National Academies Pushes Immigration Policies that Favor Foreign Students and Professionals, Sidelining Americans

FAIR Take | September 2024

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS), a congressionally-chartered research organization, recently released a report that recommends the dramatic expansion of immigration programs for international students and professionals in so-called STEM fields. The policy recommendations were included in a new report on the recruitment and retention of international talent. The report, entitled International Talent Programs in the Changing Global Environment (2024), describes the efforts governments across the world use to attract science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workers, and provides recommendations for policymakers to improve U.S. efforts.

Among the myriad of recommendations from NAS’ lengthy, 300-page report, are broad recommendations to attract and retain as much foreign STEM talent as possible in the United States. These recommendations call for changes to immigration policy that undermine American workers.

• Recommendation 7 urges Congress to authorize an unlimited number of green cards for foreign-born STEM “talent” in priority fields. 
• Recommendation 7 also calls on Congress to make foreign-born students graduating from a U.S. institution in STEM fields automatically eligible for green cards.
• Recommendation 8 encourages the Department of Labor to establish new rules that authorize the approval of green cards for certain STEM workers without an analysis of the U.S. labor market. Essentially, the NAS proposes that the Department of Labor declare that there are labor shortages in certain STEM specialties, allowing employers to bypass the certification process with the government.
• Recommendation 11 then explicitly calls on higher education associations, scientific societies, and industry groups to lobby lawmakers on the “importance of foreign talent.”

Despite considering itself an academic organization, the NAS report is remarkably short on critical analysis. The main, overarching flaw is that the NAS assumes that importing foreign workers is the best solution to boost the U.S. STEM field, without consideration to how this would undermine U.S.-born STEM professionals. First, the importation of foreign stem “talent” in unlimited numbers would flood the U.S. market with STEM workers, taking job opportunities from American STEM professionals and depressing wages for others.

Second, automatically providing green cards to foreign-born students who study STEM fields would flood American universities with foreign students. These universities, in turn, would become the gate-keepers for a large part of the U.S. immigration system, deciding – without any oversight and based upon their own admission principles – who would be best suited to stay in the United States. The increased competition at the university level created by foreign students, many of whom would be willing and able to pay full tuition, would make it nearly impossible for American students to even enter the STEM field in college and discourage them from developing their own talent.

Third, encouraging the U.S. government to declare a shortage of workers in certain STEM fields – without requiring a labor market test — risks stunting the development of U.S. STEM talent for decades. Once such a measure is put in the books, special interests will work non-stop to make sure it is never removed – regardless of the changes in technology and our labor markets that may take place in 5, 10, or 15 years. Consider, for example, how computer programmers were considered “high-tech” workers in the 1990s and now children in grade school are learning basic coding skills. Creating structural preferences for foreign workers in STEM fields will have generational impacts.

Indeed, the NAS’ immigration recommendations would directly undermine and contradict the reports’ other recommendations intended to support and encourage U.S. STEM professionals. For example, recommendation 4, which encourages the development of domestic STEM talent and minority engagement, would be difficult to achieve in the face of significant foreign competition. Talent development begins with effective education here at home, and spots in university programs (especially STEM programs) are limited and competitive. Blanket green card eligibility for foreign students in STEM programs will attract far more into those programs and invite potential fraud.

Historical experience has already shown that the NAS’ recommendations would disadvantage Americans relative to foreign-born individuals. A 2016 California State Auditor report, for example, documented the effects of a University of California (UC) policy encouraging admissions of non-resident/international students who pay more in tuition. From 2010 to 2015, California resident enrollment was completely flat but the international student population more than tripled. The audit showed that thousands of California students were rejected by the UC system as a result of systematic preference for less qualified (but higher-paying) non-Californians. The audit also noted that efforts to recruit abroad diverted resources from underrepresented communities that the National Academies (rightfully) claims should receive a greater focus. Similar dynamics are present in public and private universities across America, squeezing out native-born talent. The National Academies’ immigration proposals would draw in more international students than ever and cut short many American STEM careers before they even begin.

The report’s recommendations, if followed through, would contribute to an immigration system that has already failed to deliver for American workers. Our current system has seen native-born workers lose 1.3 million jobs in total over the past year, while foreign-born workers have gained more than 1.2 million. FAIR has extensively covered our flawed system of employment visas, including the deeply flawed H-1B lottery program. This program allows employers to replace Americans with foreign workers at lower wages. The U.S. admits hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants on employment visas each year. This is in addition to millions of illegal aliens who can obtain work permits after being released on parole or simply by claiming asylum. American workers need more investments in them, not importing more competition.

Rather than addressing the flaws of a system that is not delivering for American workers, the Academies’ proposal would leave out important safeguards in existing law, like per-country caps and numerical limitations. FAIR has shown that per-country caps and numerical limits are vital tools to preserve fairness in our immigration system by making sure applicants from every country have a chance to be considered. Without them, nearly all employment visas would go to India or China simply because of their population numbers and high demand. Adding more green cards without these safeguards is essentially a giveaway of American jobs to these two countries, and comes with significant national security concerns for China in particular. The report, however, discounts these legitimate national security concerns as too costly to eliminate.

Developing and retaining talent in STEM and all other professional fields is a worthy goal, but the National Academies’ proposals would hurt more than help in reaching that goal. The National Academies itself is proof of America’s capability to achieve, and our policies should be based around encouraging that achievement rather than muscling out our own best and brightest.