Immigration and Economic Impact

I was born and raised on a farm in a small town in Ohio. I've worked to get H-1B visas and green cards for my team members my entire career. There are three simple economic arguments for increasing legal immigration by highly educated workers: 1) If another country pays to raise and educate a child through college and that young person then moves to the US, we just gained a fully mature tax payer at zero cost. All the news about student loans? In this case, another country paid for that education. They bore all the costs, we get all the benefits. 2) Education in most countries that send us H-1B candidates is incredibly limited and highly competitive. The result is, only the absolute cream of the crop in those countries gets a chance to apply for an H-1B. We are literally stealing the very best from other countries. To stop that would be suicidal madness. 3) Highly educated immigrants create jobs. Yes, they also compete for jobs, and I competed against some exceptionally brilliant leaders from all over the world. But those leaders have now either created or lead some of our most impressive companies. This debate ends up being complicated for many emotional reasons: a) If you need a job and someone born outside the US gets one you wanted, it is easy to blame and hate, because while overall legal immigration may be good for the country and the economy in general, in that situation it was bad for you. b) Legal immigration gets lumped in with immigration in general and people coming in to the country illegally. Since there are far more people who come in illegally, that conversation dominates the immigration discussion, drowning out the nuance about highly educated workers. c) There are plenty of problems with our domestic education system, including runaway costs, that we need to fix so that all people, including people born in the US, can get world class education. Luckily, online education and AI tutors will create more of this access at lower costs. I no longer need to attend an exclusive university when the best education is available from anywhere. Finally, there are many moral arguments for immigration. Here is just one: Evans is a Welch name. I can trace my ancestry to John Evans, who came to Virginia in 1712. Those 300 years do not change the fact that I am still an immigrant. Even "native" Americans came to this country across a land bridge. "First Peoples" means "first people to get here," not "magically grew from the ground like grass." It is certainly reckless to attempt to have a nuanced discussion about something as explosive as immigration in a limited length format like LinkedIn. At the same time, I am absolutely going to stand up for my many brilliant colleagues who came to the US on H-1B or other visas. They are my friends and our country is better off for their presence, talents, and hard work. I welcome constructive discussion of how we can make a better world, and a better America, for all of us.

As the U.S. navigates its immigration policies, let’s remember what’s at stake. International students make up a significant share of our undergraduate and graduate programs—especially in critical STEM fields. Immigrants are the majority of PhDs working in computer science, engineering, and life sciences. They’ve won nearly 40% of U.S. Nobel Prizes in the sciences (2000–2019), and they’ve helped spark revolutions—from generative AI to biotech. At least 25 AI unicorns in the U.S. were founded by immigrants. And 6 of the 8 authors behind the seminal Google 2017 “transformers” paper—arguably the foundation of today’s AI boom—were immigrants. This isn’t just about people. It’s about progress. Smart, compassionate immigration policy isn’t a threat. It’s a strategic advantage. Let’s not forget that America’s demographic resilience—unlike many of its global competitors—rests on immigration.

