I would argue that immigration as a solution to economic growth is a zero sum game, and we need to look at different answers.
Gifted, driven, talented entrepreneurs tend to succeed wherever they end up, but there is a finite natural supply.
What Western nations should concentrate on is growing and exploiting their not-quite-natural-born entrepreneurs. yC seems to be quite good at this but a wider government policy is the most likely way to see sustained growth - not inviting the cream of Indias crop to nip over and pay taxes for twenty years. Delhi is not stupid, and there will be a race to the bottom.
I agree with your broader point, but if the United States has a comparative advantage in entrepreneurship, it's not actually zero-sum.
That is, if the American legal system, venture funding, etc., combine to offer a foreign entrepreneur a better likelihood of building a successful company there than in her home country—and there's some evidence that that's often the case—then letting her emigrate to the United States should be a net gain for the global economy.
True, but for every non-us company that creates broad democratic institutions and enforceable contracts, then that countries comparative disadvantage shrinks, probably towards a meaningless point.
Look at India - democratic, enforceable contracts, and vast internal Market. Sound familiar?
Go to New Mexico, or southern California you will find tired, poor huddled masses.
Gifted, driven, talented entrepreneurs tend to succeed wherever they end up, but there is a finite natural supply.
What Western nations should concentrate on is growing and exploiting their not-quite-natural-born entrepreneurs. yC seems to be quite good at this but a wider government policy is the most likely way to see sustained growth - not inviting the cream of Indias crop to nip over and pay taxes for twenty years. Delhi is not stupid, and there will be a race to the bottom.