Statement on Executive Order of January 28

We are providing support to potentially impacted employees, all of whom are in this country lawfully.  As a company co-founded by an immigrant, we continue to support lawful immigration.  We will continue to provide any impacted employees with Intel’s full support.

62 Responses to Statement on Executive Order of January 28

  1. Brian says:

    I am happy to see Intel has finally come out with this note. Several major companies have already announce and I was just about to write you guys voicing my concern. Intel has been a company that prides itself on diversity. Politics aside, Intel needs to continue to lead the world in setting the tone around global diversity and inclusion. In my opinion, we have a duty to resist policies that attempts to divide the American people which includes people from all over the world.

    • Petar says:

      I’m proud to invest all my knowledge and skills in a company which shares such a good human values !
      Our CEO’s message confirms this values.

      “Our attitude towards immigration reflects our faith in the American ideal. We have always believed it possible for men and women who start at the bottom to rise as far as the talent and energy allow.
      Neither race nor place of birth should affect their chances.” -Robert F. Kennedy

  2. Shinji Shimada says:

    Fantastic!! Appreciate the prompt & professional response to the company core value related agenda like this, and am proud of being a contributor to the Company as a shareholder:-)

  3. Varun says:

    I’d love to see a more straightforward statement that decries this ban. While we are a corporation with a profit motive, the need for compassion, humanity, respect and equality has never been greater than in these troubled times. This is a decent first step, we need to stand up for what we believe in. Hopefully those statements are coming soon too!

  4. Connie Schneider says:

    Glad to see Intel taking a stand and doing what is right. Very proud to be part of a company with high values and commitments.

  5. Taimur burki says:

    Thank you BK for this post and the email that went out. It makes me feel very proud and happy to know that Intel is standing up and supporting its people.

  6. Raj Desai says:

    As a son of immigrants, I was truly moved by BK’s words & those of his peers in the industry. I’m so proud to be an Intel employee & the values we stand for!

  7. Dave says:

    While I appreciate this I think Intel should take a stronger stand and communicate clearly that we are *against* this policy. This is important.

  8. bob says:

    Did Intel issue a similar statement when Obama stopped processing refugees from Iraq for 6 months? Is it the messenger or the message that is being protested? Or the party affiliation?

  9. Jean-Pierre Thimm says:

    Thanks to Brian Krzanich for the clear statement on circuit.
    As a global company, Intel relies on trust and exchange across national and cultural borders. When these values are endangered by public measures, this is an issue that the CEO has to address in public.
    It is only common sense to demand that anti-terrorist measures do not sacrifice the very values that they intend to protect.
    The affected employees deserve our solidarity.

  10. Carolin says:

    I am happy to see that also Intel has come out with a clear note. In addition I highly appreciate BK’s message today.

  11. Richard Byrne says:

    “Americans are saddened this morning with news that a life of a heroic service member has been taken in our fight against the evil of radical Islamic terrorism,” President Trump said in a statement. “The sacrifices made by the men and women of our armed forces, and the families they leave behind, are the backbone of the liberty we hold so dear as Americans, united in our pursuit of a safer nation and a freer world.”

    We all need to support President Trump’s minimal efforts to secure our nation and in the extermination of the terrorists.

  12. Theodore M. Seeber says:

    As long as employees loyalty is to Intel first, this is the correct and very courageous choice.

  13. John says:

    Were Robert Noyce or Gordon Moore from the seven banned countries? Trump didn’t ban immigration, he ONLY banned immigration from countries currently housing terrorists trying to destroy the American way of life. I, like the majority of the citizens of this country, are descendants of immigrants. People all over are up in arms over the executive order and we come out publicly against the ban but lest we forget, we, Intel, won’t hire citizens from at least four of those banned countries – Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are controlled countries we won’t hire from (Somalia, Sudan and Yemen I’m unaware of the policy). On this hand you’re against the ban and on that hand you’re for banning them from this company…kind of seems like a double standard. But maybe I don’t have all the facts and I’m off base here, in which case I apologize.

