A core strategic strength of the US over the last century has been that everyone with any talent wants to come here to work, and by and large we’ve let them do so. You can argue how well that’s worked out for us - having worked with a great many extremely talented H1bs in an industry largely built by immigrants, I’d consider it pretty positive - but it damn sure hasn’t worked out well for the countries those talented folks came from.
Creating low cost alternatives and taking advance of lax laws is part of that. If you can import 100k skilled workers per year under a scheme that gives you more power over them. Then you also offshore 300k jobs per year to countries with weaker protections.
It's always baffled me how the same candidates that claim to be pro labor and pro environment are also pro globalization. The way it plays out is that the jobs are just offshore to jurisdictions that lack the same labor and environmental protections.
If you divide the GDP by the number of employed people (including self-employed and entrepreneurs), you get a bit over $180k/person. The median full-time income is a bit over $60k. In other words, as a gross simplification, the mean worker earns 80% more than the median worker.
The comparable numbers for Germany are a ~€100k, ~€45k, and 35%. If something is hollowing out the American middle class, it might be the high earners rather than the capital.
You can look at Pew's survey here: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/12/09/1-the-h....
The upper-income tier grew from 14% -> 21% as the middle-income tier shrank from 61% to 50%. To be perfectly fair, the lower-income tier class did also increase from 25% to 29%. The story is complicated.
Because power of labor to negotiate is a zero-sum game that doesn't create anything. The only sustainable way to lift anyone's living standard is through improving prosperity.
And guess what. The USA gives much better opportunities for motivated people to build themselves.
Now, thanks to better logistics and communications, companies can move jobs to where labor is cheaper. This has pulled billions of people out of poverty, dramatically reduced the price of goods, and generally improved global well-being--but that was at the cost of the 1% of the 1950s, which is to say the American working class. Now, if you work in a factory in the US, you only make a single-digit multiple of what a factory worker in Korea, Mexico, Germany or Italy makes (though you still have a double-digit advantage on much of the world).
It wasn't sustainable to have a tremendously wealthy middle class in a world that was mostly starving. No amount of trade barriers could maintain that: you're relying on a world market with very little competition, and the other 7 billion people aren't going to be content to sit on their hands.
What you want to do instead is to develop new, cutting-edge, high-paying industries, and thereby keep a competitive advantage on the rest of the world. Maybe you could, I dunno, develop top-notch schools to lure all the best and brightest people from around the world to your country, invite them in, encourage them to stay, and get them to innovate and create here rather than elsewhere. That might just result in whole new, massive, high-paying industries that pick up the slack left by your diminished industrial dominance.
Seems like a good idea to me! But hey, instead, you could always try slamming the door shut, chase out all the dirty foreigners, and just rely on your inherent and intrinsic American superiority to carry you forward. I'm sure that'll work just as well.
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/th...
Are you sure it's really been/being hollowed out or are you just repeating something you've heard or read other people state so often that you think it's true?
For instance one of the key factors in society escaping feudalism and moving onto market based economies was the Black Death. It absolutely decimated society and the labor pool. This gave labor the power to demand more compensation than a share of what they produced. But in times before if they tried that then nobility could simply have said no, as there were plenty of peasants willing to work for little more than food. But when the labor supply was suddenly cut in half? Now they had all the power in the world.
Labor unions can't really combat market forces. I don't even think ethical or moral arguments work either. If somebody, in the country legally, is willing to do your job for less money, and is capable of doing so, then by what right do you have to insist that you should be the one doing your job and getting paid more? It doesn't really make much sense. If you want to increase the power of labor then, by far, the easiest way to reduce so is to reduce the supply of labor. And vice versa for weakening it.
Importing cheap foreign labor to undercut unions and lower wages is one of the spokes of the wheel used by capital to reduce the power of labor (and always has been).
What happened 50 years ago? Hart-Cellar was in 1965. The foreign-born population dipped below 5% in 1970. It’s 15% today. This had major political ramifications. Democrats were able to move to the right economically because they could substitute labor voters demanding structural reforms with recent immigrant voters who would be happy with relatively small handouts from the government, or even just visas for their extended family.
That's not to say you shouldn't do it! But the problem is elsewhere.
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/h-1b-spec...
The occupation requires:
Theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and
Attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a directly related* specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States.
