Immigration and Economic Impact

Blaming immigrants for our productivity challenges, health care shortages, or every criminal atrocity is just plain lazy thinking. It ignores issues that have literally been decades in the making and it conveniently lets governments, industries, and policymakers off the hook. We have 10 million sq km of land, rich in resources, and we’re sparsely populated. We actually need many more people here. We need labourers, engineers, health care workers, researchers, and entrepreneurs. Canada can’t grow without adding people. That’s just a fact, not some talking point. What’s actually happened is that we underbuilt housing, slowed approvals, stalled infrastructure, and stalled productivity. We’ve let our population age without a strategy. Then, when global migration rose, we conveniently pointed to newcomers as the problem for issues that were created in boardrooms and cabinet rooms long before they stepped off a plane, train, or boat. Painting newcomers as crooks or economic drains is both factually wrong and dishonest. A tiny number of bad actors are getting conveniently used as proof that millions of hardworking people are somehow now a threat. It’s rhetoric being imported (tariff free) straight from the US, where turning newcomers into political weapons is somehow patriotic protectionism. Sorry but our living standards didn’t stagnate because immigrants came here. They stagnated because we failed to modernize our systems, build enough homes, invest in productivity, and grow our economy at the pace this century demands. Immigration didn’t cause that. Policy and complacency did. If anything, newcomers have actually slowed our decline. Without them, our workforce would be shrinking even more, our tax base would be falling, and our ability to fund health care and social programs would be deteriorating faster. Economists know this. Political commentators just pretend not to. We either grow or we shrink and shrinking isn’t a strategy. Canada’s real challenge isn’t “too many immigrants.” Blaming people who are contributing more than they’re taking isn’t analysis. It’s scapegoating dressed up as insight. We need more people, not fewer. What we need even more urgently is the courage to build modern immigration policy and the systems around it. And we need to stop parroting the absolute and utter nonsense coming from the US that newcomers are all bad characters. And while we’re on the subject, those of us who arrived in the last 60 years (or frankly since the first immigrant came here) should be the very last people lecturing about who “belongs” here. This land belongs first to Indigenous Peoples. The rest of us are guests who’ve built lives on land that was already stewarded long before any of us showed up. The least we can do is be honest about that while we work to build a stronger country for everyone. ❤️🇨🇦

What happens when international students stop coming? This year, new international student enrollment in the U.S. dropped by 17%. The result? Over $1 billion lost in economic impact and nearly 23,000 fewer jobs supported across higher education, housing, dining, transportation, and health care. This isn’t just a dip. It’s the sharpest decline since the height of the pandemic and it should be setting off alarms. NAFSA: Association of International Educators latest data shows international students contributed $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy in 2023–24. That supported 378,175 jobs. For every three international students, one U.S. job is created or sustained. But now that pipeline is shrinking. And the IIE Fall 2025 Snapshot confirms what many on campus already feel, fewer new students are arriving, and the trend is accelerating. Let’s be clear, this isn’t just a visa issue. It’s a talent issue, an equity issue, an economic competitiveness issue. This is about more than tuition revenue and more than cultural exchange. Over half of international students are in STEM fields. They’re fueling research, filling workforce gaps, and driving entrepreneurship. So why are we making it harder for them to come and even harder to stay? Let’s be real. If we care about economic growth, educational opportunity, or filling workforce gaps, we can’t afford to treat international students like an afterthought. The question isn’t whether international students benefit the U.S. It’s whether we’re smart enough to keep benefiting from their presence.

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.

Long post incoming. Japan will have to close a lot of businesses, potentially. I’ve been supporting foreigners with setting up companies and obtaining their Business Manager visas. Now that the Immigration Services Agency has officially published the revised requirements, I can finally share what’s happening, and I don’t quite like it. But I'm here to inform, not to give my opinion. I'll follow up with proper translations and visually clear explanations next week. So, what we knew just got confirmed: • The minimum capital requirement will rise from ¥5 million → ¥30 million (for sole proprietors-yes you can get a business manager visa without incorporating a company-this includes rent, one-year salary for staff, and initial equipment costs). • You must now hire at least one full-time employee (Japanese, PR, or long-term resident). Foreigners on working visas do NOT count! • Either you or your full-time employee must have Japanese proficiency at JLPT N2 / CEFR B2 level. • The applicant must hold a relevant degree in a field related to the skills or knowledge necessary for business management, OR must hae at least 3 years of work experience in business management or administration (Preparation time under a Designated Activities / J-FIND / J-SKIP visa also counts) • Your business plan must be officially reviewed by a CPA, tax accountant, or certified SME consultant (Lawyers and Gyōseishoshi may not charge for this review unless separately authorized). • Home offices will no longer be accepted as valid business locations (yes, this was an option for the business manager visa so far). • Tax and social insurance compliance will be checked at every renewal. • Current visa holders will have to meet these new standards by October 2028. This means many small foreign-run businesses in Japan will struggle. Not because they lack potential, but because the new rules make entry and survival almost impossible. Some other points that probably very few people will mention on LinkedIn, so I'll do it. Permanent residency or HSP upgrade applications from BM will be denied unless the business meets the new criteria. But what does that mean for current BM holders? Well. There is a 3 year grace period. Starting 3 years from 25/10/16 (starting Oct 16 2028), things don't look good for small businesses. Until then, renewals will be judged case-by-case, considering business health and plans to meet the new standards. After 2028, all renewals must fully comply with the new changes. So, you can renew under the old rules until 2028, but will need to prove progress toward the new benchmarks. After that, you must meet all five requirements (¥30 M capital + employee + language + qualification + expert-verified plan). Good luck to anyone out there. That said, if you need an opinion or support with growing your business towards these numbers, you know where to find me. Healthy Friday, Oğuzhan 🧿

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.

