U.S. companies assess impact of immigration ban
Tech firms might be most affected
As Muslim entrepreneur Samia Bahsoun surveyed her Asbury Park, N.J., business Monday in the wake of President Trump’s temporary immigration ban, she came to an unsettling realization.
Her wireless start-up, Capwave Technologies, faces a serious risk of losing budding investment opportunities from venture capitalists in Malaysia and plans to seek funding from investors in the Middle East. She said she’s also concerned that talented Muslim students who often attend American universities will be deterred.
“This executive order is a very clear indication that we’re not welcome,” she said. “As this president is closing the door on the world, the world is going to start closing the door on us.”
Although immigrants from Malaysia, which has a large Muslim population, were not included in Trump’s temporary travel ban affecting seven countries, the president’s action cast a cloud of uncertainty over U.S. businesses of all sorts as they scrambled to assess the policy’s impact.
Amid growing concern that it could throttle the flow of foreign talent, block certain employees from returning to their home offices and harm small businesses that rely on immi-
grant spending, some U.S. corporations decried the immigration blockade.
Karen Eng, CEO of Schaumberg, Ill.-based engineering consultancy CSMI, said she fears that her customers, such as Kraft, General Mills and Nestle, could scale back foreign investment plans.
“It could have a big effect on my business if they choose not to expand their capabilities overseas,” she said.
Technology companies with professionals and customers who could be affected by the ban swiftly denounced the policy, including Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Yelp, Tesla and Airbnb.
Ride-hailing firm Lyft donated $1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is battling the ban, after rival Uber came under scrutiny for what critics said was an insensitive response.
Uber later issued a statement assailing the policy and pledged a $3 million legal defense fund for immigrant Uber drivers caught outside the United States.
Other global companies with professionals spread out among dozens of countries reacted gingerly, with some declining to comment altogether, others expressing mild concern and only a few outright criticizing the action.
Ford, for example, broke the silence among the major U.S. automakers by assailing Trump’s action, even as the U.S. auto in- dustry remains nervous about getting on Trump’s bad side as the president weighs a border tax.
“Respect for all people is a core value of Ford Motor Company, and we are proud of the rich diversity of our company here at home and around the world. That is why we do not support this policy or any other that goes against our values as a company,” Ford CEO Mark Fields and Executive Chairman Bill Ford told employees in an email.
General Motors sent an email to its employees on Sunday, obtained by the Detroit Free Press, about the travel and immigration policy.
“Please know that, per our normal business practices, if any GM employee traveling back to the U.S. with a visa encounters difficulties, GM will provide the employee and his/her family with support,” John Quattrone, General Motors’ senior vice president of global human resources, said in the memo.
Some corporations with significant operations in the Middle East had nothing to say.
Representatives from oil giants Exxon Mobil and BP, for instance, declined to comment about the ban.
Companies that employ large numbers of immigrants, such as meatpacking companies like JBS and Tyson Foods and car rental companies such as Budget, Hertz and Enterprise, also declined to comment.
Others were low-key. Cargill, which employs many immigrants in its meat and poultry plants, said it is working with its travel and security partners to determine what the action means for its workers.
It’s not surprising that companies are cautious of opening up a Pandora’s box by taking up the issue when they apparently could be “a tweet away from annoying the administration,” said Jennifer Walske, a professor in the school of management at the University of San Francisco.
In the end, companies need to look at the fundamentals, what their business stands for and where their customers are, said Melissa Arnoff, chair of corporate communication at Levick Strategic Communications.
Others see the need for companies to speak up and speak out.
“It’s one thing for our president to be tone-deaf, but our corporate leaders can’t do the same, said Aaron Kwittken, CEO of Kwittken, a New York-based corporate brand reputation agency.
“I don’t think companies can stay silent. I think you’re actually going to see true leaders and leadership emerge from corporate America, because their mettle is being tested like never before,” he said.
“It’s one thing for our president to be tone-deaf, but our corporate leaders can’t do the same.” Aaron Kwittken, CEO of Kwittken