Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hearing: Experts say high‑skilled immigration can bolster growth, but visa rules and backlogs risk U.S. competitiveness
Summary
Witnesses told the Joint Economic Committee that America’s slowing population growth and older age profile threaten long‑term growth and fiscal capacity and that shifting immigration toward younger, highly skilled entrants and fixing visa backlogs could raise productivity and reduce federal deficits. They warned that recent policy changes — including a $100,000 fee for some incoming H‑1Bs and uncertainty around student work programs — have already weakened recruitment and retention.
The Joint Economic Committee spent the hearing focused on how U.S. demographics and immigration policy affect long‑term economic growth and fiscal health. Chair Chairman Schwikert opened by saying the committee was building “a unified theory of economic growth” and identified population size and the skills of the workforce as a central vulnerability. Senator Hansen, in her opening, warned that the country’s research and higher‑education ecosystem is at risk and urged bipartisan fixes to immigration that preserve U.S. advantage: “For generations, the United States has been a top destination for talented students, researchers, and scientists from around the world.”
Panelists told the committee that the United States faces a consequential demographic shift: birth rates well below replacement and an expanding share of older Americans are reducing the number of working‑age people and raising entitlement spending. Dr. Luke Purdue of the Aspen Economic Strategy Group testified that U.S. fertility is near 1.6 births per woman and that an older age profile is already reducing economic dynamism; he urged complementary policies: invest in children and education, and attract and retain high‑skilled immigrants to sustain productivity.
Daniel Martino of the Manhattan Institute presented fiscal estimates tying immigrant skill composition to long‑term federal finances. He said the fiscal impact varies widely by age and education level and stated that “a 30‑year‑old immigrant with a graduate degree may reduce the national debt by more than $2.5 million over 30 years,” while lower‑skilled or older immigrants can have the opposite effect. Martino recommended shifting some visa categories toward employment‑based, high‑skill admissions and improving data collection on immigrants’ education and earnings.
Jeremy Newfeld, director of immigration policy at the Institute for Progress, focused on recruitment and retention. He cited innovation statistics — “Immigrants are 16% of our population, but they're responsible for 32% of all US innovation” — and argued that visa backlogs, recent fees and program uncertainty are eroding the pipeline. Panelists said some policy moves — notably a proclamation introducing a $100,000 fee for certain incoming H‑1Bs — have made it much harder for universities and research labs to recruit abroad, and they raised alarms about reported declines in international student applications and visa issuances.
Committee members probed tradeoffs: whether AI‑driven productivity could lower immigration needs, how to avoid clogging labor ladders when older workers delay retirement, and how to balance employer‑sponsored visas with point‑based selection. Witnesses generally agreed that AI will change skill demand but not eliminate the need for people, that increased business dynamism and targeted immigration together create opportunities for younger workers, and that portability and fixes to the permanent‑residence backlog would reduce wage‑suppression risks and unintended employer dependence. Panelists also cautioned that point systems without employer linkage can slow integration and raise unemployment among new arrivals.
The hearing record included operational details and numeric clarifications the committee discussed: witnesses and members reported a sharp fall in some overseas graduate‑program applications and large drops in F‑1 visa issuances in the prior year, described the new H‑1B fee as applying to some entrants outside the U.S., and warned the uncapped H‑1Bs used by universities and labs face recruitment disruption if the fee remains in place. Members emphasized that state and local governments can face near‑term costs for services even when federal fiscal balances improve, and witnesses noted that college‑educated immigrants tend to be net fiscal positives at state and local levels.
No formal votes or committee actions were taken during the hearing. The chair closed by saying the committee may circulate written questions and that immigration policy — particularly talent‑focused admissions and fixes to visa backlogs — is central to the panel’s long‑term fiscal and growth plans.
