S. relations with that country; 2. The country's infrastructure, intelligence, and ability to provide any meaningful background data and intelligence on their residents; 3. Terrorist activity in that particular country. ISIS occupies territory--their caliphate--in Syria and Iraq. This isn't just cells; this is flat-out occupation of whole areas of these countries. And due to the civil war in Syria, much of the government infrastructure has been destroyed. They do not have the ability to provide adequate background info or intelligence. We know terror groups in Iran are helping fund ISIS, possibly with the awareness of the government. And given Iran's testing of ballistic missiles--which they are not allowed to do--and other hostile actions, U.S.-Iran relations are strained. The other, if I have it right, are known hotspots of Al-Queda activity. And again, these countries' ability to share background info or intelligence is compromised. Certainly Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, etc. deserve more scrutiny and no one said that a revised order might not involve those countries to some degree. But for starters, the U.S. has better relationships with all of them. Second, these countries, especially Saudi Arabia, have better IT resources and, subsequently, are able to provide us with better background data and intelligence.
  • Holy crud monkey. Tell me your not serious.
  • Fort hood, Ohio state, and that is just 2..      
  • And you should know how to read and Google
  • 0.. 0 came from these countries
  • If you read it, it is here terrorist action is active.
  • The terrorism aspect seems to get lost on "me too" political protesters. If something is out of control, you need to put the brakes on and make adjustments to the process. When the procedures are fixed, then you open things back up.
  • So what's broken about the current process? When is the last time a refugee attacked anyone?
  • You're arguing with the mindless. These 7 countries have nothing to do with terrorism, just hate. If it had to do with terrorism the countries Trump has business ties with would also be part of the temp hold.
  • Trump didn't come up with the list of countries, the Obama administration did.
  • So? Trump could have ordered an additional review, or just not signed the EO. He signed it, the buck stops with him.
  • Was I talking to you? No, I wasn't. I was responding to the liberal who thinks certain countries are excluded because of Trump business ties which is not the case.
  • And I was responding to you. That's how forums work.
  • Did you have the same attitude with Obama or were you one of the Democrats that said it's Bush's fault for 8 years?
  • Obama didn't ban travel. Not sure why conservatives bringing his name up.
  • Actually follow along with the thread and you will get it.
  • He can respond to you if he wants. It relates to the topic.
  • Captain Anti-American needs you to defend him. How cute.
  • Yes, he did. In 2011, for 6 months for Iraq. Where were all these companies then? Why did Obama stop "wet foot, dry foot" policy for Cubans? He did that right before he left office. Is it because Cubans often vote Republican?
  • Have you seen Germany???
  • The problem with your logic is that it based on the false notion that the old system was no working. It was working. We have adequate vetting procedures in place, and this is borne out by the fact that we've had no terror attacks from anyone coming from the 7 countries listed in the ban. We have had terror attacks carried out by people coming from other countries, so why not ban those countries? It literally makes no sense. The right thing to do is what the courts are doing, temporarily blocking the shoddy, ill-conceived, hastily implemented, and possibly unconstitutional ban. They're doing exactly what you say should be done -- putting the brakes on something that is out of control (the ban), until such time as the process and procedures can be implemented in a way that complies with existing law and with the Constitution.
  • I've seen a few terrorist attacks in this country under Obama. Every time they happened, it was used as an excuse for a gun grab.
  • You need to get out of the bubble, bro. Out here in the real world, Obama did not take anyone's guns away. A couple of times, he asked Congress to make it harder for crazy people and terrorists to buy them. Congress did not take him up on it. So I guess you can sleep soundly knowing that, after eight years of Obama, it's still just as easy as ever for would-be terrorists and the mentally unfit to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. Whether they choose to shoot up a school, a black church, or an office Christmas party, Congressional Republicans will always stand up for their rights to do so.
  • Nothing is out of control. There's a 2 year vetting process in place from these countries Obama identified years ago. It's been under control. Trump (Bannon) just wanted to cause problems, make it seem like they're on it. They are trying to grow isis to keep the boogie man alive. Republican party breaks down without a boogie man, and can't use the Russians this time.
  • Isis was created by Obama and leaving a vacuum in Iraq. It's funny how you lefties try to tie Trump with the left but conveniently forget Obama's ties with Putin
  • Yeah, all those Iraqi military that were tossed out for being baathists and later went on to form Isis have nothing to do with W and his crew ... and was dumped into Obamas lap. Riiiiight. Sure.heh.
  • "America has long recognized the importance of protecting ourselves against those who would do us harm. But it has done so while maintaining our fundamental commitment to welcoming immigrants—through increased background checks and other controls on people seeking to enter our country." 1. Where do FDR's Japanese internment camps fit into this version of history? 2. Are these companies planning to hire refugees from the restricted countries? Because this brief's language seems to evoke refugees, not foreign programmers applying for H1B visas. 3. How do you perform background checks on people from countries where government buildings have been destroyed through war and conflict?
  • 1. That was upheld as Constitutional because Congress declared war on Japan. Congress hasn't declared war on any of these countries.
    2. If the refugees meet the criteria for the job position, why not hire them?
    3. Other means. Refugees already have to wait 2 years to be allowed in the country. All this ban does is fuel ISIL's narrative that the West is evil.
