Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's H-1B Workers Cited In Motion That Successfully Blocked Trump's Travel Ban (geekwire.com)
"President Trump's travel ban is on hold," reports WGN. "A federal judge in Seattle blocked the executive order banning travelers from seven predominately Muslim countries." But Slashdot reader theodp noticed that the judge's temporary restraining order might've been responding to something specific: the motion argued Trump's executive order had been harmful because it impacted major tech companies in the state of Washington, including Microsoft. From the motion:
Washington's technology industry relies heavily on the H-1B visa program. Nationwide, Washington ranks ninth in the number of applications for high-tech visas. Microsoft, which is headquartered in Washington, employs nearly 5,000 people through the program. Other Washington companies, including Amazon, Expedia, and Starbucks, employ thousands of H-1B visa holders. Loss of highly skilled workers puts Washington companies at a competitive disadvantage with global competitors.
It was in response to the motion from Washington that the judge ultimately ruled that "the States have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of signing and implementation of the Executive Order," citing its harm on the state's public universities -- and on its tax base. And Attorney General Bob Ferguson told GeekWire that he gave some credit for the judge's ruling to the declarations of support filed by Amazon and Expedia which specifically say that "Microsoft's U.S. workforce is heavily dependent on immigrants and guest workers. At least 76 employees at Microsoft are citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, or Yemen and hold U.S. temporary work visas."
It was in response to the motion from Washington that the judge ultimately ruled that "the States have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of signing and implementation of the Executive Order," citing its harm on the state's public universities -- and on its tax base. And Attorney General Bob Ferguson told GeekWire that he gave some credit for the judge's ruling to the declarations of support filed by Amazon and Expedia which specifically say that "Microsoft's U.S. workforce is heavily dependent on immigrants and guest workers. At least 76 employees at Microsoft are citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, or Yemen and hold U.S. temporary work visas."
At the time of writing, WE THE PEOPLE meant white male landowners.
Today, WE THE PEOPLE means the corporations.
Please, try to keep up.
I think the H-1B program should be expanded to other occupations. If medical insurance companies could import masses of low-paid foreign doctors and dentists, just think of how much that could cut the costs of insurance premiums!?!
Also, these judges seem and lawyers seem to be scarce and overpaid . . . let's replace them with cheap foreign imports!
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Not one word about translators and guides for the US army in Iraq who have served faithfully and got a visa after intense vetting as a reward. Not one word about the reliability of the vetting procedures already in place, the probability of inadvertently admitting terrorists on visa already issued or about substituting security theatre for security. Not one word about the justification (or lack thereof) of a measure that hits people who have lived here for 10+ years without problems and can't travel abroad because they'll be stopped at the border.
No. The only thing that counted was: Washington state filed a complaint that companies like Microsoft, Amazon, and Starbucks (not people !) have suffered immediate and irreparable (financial) loss. That was decisive.
Ugh. I'm getting a drink.
Also, the judge implies that aliens in foreign countries have Constitutional rights, which is complete lunacy.
Where are you reading that? The judge specifically motivates the stay by saying that the states have sufficiently demonstrated that they are suffering immediate injury from the ban. That is what is in question, the "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States" part. Washington is arguing that the ban itself is detrimental, and the judge is ruling that the White House has not made sufficient justification that the harm avoided by the ban outweighs that which it itself causes.