On Culture: Must we speak out on Wilber Garces Perez's shooting by ICE in Austin?
Must we speak out on Wilber Garces Perez's shooting by ICE in Austin this week?
What if you're DoorDash? Wilber was delivering for your company, on a work permit, days after asylum paperwork issues put him in ICE's system.
What if you're not DoorDash but employ delivery drivers, warehouse staff, hospitality workers, or anyone with a visa or work authorization - this includes H-1B visa holders who also fear pursuit by unmarked cars and potentially overly aggressive, unidentified government agents.
What if you're an Austin employer?
During the ICE raids in Minneapolis and after the second fatal shooting of a US citizen by federal agents, corporate leaders in Minneapolis found their voice - sixty Minnesota-based companies, including General Mills, Target, and 3M, called for an “immediate de-escalation of tensions.”
ICE fears aren't just impacting frontline employees. Highly paid H-1B visa and Green Card holders are also nervous & likely distracted, less productive, especially if tasked with travel, especially international travel. While the standards for revocation of immigration status were previously well understood to include crimes, today's documented immigrants have faced deportation for environmental and political or ideological advocacy.
When and how do we decide on which social issues we must speak out?
I remember Culturati member, Eric Starkloff, who was then CEO of National Instruments advising me they'd adopted a decision matrix. Chief among the variables were would their position make a difference and was the issue important to their stakeholders - employees were at the center of the stakeholder triangle. Eric even added community to their definition of stakeholders.
So what does National Instruments' matrix say about Wilber Garcés Pérez?
Run it: Does this matter to our stakeholders? For any Austin employer with delivery drivers, hourly staff, or a single H-1B holder on the org chart, yes, unmistakably. Would speaking out make a difference? Maybe not to the investigation. But courageous leadership was never about settling the facts of one incident. It's about naming what's true regardless: a man was shot while working, your own employees are watching, and silence reads as a verdict, one that says their fear doesn't rise to your level.
NYU's Alison Taylor calls last year's corporate silence a bet that's already losing: stay quiet and lose employee and customer trust; speak and risk political blowback. Researchers says the real risk of speaking first is speaking alone. But, when one company acts it becomes easier, and safer, for others to follow. Sixty Minnesota companies didn't wait for certainty about who started their confrontation. They said the violence needed to stop, and the industry followed.
Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps damaged their reputations, losing significant partners and anchor clients through their lack of courage. Perkins Coie garnered the support of more than 500 outside law firms, won in court, retained anchor clients, grew profits, and entered into a major merger.
Employers don't need to litigate the facts of the Wilber Garces Perez, Renée Nicole Good, Alex Pretti, Julio César Sosa-Celis, or Keith Porter Jr. shootings. They need to ensure their employees and other stakeholders that they both stand for law & order and for the safety & dignity of every person.
Courageous leadership isn't reckless certainty. It's saying the human stakes out loud while the facts are still being sorted. It's your people, customers, suppliers & investors knowing you stand for what's right and aren't afraid to say so.
Together in courageous leadership,
Eugene Sepulveda
Founder & CEO, Culturati
ICE Immigration Enforcement Has Harmed U.S. Workers, Research Shows
Forbes, May 5, 2026, Stuart Anderson Summary: New research contradicts a central justification for ICE raids and arrest quotas: that removing undocumented workers opens jobs for American-born workers. The study finds a negative, significant impact on employment for US-born male workers with a high school education or less in sectors likely affected by enforcement, consistent with a model where undocumented immigrants and US-born workers complement rather than compete with each other. Researchers East and Cox also found no evidence that employers raised wages to attract US-born workers as enforcement increased. The piece notes this comes months after ICE and Border Patrol agents killed two Americans in Minneapolis, sparking widespread protests. |
How Leaders Can Respond Amid ICE Raids, Protests, and Violence in Minneapolis
Charter, published on Time, February 1, 2026, Jena McGregor and Michelle Peng Summary: After a second fatal shooting of a US citizen by federal agents in Minneapolis, 60 Minnesota companies issued a joint letter calling for de-escalation, a possible tipping point after a year of corporate silence, though critics called it too cautious. Experts offer several decision frameworks for when to speak out: is it authentic to your brand and consistent with past responses, can you meaningfully influence the issue, and does it actually touch your business (supply chain, sourcing, employee experience)? A public statement isn't the only option; often more useful are internal moves like an all-hands, direct outreach, legal defense funds, or manager training, since high-profile violence creates psychological stress that follows employees to work. |
ICE raids and immigration crackdowns are creating anxiety in the workplace.
Fortune, June 19, 2025, Brit Morse Summary: As ICE enforcement escalated across the country, business leaders faced a new question from their CHROs: how do you prepare a workforce for the possibility of a raid? One research executive is blunt about the stakes of staying silent: if a workplace could plausibly be affected and leadership says nothing, "that's negligence." The piece stresses that the anxiety isn't confined to undocumented workers; even employees with clear legal status are on edge, so blanket reassurance or silence can miss the mark. It cautions managers against discussing any individual employee's immigration status directly, since that itself can create risk and fear, and instead points leaders toward preparation: know-your-rights information, clear response plans, and support resources decided before an incident happens rather than improvised in the moment. |
Fear’ and ‘chaos’ threaten employers’ 2026 immigration plans
HR Dive, January 26, 2026
Summary: Even the attorneys HR departments turn to for guidance say they're shocked by how fast the Trump administration's enforcement plans have unfolded. One partner describes ICE agents "swarming" client facilities in Minneapolis at times without permission or judicial warrants, in one case detaining a worker legally present in the US until a judge ordered his release. Attorneys are telling employers to register objections and inform agents a facility is private property, even though that doesn't stop entry. On the high-skilled side, a $100,000 fee on new H-1B petitions and a wage-weighted lottery are pushing larger companies to consider offshoring roles to Canada, Mexico, or India rather than sponsor talent domestically, with remote work abroad as another option mostly available to multinationals with the resources to manage it; smaller companies don't have that flexibility. One attorney's contacts at DHS describe 2025 as the year enforcement infrastructure was built and 2026 as the year of large-scale activity. |
Want the full newsletter each week in your inbox? Sign up now to save time and stay on top of trends.
Comments