  • 1. How specifically is the "ban" unconstitutional? Those opposing it on those grounds have yet to present a consistent, cohesive argument. Also, we are at war with ISIS. ISIS is not the official government of any country. "War" is no longer confined to conflict between countries. 2. Why not indeed. The point is, these companies have not demonstrated quantifiably how the travel restrictions on these 7 countries negatively impacts their business. They might not like the tone or the perception the order creates, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. 3. And how has the no-borders, open-arms posture of Western Europe worked out in countering the narrative and preventing radicalization, let alone terrorism?
  • 1. Congress did not declare war on any of the listed countries, or against ISIS. The ban is unconstitutional because it targets one religion, and denies those that were travelling of their due process. 2. Their employees were vacationing overseas when the ban was signed. If you owned a business and found out some of your employees had to wait an extra 90 days to get back from vacation, what would you do? It also makes it less likely the companies can recruit future workers from those countries, which would also harm the companies. 3. Who cares? Let Europe worry about Europe.
  • The travel ban does not target any religion; it targets individuals from specific countries regardless of their religion. Due process and other Constitutional protections only apply to citizens of the United States.
  • They've carved out exemptions for Christians from these countries. Based on that, they are discriminating against non-Christians. If you're on US soil, you are afforded due process under the Constitution. It doesn't matter what nationality you are.
  • Any exemption inherently "discriminates" against those that don't qualify for exemption. The Christians in these cases are fleeing religious persecution and imminent threats to their safety.
  • Muslims are also fleeing religious persecution and imminent threats to their safety.
  • Depends on the area, but in many cases, they're fleeing internal civil conflict. But yes, some Muslims are feeling religious persecution...from other Muslims. Do you want to get more specific and identify which sects are the persecutors and which are the persecuted?
  • Shia Muslims are specifically being targeted by ISIL They'll attack any Muslims that don't conform to their fundamentalist beliefs.
  • 1. As Gr80ne1998 says, the restrictions are based on country of origin, not religion.
    2. Really? These companies have employees vacationing in Syria and Libya? Also, I don't think Trump or all those who voted for him are particularly concerned about Silicon Valley's ability to recruit and hire foreign labor.
    3. My point was that the open-arms policies of Western Europe didn't do anything to counter the narrative of radical Islam or prevent radicalization and subsequent terror attacks. Rather, it just made it easier for bad actors to move throughout the continent. Plus, Europe's de-emphasis on assimilation has Balkanized Western Europe, which arguably has fostered radicalization.
  • 1. Congress never declared war on those countries. Further, one of Trump's campaign promises was he would ban Muslims. Rudy Giuliani admitted on TV that it was a Muslim ban dressed up to try and be legal. 2. Where an employee vacations is up to them. 3. Cool, we're not Europe.
  • 1. That's Guiiani's opinion. Trump recognizes that Sharia is antithetical to Western and American values. He mentioned wanting a way to differentiate between Muslims who embrace Western values and Muslims sympathetic to Sharia.
    2. So, these areas are so unstable and dangerous that waves of refugees are fleeing from them, but yet folks can go back and vacation there?
    3. But you want to repeat the mistakes of Europe?
  • 1. Giuliani admitted on TV that Trump approached him about a Muslim ban and how to make it legal. That's pretty damning. What part of the EO differentiated between those different types of Muslims?
    2. That's their business.
    3. How are we repeating their mistakes? We already have a stringent process and there haven't been any attacks on US soil.
  • These people are refugees. One thing about refugees are they are generally oppressed for their religion. Who cares about Europe> They're the precursor to what happens here so you should care. I would still like to know where you find it unconstitutional to target a refugee based on religion. That is incorrect...
  • 1. The ban is unconstitutional in part because it imposes a religious test. 7 predominantly Muslim countries are targeted by the ban, but "persecuted religious minorities" are exempted. Also, if you're such a Constitutional scholar, then find for me the part where the founding fathers' original intent was for the federal government to have a standing army with limitless financial resources, promising life-long employment to millions of individuals, with the mission of traveling around the globe entangling the United States in regional, sectarian conflicts, subject to the whim of the Executive Branch. The so-called "War on Terror" is not a war in any Constitutional sense.
  • So I take it you're a fan of Rand Paul then since he shares similar sentiments? I have no problem with the "life-long employment" to the millions of our men and women in service, both here and abroad. But if you're concerned about the size of the government, how about you show me the Constitutional basis for the zillion government agencies that exist? Powers not Constitutionally delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states are reserved to the states.
  • I agree with Rand Paul on some things, sure, but not everything. He believes that government basically shouldn't do anything, e.g., there should be no FDA to determine whether food is safe or not. I'm not fundamentally opposed to big government, as long as that government is democratically elected and is acting in the best interest of the governed. The United States government fails this test pretty poorly. The Senate is an undemocratic institution by design. There is no logical reason why the least populous states are given representation equal to the most populous states. To stack the Senate, California could divide itself into 30 states, each with 2 Senators. Would this be fair? Actually, yeah, it would, because each of those states would still have more people than North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming combined. Yet those states send 6 Republican Senators to Washington, and California only sends 2 Senators. The House is a gerrymandered mess, and similarly unrepresentative. And then we have a president who lost the popular vote by several million and is pursuing a reckless agenda that's causing a lot of damage to America's reputation internationally (to say nothing of the damage he'll do domestically). So, we have complete Republican control of a country made up mostly of Democrats. It makes no sense, and it cannot be what the Founding Fathers intended.