42% of U.S. hired crop workers are undocumented immigrants.  That’s 2 in 5. (Source: USDA) As many as 73% of agricultural workers are immigrants. That’s 3 in 4. (Source: Fwd.US) Without foreign-born workers, agricultural output is expected to fall by $30-$60 billion.  (Source: AFBF) Fear of immigration enforcement is already keeping these farm workers from going to work. And this fear is already having a negative impact on harvests. Don't believe me? Check out what’s currently happening with citrus harvests in California. According to the president of California Citrus Mutual, “People aren’t going to work and kids aren’t going to school. Yesterday (Jan 9th) about 25% of the workforce, (and) today (Jan 10th) 75% didn’t show up”. Another California farm owner, Peter Belluomimi, a grower and packer of lemons, mandarin oranges, and navel oranges – citrus fruits that end up on the shelves of Kroger and Trader Joes – reported (on Jan 21st) that just 5 of 30 workers came to work. That’s 1 in 6. You don’t need an economics degree to see where this is going. Labor shortages will lead to reduced harvests. Reduced harvests will lead to supply shortages. Supply shortages will lead to increased food prices. Immigration policy & economic policy can’t be separated. They REALLY can’t be separated when it comes to food prices. And that’s just from labor shortages & reduced harvests. It says nothing about tariffs or reciprocal tariffs. It says nothing about foodborne illness outbreaks. It says nothing about lost yields from climate shocks. But all of those will almost certainly drive up food prices too. This is not a political post. This is a reminder to start with data. This is a reminder to consider second-order effects. This is a reminder to talk to all of your stakeholders. This is a reminder that strategy should precede tactics. This is a reminder that blind action has negative outcomes. This is a reminder that half-baked solutions worsen problems. And yes, this is a reminder to stock up or – better yet –  This is a reminder to start tending your own garden. #food #foodprices #economics #finance

Immigrant founders built Google, Tesla, and PayPal, but the next trillion-dollar company might not be American. Tech giants like Google, Amazon, and Tesla thrive on H-1B talent (specialized work visas for highly skilled foreign professionals), with Amazon securing more visas than any other company in 2024. Innovative leaders like: 👉 Google's Sundar Pichai (India)  👉 Microsoft's Satya Nadella (India)  👉 NVIDIA's Jensen Huang (Taiwan) Exemplify how this global talent drives America's tech dominance. In 2024, Amazon secured 9,265 H-1B visas, with Google (5,364), Meta (4,844), and Microsoft (4,725) following closely behind. These numbers aren't just statistics. They represent America's deliberate strategy to attract global expertise when domestic talent falls short. Half of all American PhD students come from abroad. In some STEM programs, it's nearly 100%! But something fascinating is happening in the global tech talent landscape: 🔸 Talented immigrants are heading back home to India and China due to visa restrictions, growing opportunities in their home countries, and remote work flexibility 🔸 New tech hubs are popping up globally, like Bangalore (attracted over $7.8 billion in tech investments last year) and Shenzhen in China (now hosts more than 14,000 high-tech enterprises) This reminds me of shifts I've witnessed in retail and manufacturing over my 20+ years in business. When borders get tough, talent simply finds another home, just like companies move factories when tariffs hit. Throughout my career spanning multiple countries, I've seen firsthand how welcoming talent creates ripple effects. These brilliant minds don't just fill jobs, but they create entire industries. Think about it: Would we have Google without Sergey Brin, who came from Russia? Or Tesla without South African-born Elon Musk? Smart people will go where they're welcomed and can build amazing things. The next wave of innovation won't ask for permission based on geography. Which emerging global tech hub are you watching closely? #GlobalTalent #Innovation #BusinessStrategy #TechIndustry

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.

Lots of economists are asking what would happen if the estimated 8 million undocumented workers in the United States were deported. Keep in mind that when economists think about labor markets in broad terms, they don't usually care whether someone is undocumented. A worker is a worker. One easy conclusion is that pay for low-wage occupations would rise. As a result, so would the cost of producing many goods and services. Add in sky-high tariffs, and inflation would likely surge again. Another conclusion is that the demand for some goods and services would fall. Don't forget that there would be noticeably fewer consumers for lots of everyday products. Jobs might be lost in these areas as companies tried to preserve their margins. A third conclusion is that labor markets across the country would be fractured, since many jobs depend on the presence of undocumented people. A construction company that relied on undocumented labor might have to close down. A farmer unable to harvest their crops might go bankrupt. Lives would be disrupted in other ways, too. If home health aides, manicurists, and gardeners disappeared, people would have to spend more time doing these jobs themselves instead of their usual work and leisure. At least, they would have to do these jobs until the labor market could supply replacements. That might take a while. But there's another question not many economists have asked. If people you saw every day, who worked for you, who worked with you, who took care of you, were suddenly rounded up and sent to military camps, would it be okay with you? What would you do? What would you say? #labormarket #immigration #ethics [Image: Manzanar War Relocation Camp, by Dorothea Lange]

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