Read case analysis 9on Apple and the Dreamers.Discuss the merits and demerits of this case in the context of What did you specifically find intriguing in the case that would make sense from the stand point of the chapter and its learning objectives. Does the case support the chapter or the chapter support the case? Elaborate with examples. By the way, you can use case discussion questions to advance your analysis and conclusions. What is you opinion on diversity and its workforce? As an employee, what do you experience at work that mirrors the chapter and the case and why? Be guided by logic every step of the way in your case analysis

In the first year of his presidency, Donald Trump announced he would end the Deferred

Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programa policy enacted during the Obama

administration that protected the foreign-born children of undocumented immigrants from

deportationin six months if Congress did not act to make it permanent. The 800,000 or

so immigrants covered by DACA were often called "Dreamers," because many were young

people pursuing the American dream of higher education, careers, and public service.

Dreamers came from many global regions. According to a 2017 report by the Pew

Foundation, about 94 percent of all DACA-eligible immigrants were born in Mexico, Central

or South America. Three percent were born in Asia, and most of the rest hailed from

countries in the Caribbean, Europe and Africa. The highest concentration of Dreamers

lived in California and Texas. Most DACA recipients were 25 years old or less, and about

half were enrolled in high school or college at least part-time. The half a million or so

Dreamers in the labor force were concentrated in sales, office, and administrative support

positions, and many worked for the top 25 Fortune 500 firms. If these individuals were

deported, the potential loss of talent would be significant.

The corporate community responded swiftly to the threat posed to the DACA program.

Among the corporate leaders calling for action was Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple. Cook

along with the CEOs of Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix, AirBnB, and

Lyftwrote a letter to the president, the speaker of the House, and leading legislators

from both parties expressing support for DACA. "Dreamers are vital to the future of our

companies and our economy," the executives wrote. "With them, we grow and create jobs.

They are part of why we will continue to have a global competitive advantage."

For its part, Apple employed around 250 Dreamers. They hailed from many countries,

including Mexico, Kenya, Canada and Mongolia, and worked for the company in 28 states

in customer support roles, as engineers, and in research and development. At the same time

Cook was working with other industry leaders, he expressed his support for Dreamers at

Apple in a memo addressed to all employees. "America promises all its people the opportunity

to achieve their dreams through hard work and perseverance," he wrote. "At Apple,

we've dedicated ourselves to creating products that empower these dreams. And at our

best, we aspire to be part of the promise that defines America . . . I am deeply dismayed

that [Dreamers working for Apple] may soon find themselves cast out of the only country

they've ever called home." He concluded that "despite this setback for our nation, I'm confident

that American values will prevail, and we will continue our tradition of welcoming

immigrants from all nations. I'll do whatever I can to assure this outcome."

Nationally, the threat to DACA posed difficult challenges for businesses, like Apple,

that employed Dreamers. Employers that intentionally continued to employ Dreamers with

expired DACA permits would face steep penalties, fines and or even jail time. Businesses

that did not lay off Dreamers who were ineligible for employment due to an expired permit

would be fined $548 to $4,384 per unauthorized worker for the first offense. Additional

violations could result in fines and up to ten years in jail.

Although employers could be penalized for hiring or retaining Dreamers with expired

permits, they also could not discriminate against individuals who were still legally protected

by the DACA program. Legal experts advised employers that if they asked employees

about their DACA status, or prematurely fired or denied employment to a DACA

permit holder, their company could be sued for damages for illegal job discrimination. The

Department of Justice also counselled employers that it would be illegal to take back a job

offer because someone's work authorization was set to expire in the future.

While employers were responsible for verifying the immigration status of their employees

before they were hired, they could not legally ask for information beyond what was

included on the I-9 form, which asked prospective employees to demonstrate that they

were eligible to work. Prospective employees could present one of several documents to

show eligibility, including a DACA permit; once eligibility had been documented, the

employer was not required to investigate further. The government relied on employers

to keep track of the expiration of employment authorization documents. However, some

employers did not continue to check eligibility documents after the initial hire. According

to Daniel Brown, a Washington D.C.-based immigration lawyer and former Homeland

Security official, "The odds of any particular employer ever being audited are fairly low.

That being said, we don't know what the government might do immediately or in the future

in terms of enforcement." With more than seven million businesses in the United States,

immigration agents would find it difficult to audit each one.

Employers, including Apple, were faced with managing their talent in the context of an

uncertain and shifting legal landscape. The Dreamers comprised a significant source of

talent for American businesses. The CATO Institute reported in 2017 that complying with

a decision to end DACA would cost employers $6.3 billion dollars because of the expenses

associated with recruiting, hiring and training employees to replace displaced Dreamers.

More broadly, both the private and public sectors would be negatively impacted by the loss

of purchases and taxes contributed by the Dreamers.

1. Do you consider being a Dreamer a form of workplace diversity? How is it similar to

and different from other kinds of workplace diversity discussed in this chapter?

2. What are the benefits and risks to employers, such as Apple and others mentioned in

this case, of continuing to hire or employ Dreamers?

3. Beyond employers, which stakeholders benefit, and which are harmed when a business

hires Dreamers?

4. Do you agree with Apple's response to the public policy threat to DACA? What else

should Apple's managers do now, and why?

5. If you a human resources manager at Apple, what steps would you take (or not take) if

DACA protections were rescinded by the government?