Provided by chatgpt on this policy:
Strategic View
- Net “winner”: Canada (direct substitution effect).
- Medium-term winners: India & China (retain talent, boost local ecosystems).
- Secondary winners: EU, Australia, Gulf (attract redirection flows).
- Big loser: The U.S., which risks hollowing out its talent pipeline and weakening its innovation edge.
On paper, there are millions of Americans with degrees who struggle to find stable employment. But the nuance lies in
skills, specialization, and mobility.
Many U.S. graduates don’t have the exact technical expertise (e.g., advanced chip design, AI, niche coding languages, biostatistics) or the willingness to relocate to where demand is highest. Employers often say the “talent shortage” isn’t about the number of people, but about the
fit between skills and jobs. Foreign H-1B workers fill these high-demand, specialized gaps quickly, whereas retraining the domestic workforce takes years and requires systemic investment in education and vocational training.
So while the policy may create opportunities for some unemployed Americans, in practice it risks leaving
critical positions unfilled, slowing projects, and raising costs. The paradox is: yes, there is U.S. talent, but it’s not always the right talent at the right place and time.