As mentioned in the prior post, the term “Brain Drain” was first coined by the British Royal Society in the 1950s. By the 1980s, the phrase was used as we now typically understand it: to describe the flight of highly skilled workers from one area to another. Traditionally, it has referred to educated and skilled workers leaving behind their native nations and heading for the developed nations of the U.S. and Europe.
It was largely accidental that the developing world’s brain drain became the developed world’s brain gain. This had been not been the intention when study abroad programs were put into place. Thus, by the 1980s, developed nations like the United States had begun to institute laws and sign international agreements that either limited the number of visas available to skilled foreign workers, or required foreign students to return to their home nation for a set amount of time before living in the U.S. again. Such restrictions were seen as doing the right thing, so that big, developed economies would not pilfer the skilled workers who were in short supply and so desperately needed by poorer nations.
Here in the 21st century, however, the issue has become more controversial. Why? Because some national economies that were once several steps behind have developed substantially over the last two decades. 
Specifically, the world’s two largest nations, China and India, have begun to compete openly with United States and Europe, particularly in manufacturing, but increasingly in technology as well. While some observers have continued to warn about the damage that brain drain causes to developing nations, others have called for a reversal of brain drain restrictions. These new critics point to the important role immigration has played in U.S. economic development in the past, and maintain that it must absorb the world’s best workers today so that it can remain atop an ever-changing and increasingly competitive global economy.
With a population of over 300 million, the issue of course is not a shortage of Americans. Rather, it is that American society does an abysmal job of educating and training the majority of its citizens. The result is that the United States has for some time been unable on its own to produce enough scientists and engineers to fill the ranks required by American businesses. Foreign born workers cover the difference, making up a substantial portion of these and other highly skilled technical workers.
The ripple effect from this has been felt throughout the American economy. One example is the absolutely pivotal role immigrants have played in the explosive rise of American tech businesses over the last twenty years. A quarter of all American engineering and technology firms established between 1995-2005 had at least one key immigrant founder or co-founder. Perhaps as much as half of Silicon Valley firms were either founded or co-founded by immigrants, including some of the biggest and most important, such as Google (Sergey 
Brin), Intel (Andrew Grove), Sun Microsystems (Vinod Khosla and Andy Bechtolsheim), and Yahoo (Jerry Yang).
Since the 1990s, social and cultural conservatives have often dominated the debate over immigration policy with their vocal opposition. The attention-grabbing activities of groups like The Minute Men or individuals like notorious Maricopa County (Phoenix, AZ) Sheriff Joe Arpaio tend to focus the national debate on illegal immigrants, who are often poor blue collar workers. However, a large percentage of America’s immigrants actually hold highly skilled professional positions. This is particularly true in most major American cities where the majority of immigrants are white collar workers.
So perhaps it is not a coincidence that important policy measures have often been set by a quiet coalition of business leaders and economic conservatives on one side, and social and cultural liberals on the other. The former want to see an American brain gain of highly skilled workers and business leaders, while the latter are ideologically predisposed to support immigration. Together, they have worked to expand the roles of skilled workers through the H-1B visa program, which is classified as a non-immigrant visa.
Congress currently allots 65,000 H-1B visas per year. The visas have a three year limit and are renewable to six years total (ten for Defense Department workers). As a result there are about 400,000 H-1B temporary immigrants in America at any one time. These workers find themselves in a tenuous position. They are allowed to apply for permanent immigration status while holding an H-1B, but the system is very slow, and there are no guarantees. Consequently, many are reluctant to put down roots, and opt instead to return to 
their home countries.
The economic and political implications of the brain drain/gain debate often take center stage. To what degree should the United States liberalize its immigration policy in an effort to boost its economy? And to that end, is there a graceful way for U.S. immigration policy to be “choosy” by favoring highly skilled workers?
There are also important social and cultural considerations rumbling just beneath the surface, for the debate about immigration says as much about the people who are already here as it does about those who want to join them. Some of the questions lurking in the shadows are a bit pointed and even disconcerting.
What does the stereotyping of immigrants as poor and uneducated, despite data to the contrary, say about American culture?
What does the inability of our nation to produce anywhere near enough of its own skilled workers say about the failures of society?
And what does all of this say about the widening gaps in America’s social and economic classes?
The questions are hard. The answers are perhaps harder.