Who’s Brave Enough to Say DEI Is not Working

Sonia Brown MBE
5 hours ago
14 min read

…… Yet Still Worth Saving?

In early September 2025, a quiet tip to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ignited the largest work-site raid in American history. At a Hyundai-LG battery plant in Georgia, more than 300 South Korean professionals, automation engineers, IT specialists and technicians were shackled and marched out in full view of their American colleagues.

For the workers, the humiliation was broadcast in real time. Images of skilled professionals handcuffed and herded onto buses looped on cable news and social media, stripping them of dignity before millions, including their families back home. In Seoul, the footage landed like a diplomatic earthquake. Many held valid ESTA or B-1 business visas. It didn’t matter. South Korean officials faced an outraged public demanding answers.

How could their citizens, invited to help build America’s clean-energy future, be treated like criminals? What protections had the government secured for them? What compensation or legal recourse would follow?

South Korea’s ministries of foreign affairs and labour were forced to answer not only to the detainees and their families but to a nation that prides itself on protecting its global workforce. For many South Koreans watching the televised “perp walk,” this was more than an immigration dispute, it was an international insult, a public shaming that demanded their government defend the rights and dignity of its citizens on the world stage.

Is DEI in Trouble?

This raid unfolded against a backdrop of calculated attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion. In the U.S., Donald Trump and Elon Musk have spent months turning DEI into a political punching bag, casting inclusive hiring and global talent as threats to “real America.”

Their rhetoric helped create a culture where immigration enforcement became spectacle. Yet the backlash is already visible. Talent pipelines are shrinking, innovation hubs are stalling and investors are questioning the stability of regions that treat diversity as expendable.

Across the Atlantic, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is dismantling DEI with a quieter hand.

Plans for Compulsory ‘Brit Card’ ID Scheme Face Backlash

Starmer’s proposed mandatory digital ID, dubbed the “Brit Card” was never in the manifesto, yet it would require every UK resident to prove their right to live and work at every turn. Framed as a fairness measure, it operates as a back-door policy that deepens surveillance and creates new barriers for migrants, the elderly and the economically vulnerable.

Both events raise urgent questions that DEI leaders, policymakers and executives can no longer sidestep:

How are companies quantifying the economic cost of weaponising or quietly dismantling DEI?
What safeguards should exist to prevent governments from enacting major DEI-impacting policies, like a mandatory digital ID, without transparent public mandate or parliamentary oversight?
How will multinational companies protect globally mobile employees when political rhetoric turns them into targets?
This is more than an immigration sweep or a bureaucratic policy shift, it is a stress test for the ideals of diversity, equity and inclusion. In both countries, those ideals are failing under pressure.

When Inclusion Meets the Border

When ICE showed up, you have to wonder were the corporate DEI and HR executives were as this unfolded in real time?

These are the very people charged with safeguarding workforce dignity and anticipating cultural risk, yet few seemed to have a contingency plan for an immigration raid of this magnitude. There was no rapid-response team, no emergency legal network activated, no immediate public statement affirming the rights and humanity of the detained employees and no visible advocacy with federal authourities.

From the detained South Korean engineers’ perspective, the silence was deafening.

They had relocated families, learned the rhythms of a new culture and poured expertise into a multibillion-dollar project, only to be handcuffed like criminals while their own company offered little more than bureaucratic shrugs. What they did not hear was an apology, a guarantee of legal protection or even a promise that their work, reputations and visas would be defended.

Those left behind on the factory floor felt a different kind of abandonment.

American colleagues described a ghost-town shift change, machines powered down and an uneasy quiet broken only by the memory of shackles clinking. Supervisors offered no clear explanation of production plans, safety concerns or whether their own jobs were secure. Contractors and local hires wondered aloud if they were next, not because of immigration status but because management had no visible plan to shield anyone from political theatre.

The message to international professionals and to every employee watching, was unmistakable ‘your expertise is welcome only when convenient.’

The systems meant to champion inclusion, DEI programmes, HR protections and executive leadership, collapsed into silence the moment politics demanded a headline. For South Korean talent and their American teammates alike, the absence of corporate courage may prove harder to forget than the raid itself.

A Mirror Across the Atlantic

Meanwhile, in Britain, the government is pushing a mandatory digital ID, now dubbed the “Brit Card” that would require every adult to prove their right to live and work in the UK.

Let us not forget, the policy was never in Labour’s election manifesto, signalling a move born in back-room discussions rather than open public debate. Some media speculation links the scheme to think-tank work from the Tony Blair Institute and even to private firms associated with Euan Blair, though no verifiable evidence shows direct operational control. Regardless, the overlap between political legacy, private tech interests and state surveillance demands scrutiny.