The position must also meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation:
A U.S. bachelor’s or higher degree in a directly related specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum entry requirement for the particular occupation;
A U.S. bachelor’s or higher degree in a directly related specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally required to perform job duties in parallel positions among similar organizations in the employer’s industry in the United States;
The employer, or third party if the beneficiary will be staffed to that third party, normally requires a U.S. bachelor’s or higher degree in a directly related specific specialty, or its equivalent, to perform the job duties of the position; or
The specific duties of the offered position are so specialized, complex, or unique that the knowledge required to perform them is normally associated with the attainment of a U.S. bachelor’s or higher degree in a directly related specific specialty, or its equivalent.*
Chances are this was done as a seasonal H-2B non-agricultural worker (likely under a seasonal need)
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary...
To qualify for H-2B nonimmigrant classification, the petitioner must establish that:
There are not enough U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available to do the temporary work.
Employing H-2B workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.
It’s likely an H2 visa (assuming it’s not undocumented immigrants). Which is unaffected and unchanged, likely because Trump properties are heavy users and dependent on these visas.
Do you suggest that they check the immigration status and offer to some people lower compensation because of their status?
There's a straightforward solution here. Right now H-1Bs are a way for companies to lock in employees by leveraging the visa status.
It requires changing the law.
Which is very difficult, and requires a broad coalition in 2 houses of parliament.
On the other hand, executive orders are very easy.
I wish the better solutions get implemented, but until they are, we have to seek alternatives.
I have also worked with amazing H1B visa people.
Just make sure they're actually talented.
It's kind of sad to see the accelerated downfall of your country.
Have you ever considered what causes income inequality? Maybe policy that favors globalist, ownership class over salaried workers? H1B in it's current form favors owners/managers over workers! We are saying the same thing. We have to analyze the causes of income inequality in order to solve it.
I will leave you with one last thought: the states with the lowest gini co-efficient are the ones that have been more conservative over time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
policy matters!
Of course - they're connected. Taking advantage of labor is a big part of income inequality, including the way H1B is used/abused.
But that is your story you believe, consider that the parent commenter has the exact same (mirrored) mindset.
A useful segue to avoid you or them "being resigned": given that you say you're "skeptical", what would be the minimal proof you'd consider valid for you to change your mind?
Any suggestion that the program is dragging wages down instead of dragging wages up is not just misleading but factually wrong.
H1B holders are paid less for the same job, keeping wages down.
The stats you provide here don't support your claim.
H1B visa holders can be paid more on average while still having a downward effect on wages...
Imagine that some car model costs $200,000 to buy in the US. However, an entrepreneur realises they can can import the same car from a poorer country for just $100,000 then sell it in the US for less than the manufacturer themselves. The manufacturer finds out about this and says, "hey! you're selling my car for less", but the importer says, "no, actually, you'll find the median car in the US is $50,000 so I'm technically increasing car prices".
So what you're saying could be wrong in two ways... One you could be wrong in the sense that even if it does increase median wages, that doesn't mean it necessary increases the median wage of US citizens if now a significant percentage the best employment opportunities are going to H1B visa holders instead of citizens.
But secondly, and the point I was trying to make with the car analogy, is that you could be wrong about the average wages going up too if H1B visa holders are taking jobs which would pay even more were it not for HB1 visas. So if the average wage of a SWE in the US is say $150k, but the average H1B visa holder is being paid $120k, H1Bs are clearly not "dragging wages up".
And realistically it's far more likely H1B visa holders suppress wages given how relatively high US wages are.
I'll end this comment by saying that personally I think this idea that giving the best opportunities to immigrants is probably directly wrong for many reasons. Of course, allowing in businesses and individuals who will create jobs makes a lot of sense, but what you really want is the best opportunities going to your own citizens, then to bring in cheap labour to fill the crappy jobs citizens don't really want to do, but are now increasingly doing when they leave university like working in a bar or becoming a barista. If there's a great job a company can't fill with the domestic workforce perhaps they should train someone for that role or take a risk on a recent graduate like in the old days?
There could be some rare edge case where you are undercut by a direct competitor, but overall America is much richer with H1Bs that without them.
I also am not convinced that those statistics alone can be used to draw such a conclusion; there's more to it than that.