Auckland’s demographic inflection point: Asian babies are the largest ethnic group among newborns in Auckland for the first time. This is not a sudden change, but it is an invitation to think more carefully about identity, social inclusion, and long-term social and economic outcomes. Ethnicity is a self-defined and increasingly fluid concept. Over 5,000 babies (roughly 27 percent) have more than one ethnicity. Ethnicity is not fixed or discrete. Rather it is overlapping, contextual and changing over time. And of course, ethnicity does not equate to culture. Culture (to me) matters more than how we classify people. Acculturation provides a useful framework (eg: https://lnkd.in/eFu7JGav). It focuses on how groups adapt when cultures meet and asks two core questions. First, to what extent can people (new & host) maintain their heritage culture and identity? Second, to what extent can they participate fully in shared civic, economic, and social life? Different combinations of answers lead to different outcomes. Where both are supported, integration & multiculturalism is more likely. This is associated with stronger wellbeing, higher trust, and better participation. Where either dimension is constrained, outcomes tend to be weaker, with higher stress and lower trust, affecting both newcomers and the wider society. Acculturation is not a one-sided process. Outcomes depend on both the behaviour of new groups, AND institutions, labour markets, schools, and social norms within the host society. Auckland’s role is particularly important because it is closely connected to the rest of New Zealand through internal migration, trade, and business linkages. What happens in Auckland is eventually exported nationally. Auckland is diverse, but not yet delivering on its promised benefits. On economic measures, we see high rates of employment, but lower incomes even after adjusting for qualifications, age, and location, alongside slower career progression. The cost of entrenching these gaps is both social and economic. Talent is underutilised, incomes diverge, trust weakens, and social fragmentation deepens. We do not want to risk creating segregated, marginalised and excluded groups. That way lies trouble. There is work to do. Recruiters need to recognise skills and experience rather than rely on credentials. Education systems should assume diversity is permanent and design for it from the start, which implies teaching differently. Public policy needs an explicit acculturation lens that recognises integration as a two-way process. And at an individual level, it requires openness being changed, as well as changing others, through everyday interaction. Developing ideas here. But a conversation we need to have. What happens after immigration? - Shamubeel @ Simplicity

Europe is quietly reshaping itself through migration — but not nearly as much as many people think. The chart below (Visual Capitalist, based on Eurostat data) shows the share of immigrants in each European country. Putting aside cases like 🇱🇺 Luxembourg, which tops the list — over 70% of residents were born abroad… 🇨🇭 Switzerland, 🇮🇪 Ireland, 🇦🇹 Austria — around 25–30%. While in CEE: 🇵🇱 Poland, 🇷🇴 Romania, 🇸🇰 Slovakia — just 3–4%. And yet… if you follow the political debate in parts of Central & Eastern Europe, you might think the numbers are ten times higher. Migration is one of the most emotionally charged topics in our region — even though, statistically, these are still some of the most homogenous societies on the continent. 🧩 Perception vs. Reality Much of the public discussion in CEE is still shaped by the images of the 2015 migration crisis, even though today’s reality looks very different. Most migrants in Poland, Czechia, Hungary, or Slovakia are workers from neighboring countries — Ukrainians, Belarusians. They fill critical roles in logistics, manufacturing, care, and hospitality — keeping economies running as domestic labor forces shrink. 📊 The demographic paradox Central Europe is aging fast — Poland alone is projected to lose up to 1.5 million working-age people by 2035. At the same time, GDP per capita is catching up with Western Europe, creating new demand for talent that the local population simply cannot meet. So while migration is often seen as a threat in public debate, for quite some time it has actually been one of the region’s key growth drivers. Logistics, production, hospitality, construction — these sectors would not function without foreign workers. With record-low unemployment, relying solely on local employees would simply be impossible. 🚀 A new chapter for Central & Eastern Europe CEE may soon face the same questions that Western Europe grappled with a generation ago: ➡️ How to attract and retain international talent? ➡️ How to build social acceptance and effective integration frameworks? ➡️ How to turn migration from a political flashpoint into an economic strategy? CEE also has a chance to learn from the lessons of Western Europe. Sustainable, smart migration is possible. Simply denying the need for foreign talent in the labor market leads nowhere.

