Trump, Harvard, and the Brain-Drain Myth

The Economist warns that” America is in danger of experiencing an academic mind drain.”

 As immediately as the Department of Homeland Security announced that Harvard University would no longer be able to accept international students, Ian Bremmer, a social scientist with a strong connection in Washington, hailed the move as “fantastic information for China.”

The government is attempting to use its influence over the immigration status of foreign students to urge Harvard to acquire stricter antisemitism laws and end racially charged “diversity, collateral, and inclusion” initiatives.

But this isn’t just another round of the American lifestyle war: &nbsp,

What the management is doing, according to foreign policy experts like Bremmer, threatens American technological prowess and national security.

The Manhattan Project was a success owing to emigre giants, who contributed far more to America’s World War II effort and later conflict with the Soviet Union than just the atomic bomb. &nbsp,

And is it accurate to say that about 40 % of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants? &nbsp,

Liberals may support high immigration levels, and particularly those of international students, because they enjoy the unfamiliar and uncomfortable, as well as immigration, which in turn gives liberals the opportunity to court newcomers with interpersonal services and identity politics.

 Despite claims that supposedly devout realists believe that the real reason we need more scientists and businesspeople is because of our open campuses ( and borders ) to the talents of the world, it is actually hard to believe that this is not liberal ideology. &nbsp,

Where else will we find the neurons to contend with China if we don’t do that? &nbsp,

The issue with this story, which is mainly intended to deceive, is that it is patently false.

Very few businesses on the Fortune 500 were founded only by immigrants; almost all were founded by Americans, often in partnership with emigrants. &nbsp,

The American Immigration Council, the cause of the factoid, has to fudge the numbers by classifying” children of immigrants” as “immigrants” even though those children were born Americans.

How can it be that China itself is so economical when it accepts comparatively few international students or refugees?

Before COVID-19, China, which has a native population of more than 1.4 billion people, had just about 258, 000 foreign students enrolling in degree-granting plans. China does occasionally claim to have almost 500, 000 international students in total, but nearly half of those students don’t even attend full-time, let only Einsteins.

China’s economic and military attractiveness is a result of its own efforts, not the product of hiring professionals from India.

To be sure, America has a large number of foreign-born Nobel Prize winners. &nbsp,

Although developing nations have had more stringent attitudes toward immigration in the past, they have still competed and won at the highest levels, even when their most brilliant citizens have not been able to immigrate.

The most certainly excellent brains, such as Einstein’s or different Nobel laureates, should not only be welcomed by America but also be actively courted by us, not because personal skills doesn’t matter.

The federal environment is more important than the majority of people, yet the majority of people with above-average talent.

The Economist’s perspective is so risky to America because it encourages lessening anticipations of Americans themselves, with more organized, if not more talented immigrants taking the helm. &nbsp,

It’s the actual head drain: it’s consuming the world’s academic capital to replace American self-imposed habits of failure.

The talented international student becomes an excuse for Americans to spend their unique talents, not least of which by studying the kinds of very philosophical subjects that are the source of wokeness, anti-semitism, and “diversity, capital, and addition” in the first place.

The Trump presidency is facing yet another contentious legal battle over its attempt to withdraw Harvard’s right to house foreign students.

It’s a heavy-handed solution, but nothing less than for force will do.

Even though they receive hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers and enjoy privileges for importing workers and customers– unusual skills and students, most businesses could just dream of, the most wealthy institutions of higher learning in this region have long been a push unto themselves.

A reckoning is overdue, &nbsp.

However, President Trump’s brawl with Harvard isn’t just about an institution; it’s also about the ideas that have led Americans to believe they can only import someone else to succeed in their place.

Source credit