What sets the UK apart is the stark ultimatum. No ID, No Work, a mandate with consequences far beyond the individual. It lands hardest on sectors already struggling with severe labour shortages.

Hospitality: UK Hospitality warns that tightening immigration rules and new verification burdens will worsen chronic staffing gaps, the sector already faces vacancy rates above 10 % in some regions.
Farming and Food Production: A cross-industry survey found 76 % of farmers report major difficulties recruiting seasonal workers since Brexit. Parliamentary committees estimate more than 500,000 vacancies across food and farming, threatening harvests, animal welfare and national food security.
Health and Social Care: The NHS relies on more than 1 in 7 staff who are foreign nationals. Care homes report persistent shortages that leave beds empty and patients without consistent support.
Construction and Logistics: Post-Brexit migration shifts have left the construction industry short by tens of thousands of skilled workers, while HGV driver deficits continue to ripple through supply chains.

When a digital ID becomes the gatekeeper to employment, these already-stretched sectors face even sharper risk. Crops left to rot, restaurant closures, delivery delays, care homes understaffed and regional economies weakened by lost tax revenue and consumer spending.

Who Had A Say?

Equally troubling is how the policy has advanced with minimal consultation. Major trade unions, local councils and business groups like the CBI were not formally briefed. Corporate HR and DEI executives, responsible for workforce planning and inclusion compliance, were notably absent from early conversations, leaving companies to scramble for answers on privacy, data security and implementation costs. Yet, critical questions remain unanswered.

Who owns and secures the biometric data?
How will errors or racial misclassification be corrected?
What protections exist for people without smartphones or stable housing or Broadband?
How will smaller businesses, already operating on tight margins, absorb the administrative and financial burden?

This British initiative is more than a technocratic upgrade, it is a political instrument. It is framing feeds “Britain for Britain” narratives long used by nationalist movements such as the EDL, turning identity verification into a test of loyalty.

Like the ICE raid in Georgia, it reveals how immigration control can become political theatre that erodes the very principles of diversity, equity and inclusion. Sadly the silence of unions, HR leaders and DEI professionals only underscores a recurring lesson. Inclusion is easy to market, but far harder to defend when government policy or political optics put global talent and the economy that depends on it, at risk

The Silence That Speaks

The greatest scandal is not just the policy itself, it is the deafening quiet surrounding it.

The very people who flood conferences and LinkedIn feeds with think-pieces on microaggressions, racial pay gaps and gender bias are suddenly mute. Where is the formal and strategic outrage now, when a mandatory digital-ID scheme threatens to turn every worker, especially migrants and minorities, into a permanent suspect?

Corporate DEI departments are polishing award submissions and glossy annual reports while a sweeping surveillance policy gathers momentum.
Transport unions, health-care federations, chartered professional institutes and sector-wide DEI councils have offered little more than a shrug.
Policy groups that have lobbied ferociously for far less are barely audible. Their silence is not neutral, it gives cover to a government willing to make civil liberties conditional on a QR code.

Some equality advocates have raised alarms. The Runnymede Trust, joined by Liberty and Big Brother Watch, warned that mandatory digital ID would “shift the balance of power towards the state with dangerous implications for our security, rights and freedoms.” Yet other national voices, from the Fawcett Society (champions of gender equality) to major race-equality charities, have been conspicuously low-profile. It is fair to say, when those who trade on inclusion stay quiet, they help exclusion win.

There is no hiding from this group! What of the politicians who campaigned on diversity and representation? Many Labour MPs serve constituencies already under disproportionate surveillance and social strain.

In Tower Hamlets, one of London’s most diverse and densely populated boroughs, families face chronic poverty, housing insecurity and above-average school exclusion rates. These are communities that live with daily scrutiny, by police, social services and algorithmic systems. How will these MPs explain to their voters that they backed a policy adding yet another layer of monitoring and verification?

You have to wonder, how will Labour MPs defend this to constituents who already navigate high crime rates, school exclusions and housing stress? Will Conservative or Liberal Democrat leaders pledge to dismantle it if they come into power or will they simply inherit a well-constructed surveillance tool? Will the House of Lords, the frequent brake on rushed legislation finally find the courage to block a bill that so plainly outpaces its public mandate?

There is, however, growing resistance. More than 1.6 million people have already signed a petition opposing Starmer’s digital ID card plans (at the time of writing this). The Guardian suggests the count is now above 2 million, crossing thresholds that demand parliamentary attention. Signing a petition, even one this large, does not guarantee the motion will be blocked. Governments can defer, reframe or limit the scope of legislation despite public outcry.

