Recently, Dmitry Shevelenko, the Chief Business Officer of Perplexity AI, expressed his gratitude towards Arav Srinivas, an Indian immigrant entrepreneur, for his remarkable contribution to the U.S. economy. Srinivas, through his American-founded company, has created over 100 jobs, a testament to the critical role skilled immigrants play in driving innovation and economic growth.
This acknowledgment comes amid an ongoing debate over skilled immigration in the U.S., a polarizing issue that affects policymakers, industries, and communities. Supporters of skilled immigration argue that individuals like Srinivas are prime examples of why such policies are essential. Critics of anti-skilled immigration rhetoric often cite statistics and real-world examples that show how immigrants create jobs rather than take them, refuting common misconceptions.
The U.S. has long benefited from the contributions of immigrants. From building railroads in the 19th century to leading tech innovation in the 21st, skilled workers have consistently driven growth and competitiveness. Today, immigrants account for a significant share of entrepreneurs, particularly in the tech sector. According to the National Foundation for American Policy, more than half of U.S.-based startups valued at $1 billion or more were founded by immigrants.
Despite his contributions, Arav Srinivas remains on a visa, emblematic of the challenges many skilled immigrants face. The U.S. immigration system, with its backlogs and outdated quotas, often leaves individuals in prolonged uncertainty. This system disproportionately affects immigrants from countries like India, which faces some of the longest green card backlogs due to per-country caps.
One poignant critique highlighted in this discussion is the perceived inequity of the system. Many observers note the irony of newer graduates, often with less industry impact, receiving permanent residency ahead of individuals like Srinivas. This situation underscores calls for a merit-based system that rewards economic contributions and job creation.
The debate over skilled immigration extends beyond individual cases. It raises broader questions about the U.S.’s ability to attract and retain global talent. As countries like Canada and Australia implement immigration policies designed to lure skilled workers, the U.S. risks losing its competitive edge if it cannot address systemic inefficiencies.
Moreover, Srinivas’s story highlights the ripple effect of skilled immigrants on the economy. By creating over 100 jobs, he has not only contributed to individual livelihoods but also strengthened local economies and communities. Critics of restrictive immigration policies argue that such contributions challenge the notion that immigrants take jobs from native-born workers. Instead, they often create new opportunities and drive industry growth.
The conversation surrounding Arav Srinivas and skilled immigration points to a need for reform. Advocates argue for increasing green card quotas, eliminating country-based caps, and expediting processing times for high-skilled workers. Such reforms, they contend, would not only address fairness but also ensure the U.S. remains a hub for innovation and entrepreneurship.