America’s Immigration Policy and the Cost of Turning Away Talent.

By Zamir Ahmed Awan,

The United States has long benefited from an unusual ability to attract ambitious people from around the world. Scientists, engineers, doctors, entrepreneurs, students and skilled professionals have come to American universities and companies, contributing not only their labor but also ideas, businesses, patents and international connections. The latest tightening of U.S. immigration policy therefore raises a question that goes beyond border control: how can America protect its security and immigration system without weakening one of the sources of its economic and technological strength?

The Trump administration has introduced or extended several significant restrictions. A September 2026 proclamation requires most new H-1B petitions for workers outside the United States to be accompanied by a $100,000 payment, with limited national-interest exceptions. The measure has particular implications for technology and other specialized industries that rely on highly skilled international workers.

The administration has also pursued country-specific immigration restrictions. In January 2026, immigrant-visa processing was paused for nationals of 75 countries, including Pakistan, India’s neighbors such as Bangladesh, as well as Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Egypt, Russia and others. A federal judge subsequently struck down that 75-country policy, and the State Department confirmed in August that the January pause was no longer in effect. Separate country-specific entry restrictions nevertheless remain for nationals of a number of countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Birthright citizenship is another contentious area. The administration’s August 2026 executive orders seek to prevent automatic recognition of citizenship in specified circumstances, including certain cases involving foreign-government employees, designated foreign terrorist organizations and arrangements characterized as birth tourism. This is narrower than a blanket rule denying citizenship to every child born to foreign visitors. The policy is also subject to continuing constitutional and legal disputes.

These measures have real consequences for foreigners. Higher visa costs can make American employers less willing to recruit international graduates. Nationality-based restrictions can separate families, disrupt education and research plans, and make highly qualified applicants reconsider the United States. For students and researchers, uncertainty itself can be a deterrent: a talented applicant may choose Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan or another destination if the pathway from university to employment appears unpredictable.

The potential cost to America is particularly important in science and technology. According to the National Science Foundation’s 2026 State of U.S. Science and Engineering, foreign-born workers represented 22 percent of the U.S. STEM workforce in 2024. In science and engineering occupations, India and China were the two largest countries of origin among foreign-born workers, accounting for 29 percent and 12 percent, respectively. Foreign-born workers also represented 46 percent of U.S. science and engineering workers with doctorates in 2023.

The contribution is not limited to employment. Research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that immigrants represent 16 percent of U.S. inventors but account for 23 percent of patents, while immigrant inventors generate substantial knowledge spillovers for American-born collaborators. Another 2025 analysis found that immigrants or their children founded 231 Fortune 500 companies, generating $8.6 trillion in revenue in fiscal year 2024 and employing more than 15.4 million people worldwide.

Chinese and Indian communities illustrate this broader contribution. India and China are major sources of foreign-born scientists and engineers in America, while Indian-origin entrepreneurs have created major technology companies and startups. Their contribution is therefore not simply a matter of filling vacant jobs; it includes entrepreneurship, research, investment, patent creation and the training of future American workers.

None of this means immigration should be uncontrolled. Governments have legitimate responsibilities to screen applicants, prevent fraud, address illegal entry, protect national security and ensure that immigration programs serve genuine economic needs. The debate is therefore not necessarily between open borders and closed borders. The more consequential question is whether restrictions can be sufficiently targeted to address genuine risks without unnecessarily discouraging legitimate talent.

America’s historic competitive advantage has partly been its ability to persuade talented people that their future can be built there. If immigration policy becomes sufficiently uncertain or costly, some of those people may simply build their laboratories, companies and careers elsewhere.

The long-term test for U.S. immigration policy will therefore be broader than how many people are kept out. It will also be whether America can continue attracting the scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, students and innovators whose ideas have helped make the country a global center of technology and economic opportunity.

Author:

Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan,

Sinologist – Diplomat – Advisor – Consultant,

Founding Chair, Global Silk Route research Alliance.

(E-mail: awanzamir@yahoo.com).