So the question becomes ‘how else can people mobilise to stop the surveillance state before it takes root?’ Public protests, coordinated lobbying of MPs, legal challenges and alliances with civil liberties groups are essential. Local councils, trade unions, faith organisations and business chambers must refuse to be side lined. They must demand consultation, safeguards and transparent oversight. We need digital rights audits, privacy impact assessments and binding sunset clauses on any new ID regime.

This is not mere oversight, it is a collective abdication. Those who profit from the language of inclusion, whether in corporate boardrooms, advocacy groups or Westminster benches, should be ashamed. When leaders who claim to champion equity look away, they do not just fail to protect the vulnerable, they build the structures that allow inequality, exclusion and surveillance to root deeply.

Economics Does Not Care About Borders

History keeps teaching the same lesson.

When nations close their doors, economies suffer, yet policymakers keep repeating the mistake. Restrictive immigration policies do not just reduce numbers, they drain the very skills that keep essential industries alive. Farms, hospitals, logistics networks and technology hubs depend on migrant labour and international expertise. When that flow slows, crops rot, wards understaff, deliveries falter and innovation stalls.

The pattern is not new.

After the Second World War, Britain actively recruited workers from the Caribbean, South Asia and Africa to rebuild an economy devastated by conflict. These men and women often arrived as trained teachers, nurses or engineers but were shunted into lower-paying jobs, driving buses and taxis, staffing factories, cleaning hospitals, while quietly keeping the country running. Similar stories unfolded in the United States, Canada and across Europe, where immigrants took on the work that domestic labour either could not or would not sustain.

Today, that quiet determination continues.

Immigrants routinely start at the bottom to secure a future for their families, often running family-owned businesses or managing supply chains that underpin national prosperity. Yet instead of recognition, they face tightening visa rules, rising tariffs and political rhetoric that casts them as threats.

Trump’s tariff escalations and immigration crackdowns sent shockwaves through global supply chains, increasing costs for small businesses already stretched thin. Britain’s post-Brexit labour market tells the same story. Shortages in agriculture, health and social care, hospitality and construction remain acute, with the Office for National Statistics reporting over one million job vacancies in 2024 and persistent wage inflation tied directly to labour scarcity.

What makes the present even more troubling is how yesterday’s discredited ideas are creeping back. Policies reminiscent of the 1980s, when “sus” laws and xenophobic immigration controls provoked public outrage, are resurfacing in subtler, digital forms. Mandatory ID schemes, aggressive worksite raids, punitive visa requirements. The packaging is modern, but the impulse is the same. To treat immigrants as expendable labour, welcome only when convenient.

Data underscores the danger. The Migration Observatory finds that migrants make up roughly 19% of the UK workforce, with even higher concentrations in frontline sectors such as health and social care. In the United States, the National Foundation for American Policy estimates that immigrants founded or co-founded 55% of America’s billion-dollar start-ups. Cutting off these pipelines does not just slow growth, it starves innovation and reduces tax revenue.

Artificial intelligence models used by the IMF and the OECD project that if advanced economies continue to tighten immigration while facing ageing populations, they could see GDP growth shrink by up to 1.5 percentage points annually over the next two decades. AI-driven labour forecasts warn of a “talent deficit” in technology, elder care and infrastructure maintenance that domestic populations alone cannot fill. Simply put, without immigration, the math does not work.

Throughout all this, where are the DEI executives who so often claim that boards perform better and productivity rises when workplaces are diverse? Their absence is more than ironic, it is a betrayal of the data they like to quote.

Consider this, a recent Stanford study looked at 315 U.S. public companies that faced DEI controversies. What they found was telling. After public scrutiny, corporate diversity hiring rose only slightly and much of the gain was in lower-level roles, not the leadership rungs where change truly matters.

Harvard Business Review researchers warn that many common DEI practices actually undermine diversity. For instance, companies often tout training and lip service, but the management layers remain disproportionately white and male.

Rigorous meta-analyses of the “business case for diversity” reveal that the link between board diversity and firm performance is weak and inconsistent. The evidence is far less clear than the sales pitch suggests.

Even DEI training, the centrepiece of many inclusion programmes, has weak support in behavioural change outcomes. Systematic reviews show that while participants can recite progressive ideas after training, long-term shifts in bias, culture or decision-making are rarely measured or proven.

So, when DEI leaders stand mute now, they are not just absent, they are contradicting the reality that their frameworks claim to uphold. They talk of inclusion, but when the structures of power and state collide with diversity, few defend the vulnerable. That silence says more than any speech could.

A Warning in Plain Sight

Corporate silence on immigration crackdowns is not just disappointing, it is measurable.