This morning, I had wanted to share a different post. But waking up to Bloomberg’s headline on the $100,000 fee on H-1B visas demanded a pause. This is not merely (another) immigration adjustment; it is one of the most consequential economic signals the US has sent in decades. While every nation has the sovereign right to recalibrate its immigration and labour policies, this move deserves a closer examination of its economic, technological, and geopolitical implications. At the very core, this policy collides with a simple yet powerful reality: the global economy is powered by talent flows. When friction of this magnitude is introduced, corporations do not absorb the cost; they simply reroute around it. Me thinking aloud: For the (revised) cost of a single H-1B fee (to $100k), companies could easily establish a 100-person engineering or R&D hub in Bangalore, Lagos, Pune, Belo Horizonte, Riyadh, or Manila. In 2023, India’s IT services exports exceeded $250 billion, a figure driven by the demand gaps of advanced economies. This fee will only accelerate that trend. Major sectors are especially (most) vulnerable: 1. Healthcare: Where the Association of American Medical Colleges projects a 124,000 physician shortage by 2034. Nearly one in five U.S. medical residents today is foreign-born, with H-1B visas a critical lifeline. 2. STEM and industrial innovation: Where more than 50% of U.S. graduate students in computer science and engineering are international. Restricting this pipeline constrains competitiveness at a time when other nations are doubling down. Now, to the most interesting bit: The underlying assumption (reads: policy blindspot) - that there is a ready pool of US workers 'able' and 'willing' to fill these roles, echoes a familiar miscalculation from manufacturing: overestimating domestic supply and underestimating the complexity of retraining. History shows that such assumptions do not lead to job substitution but rather job flight. To be clear, the intent of prioritising domestic employment is understood. But economic history is equally clear: when policy collides with market fundamentals, especially around capital and talent flows, unintended consequences follow. Restricting talent inflows does not repatriate jobs; it relocates innovation. The broader implication is clear: what the US constrains, others will absorb. Emerging markets across Asia, Africa, and LatAm are well-positioned to welcome the talent, jobs, and capital that may shift outward. For major investors, builders & operators in these regions, talent is not just a resource; it is the most mobile currency of all. This policy is effectively a signal to double down on emerging-market innovation hubs.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗳𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝗹𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲.   This data does not measure compassion. It measures 𝗺𝗼𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆.   Across OECD countries, immigrant earnings rise by an average of 24 percent in the first five years. But averages hide the truth. Because some countries act as escalators. Others act as ceilings.   Look at the patterns.   𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 leads the table. Immigrant earnings rise 48 percent in five years. Not because the starting wage is high, but because the labour market absorbs, retrains, and redeploys people into higher productivity roles. Germany’s demographics force this behaviour. An ageing population needs workers who can move up quickly.   𝗨𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 shows a similar story. Earnings rise 43 percent. The system rewards those who switch firms, reskill, and compound experience. The US is less protective, but more fluid. Movement is the mechanism.   Then look at 𝗦𝘄𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗻 and 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱. Strong growth, strong safety nets, strong integration. These are societies built around long-term human capital, not short-term labour extraction.   Now the uncomfortable insight.   𝗡𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 and 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗭𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 are the only countries where immigrant earnings decline after five years. This is not about work ethic. It is about structural bottlenecks. Credential recognition, sectoral ceilings, and limited upward mobility once immigrants are locked into certain roles.   High starting wages do not guarantee a better future. Low starting wages do not prevent one.   Demographics explain most of this.   Countries with ageing populations and shrinking workforces must create upward mobility for immigrants. Countries with stable demographics can afford to slow it down. This is not ideology. It is arithmetic.   There is another layer most debates ignore.   At entry, immigrants earn 34 percent less than native-born workers. That gap narrows over time, not because wages magically rise, but because immigrants move into better firms, better sectors, and longer working hours. Systems that allow movement close the gap faster.   So the immigrant dream is not a flag or a passport.   It is access to a labour market that allows 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀.   For policymakers, the question is simple. Do you want workers who stay, contribute, and climb, or workers who stagnate and exit?   For individuals considering where to build a future, the question is sharper. Would you rather start higher, or rise faster?   Because in the long run, growth beats comfort every time.

Boeing just announced they are cutting 17,000 people from their global workforce. This is a huge lay off—representing more than 10% of the company including many immigrant workers. Layoffs hit everyone hard, but for immigrant workers, the consequences can be devastating: 1/ Most visa holders have just 60 days to find a new job or leave the U.S. 2/ Visa-dependent spouses lose their work rights if the principal worker is laid off. 3/ Layoffs can derail the green card process, forcing workers to restart with a new employer. 4/ L-1 visa holders can’t switch companies—they must find a similar role within the same company or leave. 5/ Despite paying into benefits, visa holders can’t access all social services. If you’re a visa worker facing a layoff, here are a few options: - Ask for nonproductive paid status: Some companies will keep you on nonproductive paid status, extending your 60-day grace period to find a new job. - Change to a B-1 visitor visa: B-1 visa lets you stay for 6 months. While USCIS takes 10+ months to process, you can remain in the U.S. during this time and change back if you find a new job. - Change to an F-1 student visa: Enroll in a degree program while you search for a job. You can stay in the U.S. while your status change is being processed. - Start thinking about long-term status & lock in priority dates: There are options to get long-term status without employer sponsorship. For example, you can apply for an EB-2 NIW (National Interest Waiver). This green card option allows advanced degree holders or those with exceptional skills to apply without a job offer. Fields like dentistry, VR engineering, and education have been approved. Layoffs are tough for everyone, including U.S. citizens. However, for visa workers, layoffs carry even greater consequences—it’s not just about losing a job; it could mean losing their chance at the American dream. Being an immigrant is hard, so let's be kinder to our immigrant friends & neighbors.

