The Olympic Games have always been about more than sports, with the medal count serving as a measure of national vitality. This year’s Winter Games in Milan and Cortina are no different. The Americans, like everyone else, want confirmation of their pre-eminence. So important is that outcome that even US Vice President J.D. Vance briefly acknowledged the value of non-white immigration to the US, when he complained that Eileen Gu (谷愛凌), the US-born medal-winning skier for China, should be competing under the US flag.
However, the medal table is just one scoreboard. Beyond the ice rink and the slopes is a much larger and more consequential contest for excellence, namely in scientific leadership, technological supremacy and geopolitical influence. Here, too, China is most portrayed as the US’ nemesis, with the future of each at stake. Here, too, there is a question about what role immigrants — like Gu’s Chinese mother — should play.
Although immigrants bring talent and ambition, they also might compete for jobs or disseminate US-acquired knowledge abroad. Owing to these concerns, the US has tightened its immigration policies in the past few years, even restricting highly skilled professionals.
Such measures reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of how countries compete for global pre-eminence — and the Olympics reveal why. Consider figure skating, one of the most visible winter sports. For decades, the US has crowded the podium with the children of immigrants: Michelle Kwan (關穎珊, silver, 1998; bronze, 2002), Sasha Cohen (silver, 2006), Mirai Nagasu (bronze, 2018, team), Nathan Chen (陳巍, gold, 2022), and, this year, Ilia Malinin (gold, team) and Alysa Liu (劉美賢, gold).
The same is true in other sports. For example, the speed skater Apolo Ohno (gold, 2002, 2006; eight medals total) has a Japanese-born father, and snowboarder Chloe Kim (gold, 2018; gold, 2022; silver, 2026) is the daughter of South Korean immigrants.
The list grows longer still if one includes champions descended from earlier waves of migration, such as Polish-American Tara Lipinski (gold, 1998) and Japanese-American Kristi Yamaguchi (gold, 1992). Time and again, the US’ strength on ice and snow has been built by families whose journeys began elsewhere.
The analogy to science is hard to miss. About 1.2 million international students study in the US each year — accounting for about 6 percent of total higher-education enrollment — and they are concentrated in STEM and quantitative fields.
For example, foreign nationals account for 82 percent of full-time graduate students in petroleum engineering, 74 percent in electrical engineering, 72 percent in computer and information sciences, 71 percent in industrial and manufacturing engineering, 70 percent in statistics, 67 percent in economics, 61 percent in civil engineering, 58 percent in mechanical engineering and agricultural economics, 56 percent in mathematics, 54 percent in chemical engineering, 53 percent in metallurgical and materials engineering, 52 percent in materials sciences, and 50 percent in pharmaceutical sciences.
Immigrants and their children also make up a disproportionate share of the US’ engineers, company founders and patent holders. Some see this as a source of US strength, whereas critics warn of leakage. In reality, talent flows both ways.
For example, among Olympians, the figure skater Deanna Stellato-Dudek was born and trained in the US, but now competes for Canada. More controversially, China reportedly allocated substantial state funding to recruit US-trained athletes such as Gu (who has won five Olympic medals for her sponsor) and Zhu Yi (朱易) before the 2022 Beijing Games.
It is not surprising that such moves fuel anxiety in the US, but a sense of perspective is in order. The US won 25 medals at the Beijing Olympics in 2022, compared with China’s 15, and the gap was even wider this year, with the US winning 33 medals and China again taking home 15. Evidently, the benefits of attracting foreign talent outweigh the costs.
The same lesson holds in science, where the US has been the world’s leading source of Nobel laureates. US institutions have captured about 40 percent of science Nobels since 1945, and more than half of economics Nobels since 1969. The US’ prize-winning edge has been deeply intertwined with immigration. About 40 percent of US-affiliated Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine have been foreign-born.
Many of the private-sector architects of the US’ most important strategic technologies were also born abroad. Sergey Brin, born in the Soviet Union, cofounded Google. Elon Musk, born in South Africa, built Tesla and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. Jensen Huang (黃仁勳), born in Taiwan, cofounded Nvidia. Eric Yuan (袁征), born in China, founded Zoom.
This is not new. Immigrants have fueled the US’ rise on the global stage since before World War II. Albert Einstein fled to the US in the 1930s. John von Neumann, born in Hungary, designed the architecture that underlies modern computing. Wernher von Braun, born in Germany and once an engineer for the Nazis, later became the chief architect of the Saturn V rocket that carried Americans to the moon.
The US has repeatedly turned foreign-born talent — even from rival powers — into engines of national strength.
To see why isolation is harmful, ask a simple question: What if the US had closed its doors to these brilliant minds? Would they have stopped thinking, inventing and striving? Of course not, just as Ohno and Kwan would not have stopped skating. If the US turns talent away, talent would not vanish; it would relocate, and another country would claim the medals and the breakthroughs.
In the past year, the number of international graduate students studying in the US declined by 12 percent. If the trend continues, it would undermine the US’ scientific competitiveness. International rivalry — whether on the ice rink or in the laboratory — is a competition for talent and it cannot be achieved by hiding from the world. It requires creating the most compelling environment for talent to gather, develop and remain.
If the US wants to win the race for science, it must pair the best from abroad with the best at home, and offer not just opportunity but also a country where the best want to be.
Nancy Qian, professor of economics at Northwestern University, is codirector of the university’s Global Poverty Research Lab, founding director of the China Econ Lab and a visiting professor at the Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
An article published in the Dec. 12, 1949, edition of the Central Daily News (中央日報) bore a headline with the intimidating phrase: “You Cannot Escape.” The article was about the execution of seven “communist spies,” some say on the basis of forced confessions, at the end of the 713 Penghu Incident. Those were different times, born of political paranoia shortly after the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) relocated to Taiwan following defeat in China by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The phrase was a warning by the KMT regime to the local populace not to challenge its power or threaten national unity. The
Philippine Coast Guard spokesman Jay Tarriela on March 1 was promoted from commodore to rear admiral from Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The promotion is a striking testament to how Beijing’s intimidation tactics on its current main target in the South China Sea have backfired. It is also yet another example that Taiwan can look to when it comes to responding to Chinese scare campaigns. Tarriela has been consistent in his approach since Manila launched its transparency initiative in early 2023 to counter Chinese “gray zone” tactics around its western waters. As the face of the West Philippine Sea Transparency Office,
The Iran war has exposed a fundamental vulnerability in the global energy system. The escalating confrontation between Iran, Israel and the US has begun to shake international energy markets, largely because Iran is disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. This narrow waterway carries roughly one-third of the world’s seaborne oil, making it one of the most strategically sensitive energy corridors in the world. Even the possibility of disruption has triggered sharp volatility in global oil prices. The duration and scope of the conflict remain uncertain, with senior US officials offering contradictory signals about how long military operations might continue.
RSS