  • You just explained exactly WHY the system is the way it is--because if it were up to you, residents of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming would have no voice in the federal government. Basically, elections and policy would be dictated by California and New York, which is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent. In our current era of big government and globalization, the concept of states' rights has become passe. But states' rights are what the Founding Fathers wanted to promote and protect: North Dakotans should have the most say over how North Dakotans are governed and Californians should have the most say over how Californians are governed. If California wants big state and local government with a bunch of government-run programs, that's fine. But don't force North Dakota to be the same way and certainly don't force North Dakotans to pay for California's government programs. See, liberals view state (and country) borders as cute--albeit antiquated--delineations that now exist only to highlight differences in food, dialect, and other cultural characteristics. When it comes to "serious" matters like values and government, liberals want homogeneity and one government for all--that is, as long as they're the ones in control of that government. But when it's not their man or women in power, they become besides themselves and throw temper-tantrums, as we see in the case of Trump. I want to see a return to states' rights and see states actually compete with each other in some ways. You want a more socialist form of government? Great, then California's for you. You want the opposite? Great, then maybe Texas is calling your name. BTW, the country is not "made up mostly of Democrats." Republican candidates SWEPT this past election at all levels of government. And you can't blame the Electoral College system for that. And as for the presidential race, while Clinton won the popular vote, that "several million"--actually, it's less than 3 million--you refer to equates to less than 1/100th of the U.S. population. You do realize that the Electoral College system favors Democrats, right? See, when the system works in Dems favor, it's a great system; when it doesn't, they want to throw it out. Clinton had multiple paths to victory while all the stars basically had to align for Trump to win. He pulled off a Patriots-like comeback. The country is more less 50-50, give or take a little depending on the year (and candidates).
  • I'm not sure you understand how the Electoral College works, but it does not favor Democrats. You see, there are a lot of small, solidly "red" states with hardly any people living in them, like those that I mentioned, at they each get 3 electoral votes. Then we have those big "blue" states like CA and NY, and they're statistically underrepresented. Check this out. NJ, with it's 9 million people gets 14 Electoral Votes. Okay? Then, look at the big red block of 3 Electoral Vote states: Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, and let's throw Idaho in there (same geographical region, 4 votes). So, we've got 5 states, fewer that 5 million people total (so, roughly half as many people as NJ), and all together they total 16 Electoral votes. So, 5 contiguous states, half as many people, 15% more votes. So... this favors Democrats how? Sparsely populated Red states do deserve a say in national politics, but their power is currently way out of proportion with their population, and it's not fair to the people living in larger states. Huge states with very diverse populations, like CA, NY, TX, and FL (not just blue states) deserve more representation. Sure, you can't blame the Electoral College for everything that went wrong for Democrats in 2016, and I didn't. The Senate, like the Electoral College, favors the Republicans (equal representation, unequal population), and the House of Representatives is hopelessly gerrymandered to the detriment of political minorities, e.g., Austin, TX. It's not a temper tantrum to say that Donald Trump is not qualified to be president, and is violating the Constitution for his own personal, financial gain. It's what every Republican said before they voted for him.
  • It benefits Dems because two of the largest states, CA and NY, are solidly blue. And that's only because of their city populations. When you move into the less populated areas, things get more purple, if not red. This must be frustrating to folks in those areas since a decent chunk of the people in the big cities are likely transplants. But anyway, CA and NY are in the bag for the Dems as their neighbors like OR, WA, MA, CT, and the rest of New England. This means that GOP candidates have to lock up all the historically red states AND get the majority of swing states, which for the past decade, have tended towards blue. It's a temper tantrum to riot, vandalize property, and otherwise create a disturbance just because your candidate didn't win. What gets me is that all these protesters, rioters, celebrities, etc. act as if Trump somehow stole the presidency. They ignore the fact that nearly 1 out of ever 2 people voted for him. Keep that in mind; you might think Trump is not qualified to be president, but nearly 50% of Americans disagree with you...or, they at least felt he was more qualified than Clinton.
  • Thank you Nine54, liberals seem to love to preach about the Constitution, but also seem to be to ignorant to know that this is the United STATES of America......STATES. The states made the federal government, the feds did not make the states. It's funny how they (liberals) loved the idea of their candidate having unlimited power, until their candidate lost, and instead of getting pissed at the DNC and Hillary for losing the election, after they rigged the primaries, they blame it on the EC. It's a shame that people don't have to study civics before getting their participation trophy, I mean liberal arts"degree".