Research consistently shows a gap between the diversity promises companies promote and the results they deliver. A 2025 Stanford review of 315 U.S. firms found that, after high-profile DEI pledges, measurable hiring gains were minimal and largely confined to entry-level roles, leaving senior leadership demographics virtually unchanged.

Harvard Business Review analysts have warned that many common DEI initiatives actually stall progress and large-scale meta-analyses reveal no consistent link between board diversity and stronger financial performance. Even diversity training, the flagship of most inclusion programmes, has repeatedly failed to produce lasting behavioural change.

While corporations polish their annual diversity reports, immigration enforcement on both sides of the Atlantic has grown more aggressive and more visible. In the UK, Border Force teams have carried out high-profile sweeps of nail salons, chicken shops, Indian restaurants and other immigrant-run businesses, often during peak hours.

These raids disrupt local economies, force high-street shops to close for days or weeks and send a chilling message to entire communities. Your livelihood can be publicly raided without warning. The Federation of Small Businesses warns that such operations erode public confidence and depress foot traffic, with some areas reporting double-digit drops in weekend sales after widely publicised raids.

The United States offers an equally stark cautionary tale. In late September 2025, body-cam and bystander video from New York City’s 26 Federal Plaza immigration court went viral, showing an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer shoving Monica Moreta-Galarza, the wife of a man he was detaining, thrown first against a wall and then onto the floor as she pleaded in Spanish.

The Department of Homeland Security condemned the behaviour as “unacceptable and beneath the men and women of ICE” and the officer was relieved of duty pending investigation, though not formally fired at the time of reporting.

The footage triggered nationwide outrage and an uncomfortable question. If an officer behaves like this while being filmed, what happens when no one is watching? Early TikTok clips and social posts quickly claimed the officer had been fired outright, a detail many, including my own earlier draft, accepted before facts caught up. The truth was more nuanced, “relieved of duty” while an inquiry proceeds. It is a sharp reminder that bias and viral snippets can outrun evidence, allowing narratives to harden before the facts land.

This incident is more than a U.S. scandal. It is a preview of the risks when states gain broad power to police identity. If violence like this can unfold under current law and visible scrutiny, what might emboldened enforcement look like when every adult must present a government-issued digital credential just to work, rent or travel?

Britain’s proposed mandatory “Brit Card” would give authorities exactly that leverage. The lesson is clear. Unchecked enforcement combined with sweeping ID mandates creates the perfect environment for abuse, while misinformation and social-media amplification can blur accountability. The question is not whether technology can make verification easier, it is whether we can trust any system that hands so much unmonitored power to those who enforce it.

This Is Where The Hard Questions Begin

Immigration crackdowns and digital-ID mandates are not side issues, they are stress tests for every corporate and governmental claim about inclusion. If companies cannot defend their own globally and locally recruited talent and if lawmakers can so easily expand surveillance over entire communities, then the glowing statements about “belonging” and “diverse boards driving productivity” ring hollow.

Questions We Cannot Avoid

Who inside corporations is accountable when workers are caught between HR and immigration enforcement?
How much racial bias hides in “neutral” visa and digital-ID systems?
What does trust look like when every professional interaction can become an immigration risk?

Lead Beyond the Slogan

If we do not stand up now, we risk a future where surveillance replaces trust and where bias and discrimination become the operating system of national economies. Across Europe and the UK, the use of counter-terrorism legislation to monitor protests and community groups has begun to chill free speech, blurring the line between public safety and political control.

In offices and factories alike, a quiet culture of cancellation and HR anxiety discourages open dialogue between genders and across identities, leaving employees wary of speaking up even about subtle prejudice.

Governments, meanwhile, celebrate their “creative, innovative” economies and speak of a post-austerity renaissance. But everyday reality tells a different story. Eurostat reports that food prices across the EU remain more than 30 percent higher than pre-pandemic levels and UK households now spend over 40 percent of disposable income on housing and utilities, the highest in two decades. From Berlin to Barcelona, the cost-of-living crisis continues to squeeze families while political leaders promise a future that feels increasingly out of reach.

If DEI, as currently practiced is not the answer and the evidence shows it is not, leaders must evolve it. Moving beyond awareness sessions and glossy reports requires structural advocacy. We need to build policy literacy inside companies, form coalitions with immigration lawyers, unions and community organisers and demand that governments protect rather than punish global talent.

Anything less leaves the door open for surveillance to become standard practice and for inequality to harden into the architecture of the economy.

If this perspective resonates, let us move the conversation beyond headlines.

Like this post if you believe free speech and economic inclusion must go hand in hand.Comment with one action you think companies or leaders should take to protect both workers and civil liberties.

Share with colleagues or friends who need to see how surveillance, rising costs and shallow DEI efforts intersect, because silence today writes the rules for tomorrow.