Also, those numbers are bumped up by bigtech who doesn't discriminate by visa, so pays in bodyshops are even lower and tech salaries are way higher than that in US.
Second, Indians have to pay their bosses to get a job. Their real pay is at least $20k lower. And there's far worse as well.
So sure, while the fewer jobs that they can fill could have higher wages (not a given, because lack of labor can stunt or kill companies) there could be much fewer people employed overall, which is clearly bad overall.
Of course, that assumes there is enough room for companies to grow. There are strong indications (e.g. the various labor and unemployment surveys) that this is the case in the US. In fact, there is a credible theory that the reason the US managed the inflation crisis so well was due to the immigration crisis.
I elaborated more (along with a couple of relevant studies) here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45308311
And how are “they” planning on determining who is “truly exceptional”? And what makes you think the “truly exceptional” ones are still going to have any interest in coming here when they see what happens to the people who the current regime deems “not exceptional”?
I sure as hell wouldn’t come to the US knowing I may be deported to a third world prison if I post the wrong thing online.
For example by implementing a $100 000 fee for their H-1B visas, which ensures that companies will only use those visas to contract truly exceptional talent. That's a very small price to pay for a company to be able to hire a person who is among the greatest in the world in her field.
That's a weird definition for "middle class", there are only 65k H1b visas issued every year. If you really are talking about the middle 60% or whatever of all workers, immigrants on H1b's are irrelevant noise. At most, these visas might be seen to impact specific professions (tech in particular, lots of doctors too) that most people don't consider representative of the "middle class".
Can you please share your reading material that links H1B software engineers with decline in middle class jobs from this list?
It’s not because of the other jobs which the H1Bs aren’t even allowed to do abd have seen falling salaries and degrowth.
I would think healthily so, even if on the upper bands [0]. I personally see "middle class" solidly as $50k-150k household income (2 adults 1 kid)... but I live in the South. Two decades ago I lived in the bay area for less than $100k (electrician)... and that was regionally closer to the lower end of "middle class," even out in Hayward.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_Sta...
What do the most influential reformists want? The ones who set the extreme agenda that everyone else follows? As I understand it, right now the US is routinely enacting policies that the majority of citizens do not want; from this, could we surmise that the majority of people, and presumably thus the majority of reformists, will receive the extreme H1B policies that they don't want?
Most of the companies that are paying salaries could (and already do!) have offices in other jurisdictions where they could hire the same talent.
Better to bring this talent onshore, where the wages are taxed, than force these companies to hire from satellite offices?
It doesn't make much financial sense for companies to stop sourcing talent globally just because they can't be brought onshore, especially given enough time.
Purely anecdotal, but for me personally this wouldn't change who or how I hire, just the location.
But there's a parallel push around taxing American firms using foreign labor (https://www.moreno.senate.gov/press-releases/new-moreno-bill...).
If multiple new policies are put in place at the same time, then... I dunno... it seems harder to predict...
Still, I can't help but feel a little bit of glee at all the tech companies who did their best to suck up to Trump, and now he stabs them in the back.
What is "mid level talent" though? you're not getting that data from H1B wage filings, they're factually under-reporting compensation.
Plenty of peeps are being much more factual below, compared to the gvt linguo that you are just rehashing rn
Now it's "we need to limit the volume" and "don't want to get rid of the truly exceptional immigration".
Forgive me if I am skeptical, especially in a world where ICE is rounding up classic "exceptional" immigrants like biology researchers, or South Korean experts setting up a factory.
In such a world, why wouldn't you see 1. foreign R&D companies, 2. indexed into a thriving foreign equities market, 3. gathering the interest of domestic investors who want to diversify beyond domestic investments, by 4. moving their money and/or investing in domestic proxy investments?
I say this as a Canadian whose managed mutual-fund holdings are apparently largely composed of foreign (mostly American) proxy equities — and who has met many Canadian-based VCs who don't do much investment into Canadian companies. If not for talent immigration, the American investment landscape would probably look similar!
https://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/publicrandd-aspx/
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
If you want to invest in another country, that's a big change. There's certainly opportunity there, but without knowledge and contacts, it can be very hard to get things done.
One track to investing in foreign R&D is foreign nationals come and work in the US to earn skills, knowledge, and capital, and then they take those earnings and invest them in their country of origin, maybe living here or there.