  • @Day Stark, YES. The states, i.e., the people, made the federal government--not the other way around. Liberals use the Constitution as a tool of convenience. When it's convenient, like in the case of Trump's executive order, they'll cite it. But when the Constitution is inconvenient, they'll simply turn to their "it's a living document" mantra. Regarding the election, you're absolutely right. All the cards were stacked against Trump: the DNC actively worked against Sanders, liberal activist groups paid people to disrupt Trump rallies and spur violence, the media was in Hillary's pocket, the DNC spent a ton more on ads...and yet Trump still won. It can't be that Hillary was an undesirable candidate. It can't be that Trump's message resonated more than Hillary's. It can't be that people did not want 8 more years of failed Obama policies. Nope! It's the Electoral College's fault! The irony is that they keep calling Trump a fascist. Except fascism is exactly what liberals want. But, like you said, they just want to pick the dictator. They still have not accepted the fact that nearly 1 out of every 2 Americans--people that might include some of their friends, neighbors, colleagues, employees at their favorite restaurant, etc.--voted for Trump. When they riot and protest the election, they're basically telling all these people that they don't care what they think and that their opinion shouldn't matter.
  • You don't understand human behavior and how it effects the market. Nor do you understand the idea of a free society.
  • Someone didn't do their homework. It is perfectly legal to address religion for a refugee
  • I'm not sure how this is relevant, as the travel ban was not limited just to refugees. Regardless, religious affiliation is relevant to refugees insofar as they are fleeing religious persecution. Religious affiliation should not be a means by which United States government discriminates.
  • There is no religious test. Don't believe everything you believe.
  • Yes, ISIS will hate us even more.
    They will want to cut our heads off twice.
  • No, they'll be able to use it as propaganda to get even more recruits.
  • Keep fighting the good fight, Tom. You're not alone
  • Only for weak minded individuals who were going to join anyway
  • Blahahaha
    I'm sure you applauded loudly when Bill Clinton expelled a 5 year old child refugee from Cuba at gun point . Your hypocrisy is laudable
  • The law supports the president's decision, so what do the tech companies hope to achieve here? I thought the deal was, they make stuff and they sell stuff. Why do this and who organized it?
  • The law doesn't support the EO, since it's been stricken down by every judge that's reviewed it.
  • So-called judge, don't forget.
  • Agree, that was out of line.
  • Actually it does. The judge made a decision based on his political bias and not the law per se. Once the matter goes to the Supreme Court, the judge's ruling will be overturned.
  • What is your source that it was based on political bias? And if it was just bias, why has every judge that's reviewed the ban stricken it down?
  • How do you know? Judge was a Bush appointee. Don't expect a conservative majority SC to automatically side with a Republican president, particularly if it will limit judges in the future. A better question legally is that of standing.
  • The judge was a George W. Bush appointee. The political bias nonsense is ridiculous.
  • You do realize Bush didn't support Trump, right?
  • So was Roberts who gave us ACA. Sometimes things blow up in your face.
  • It just hasn't been fully reviewed. Biiiig difference
  • exactly my thoughts. why take the chance of alienating half your demand base?
  • Silicon Valley. Right smack dab in the middle of the land of fruit and nuts. Now.. If... 20 or so of these elitist CEOs, CFO, CTOs would open there estates to welcome these poor innocent refugees, then they would have a leg to stand on. Always, not in my backyard
  • Paypal eh? Wonder what Peter Thiel makes of that?
    Seriously though, this is unprecedented, isn't it? Excluding a few banks that list includes 3 of USA's largest and most successful companies, according to Forbes. Has any group of companies ever collectively got directly involved in a legal case against a government before?
  • Thanks AC for another political piece
  • How is it political to say that tech companies are taking a certain action?
  • Your stance is clear Tom but you aren't being solicited to respond to every question or comment on here. This isn't your post. Forum is open to everyone not meant for the guy trying to argue and contest every point the conversation. Calmate.
  • Other than falling up the stairs and struggling to get in the SUV, Hillary doesn't have much else to do these days.
  • Who cares about Hillary? You can't use her as a boogeyman any more.
  • Ouch. Hit your head when you fell?
  • Sure we can. Just like you all used Bush for 8 years. We just have more ammo!
  • I am an American citizen with the right to comment on the actions of my government. If people are going to come into the comments and spread FUD, I'm going to respond.
  • It works both ways. And you've spread more than anyone
  •'s political action?
  • It's time to start training and hiring Americans.
  • I don't disagree, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that legal residents are being denied their due process, and the ban discriminates against one religion. Both of those are unconstitutional. Over the long term, we need to fix our education system so that companies will want to hire Americans.
  • It's actually not unconstitutional. . Get you FUD facts straight
  • Americans need to put in the hard work like others. They want old union jobs back, that's the underlying issue.
  • Liberals want it both ways. They lament the lack of STEM workers and promote hiring foreign nationals while turning American colleges and universities into uncompetitive safe spaces that 1) encourage students to pursue made-up degrees with little real-world relevance, and 2) promote group think and intolerance towards anyone that disagrees with them.
  • [citation needed]
  • 1) Would you like to major in Celtic Studies?
    2) See violent protest of conservative speaker at aforementioned university.
  • Can't read either, huh?
  • You're right. More Native Americans are needed in the workforce.
  • Thank you
  • No one was crying and complaining when other presidents did TEMPORARY travel bans. It's only cause it's TRUMP. Grow up people
  • Those bans were in response to a credible threat and didn't discriminate based on religion.
