Let’s talk about a particularly American suspicion: the kind folks aim at businesses when they hire foreign workers and bring them to the U.S. The argument goes something like this: They’re just looking for cheap labor.
I get where that suspicion comes from. It’s true that companies operate in their own self-interest. But what bugs me is how one-sided that critique often is. It assumes that businesses are villains by default and that foreign workers are pawns with no agency of their own. Worse, it overlooks a bigger truth: being pro-worker and pro-immigrant doesn’t have to be an either-or proposition.
When a company hires a foreign worker, it’s not a cartoonish act of corporate greed. It’s a choice—one made by adults who see value in working together. For the worker, that often means better pay and opportunities than they’d find back home. For the company, it means finding talent they need to grow and stay competitive. That’s not exploitation—it’s a win-win.
Now, let’s talk about the people who oppose these policies. Their position often boils down to this: I deserve a crack at every job opening by American employers, no matter who else might be qualified for it—and sometimes even if the American applicant isn’t qualified. And listen, I get it. Losing out on a job is hard. The job market can be a meat grinder, and there’s nothing more gutting than feeling like you’re being passed over. But the truth is, policies that limit opportunities for others aren’t going to bring them back to your doorstep.
Who’s really acting in self-interest?
Here’s what I find interesting: both sides of this debate are acting out of self-interest.
On one side, companies are looking for the best workers at the best price. That’s self-interest, sure, but it’s also practical. When companies thrive, so do the people who rely on them—workers, customers, shareholders, and entire communities. Hiring foreign workers isn’t just about cutting costs; it’s about staying competitive and creating opportunities for everyone involved.
On the other side, you’ve got individuals arguing to shut out foreign workers, not because it benefits the larger economy, but because they believe it will make their personal situation easier. It’s not about expanding opportunities; it’s about limiting them, about pulling the ladder up after you’ve climbed it.
Here’s the kicker: we’re quick to criticize companies for their self-interest, but we rarely question this individual self-interest when it drives policy demands.
The bigger picture
The suspicion aimed at foreign labor often ignores the larger, systemic challenges that workers face. Yes, globalization and automation have created winners and losers. Yes, there are companies out there that exploit workers—foreign and domestic alike—and we should absolutely call out those practices. But blaming the worker from overseas, or the company that hired them and does not engage in abusive practices, isn’t solving those problems. It’s just scapegoating.
The real solution lies in creating more opportunities for everyone. That means investing in upskilling programs, improving wages, strengthening worker protections, and building policies that make it easier for people—no matter where they’re from—to thrive. Restricting the labor market to protect a narrow group of people might feel satisfying in the short term, but in the long run, it’s the economic equivalent of slashing your tires so nobody else can borrow your car.
And let’s be clear: being pro-worker doesn’t mean being anti-immigrant. Supporting fair policies that allow companies to hire the talent they need—while treating workers ethically—helps all of us. When companies grow, jobs multiply, wages rise, and communities thrive. That’s the kind of growth that benefits both the worker navigating the job market here at home and the one taking a chance on a better life abroad.
So yes, companies are acting in their own self-interest. But so are the people opposing these policies. The difference is, one approach creates opportunities for everyone, while the other closes doors. And if we’re going to be suspicious of motives, I know which side I find more questionable.