(iStockphoto/Sundry Photography)Most people agree that US immigration policy is a mess. At times, it is hard to even know what it is.
Immigration policy differences divide us as a nation and produce a great deal of misinformation. They have resulted in more than 10 million people permanently residing in the US as either undocumented or illegal immigrants. What you call them seems to depend to some extent on your political leanings.
Another result are borders—in particular, the Southern border—that are more open than many would like, although one that is not as open as some claim. Tens of thousands of loyal, hard working, often inadequately recognized, government employees attempting to carry out the latest immigration policy are caught in the middle.
Immigrants need the US. It still represents the world’s most attractive destination for the politically or economically oppressed. What gets lost in this conversation is the extent to which the US needs immigrants. We need their youth, their willingness to work at any job, their productivity, their contributions to a social security system being weighted down by the graying of America, and of course their skills. Think of what has gone on for decades as a giant skimming effect that benefits the US while reducing the talent pool of countries offering the least opportunity.
Few groups have been as maligned or as poorly portrayed as our immigrant pool. This has been the case for more than a century. At the moment, the focus is on those crossing the border to request asylum without “waiting in line” for fully documented or legal entry. (As economist Tara Watson and writer Kalee Thompson point out in their recent book, it is more accurate to say that under current policy there is no line.)
They are characterized by some as a potential source of disease, drugs, gangs, crime, you name it. The crimes they do commit are given extra publicity. And yet common sense and the data that we have don’t support the allegations. Think about it: These are the best of the best who were willing and able to get out of their own countries and get to ours. They will be here under highly tenuous circumstances. One misstep and the undocumented or illegal are deported. As a result, data from reputable sources suggest that they have much lower crime rates than we who are already citizens.
My concern here is not with political or broken policy issues, but whether business leaders are expressing enough “voice” about a matter that affects their talent pool as well as the overall growth rate of the US economy. The question arises at a time when one can ask whether the US has outgrown its talent pool, with at the moment an extremely low unemployment rate, more than 4 million unfilled jobs, and millions of employed people debating just how much they want to work in their post-pandemic lives.
The unfilled jobs exist even in the face of the fact that the US has granted legal permanent status to about a million people a year for the past two decades. As a result, the proportion of the US population that is foreign-born—to the extent we can count—has nearly tripled over the past 50 years to levels we last saw around 1900.
There is one business “community” that has tracked these conditions and exploited the opportunity closely: high tech. My colleague, William Kerr, has written extensively about the efforts through various avenues to ensure an adequate flow of tech talent into the country. But leaders in other industries seem to have been reluctant to influence the debate over issues regarding immigration policy.
One can understand why it isn’t in the best interests of their organizations to weigh in on all issues facing society, but this is one that can have a direct impact on the performance of their organizations. It is controversial. But to a significant extent, the health of the country’s economy depends on the reasoned, rational approach to this opportunity that its business community is best equipped to provide.
Why aren’t business leaders more vocal about immigration policy? What do you think?
Share your thoughts in the comments below.
References:
- William R. Kerr, The Gift of Global Talent: How Migration Shapes Business, Economy & Society (Stanford Business Books, 2021).
- Tara Watson and Kalee Thompson, The Border Within: The Economics of Immigration in an Age of Fear (University of Chicago Press, 2022)
Your feedback to last month’s column
Have Managers Underestimated the Need for Face-to-Face Contact?
Managers understand but are still assessing the need for face-to-face (f2f) contact. Various hybrid working arrangements along with making precious f2f time more effective are the answer. That’s the sense I get from responses to last month’s column.
Penelope (Penny) Vodanborg commented, “More likely is that managers have OVERESTIMATED the need for face-to-face contact and during the pandemic were (finally) compelled to question the wisdom of spending time and money (not their own!) to travel to often distant places for conversations that can more effectively and economically be conducted remotely.”
William Ryan also picked up on the need to plan for quality time face-to-face when he said, “Maybe the question needs to focus on the reason for a f2f gathering. Is it for a manager to listen to readouts and talk about their plans where the light shines on them or is the reason to have teammates engage with each other to connect, network, create?
Personal experiences varied. Jacob Navon said that, “ … one cannot substitute f2f when it comes to building culture and mentoring new hires… Besides, WFH (work from home) is a gross misnomer. It is more like ‘live at work.’”
Stephanie reported that, “ … my entire team has reported registering for virtual conferences but not really feeling they could fully set aside time to engage fully as they would if they traveled to a conference.” William Cottringer added, “I have found that team building and communication in a virtual environment present a new set of challenges that need a whole new set of interpersonal skills.”
Katherine Lawrence reminded us that we have been losing “levels of community” for decades. In her words, “COVID accelerated but did not cause the rejiggering of how the workforce accomplishes its tasks.” She pointed out that some people will regard this as a cost while others will think of it as a saving.