Immigration and International Business -- Legality vs Legitimacy

At first blush, the currently raging debate over immigration may seem more a matter of domestic policy and enforcement than international business, but there is a very real connection between  the two.   A few aspects of that interconnectedness are as follows:

• The policies that the US adopts towards people from other countries seeking to live and work in the US can have a direct impact on the policies adopted by other countries towards Americans wanting to live or work abroad;
• The attitude toward alien workers here, both legal and illegal,  spills over into attitudes and enforcement policies regarding work permits and visas in many contexts which directly affects American companies doing business abroad.   I know of several instances in which American companies have been unable to get a work permit for a foreign employee whom they wish to do a stint at US headquarters for training purposes and to further the acculturation of key employees responsible for foreign operations.  I also have several small business clients who are being killed in their export operations in China because of a complete inability to get visas issued so that customers and employees can visit their plant in the US.   This, of course, is exactly the kind of restrictive trade policy that will encourage small US manufacturing businesses to relocate operations overseas in order to support export positions that would otherwise be serviced from the US -- which is the exact opposite of what anti-immigration pundits are trying to accomplish -- a classic example of an unintended consequence.
• The ultimate solution to large scale illegal immigration is economic development in the originating country (in this case, read Mexico).   One of the key drivers to this economic development will necessarily be private foreign investment by US companies, such that international business by American companies is, in a very real sense, one of the keys to resolving the current "crisis" over illegal immigration. 

I had the opportunity recently to hear an address by Hiroshi Motomura who is a Distinguished Professor of Law and Associate Dean of the University of North Carolina School of Law, and who is one of the leading authorities on immigration policy, having  authored the most widely used case book on immigration law.   Professor Motomura is also author of a new book entitled Americans in Waiting: The Lost History of Immigration and Citizenship due out in September.  (To read a currently available article by Professor Motomura on one aspect of immigration policy, see his comments published in the Boston Review).   

Among the many interesting points made in his address, Professor Motomura drew a distinction between legality and legitimacy.   His point was that while many immigrants are here without the requisite documentation and are hence "illegal", there has been a long history of affording "legitimacy" to their presence by selectively enforcing or intentionally not enforcing immigration laws in order to accommodate the reality of the critical contribution that undocumented workers make to parts of the US economy.   He noted that this history of economic accommodation and benign lack of enforcement dates back to the use of undocumented workers to construct much of the transcontinental railroad in the late 1800's -- and of course continues through the present. 

A very current example of the US providing this legitimacy to undocumented workers can be found in an article entitled "Big Cities Reluctant to Target Illegals" published in today's USA Today [Note: The paper's on-line edition will not support a direct link to the article, but search for "local police" and "immigration enforcement" on their site and the article should be the first result returned].  According to the article, many local police chiefs, mayors and city councils from cities such as Chicago, New York and Minneapolis have instructed their police forces not to assist federal agents seeking to "crack down" on illegal immigrants.  Among the rationales for this stand is a belief that participating in the crackdown would undermine some of the positive strides that police have made in combating crime through community relations based policing efforts.   It would be hard to think of something which sends a clearer signal of legitimacy than a refusal by the city government and police to enforce the law because it interferes with sound local policy and police practices.

Immigration policy is obviously a tremendously complicated problem as well as one which generates even more of the usual ideological fervor that characterizes so many "hot button" issues.  My point here is that international business has a very real stake in this debate, and while I know it is too much to hope for in the midst of the heated argument raging over immigration policy, it would be nice if business could bring a little rationality and sanity to the table before someone starts to wall us off from the rest of the world in the vain hope that the rest of the world will take their problems elsewhere.