  • This one doesn't either. 90% of the world's population of Muslims are not affected by this ban. If this was a Muslim Ban, you can bet that Afghanistan and Turkey would be on the list.
  • Trump specifically said in his campaign that he was going to ban Muslims. Rudy Giuliani admitted it was designed to be a Muslim ban
  • Lol people still believe this
  • It's not against a religion. So your saying there is no threats from those places. And only America loving people want to come live the American dream here. What bubble do you live in.
  • The EO allows refugees from a minority religion in the region. That's a thin-veiled way of letting Christians in, and is unconstitutional because it discriminates based on religion.
  • Except Giuliani said that a Muslim ban is what Trump asked for. Courts care about intent.
  • It's exactly against a religion. Saying otherwise is throwing your head into the sand.
  • The restrictions are intended to prevent terrorists from getting into our country. The 7 countries identified have been deemed politically unstable with insufficient internal resources for adequate background checks and/or are known hotbeds of ISIS and Al-Queda activity. It just so happens that the residents of those countries, including terrorists, are of a particular religion. Trump wants a better way to identify the good apples from the bad apples. Until then, some common sense measures must be taken to ensure the safety of all American residents, which includes Muslim residents. The past decade of European and American policies based on Muslim appeasement and political correctness have failed. I don't know if Trump's EO was the best way to go as an initial measure, but the status quo is not an option.
  • So why are Christians from these countries going to be allowed in? Why didn't he ban immigrants from Saudi Arabia, since they financed 9/11?
  • Why not read about that on Google? When is the last time you saw a Christian behead someone? On the other hand Muslims ARE beheading Christians so they are right to want to leave. You can thank Obama and his Middle East escapades for that
  • So you're saying ISIS and Hamas, who have camps here are not a credible threat? Boy, I wish I lived in your world. Again, Learn about the Constitution if you're going to try and use it to beat people up.
  • You keep linking back to that page which is about this and not the constitution. Yeah, THAT United Nations.
  • You know, I REALLY dislike Donald Trump. However, where were these companies when Obama banned Iraqi refugee visas for 6 months? How is it a bad thing to set 90 days aside to re-evaluate the vetting of folks arriving from countries who are large contributors to terrorism globally? Also, does everyone realize that Obama is actually the one who developed the list designating these specific countries as the countries putting us at the most risk? Everyone just loses their shiz so dang fast, they don't even stop to understand why they're so angry. Stop busting starbucks windows and burning limousines for a second, and read something other than Huff Post and Buzzfeed.
  • Obama's refugee ban was in response to a credible threat, and didn't discriminate based on religion. It was also reviewing a single type of visa, not banning visas entirely
  • That good...using a left wing website to very a left wing website lol! You are too stupid..
  • How the hell did this reality TV star bully get elected ?...I thought Brexit was bad but this really is America's shame.
  • He ran against Hillary Clinton..
  • Who won the popular vote
  • Which doesn't matter at all in the united States
  • True, but it shows a majority of Americans don't agree with Trump's rhetoric.
  • Hillary, likewise, did not get a majority.
  • this is wrong (in response to Tom)
  • How is it wrong? If more people voted for Clinton than Trump (which is what happened), how does it show that most people agree with Trump's rhetoric?
  • correct me if i'm wrong, but you're arguing that since Hillary won the popular vote, the majority of america is anti-Trump? yes?
    hate to disappoint but the majority of americans didn't even vote. only a vocal minority agrees with you through verifiable methods. congrats!
    and, again, if the contest were total number of votes, they would have campaigned very differently. so your whole argument is academic.
  • Come on Hilary, don't you understand how the system works?
  • you do realize the candidates would campaign entirely differently if it were determined by the popular vote, right? The fact that you don't realize that kind of nullifies all your other comments..
  • Nope. That has been disproven but good try...
  • great article, and so few people understand it. I think we broke Tom :)
  • Look at that URL. That is the very definition of fake news. That's why they changed the title after it was published. Because they knew it was fake and a lie.
  • Good. The travel ban is unconstitutional. I'm glad the courts are getting involved and showing Donald Drumpf just how checks and balances actually works.
  • Wish they would have done that for Obama
  • Please fix your article title. Its grossly misleading. This is not a Travel Ban, Just like its not a Muslim Ban. Get off the Liberal band wagon please. The President is doing exactly what the Majority of Americans want. Polls on the executive order show a majority support. Also Obama did similar and not a liberal peep was heard. This is pure hate for the president. Also the list of countries was approved by Obama and congress when he was president. Shame how facts totally destroy this liberal Narrative. Last but not least, if you believe there are not enough skilled Americans for these tech jobs you are smoking something. Tech companies want foreigners cause they are cheaper, that's also a fact.
  • If people are not allowed to travel, it's a travel ban. If Muslims from the countries are not allowed in and Christians are, it's a Muslim ban.
  • Maybe cause Christians don't blow themselves up...
  • I don't agree with how extreme the rhetoric of this site is, but they do list terrorist attacks committed by fundamentalist Christians in the US
  • That;s the best you can do? Where does it say these were practicing Christians? You do know a practicing Christian follows Christ and a practicing Muslim follows Mohammed, right?