    • Jeff says:

      you’re not off base, John. You are just pointing out another example of the Hypocrisy inherent in Progressive stances and virtue signaling. This is one of the factors why Americans elected Trump as POTUS, much to the shock and disbelief of Progressives. We are sick and tired of the BS.

      • Alex says:

        I am happy to see that are people that understand the true issue and don’t give in to propaganda of twisted facts. Lawful immigration is always welcomed as long as people come with positive intentions.

  14. Anju says:

    Thank you BK for making the stand and being vocal about the issue. Proud to be part of Intel where diversity is considered an asset not a liability.

  15. Chris says:

    Clarity please….when BK says that the executive order is not a policy Intel can support, is that saying that Intel does not support the US government requesting additional information from countries of origin to enable adequate background checks (section 3-a of the order), or is the objection only to the fact that the order suspends entry to the US from several countries while the specifics of what additional information is needed are being worked out (section 3-c)? There are 11 sections in the order (I am assuming the context is “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”), it is not a single policy but a collection of them…which one(s) does Intel object to specifically?

    • Ed says:

      Thanks for breaking this down to the sections that are listed in the Executive Order as published on the DHS.gov site. I agree with your assessment that more clarity is needed, and less hyperbole and assumption on what is intended.

      I too have read the release by Homeland and I don’t find any of it objectionable. When looking at this executive order with the lens of history, it is inline with previous administrations.

  16. BILAL QURESHI says:

    As BK stated in his email, that we (Intel) don’t support this immigration executive order. Why not help organizations that are at the fore-front of this fight such as American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) or similar organizations through Intel match program.

    I have donated to ACLU this evening. It will be great if Intel will match the funds.

  17. Tanya says:

    Is it possible to get some insight into what action we are taking beyond making a statement and helping our own employees. I sincerely hope we are taking more action to support the fight against this ill-conceived and harmful order, because the effects of this will harm us all whether we realize it or not.

    • jeff says:

      exactly how will this harm us? Although the Progressive MSM is embellishing this in false ways for political purposes, this order is in line with what prior presidents, both Democrat and Republican, have enacted in the past. Coming to America is not a ‘right’ for any would be refugee or immigrant, it is a ‘privilege’. And every nation has a sovereign right to secure its borders and protect its citizens from anyone or any group it believes would negatively impact national interests.

  18. Adolfo Macias says:

    I am not in immigrant situation and also I am really happy to hear a formal position from the company, I am glad that Intel stand for their most important asset, the people. I wish the best to all my colleges and their families that are in this historical situation. Thanks Intel for commit not only with the diversity, also with the employees and families.

  19. Ramesh S says:

    This is just stating Intel’s policy. Nothing on the actual executive order. Seems like a very weak response.

  20. Divyanand M. Kutagulla says:

    I am honored & proud to be working for Intel.
    This is the perfect example to be emulated by other companies with large number of immigrant employees.

  21. Chris says:

    So does this policy mean that engineers from other chip makers are welcome to roam the buildings here at Intel unescorted? For what it’s worth, I find Trump’s policy objectionable; anytime we compromise our freedoms in response to terrorist, they win. However, I have not heard any constructive suggestions from those most vocally protesting. How can we welcome and succor those most impacted while minimizing the possibility allowing entry of hostile individuals?

  22. Michele Monsam says:

    First time blog responder… Well done Intel!
    Please stay informed by seeking updates from the Department of Homeland Security https://www.dhs.gov/

    General John Kelly, the Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security, is providing statements and updates in support of the safety and security of the American people. The Department of Homeland Security will faithfully execute the immigration laws, and we will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism.

  23. Brian Gix says:

    This is a welcome position, although in my opinion could have been stated more strongly. As a large and well respected company, we should be leaders on this issue.

  24. Issam S. Abu-Khater says:

    Thank you for supporting impacted employees and especially those in transit working on company business.

