Just "Good for Business"? It's "Good for Humanity"!

A look at the recent immigration restrictions

The H1B visa "temporary" suspension triggered responses from top business leaders about the moves by the Trump administration to "temporarily" suspend the H1B visa program (intended for specialty occupations) in terms of the impact of this move to their business and the potential to innovate. This can be summed up as the “Good for Business” argument.

"They generate real innovation & growth . . . benefiting us all and fueling our economy. We embrace all our Ohana." -- Marc Benioff, CEO, Salesforce

(See [1] for more opinions. They all underscore "economic strength".)

The order from the Trump administration builds on the earlier restriction of green card issuances and makes it difficult for intra-company transfers (L1) and hurts chances of spousal employment (H4). The current order also restricts exchange visitors (J1) and non-agricultural guest workers (H2B).

Then came another cruel blow -- the F1 Visa (the International Student Visa) policy, tagged the #StudentBan -- stating that students enrolled in online-only classes (a move necessitated by the pandemic) would lose their F1 status (the lawful status to remain in the US).

The NY Times offered this opinion: "The White House measure, announced on Monday, was seen as an effort to pressure universities into reopening their gates and abandoning the cautious approaches that many have announced they would adopt to reduce Covid-19 transmission." [2] As the article points out, the 33K international students in Michigan contribute $1.2B to the economy. This policy affects around 1 million students, giving you an idea of the potential impact to the economy (estimated at $45B). China and India make up 55% of the international students.

The administration that completely mishandled the Covid-19 response across the board, and crashed the economy is now desperate to regain political footing.

And here is a link to an open letter from faculty at institutions across the US opposing the student ban. The letter points out that this is a cruel policy (the students and families have made substantial investments in coming here or planning to come here) as well as economically unwise for the US (~ $45 B impact). This is big business!

"This policy would uproot their lives during their studies, and force a return to their countries of origin with uncertain prospects."

"And, not only do international students come with their own resources, but they also effectively subsidize higher education, making substantial contributions to the costs of public universities and their domestic students. Finally, international students make up the majority of graduate STEM enrollment, a crucial field in which the United States aims to become a 'global leader'."

Harvard and MIT are suing the Trump administration over this policy and they will be joined by other universities. [3]

Again the institutions are offering the 'Good for Business' argument. In this case, the faculty and students are also sympathizing with the plight of the international students subject to such arbitrariness.

The international workforce (H1B, J1, etc) and international students (F1) have become political football for different reasons.

All this is just part of a broader effort of this nativist administration to curtail immigration overall, and reduce the flow of immigrants that has always sustained the nation.

Let us look at a little bit of history, particularly the motivation for the hideous eugenics-inspired Immigration Act of 1924 (the infamous Johnson-Reed Act). It was an overtly racial legislation that sought to drastically limit immigrant flow from Eastern Europe and Asia. It established racial and origin quotas that took a long time (1965) to be set aside. Asian exclusion had been cemented in place by 1917. Reed saw his new Act as focusing on "those of us who are interested in keeping American stock up to the highest standard" [4]. It was the eugenics-inspired "Good for the Stock" argument, stock here referring to racial stock.

It would take me too far afield to discuss the social Darwinism and eugenics movements rife during this period. There was also an early precursor to "America First" [6].

The challenge of solely emphasizing the "Good for Business" argument is that it deprecates the support for immigration for all other reasons (people fleeing violence or genocide and seeking asylum, connecting families, creating a more plural society, correcting the imbalance of a hideous past).

A country built on immigration has a moral duty to uphold those values, which goes beyond just the business imperative. How many have perished in genocides or mind numbing violence because they could not find safe harbor elsewhere. How many families remain torn apart because of divisive policies. How many labor in the fields without acknowledgment of their hard work (the lack of a proper and much needed farm worker program).

One of my favorite poems of all time is the 1883 sonnet “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus, which was cast into a bronze plaque and mounted on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty in 1903. Some lines from the sonnet that I would like to emphasize:

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

The poem says: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." With these memorable words, it turned Bartholdi's Statue of Liberty into a symbol of hope for immigrants and made her the "Mother of Exiles". The “wretched refuse” have contributed in all areas (arts, science, philosophy, politics, industry, agriculture, sports, and so on). At the time Emma Lazarus wrote the poem, the Jewish pogroms were underway in Tsarist Russia and the drumbeat about the "Yellow Peril" was rising (the Chinese Exclusion Act was already passed in 1882).

Just when we think we have come a long long way from 1882 or 1924, xenophobia can reassert itself in different guises. It is important for corporations and universities to speak up against all forms of immigration restrictions that violate basic human rights and espouse a racial or nativist agenda —> bans, walls, cages, quotas and so on.

Immigration is just good for humanity, unconditionally — meaning that both opportunity and refuge are goals for immigration.

President Obama framed this point well in his speech on comprehensive immigration reform delivered at the American University in July 2010 [5]:

"I believe we can appeal not to people’s fears but to their hopes, to their highest ideals, because that’s who we are as Americans. It’s been inscribed on our nation’s seal since we declared our independence. “E pluribus unum.” Out of many, one. That is what has drawn the persecuted and impoverished to our shores. That’s what led the innovators and risk-takers from around the world to take a chance here in the land of opportunity. That’s what has led people to endure untold hardships to reach this place called America." -- President Barack Obama, July 2010

-- Suresh Babu, July 10, 2020, San Francisco Bay Area

Notes and Links:

1. "Apple, Google and chorus of tech business leaders slam Trump's new visa restrictions" -- By Catherine Thorbecke, ABC News, June 23, 2020
2. "Trump Visa Rules Seen as Way to Pressure Colleges on Reopening" -- NY Times, July 10, 2020
3. Harvard-MIT Lawsuit
4. Immigration Act of 1924 -- Wikipedia
5. President Obama's Speech on Immigration Reform -- given at the American University, July 01, 2010. (The whole speech is worth reading to show how we can take a compassionate approach to immigration reform without appealing to xenophobia.)
6. "America First" -- was the nativist platform adopted by the aviator Charles Lindbergh, an ardent nativist and Nazi sympathizer.