Well sure, it depends what the counterfactual is. If those countries just physically prevented the people from leaving, and nothing more, I wouldn't expect that countries' outcomes to improve. But what the countries suffering from brain drain presumably want is for there to be attractive opportunities for those skilled workers in their own country.
Other countries are free not to want the things that Silicon Valley talents generate. More for us!
The H1B process is unfair to engineers because it drives down their compensation in a way that doesn't affect nurses or welders. If immigration were completely irrespective of profession and based solely around whether the imported laborers get paid enough to contribute more than they receive in taxes/public services, nobody would have any standing to complain about their wages being driven down because every single person benefits in the long run from the economic growth.
As things stand, tech workers and unskilled laborers get screwed by the current status quo because they don't reap the benefit of cheaper goods and services in all the other industries, but everyone else benefits from cheaper electronics/software and landscaping/housekeeping/food service while their wages grow.
You're not wrong on paper, the current immigration practices are just screwy.
EDIT - The hard statistical proof that most of the H-1Bs are tech workers:
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/o...
Stated another way, the things that software engineers can do with their wealth generally seem like normal middle class things. They can own a home but they can't afford a yacht. They can take nice vacations but they aren't part of the jet set. They can start businesses but generally not in capital intensive areas like resource extraction or heavy industry.
I'd say that software engineers, at least the higher paid ones, are probably on the higher side of middle class; but they are still solidly middle class.
Yet again, we have classic HN speculation masquerading as authority.
Should software developer salaries be comparable to accountants or to surgeons? That's an arbitrary value judgment.
Software engineers have less purchasing power than they would without the H-1B visa program, and that's indisputable. 64% of the visas go to IT workers and 52% go specifically to programmers, which implies beyond all shadow of a doubt that their salaries decrease further than the cost of the goods and services they pay for.
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/o...
It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal. You get nothing. You lose. Good day, sir!
You're just passing off your own speculation as authoritative, and you didn't even read my comment to comprehension.
I didn't say we need less immigration in the tech sector. I said it hurts tech workers when there's a deflationary effect on their earnings but not the goods and services they pay for, and hence the same immigration practices should apply to every industry.
On paper, you would think this is the case, but in practice 64% of H1-B workers are in IT and 52% are programmers:
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/o...
Again, it stands to reason that if the deflationary effect on tech workers' salaries is disproportionate to the deflationary effect on all the other goods and services they pay for, then tech workers are worse off from the H1-B program. I've seen claims less ironclad than this accepted as fact in peer-reviewed life sciences-related research.
Your comment is just another classic HN case of speculation masquerading as authority.
Often, the person may not have been as productive, happy, or well compensated in their own country.
Also, over time, some of those people make money in the US and take that, their knowledge and skills and go back home to share there. Everyone is better off.
I was discussing this elsewhere, and dug up something I wrote 11 years ago, and I think I'm still pretty happy with it:
https://journal.dedasys.com/2014/12/29/people-places-and-job...
How are Americans better off in this scenario?
1. An American company benefited from their labor
2. American consumers benefited from the goods / services they contributed to providing
3. American citizens benefited from the services provided by the taxes they pay
4. Other American businesses benefited from their patronage
I'm from the US, but lived in Europe for quite a while, and my kids have dual citizenship. I think that people moving to places where they are better off is a good thing.
Suppose I'm not an American--like plenty of HN commenters--or alternatively that (as in reality) I am an American but I have good reasons to think that the personal benefit I derive from the presence of immigrants is greater than the cost to me as an individual, even were I to concede more generic economic arguments about wage competition. Then... why am I supposed to prioritize the interests of American tech workers over foreign immigrants?
I don't in general endorse an "I got mine, screw you" approach, nor one that says "hey GDP is going up so screw the losers", but if someone else is taking exactly that attitude just with a nationalistic inflection, it's hard to extend them a lot of empathy.
That's largely a myth, though. The vast majority of smart, driven people have no path to lawfully immigrate to the US.
By a wide margin, the main immigration pathway are family visas (i.e., marriages and citizens bringing in relatives). H-1B visas are a comparatively small slice that's available via a lottery only to some professions and some backgrounds - and the process is basically gamed by low-wage consultancies, with a large proportion of the rest gobbled up by a handful of Big Tech employers. And that's before we even get to the fact that H-1B doesn't necessarily give you a path to permanent residency, depending on where you're from.
