Why not just stay and bring their gifts to their own country?
Or, there's risk to being in their home country where academic freedom might not really be a thing.
it's like why if you show serious promise in soccer at a young age, you go to Europe as soon as you can - you will be better developed there in a more mature environment as opposed to, say, the USA where you can only get decent coaching in a few major cities, and even then the gulf between the coaching at a top Spanish or English club versus an American one is huge. Or if you show promise in tennis at a young age, you get your ass to Florida as soon as you are able to.
Also, smarts needed to bootstrap modern infrastructure from scratch with limited resources are different than smarts needed to design a popular app, for example.
Americans built modern infrastructure with our limited 'average' brains.
Should be simple for actual smart people.
Having worked with everyone over the course of my life from PhDs to construction workers, I'm going to have to hard disagree on this one. Just because someone is gifted in one area, does not mean their intelligence or domain expertise applies everywhere. Domain expertise is a real thing.
It's about maximizing your potential, and being in the best environment to do so. Building up that capacity might sound nice in theory, but in practice, you go where you can to get the best results possible.
They just happened to all be super smart at coding Java?
Operation Dropshot and Unthinkable called for hundreds of nukes and conventional bombs to be dropped on Soviet cities to, "to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire."
All in all, I don't even have a dog in the fight, but people like Qian Xuesen won't become retarded if they're expelled from the US. If I remember correctly, something like a third of all top-tier AI researchers are Chinese. If you count all those with an immigration background, they'll be close to 50-70%. They will simply create companies and products that compete and take market share from American companies.
Are Americans - the country that votes out presidents for rising gas prices - willing to make do with a lower standard of living? Because that'd what you'll get when some the world's best innovators are no longer based in your country.
Trade and innovation benefits all of mankind. A rising tide lifts all ships. Having multiple countries becoming successful instead of the US simply monopolizing talent would benefit the world.
> Glad Qian Xuesen helped China improve their missile innovation.
Nuclear Deterrence should be spread far and wide so no one bad actor can get into power and bully others.
In particular, it is a marginal detriment to the US. That’s why my original comment said this loss is a shame for USA.
Which is indeed a benefit for their countries.
And is a loss for the US.
The brain drain was real and the US was the beneficiary and that may be ending soon.
Not sure what your point is? Are you happy that the US will be worse off than it was before?
Now, America wants to reduce its debt and curb industrial powers like the EU, Japan, China, etc. but it doesn't want to give up its exorbitant privilege that got it into the debt whole in the first place.
You can't have it both ways.
It could be a result of numerous causes.
My point still stands.
Now, if you want to limit non-European immigration, it's a personal opinion and you have a right to it, but you can't make a blanket statement that, "everything worked better," or misinterpret data to say what you want.
Don't pretend you're being data-driven when you've made up your mind and now you're trying to torture the data into saying what you want.
What metrics are you measuring by?
So, while it seemed like you were trying to argue logically, it appears your argument is: I don't like non-Europeans. And you're trying to massage the data into showing your opinion is data-driven because it can't stand on its own merit.
But, feel free to change my mind with more data.