  25. Mitch Nosack says:

    The presidents orders are all about lawful immigration. I stand with him in putting this nation’s safety first.
    The national media seem to believe their job in reporting Trump’s temporary halt to allowing refugees from seven nations that are hotbeds of anti-American terrorism is to take the most over-the-top hysterical reaction from the anti-Trump left and send it through Metallica’s wall of amplifiers. But news flash: outside of coastal big cities, few people are buying it. As the recent Reuters report found, many Americans in the Heartland think the protesters should just chill and let the government sort this out. They voted for Trump largely because they were tired of seeing our borders overrun and didn’t want to suffer the same fate as European nations that are experiencing massive crime and unrest due to millions of Middle Eastern refugees who are hostile to their hosts’ culture and refuse to assimilate. They see this as Trump simply keeping a campaign promise: a temporary ban until we can find a way to make sure it’s safe to let people in, which is exactly what Trump said he would do. The media are echoing the charge that it’s a “Muslim ban,” but it’s aimed at seven nations – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Syria – that the Obama Administration specifically identified as dangerous. Obama started imposing more stringent vetting of people from these nations two years ago, and the media never made a peep over it. Non-Muslims from those nations are affected, while Muslims from all other nations are not, so it’s not a Muslim ban. And contrary to some reports, it has nothing to do with whether Trump’s companies do business in those nations. They were identified as dangerous by the previous Administration.
    Perhaps the most overly-dramatic reaction came, not surprisingly, from the New York Daily News, which depicted a crying Lady Liberty with a headline accusing Trump of closing the “Golden Door.” It’s a meme repeated by other liberal outlets and Democrats such as Chuck Schumer. But the poem on the Statue of Liberty is not official immigration policy, and the “Golden Door” to America has never been wide open to anybody who wanted to enter. An entry like that wouldn’t be a door at all, just a broken gate.

    • Brian says:

      Well, thank god we have an *Independent Media* who don’t consider the Administration the only arbiter of “reportable truth”.

      • jeff says:

        “independent Media” — you mean like CNN which was exposed via Wikileaks to be in cahoots with the Clinton campaign to help get her elected? Or MSNBC, ABC, CBC — which to anyone who is intellectually honest, have clear Progressive agendas and are biased in their reporting.

  26. Jim Woodruff says:

    Really appreciate Intel and BK taking this stance. It’s not just good for business, it’s good for humanity.

  27. Aaron Ferrucci says:

    I see that Lyft is donating $1 million to the ACLU. This is a bold and selfless move – bold because they’re making a concrete statement of opposition, selfless because the effect extends beyond company employees.

    Following a record quarter, Intel could easily make a similar donation. Another way to take a stand would be to announce company matching for employee donations to the ACLU, and other like-minded institutions.

  28. Robert Morrison says:

    Thank you BK for your promoting Intel’s clear and unambiguous response to a policy that does not reflect the core values of Intel nor the United States. One of the many reasons I am proud to be a part of Intel.

  29. Steve Brock says:

    Some facts are in order.
    1. “The seven countries named in the executive order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror”
    2. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order.
    3. The US government will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days.

  30. Reed Christensen says:

    I’ve seen a lot of signal design rules at Intel, but I’m not familiar with this new logic-free and fact-free “virtue signaling” that BK has studied. Can somebody point me to a EE course so I can keep my skills up to date. Thx.

  31. Tony says:

    I see a lot of uninformed and mis-informed people not only writing “Intel’s position statement” but also responding in affirmation of it.

    Please avoid reacting to the VERY BIASED main-stream media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.) and instead look into the facts as provided in documents such as those posted to the Department of Homeland Security.

  32. Kim says:

    It is within the right (and one of the enumerated constitutional powers) of the government to protect the country. It is also an expectation of its citizens. If some folks are somewhat inconvenienced due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time, then those issues will be cleared up rather quickly, as most of them have already.

