What has really got the firms concerned
is that the ban seems arbitrary. It's "look I am doing something" window dressing only. It's not really the countries involved, only the lack of facts supporting it as an idea and a lack of thought to it's implementation.
I don't believe for a second hundreds of (extra) "bad dudes" could suddenly get into the USA even with a few weeks notice of a ban.
On top of this, the failure to identify the scope of the ban, brief departments on its enforcement and any possible appeals process makes it near unworkable and certainly unpredictable.
Business have to work to rules, they reasonably want to know what the rules are so that they can plan their business.
What if tomorrow he decides he doesn't like Christian terrorists (look at Northern Ireland) or ETA from Spain, or groups from south America. Things could get really tricky and would require a more precise definition of "bad dude".
The anger shown that there is a system that stops him from being a dictator is also disturbing. USA is supposed to be a democracy in spite of all its faults. Is he going to prevent the next election if he thinks he may not stay another term just because he doesn't like the constitution?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