For most people who aren't techies, the options are really very limited, basically "be exceptionally wealthy", "be a celebrity", or "be one of the world's foremost experts on X".
There is also EB with National Interest Waiver - including for profession like Doctors and such.
Not to mention a lot of employment based visa, if you work for a US employer - L1, EB1/2 directly etc...
There isn't a permanent resident visa for Driven people - but you can get entrepreneur visas if you run a profitable business.
But only a tiny sliver of what you would consider successful, skilled people can qualify for O-1. To my original point: if you're "merely" hard-working and good at something, you - as a general rule - have no lawful pathway to immigrate to the US.
Here's another way to look at it: let's say that in any country, roughly 10% of people fall into the category of "talented and hard-working" - not superstars, but the kind of people who would conceptually enrich the economy. Worldwide, that's probably what, 400 million adults? Further, let's say that about 10% would be interested in living in the US. And before all the EU folks sneer at that: that's probably a big underestimate, because a good chunk of the world is living in places with a much lower standard of living. So that's 40 million who probably want to come. And the total number of employment visas is ~100k/year. We aim for the global top <0.1%.
A huge reason we have so many unicorns is because doing business and scaling in the US is easier than EU or other places.
A huge part of why the Manhattan Project was successful was also because of substantial brain drain from Europe. I think Scott Galloway wrote about this or may have popularized it.
If an employee is exceptional and a skilled unicorn wrangler... 100K is nothing.
Source: I came to the US on H-1B in 2012. I may be misremembering which stage of the process the mass layoffs affect.
I don't think it's new, I've been hearing it my whole life
"and why is it used to uncritical?"
I ... can't figure out what this means.
I don't think being against exploitive mass migration - which by its definition is brain drain of other countries, which every bleeding hearter likes to ignore - is the same saying no one should ever immigrate ever.
[1] https://bsky.app/profile/josephpolitano.bsky.social/post/3lz...
And its an easy argument:
The Manhattan Project engaged thousands of scientists, but over 16 notable principal scientists (with major published credits) were foreign-born and either retained their citizenship or became naturalized U.S. citizens only after escaping persecution or war in Europe.
As of 2025, about 10-12 CEOs of the top 50 Fortune 500 (F50) companies were born outside the United States, representing roughly 20-25% of F50 CEOs. This number has grown over the past two decades, reflecting increasing diversity among leadership at America's largest corporations.
Nearly half of all Fortune 500 companies in 2025—specifically 44%—were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants, meaning the original founders were not born in the United States or were the first generation after immigration.
These are just three major examples.
A better test may be comparing company performance worldwide instead of only in the F500. That's a different list, the Global 500.
This is a double edged sword given that it means there’s less incentive to invest in US public education and fostering our own talent. Instead of brain drain we’re dealing with brain rot.
As of now, both the K12 system and college education seem in freefall in terms of quality and applicability to careers. No doubt those companies will devote their money to lobbying to keep hiring H1Bs instead of training the talent they need here, since they're just profit-optimizing functions, rather than humans with morals.
We would have to filter for these more. In reality the majority of H1B visa are issued to companies like Infosys or Tata who often have below average people.
The elephant in the room is that many of these highly successful people who have brought great economic advantage to the US over the years happen to have brown skin.
As for why this policy is being adopted: sometimes an elephant is just an elephant. The huge price increase hurts brown people (mostly), and possibly curbs immigration. It will play well with a certain segment of Americans.
There are many subtleties to the H1-B visa debate, but I don’t think they are at play in this policy change.
Context: 50% tariff has been applied to India. Chabahar port sanctions are reintroduced. And more to come in next few weeks.
On the other hand, those working for WITCH companies…
And trust me, I’m in no way “anti minority”. Not only are some of my best friends minorities - so are my parents…
WITCH companies are not hiring the best or the brightest. Their entire value play is contracting out mediocre developers at mediocre wages.
People with actually talent and intelligence realise how messed up the USA is (and has been for some time) and prefer things like healthcare and gun control.
And if they really want the lack of work life balance and/or high paid roles, they can consult from US company like I do. Now I get the money, but I live in a decent country.
