Business

Microsoft president: Congress should protect DACA recipients before turning to tax reform

by Naomi Jagoda - 09/05/17 12:29 PM ET

Microsoft president and chief legal officer Brad Smith said Tuesday that Congress should prioritize passing legislation to protect young immigrants who have benefited from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program over tax-reform legislation.

Smith’s statement follows the Trump administration’s announcement that it is rescinding DACA, which has allowed about 800,000 people who came to the U.S. illegally as children to get work permits and deferral from deportation.

“The administration has given Congress six months to replace DACA with new legislation,” Smith said. “We believe this means that Congress now needs to reprioritize the fall legislative calendar and move quickly with new legislation to protect these 800,000 Dreamers.”

“This means that Congress should adopt legislation on DACA before it tries to adopt a tax reform bill. This is the only way, given the number of legislative days Congress has scheduled over the next six months, we realistically can expect Congress to complete DACA legislation in time,” he added.

The business community has been seeking a re-write of the tax code that lowers the corporate tax rate and makes the U.S. business tax system more globally competitive. But Smith said that “we need to put the humanitarian needs of these 800,000 people on the legislative calendar before a tax bill.”

Microsoft is one of a number of companies and business groups that has called for legislation to support DACA recipients. Smith said Microsoft would work with others in the business community to “vigorously defend the legal rights of all Dreamers.” The company is aware of 39 employees who are DACA recipients.

“If Congress fails to act, our company will exercise its legal rights properly to help protect our employees,” Smith said. “If the government seeks to deport any one of them, we will provide and pay for their legal counsel. We will also file an amicus brief and explore whether we can directly intervene in any such case.”