  • SO these companies are willing to state publicly that :
    1. They are supporting terrorist and applaud the violence and disregard for American civil rights that these people will bring with them,
    2. They are hiring cheap illegal labor vs. US citizens who need the jobs but would have to be paid more.
    3. They are willing to gamble with the lives of actual American citizens living in their own community. Can we get that in a legal document so 96 companies can be held liable and sued for damages when the inevitable violence and damage to civil society happens? I sure hope so.
  • Since you and your right wing friends apparently only listen to Fox News, I thought I'd post a link to Fox News referring to this as Trump himself initially did, 'a travel ban'.
  • Can we get that in a legal document so 96 companies can be held liable and sued for damages when the inevitable violence and damage to civil society happens? I sure hope so.
  • Obama did the same thing in 2011 and nobody cared.
  • Ahh, Snopes who writes FALSE about something, and then goes on to explain how it is true.
  • But this time you can just read the congressional record (that's public, you know) and see they are right,
  • Jerry, is something wrong with your period key? You were inappropriately using a comma instead of a period in your recent article; you're establishing a pattern.
  • Jerry, is something wrong with your period key? You were inappropriately using a comma instead of a period in your recent article; you're establishing a pattern.
  • Yes. I have to go back and paste periods in by hand. Something is fouled up on the PCB and every period is a comma
  • Why would Obama ban his own kind?
  • I stay out of these types of conversations because ppl don't care unless it's affecting them directly... This country was built by immigrants, no one here is indigenous besides full blooded Native Americans. America is NOT A DICTATORSHIP and this is why we have checks and balances in place for the POTUS. Tom, I give you props for even bothering. Some ppl refuse real facts and have blinders on about their precious Trump, he can do no wrong when it's plain as day to most of America and the world. Deflect, deflect, alternative facts, and more deflecting is all you're gonna get. Obama this, Hilary that, Liberals this, blah, blah, blah. Until Trump does something that directly affects them he walks on water. Making America Great Again my ass.
  • Very true. Tom is the MVP here.
  • Secure US border.
    Keep terrorists from getting on plane.
    Track and deport those who overstay their visas.
    Reestablish appropriate guidelines for entry into the US.
    Rely on department of homeland security, the FBI and ICE to tell the US citizens when it safe to loosen restrictions. This is no different from any other country in the world. Try emigrating to North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mexico, Canada or any other country. You will not be easily allowed entry. Wise up people.
  • What's your source that we weren't secure before. There are already appropriate guidelines and a 2 year vetting process to come into the country. The refugees met those criteria and got the rug pulled out from under them at the last minute because they practice the wrong religion. Did DHS, FBI or ICE warn of any credible threats before this EO?
  • Yawn!
  • One other thing. Non US citizens are not guaranteed constitutional rights. Those are earned once one goes through proper legalization procedures and take an oath to uphold the values and the laws of the USA. The constitution allows the the president to limit immigration especially if there is a clear and present danger (terrorism) to provide safety to its citizens. Read the constitution. I do. Many times. And while I don't profess to be a constitutional scholar, it was written in plain English. Easy to read and understand.
  • Anyone on US soil has constitutional rights
  • They have rights, but if they want equal rights they would be enjoying their rights from jail, where other lawbreakers go.
  • I really wish this article wasn't on here. It's a political article that has nothing to do with Android
  • It's about Google and other companies that have a hand in Android. There could be an article titled "Google says the sky is blue" and people would still be upset because it's somehow political.
  • Sad but true
  • As you said earlier, citation needed. Seriously, this is an Android news site. Lately, it has been less and less as we find out about Google employees walking out and some companies opposing the President. AC should get back to the news. Political threads just anger people. I come here for Android news, not news not related to Android.
  • At the end of the day it's our fault Trump is President. I'm talking all of us. You all call nail me to a cross for saying it but it's the way it is.
  • No, it isn't all of us. I didn't buy into his lies and I didn't vote for him.
  • Neither did I.
  • Yeah but what did we all do leading up to this. We are not all saints. What policies did we endorse that got is to this point.
  • Honestly, none. Ever since he opened his campaign by blaming all of America's problems on Mexicans and Muslims, I've spoken up against it.
  • So, I understand these companies stand against - but it is not clear what they will do other than saying that. Move jobs offshore ? Stop paying taxes ??
  • Liberal whiners...someone is trying to make our country safe-plain and simple. Posing a ban for a certain time frame allows for 'certain things to stand out' just like if a suspected bad employee might get suspended for a certain amount of time to allow for things to stand out that they were doing that had previously gone unnoticed because they were able to cover them up by being around. This is just something else a ban on travel allows for aside from reviewing/investigating something other important things. Remember they are the govt and are privy to info you and I are not. Trump is willing to work hard and put people to work to accomplish so many good things. limpwristed hippies/liberals don't always want to work hard on things they don't like even when there's proof of it working and benefiting everyone. Whining and complaining is what they turn to instead. If those from these countries are upset or put off because of the ban-maybe be upset at their countryman for doing bad/harboring bad people who allow/do horrible things to the world!
