Passport Privilege

In the interconnected world of 2025, the passport you hold has become a determining factor in the opportunities you have access to. Perhaps not as much as wealth, but for many this is a Catch-22; weak passports block off high income jobs, yet wealth barriers prevent immigration or naturalization. At birth, a Singaporean can visit every single country on earth they choose, while an Afghan would be allowed into a mere 26 without the complex bureaucratic process of applying for a visa. It is precisely those from the poorest, war-torn countries that find themselves trapped there, viewed by other countries as liabilities or security threats. Or to quote Trump, “they’re poisoning the blood of our country.” This quote itself is nonsensical considering how much of the US is built on the contributions of immigrants, including Albert Einstein, Alexander Graham Bell, Nikola Tesla, and all the other foreign researchers who constitute 40 percent of the US’s Nobel prizes. However, the motivation behind this attack is worth researching—do immigrants threaten American workers at all, in the various areas they may be competing? Is an even more restrictive visa policy really beneficial for the US?

First of all, the economic contributions of immigrants are undeniable. Being 80 percent more likely than native citizens to start businesses and create jobs, immigrants are responsible for 17% of US GDP (while making up 14% of its population) and some of its most successful companies, including Google, Ebay, and Tesla. Naturally, this also means they contribute above average amounts to income taxes. Even undocumented immigrants, who largely occupy low wage jobs, contribute $8889 in taxes annually while being excluded from many social services (social security, medicaid) and tax benefits. Looking at their wider economic contributions aside from financing the government, research shows that immigration is beneficial to employment and wage growth of natives in the long term, contrary to common belief. This is in part due to the disproportionate contribution of immigrants to innovation, a crucial engine of economic growth. More than a quarter of innovation in the US can be attributed to immigrants, taking into consideration their number and value of patents, with massive spillover effects into the rest of the economy.

Despite the benefits of immigration, some effects are inevitable with a growth in population, with a primary issue being housing affordability. Housing prices can be a double edged sword, however; a growth in real estate prices also grows the wealth of citizens who already own property, although it does disadvantage younger generations who do not. An argument can be made that immigrants from poorer countries bring lower productivity to the US, but this effect is canceled out by assimilation, with research finding that inefficiencies would only arise at levels of immigration far higher than today’s.The US visa system today appears to overemphasize the damages of immigration, with even the H1B visa for highly educated workers—who cannot possibly be detrimental to the US fiscal status—being capped at 85000, a fraction of its massive and growing demand. As a visa applicant, foreigners could face one-in-nine odds of acceptance despite qualifications (for the H1B visa) and processing delays which can stretch over multiple years, not to mention the 60 day buffer upon losing employment which essentially chains visa holders to their job with little negotiating power. However, this painful process remains the only realistic way of entering the US, with other visas requiring either extraordinary achievement or at least one million in investment. With little freedom in the job market, innovation is stifled until green card applications are passed. For Indians, applicants from 2012 are just now receiving their green cards, and with the exponential growth in recent years the backlog in 2030 is expected to take 195 years to clear—a wait nearly equivalent to all of US history. Each country is allocated at most 7% of all visas in a year; it doesn’t matter if India and China compose more than 17% of the world population each. For citizens of countries with the longest lines, most will die before receiving their green card.

All these restrictions come despite the fact that immigration of workers only serves to weaken their countries of origin—brain drain for the highly skilled, contraction of the labor force for those less so—in exchange for a long term gain to the US. From a nationalistic or individualistic perspective, it is beneficial to America and its immigrants. This is clear just from looking at our own school, as the vast majority of students prioritize elite US colleges when considering future choices. As the distribution of student visas comes under question by the current US administration, and my friends who hold Chinese citizenship wonder only half jokingly if they will be able to enter the US next year, it is clear that the question of passport privilege is becoming increasingly relevant. This shouldn’t be much of a question at all, given how decreasing passport inequality and facilitating immigration is beneficial for both natives and immigrants. Even the source countries, who temporarily or permanently lose the resources invested in education and other public services for said immigrants, aren’t complaining; remittances and the circulation of some experienced emigrants back to their source countries can minimize or offset the losses. Nevertheless, immigration remains a heated topic of debate not only in America but also increasingly in Europe, coinciding with the rise of rightwing parties (AfD, RN, etc.). Only by accepting that immigrants aren’t behind everything from violent crime to unemployment can focus be placed on comparing the scale of genuine issues—like short term inequality in how effects are distributed, cultural impact, or overcapacity—-and benefits. Sadly, it doesn’t seem like this will be the case anytime soon.