    BK, I think a more ‘executive’ stance would have been to announce support for our Intel families that have been negatively affected (as you did) along with a more middle of the road stance on protecting this country which has seen a rise in terrorist activity, and the legal right of the country to enforce the laws we have on the books. I know the families of the terrorist attacks, who have given up much more than a travel inconvenience, see security as a very important aspect of our country. Guess what I am also saying is that your ‘stance’ on this is also potentially making for a workplace that gets more and more political…maybe even making it more hostile in that regard…don’t we have enough of it already?

  33. Garrett Cooper says:

    Intel should stand with all the refugees, not just employees. This is treating people as guilty until they’re proven innocent, and that’s wrong. Moreover, this is unconstitutional ban is being applied strictly to Muslims (including children!!), and Intel’s stated policy is against religious discrimination, so Intel should speak out more strongly against this. Donating to support people affected by this ban would be appropriate – I’m sure we could afford it.

  34. Patrick Grogg says:

    I very much support inclusion. However, security is more important and I support our pause on immigration from those countries that are failed or close to failed so that there can be a much more vigorous vetting process for admission into our country. This does not conflict with any values. Intel prides itself on securing it’s people and assets (IP) as well as including and treating everyone with respect.. It is very important to a society to know that we can move about freely but securely and welcome everyone with open arms to pursue the American dream.

  35. Kathy says:

    It seems to me, some responses are based on fear, hatred, and even arrogance. While everyone has a right to a voice, hatred against a race or religion, has no place in an advanced, forward thinking society or workplace. There is no positive outcome when targeting a specific race or established religion. When rulings are put in place to validate biases, then it becomes dangerous.

    A note about hatred and fear – my favorite movie is one about the life of Alan Turing – the father of computers. Imagine that – there was even a woman on his team. IMO – he was one of the most brilliant minds ever to exist but humankind was not kind to him. Who knows where we will be today in Mathematics, Science and Technology etc., if what made him different was met understanding rather than fear and hatred. I think it would certainly be a lot further than we are today.

    This is my very first blog and I think – my last.

  36. Jeff Watters says:

    I am saddened by Intel’s weak position on this matter compared to peers in the tech industry.

  37. Reza M Enshaie says:

    Dear BK. After reading your memorandum regarding changes and uncertainties ahead, I felt proud that I am part of an organization that values integrity, service, honor, and above all policy of inclusion and belief in universal human values. The recent events in the political arena have touched a nerve and has shaken me down to my core values.

    As an Iranian born U.S. Citizen, I came to this country like many others to escape oppression and dictatorship and to earn an education. I have raised my hand to swear to uphold the constitution and defend this nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While I come to work every day and focus on our organization values, it’s very hard to ignore the erosion of our greater values as a nation. I never thought in my wildest dreams that we allow our constitutional rights be violated with a stroke of a pen.

    Although all my immediate family reside in the United States and I have no plans to travel in the near future, there are many of my friends and colleagues who are affected by the president’s executive order to exclude certain groups based on their national origin and religion. It makes me feel like a second class citizen.

    I see this as my moral obligation to defend our freedom and constitution and to speak up when I see injustice and erosion of our values. After all, it was this thinking that lead to creation of our great nation and formation of our constitution. Our forefathers would have not had it any other way.

    Thank you for your kind and reassuring letter.

  38. ravisangar muniandy says:

    We have people we have hired from these banned countries. i personally know some of them. You need to be very afraid when your government tells you that they are doing stuff in the name of ‘national security’. Remember Japanese internment, unauthorized medical testing, McCarthyism, secret torture camps, etc? All a despot needs is to make citizens hate or fear a certain group of people (Jews in Germany, Japanese in US- causing Japanese interment camps, circa WW2, etc.) There were no people in the 9/11 or subsequently, from these banned countries, involved in terrorism in US. Who is keeping safe from what? Germany’s citizens supported bigotry and racism too, once.