  • What's your source that the country is unsafe? When was the last attack committed by a refugee - or anyone from these countries?
  • Every country is unsafe everyday as long as there bad people in the world.
  • So we should just live in fear?
  • Not when there is someone in the government willing to work towards our safety, despite the lies the media spreads about him.
  • "liberal whiners" yet Trump supporters are whining about Budweiser and want to boycott the beer because a commercial talked about how great it is that we're a nation made up of many different people from many different cultures. F'ing snowflakes.
  • So Trump supporters are snowflakes for boycotting a product but it's OK for liberals to riot in the streets over a democratic election?
  • Lol
  • There isn't a single liberal rioting in the streets over the election. They're protesting Trump's executive orders and actions. Is that you, Kellyanne Conway, making up false protests?
  • There were riots after the election before he even got inaugurated. So they might be rioting now over his policies but they were rioting before over a democratic election.
  • Here's the liberal favorite, the Clinton News Network, reporting on riots.
  • I'm sure you applauded loudly when Bill Clinton expelled a 5 year old child refugee from Cuba at gunpoint . Your hypocrisy is laudable.
  • Are you for real? How could you miss all the riots after the election! People didn't even wait to see what kind of president Trump would be - they immediately reacted... in quite an immature way. It's like too many parents forgot to teach their children to resolve disagreements through communication rather than fighting, and now we have a nation half full of grown-up brats.
  • Garbage euro trash inbev.
  • Why don't you conservatives stop using every single thing these companies put out? Instead of whining and complaining about them.
  • Why can't liberals protest peacefully instead of rioting and doing damage to the communities they live in?
  • Why are you jumping off subject? We are discussing tech companies NOT protestors
  • You are talking about protesting the tech companies. I know you liberals want everything for free but I'm not going to spoon feed you all day.
  • Oh so the free stuff lol. 95 of my stuff that I owned I bought it. I buy every single phone outright. I have been working for over 20 years so don't come at me with this handout crap. I'm pretty sure you would be angry if I called every Trump supporter a racist scum.
  • Keep repeating it and it will be your own truth. You can call them whatever you want. I don't get offended by people, especially a give me give me liberal on the internet.
  • Whatever you say Trumpkin
  • Do you liberals not have any original thoughts? Is it because there's no more free phones?
  • They give out Axon 7s for free that is new to me
  • So you really don't buy all your phones. Now the truth comes out.
  • Lots apparently...I mean all these ideas don't come from's mostly Liberal States or cities. Seattle and Silicon Valley aren't in Kansas...isn't that like a conservative holdout...nothing great happening there.
  • The ideas come from Kansas the illegal cheap labor comes from California which is no longer part of America I'm sure you applauded loudly when Bill Clinton expelled a 5 year old child refugee from Cuba at gunpoint . Your hypocrisy is laudable
  • That website is absolutely amazing. It lists everyone that could ever be tied to "Islamic terror" who did something violent since 2008. And not a single one of them come from the 7 countries the Trump administration has named. He needs to put New York and Virginia on his list to keep us safe.
  • Your boy Obama and his cronies in the administration made the list. The Trump administration just expanded the Act that was already in place. More countries are coming. This is just the beginning. But I guess in typical liberal fashion you just ignore facts.
  • And why did they make that list? Enlighten us. Or at least give us your twisted opinion.
  • You liberals want everything handed to you. Here's where the 7 countries came from: If that doesn't answer your question, call up your boy Obama and ask why his cronies have those countries in the Act.
  • Wow, a lot of American businesses against an American president's move. Not good!
  • Wow a lot of business and the US stock market support the President
    I'm sure you applauded loudly when Bill Clinton expelled a 5 year old child refugee from Cuba at gunpoint . Your hypocrisy is laudable
  • Not worth arguing with Libtards, its just not. You cant possibly rationalize with a group that preaches diversity and freedom of speech and then stifles a group that has a differing opinion. Protesting against conservative speakers because they have a different point of view. Wait, I have an idea lets preach about peace and then lets riot and burn our own town down. Snowflakes = Useless
  • If we are snowflakes, in the words or Game of Thrones, "Winter is coming." And wow, another one calling us snowflakes. So original.
  • Tom W. Thank you Sir. You rock.
  • To be on topic, the USA effectively cherry-picks much of the world's top talent in many fields. I am Canadian and this is also true for my country but certainly not to the degree that it is for the US. If Trump keeps this up he may effectively stop much of the brain drain that has been so beneficial to his country.
  • BullDonkey
    I'm sure you applauded loudly when Bill Clinton expelled a 5 year old child refugee from Cuba at gunpoint . Your hypocrisy is laudable
  • Are you replying to me?
  • What the heck? You snowflakes crack me up. Legally opposing? Is there such a thing as illegally opposing Trump's travel ban? The premise of the travel ban will negatively impact businesses in the country is not logical. The companies listed above are globally recognized companies and can hire anyone from around the world.
  • WOW! I just can't understand the reason people are getting so excited about A TEMPORARY BAN? Anyone ever hear of the story of Chicken Little"? Especially these companies who have shipped a tremendous amount of jobs overseas, plus used the tax laws to avoid paying taxes here in this country! I really don't think any of these companies will go outa business because of this ban. Their complaint just boils down to the little profit they'll lose.
