President Donald Trump has moved decisively to eradicate “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” initiatives in the federal government and private sector. His actions are a great step forward, but one area of federal policy has been spared his efforts so far—U.S. immigration policy remains infused with DEI principles. Trump has a historic opportunity to fix this problem and put America first.
Today’s immigration system prioritizes diversity and inclusion over merit and skill. About 1 million new permanent residents arrive annually, according to the Department of Homeland Security. That number includes roughly 140,000 older parents of previous migrants coming through chain migration. The current system also randomly selects 55,000 people from “underrepresented” countries and gives them green cards.
These relatively unskilled and older immigrants are admitted immediately, while highly skilled immigrants can wait decades for green cards, even after paying more than $100,000 in taxes as temporary workers. Even a Nobel prizewinner from India, who would qualify for the so-called Einstein visa reserved for the highest-skilled workers (EB-1), cannot obtain a green card without waiting for more than a decade.
A rational conservative immigration system would eliminate all DEI from immigration. It would redirect the 55,000 “diversity” visas to the highly skilled categories. It would stop granting green cards to older relatives and other entitlement recipients. It would select immigrants based on their English proficiency, ties to America, education, and job offers.
President Trump’s instincts on this issue are generally correct. “We need smart people, and we need a lot of people,” he has said. Polls confirm broad support for Trump’s position on high-skilled immigration, with about three quarters of Americans supporting expanding it.
Some on the right disagree, however. During the presidential transition, these immigration skeptics came after the H-1B visa program, which brings 85,000 college-educated workers to the U.S. annually. The critics argue that it displaces American workers and depresses wages. The debate took a toxic turn when social media exploded with vitriol against Indian Americans and DOGE leader Vivek Ramaswamy criticized Americans’ work ethic.
Trump settled the debate, to some degree, by repeatedly endorsing the H-1B program, saying that America needs “very competent people coming into our country.” But conservatives must reach a consensus on what principles would make an ideal immigration system. Otherwise, the Left will ensure that the status quo remains in place.
The ideal immigration system should look more like the H-1B program, not less. If all immigrants had the characteristics of those on H-1B visas, America would be much better off. New arrivals would all speak English, earn a median salary of approximately $120,000 plus benefits, commit little to no crime, and have few to no children out of wedlock. According to the American Community Survey, 82 percent of college-educated non-citizen Indian nationals between the ages of 25 and 54 were married, while just 51 percent of similar native-born Americans—and 60 percent of native-born college-educated Americans—are married. These immigrants are exactly the kinds of people conservatives should want the U.S. to admit.
Some H-1B visa critics correctly note that a nation is not an economic zone. They are right. The United States is a credal nation, and immigration policy should reflect this fact. That’s why some of America’s first immigration restrictions were moral, not just economic—prohibiting prostitutes, polygamists, Communists, and anarchists from immigrating here. Today, that criterion means expanding restrictions such that, no matter how highly skilled they are, supporters of terrorism or foreign authoritarian regimes are not welcome, as President Trump has made clear.
The characteristics that make immigrants more of an economic asset also make them more culturally desirable: English proficiency, youth, education, intermarriage with native residents, and lawful behavior. In research for the Manhattan Institute, I found that the average college-educated immigrant is expected to reduce the budget deficit by more than $300,000 over his lifetime, and the average H-1B visa holder will reduce the deficit by more than $800,000. The average non-college-educated immigrant does the opposite, growing the deficit by about $300,000. Thus, it is desirable for both cultural and economic reasons to expand high-skilled immigration and restrict low-skilled immigration.
Many H-1B critics also argue that adding more high-skilled workers lowers wages. But if wages were determined by the number of workers, then population decline would help the average worker; it does not. Instead, areas experiencing depopulation enter a vicious cycle of decline. We see this throughout rural America, as fertility keeps dropping and people keep fleeing.
What does determine wages is the relative supply of labor by skill. If we have more doctors and engineers, they will need more services from farmers and construction workers, leading to faster wage growth among less-educated occupations. In other words, highly skilled immigrants benefit the poorest Americans, in addition to boosting innovation and productivity and thus average wages for all.
Moving the immigration system away from DEI is not only about improving the economy but also about reestablishing a culture of merit. An immigration system based not on distant family ties and instead on education, jobs, and language would encourage prospective immigrants to strive to become American because they can meet these standards. Such an immigration system would reaffirm the United States as a nation where skills and work ethic define your potential for success—not your country of origin or the randomness of a diversity lottery.
Photo by Joseph Prezioso / AFP via Getty Images