I don't think there is any amount of money you could offer me to move to the USA. Well ok, maybe when it gets to $10 million / year I would have to start considering it.
It's great if you only root for the US, but taking more global perspective, let's have other countries improve their situation as well. There are almost 200 or so countries, I am ok with them improving their economy using their equivalent of H1-B programs.
This is a golden opportunity for others to step in an eat Americans' lunch so to speak, let's see if they capitalize on it.
It's corruption of the government.
Now, by the way I understand H-1B, $100k still seams cheap for essentially getting a slave.
Very chilling to think about.
Not so straight forward. Ambitious people leave underdeveloped countries because there are little opportunities. It's not like they are going to build same great product there as in California.
H1B visa is just a rank and file worker with a certain skill.
The cost is not even close to cover the wage difference (20-30%): https://www.epi.org/publication/h-1b-visas-and-prevailing-wa...
Hiring local people was preferable in every way. But the market was hot and it was seemingly almost impossible to actually do that.
It damn sure hasn't worked out well for a lot of talented, perpetually underemployed (many deep in perpetual debt) US kids. And I'm pretty sure that what those talented folks learn here in the US has made its way back to those countries, considering (e.g.) the level of competition we see from Asia these days.
Looking at the politics in Europe and Asia today, the question of who is allowed in and why is a central point of debate that rages and threatens to tear apart much of the fabric that was built over generations.
I think some people underestimate the power of those willing to migrate to the US.
I’m in my early 40s and moved from Western Europe to the US 11 years ago, and I feel I was the last generation eager to come, the perception of US is changing fast. This is not an H-1B problem but still a parallel one on how to attract people.
Do we need more Facebooks and AirBNBs?
For H-1B see report here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45306919
Their talents would be simply wasted in Poland. There simply is not enough capital and academic resources are not going to best people but to ones gaming the system.
I bet a lot of talented people move to US because they would have to fight uphill battles in their home countries with lack of funding, nepotism, corruption, caste systems you name it.
So I don’t think it would make much difference for the countries if they don’t have society set in ways to benefit from those talents.
The employment environment in Silicon Valley has been extremely strange since 2022. I haven’t been able to find a job in my field since then, despite being at the top of my game. I’m practically bankrupt and currently making ends meet in a minimum wage job.
The ethics of emigration is an interesting area that's under explored, especially in non-emergency scenarios. We have obligations to our own societies, for example, but how this affects emigration requires clarification.
In reality, this will just be used to show fealty to trump and a fastlane visa will be opened to companies willing to join the fascists.
Again, good faith argument against something that isn't bewing done with a reasonably democratic outcome.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(no...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PP...
This mindset was always going to backfire and now you are just witnessing it.
H1B program == leverage over the H1B workers due to the employment tie-in to residence, leverage over other non-H1B workers as well, due to the wider talent pool at LOWER wages.
I don't know whether Trump is doing is good, but the H1B program helps Owners more than it helps Workers.
I'm in New Zealand, which is far east of Japan, but still a western country.
Any amount of observing children will show that equal instruction will not net equal outcome.
No, it has not. And not because the people were not capable. It is because most of those projects depend on having the right kind of ecosystem. Massive venture capital, stable institutions, cutting-edge infrastructure, tolerant regulation, network effects, and huge government spend especially in space, defense, and R&D.
Those elements are overwhelmingly concentrated in the U.S. and particularly in Silicon Valley.
Jan Koum didn’t build WhatsApp in Kyiv he built it in California. Ukraine in the 1990s barely had reliable phone lines, let alone the mobile networks, cloud infrastructure, and capital required to scale a global messaging service. Sergey Brin didn’t found Google in Moscow. Russia had brilliant mathematicians, but no open internet culture, no ad driven funding model, and no free flowing capital markets. No chance of a SpaceX out of South Africa or Canada. Those countries entire annual space budget wouldn’t even cover a single Falcon 9 launch.
These are not just anecdotes, but the proof that without the combination of American capital, infrastructure, and government spending, projects on this scale simply would not have been possible. The brain power was there, but the ecosystem that turns raw talent into global impact was not.
Of course we continued to accept superstars even during immigration restriction, like German scientists fleeing the Nazis. We probably don’t need more than 10,000 or 20,000 carefully selected immigrants a year to continue doing that.