  • Technically it is a Moratorium not a Ban. If they called it such it would of gotten less press. It just delays 90-120 days for an indepth background check to subside and give enough time for people to do it. Im not for it, but there were better ways of handling it.
  • This whole topic and the uproar that follows it around is just ridiculous. It is our Constitutional right as ACTUAL CITIZENS of the USA to be safe, and if a NEW president wants to temp pause on these 7 locations that the previous administration had put the list together on, he has a RIGHT to do so. The vetting process is so out of date it needs to at least be looked at and a NEW president has a right to do so. This is why he won bc the side that lost is looking for every reason to delay, discredit etc everything that comes out, rather than working together to fix the problems. I and most others who have common sense can see that. It is funny that most of the whining side is on tape applauding this same process just a few short years ago from the other admin. I can see if it was a permanent PAUSE/BAN than we including I would have a right to say something. Now how this temporary ban effects all of these tec companies is only bc they fear the wrath of the paid protestors. Dont even get me started on that one....Perhaps if we had more jobs for ALL Americans and FIXED the education system the tech comps would recruit more talent here.
  • Why didn't these companies protest against Obama, Bush, and Clinton when they banned immigration from countries? I can tell you why, but you won't like the truth in the answer. It is amazing to me how much the left of this country are going crazy over things that aren't true or have been done by politicians they love in the past. Ignorance, willful ignorance, or helpful idiots
  • SO these companies are willing to state publicly that :
    1. They are supporting terrorist and applaud the violence and disregard for American civil rights that these people will bring with them,
    2. They are hiring cheap illegal labor vs. US citizens who need the jobs but would have to be paid more.
    3. They are willing to gamble with the lives of actual American citizens living in their own community. Can we get that in a legal document so 96 companies can be held liable and sued for damages when the inevitable violence and damage to civil society happens? I sure hope so.
  • Folks, we need to differentiate between refugees and people who have already been through significant vetting and are here working legally. These companies may be for or against allowing more refugees into the country. But they're not suing because of that. They're suing because regardless of how many of their H1B or other visa employees are here entirely because they were indeed spectacular enough to qualify for jobs where Americans couldn't be found, or these companies used the H1B as a loophole, or somewhere in between, these folks are now living here legally with homes, families, rent or mortgages etc. So just because many of them happened to be out of the country at the time this order was rushed out without discussion by Trump and his cabinet with ICU, Dept of Justice, etc should not mean they can't come back. Saying it's just 90 days is easy to say, but it ignores their family and rent / mortgage obligations and their jobs. The H1B visa program needs fixing for many reasons, but security isn't one of them, and none of these employees or these companies is a credible threat to the US. That's what this is all about. It's not liberals vs. conservative or security vs. being nice to refugees. It's employers and employees who followed the law at the time (much like Trump paid $0 in taxes legally), and are now in trouble because this ban or whatever you want to call it was rushed and not well thought out. Even Trump's team has apparently privately admitted that they should have done this a bit more thoughtfully and with more input. We here on this forum should at least be able to agree on that.
  • This isn't about refugees. And even if it was, we aren't the only country turning them away.
  • 96 companies LOL
    I'm sure you applauded loudly when Bill Clinton expelled a 5 year old child refugee from Cuba at gunpoint . Your hypocrisy is laudable
  • I'v decided to join Google and Microsoft. Please enroll me in your benefits packages and start sending me a salary. I will work from wherever, whenever, just pay me and don't tell the IRS I'm on board please. Certainly you can't object, I'm an outsider. I can add rich ideas to your companies. Certainly ones you haven't thought of yet, obviously.
  • This should be of concern to everyone! These tech companies deal with our information and security every day, yet they are either not as brilliant as they think, or just caving to media pressure. This is not an immigration ban, it is temporary, and only affects the counties that Obama specified as the highest risk. if Obama would have done the same thing these CEO's would have been kissing his butt. Oh wait, he DID do the same thing, and there was no outcry like there is now from all these hypocrites. They are more concerned about going against President Trump than they are about this country's security. It is sad to see how integrity and even patriotism have disintegrated in the last few decades.
  • These tech guys have really hacked me off. Tech has always been fun and intriguing for me and their insistence on shoving their politics into the relationship is presumptious and downright rude. Some sorry SOB organized this freak out over a measly 90 day hold for security sake and I want to know who it is. At least there are tech companies not on the list that I can continue to support.
  • Two issues here with these companies, Google in particular. One, if these companies are in protest it's because they are hiring foreign workers as apposed to perfectly capable American workers. Shameful. Also, for a company like Google which retains a large amount of data on US citizens, they have no problem with any foreign worker having access to that information?
  • There are three types of people - people that love Trump, people that hate him and people that think the first two are morons because every president before them has been doing the same **** and nothing changes.
  • Corporate fascists and psychopaths didn't mind Obama bombed and mass murdered in 5 those countries and supported terrorists but they mind Trump does not want these terrorists financed by Obama in the USA.
  • Wow, I used to really like android central.