In 1996, Pat Buchanan, a Republican candidate for president, characterized himself as an “America-first” populist, stirring his supporters with claims that immigrants were “invading” the United States. During a rally in Iowa, Buchanan expressed intentions to build a security fence and stop illegal immigration, a sentiment that resonated with many at the time.
The national atmosphere was ripe with anti-immigrant sentiment, which was about to influence legislative efforts. Leading congressional Republicans embraced Buchanan’s ideas, crafting the most restrictive immigration legislation seen in nearly a century. The proposed law aimed to not only curb undocumented immigration but also reduce legal immigration significantly.
However, the business sector, deeply reliant on immigrant labor, became actively involved in opposition. Diverse business groups, including tech companies such as Microsoft and Intel, collaborated in Washington, D.C., engaging in negotiations with civil rights organizations to protect immigrant interests. Their efforts, involving both economic analysis and public advocacy, ultimately thwarted the severe reduction of legal immigration proposed in the bill, leading instead to a more moderate illegal immigration enforcement measure.
Buchanan’s presidential campaign eventually faltered after early primary successes. For many years, the business community played a moderating role in immigration politics, driven by economic interest. Organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce advocated for guest worker programs and various visa types, leveraging their influence in Congress to strike compromises between Republican and Democrat perspectives.
Significantly, during the legislative process, business entities often cooperated with immigration and labor advocacy groups to achieve reform. They played essential roles in initiatives like President Ronald Reagan’s 1986 legalization of undocumented immigrants and the introduction of new visa categories and the Temporary Protected Status program in 1990.
Even as some efforts failed, the enduring presence of the business community counterbalanced the Republican Party’s nativist faction. Virginia Lamp, a former lobbyist for the Chamber of Commerce, emphasized the importance of challenging misconceptions about immigration’s economic impact, which she described as rooted in “selfish nationalism.”
Yet, the business community’s role in immigration has notably diminished, especially in recent years, coinciding with the political ascent of figures like Donald Trump. According to discussions with lobbyists and officials, businesses have largely retreated from lobbying and moderation in immigration matters, despite a continuing need for immigrant workers.
High-profile business leaders, including those from Silicon Valley, have even aligned with Trump, prioritizing achievable goals such as tax cuts over immigration reform. Randy Johnson, a former Chamber of Commerce executive, observed that immigration, despite its importance, often yields to more immediate business concerns like regulatory and tax issues.
In a polarized environment, businesses have seemingly deprioritized immigration reform, realizing potential gains in other areas like tax and deregulation policies. Some, like Monument Advocacy’s C. Stewart Verdery Jr., noted that businesses have not yet fully mobilized against anti-immigrant rhetoric, unlike in previous years when they effectively influenced debates and policy.
Despite significant economic reasons to advocate for more immigration—given labor shortages and demographic shifts—the business sector has shown reluctance. Some fear repercussions in a political climate intensified by Trump, whose influence has shaped Republican attitudes towards immigrants.
Jennie Murray of the National Immigration Forum highlighted recent attacks on businesses by Trump and other Republicans for their reluctance to publicly engage in immigration matters. Many businesses now opt for quiet collaborations with the government on visa processing and worker integration.
A particular concern for businesses is avoiding negative consequences, such as those faced by Bud Light during a politically charged boycott. This climate makes many business owners apprehensive to express pro-immigration sentiments, even if their operations heavily depend on immigrant labor.
The ongoing absence of business engagement has left pro-immigration advocacy groups without key allies, hindering efforts toward comprehensive immigration reform. Some industry leaders, like Craig Regelbrugge, remember past coalitions that bridged business and advocacy groups but lament the current lack of equivalent movements.
Despite some ongoing involvement from specific corporate-backed groups, widespread business advocacy has declined, impacting the overall dynamics of immigration politics. This retreat has allowed anti-immigrant rhetoric to gain ground, emphasizing the need for renewed commitment from the business community to navigate and influence policy effectively.
