The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan and Cortina are serving as a stark reminder of a complex economic reality: the benefits of immigration, even – and perhaps especially – when it comes to national competitiveness in fields like sports and science. The games, traditionally viewed as a measure of national vitality, are prompting a re-evaluation of policies that might inadvertently stifle the influx of talent, a point underscored by a recent, albeit brief, acknowledgement from US Vice President JD Vance.
Vance’s comment, reported on February 20, 2026, centered on Eileen Gu, the US-born skier who competes for China. His expressed frustration that Gu wasn’t representing the United States, while politically charged, inadvertently highlighted the value of attracting and retaining skilled immigrants. This sentiment, coming from a prominent figure often associated with more restrictive immigration policies, signals a growing awareness of the economic implications of limiting access to global talent.
The broader issue, as articulated by Northwestern University economist Nancy Qian, is that turning away talent doesn’t eliminate it; it simply redirects it. Qian, the James J. O’Connor Professor at the Kellogg School of Management, argues that a closed-door approach to immigration ultimately diminishes a nation’s ability to compete on the world stage, whether in athletic arenas or research laboratories. Her work focuses on the interplay between economics, geography, demography, politics, and culture, and she currently is writing a book, “Inglorious Nations: The Rise, Fall and Reinvention of Large Civilizations,” expected in 2027.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. History provides ample evidence of the economic costs associated with immigration crackdowns. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, for example, represents a significant early instance of the United States restricting immigration with detrimental consequences. As detailed in a November 26, 2024 NPR report, the Act followed the completion of the transcontinental railroad, a monumental project heavily reliant on Chinese labor. The subsequent expulsion and restriction of Chinese workers had a demonstrable impact on the American economy.
The railroad’s construction, completed in 1869, vividly illustrates the economic contribution of immigrant labor. The Chinese workers undertook the most dangerous and difficult sections of the project, facing harsh conditions and discrimination. Their expertise and willingness to work under challenging circumstances were crucial to the railroad’s success. The NPR report highlights the irony that a nation benefiting immensely from immigrant labor then turned against those same workers, enacting policies that ultimately harmed its own economic interests.
The parallels between the 19th-century experience and contemporary debates are striking. The current discussion surrounding immigration often focuses on perceived costs – strain on social services, competition for jobs – while overlooking the substantial economic benefits. Qian’s research suggests that the benefits consistently outweigh the costs, a conclusion supported by historical analysis. The loss of skilled workers, innovators, and entrepreneurs due to restrictive immigration policies represents a significant opportunity cost.
The implications extend beyond the Olympics and athletic achievement. The ability to attract and retain top talent is critical for maintaining a competitive edge in key industries, including technology, healthcare, and finance. A shrinking pool of skilled workers can stifle innovation, reduce productivity, and ultimately hinder economic growth. The United States, historically a magnet for global talent, risks losing its position as a global leader if it continues to pursue policies that discourage immigration.
The situation is further complicated by geopolitical factors. As Qian points out in a recent Project Syndicate commentary published February 5, 2026, the United States is not operating in a vacuum. Other countries, including China and Russia, are actively seeking to attract skilled workers and expand their influence. These nations recognize the importance of talent acquisition and are willing to invest in policies that facilitate it. The United States’ reluctance to embrace a similar approach could lead to a brain drain, with talented individuals choosing to pursue opportunities elsewhere.
The case of Eileen Gu serves as a potent symbol of this dynamic. Her decision to compete for China, despite being born and raised in the United States, underscores the appeal of alternative opportunities. While Vance’s criticism may have been rooted in national pride, it inadvertently highlighted the need for the United States to create a more welcoming environment for talented individuals, regardless of their background or origin. The economic stakes are high, and the future of American competitiveness may depend on a willingness to embrace the benefits of immigration.
The challenge for policymakers is to strike a balance between legitimate concerns about border security and the economic imperative of attracting skilled workers. This requires a nuanced approach that recognizes the value of immigration and addresses the underlying factors that contribute to anti-immigrant sentiment. Ignoring the economic realities, as history demonstrates, carries significant risks. The “goose that lays the gold medal,” as Qian aptly puts it, needs to be carefully protected.
