By Qamar Bashir
There is a profound shift unfolding in U.S. immigration policy under the Trump administration—a radical transformation in how the nation admits new entrants. No longer is America’s visa and green-card system governed by long-standing principles of family reunification, open opportunity, or merit-driven inclusion. Instead, it is taking shape as a transactional marketplace, where entry, settlement, and ownership depend on purchasing power rather than potential—a system more “gold card for a price” than promise.
Immigration has long powered U.S. growth. Foreign-born individuals are markedly more likely to start businesses, and immigrants and their children founded almost half of Fortune 500 companies, driving value in technology, health care, and advanced manufacturing. Their presence in STEM is outsized: foreign-born workers now account for roughly one-fifth of the entire U.S. STEM workforce and 43% of doctorate-level scientists and engineers, a staggering share of the nation’s innovation engine.
The economic consequences are immediate and measurable in higher education alone: international students contributed an estimated $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy in the 2023–24 academic year and supported ~378,000 jobs nationwide, with modeling showing that a sharp drop in new enrollments could erase nearly $7 billion in revenue and more than 60,000 jobs in a single academic cycle.
Abroad, China’s evolution reveals a striking contrast. Inspired by the very American playbook that once defined U.S. leadership, Beijing has spent a decade building aggressive talent-magnet programs and is now doubling down. After high-profile recruitment schemes such as the Thousand Talents Program, China is rolling out a streamlined K-visa in 2025 to fast-track young STEM graduates and researchers without employer sponsorship, directly channeling global talent into labs and startups at scale.
This shift is not theoretical. U.S. analysts warn that curbs on visas and campus access risk ceding academic leadership to China just as its universities climb global rankings, with Tsinghua University breaking into the global top tier; and when U.S. policy sowed confusion, institutions in places like Hong Kong moved quickly to recruit displaced international students. The net effect is a global talent market realigning around openness and clarity, not uncertainty and transactions.
Inside the United States, mixed signals amplify the damage. One day, senior voices float ending family-based green cards; the next, they tease a purchasable “gold card.” Unclear timelines leave families wondering whether changes would apply retroactively, jeopardizing lawful lives and ongoing research, or only prospectively. That uncertainty alone pushes many students and skilled workers to choose Canada, Europe, or Asia, where pathways and timelines are predictable. The cost of the confusion is borne in stalled labs, deferred startups, and missed hiring cycles—losses that never show up as a neat line item but compound over years.
On the student side, leading design and arts schools such as Parsons report students from 100+ countries, mirroring a broader campus reality where international talent is central to teaching studios, orchestras, labs, galleries, and fashion houses. Crucially, the arts and cultural sector contributed $1.17–$1.2 trillion (≈4.2% of U.S. GDP) in 2023 and grew about twice as fast as the overall economy—a reminder that America’s creative edge is not ornamental but economically foundational. These ecosystems rely on a steady flow of foreign trainers, educators, creative directors, curators, and managers who cross-pollinate styles and technologies across fashion, film, museums, design services, and higher-education arts programs.
The connection between immigration and frontier innovation is equally visible at the highest echelons of science. Immigrants have won about 40% of the Nobel Prizes awarded to Americans in physics, chemistry, and medicine since 2000, and immigrants comprised 31% of U.S. Nobel laureates in economics through 2024, underscoring a century-long pattern of outsized scientific impact.
Zooming into sectoral contributions, the picture sharpens further. In technology and advanced computing, immigrant and H-1B talent anchor core research teams and patent generation; foreign-born workers constitute around one-fifth of the overall STEM workforce and nearly half of doctorate-level scientists and engineers, boosting productivity and startup formation in AI, semiconductors, and software. In health care, international physicians and nurses—often trained at U.S. universities on student visas before progressing to H-1B or permanent residency—staff hospitals and clinics in underserved regions, directly affecting health outcomes and workforce availability. In higher education and research, international students keep graduate programs viable, which in turn sustain federal research grants and the commercialization pipelines around them. In biotech and pharmaceuticals, immigrant scientists are overrepresented among venture-backed founders and patent holders, accelerating drug discovery and gene-editing platforms.
And in the creative economy—fashion, design, performing arts, museums, gaming, and media—the $1.2 trillion arts-and-culture sector interacts with tourism, retail, and tech, yielding spillovers in exports and city revitalization. Each of these five arenas is materially dependent on immigration-enabled talent flows that the current transactional turn places at risk.
This is why the administration’s broader transaction-first posture has proved so alienating to allies and so costly at home. The fashion and design industry—one of America’s soft-power amplifiers—has already warned the White House that tariff volatility and inward-looking rules are squeezing a $500 billion ecosystem and 10 million U.S. jobs across design, manufacturing, logistics, and retail, even as the sector pays a disproportionate share of import duties.
Meanwhile, competitors are not waiting. China is expanding scholarships, launching fast visas, and wiring capital into labs and studios to entice the very cohort America is deterring. European and Canadian universities, facing their own demographic cliffs, are scaling recruitment precisely where U.S. policy sends mixed messages. U.S. campuses and the towns that rely on them understand the stakes: the impending undergraduate “demographic cliff” and softer foreign-student demand could shrink enrollments by millions over the decade without robust international inflows, with adverse spillovers for local economies.
The danger is practical and ideological. Short-term revenues from visa sales and higher tariffs may look attractive on a monthly ledger, but the hidden costs—lost labs, offshored startups, and a thinner creative class—compound over years. The nation that once invited the world’s best and converted their ideas into prosperity is choosing status and transaction over openness and promise. History teaches that countries that build bridges to talent endure; those that price talent at the door get bypassed.
America stands at a clear fork. It can reclaim the strategy that made it great—open doors, predictable rules, investment in universities and research, pathways from student to founder—or it can retreat into a marketplace for status where visas are commodities and the future is auctioned to the highest bidder. One road renews the engine of growth; the other empowers competitors. In this contest, China is not stealing America’s playbook; it is using the pages America is tearing out.
About writer:Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former Press Attache to Malaysia
Former MD, SRBC | Macomb, Michigan, USA