The most important news for UK startups this week wasn’t about trade or defence. It was a single line about visas. And barely anyone noticed.   Buried in the new UK-EU deal is this: “Talks are continuing on a youth mobility scheme to allow people aged 18–30 in the UK and the EU to move freely between countries for a limited period of time.”   Sounds like a footnote. But if you’re building in the UK or hoping to this might be the most founder-friendly policy we’ve seen in years.   Why? Because startup ecosystems don’t grow without early talent. Without people in their 20s who are hungry, skilled, and globally-minded arriving with fresh ideas and the freedom to act on them.   This scheme could quietly make it possible again for: – A young founder from Lisbon to come build in Manchester. – A designer from Berlin to join a London startup as a co-founder. – A Gen Z entrepreneur to explore the UK market without a five-figure visa process.   This isn’t about free movement. It’s about smart movement. It’s about creating a pipeline of people who don’t just want to work in the UK, they want to build here.   So while broader policy debates continue, those of us in the startup world should be asking a different question: What kind of founders do we want in the room five years from now and are we making it possible for them to even get through the door?   The next chapter of UK innovation doesn’t start with big headlines. It starts with policies like this and people like us making sure they don’t go unnoticed.

Here’s the blunt truth: immigrants are the backbone of our workforce. And without them, the economy doesn’t just slow—it suffers. Immigrants drive innovation. Did you know that 45% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children? That’s nearly half of the businesses fueling our economy. When we build legal pathways for immigrants, we’re building our own potential for growth. From tech to healthcare to construction, key industries depend on immigrants. In fact, 1 in 6 U.S. healthcare workers are foreign-born. Our economy cannot afford to lose them. This is a business issue, not a political one. Every time our team at @Upwardly Global meets with employers, the message is the same: “We need skilled workers.” Yet, systemic barriers persist. Over 2 million immigrant professionals in the U.S. are underemployed or unemployed. What if we unlocked that talent instead of sidelining it? Why should leaders care right now? When immigrant workers thrive, businesses thrive. When businesses thrive, communities thrive. The stakes are high. Without immediate action: 🚫 We risk economic stagnation. 🚫 We lose our competitive edge in global markets. 🚫 We tell millions of capable, hardworking individuals they’re not welcome here. What does good leadership look like? Bold, values-driven action dictated by: 1️⃣ Hiring inclusively: Seek out untapped, immigrant talent for roles at all levels. 2️⃣ Advocating for fair policies: Use your platform to support immigration inclusion 3️⃣ Investing in job readiness and upskilling programs: Ensure that everyone can access the market, including immigrants.

Today's college seniors are graduating into one of the toughest entry-level job markets in years. Unlike many American grads, international students face another hurdle beyond finding a job: maintaining their legal status. Under the second Trump administration, some temporary work authorization programs that many have relied on have become less predictable. In response, several international students I spoke with said they're "parallel planning:" pursuing opportunities in the U.S. while also exploring alternatives back home or in other countries. The American dream "is collapsing," one student tells me. The U.S. losing international graduates could have broader economic consequences. For example, former international students at American universities have gone on to found a quarter of U.S. startup companies valued at $1B or more, while one study suggests a one-third reduction in foreign STEM graduates could lead to annual GDP losses between $240 billion and $481 billion over the next decade. https://lnkd.in/eE_3KrAj