And Bono, to whom the late U. S. Senator John McCain gave the Council’s Humanitarian Leadership Award. The legendary — yet humble, and very funny — U2 singer spoke of many things, but what I most took away from it was how it took an artist, with very little formal education, from a neutral country (Ireland), to explain to this highly credentialed assembly of “top leaders”—how collaboration among our societies mobilizes pioneering achievements by those lent a helping hand: that is the essence of humanitarianism.

Former President Bill Clinton also talked about the need to collaborate across societies and borders; especially in times of crisis. With candor, wit and just the right mix of pride and humility, he reminded us how many of the actions for which he was now being honored he’d taken despite very low approval ratings. For instance, his decision to intervene militarily in the Balkans was savaged: only 22% of Americans approved. The lesson? True collaboration requires thinking outside the box, ensuring every stakeholder has a say, and refusing to allow Gallup polls to hold worthy goals hostage. “We live in a globally interdependent world,” he said. “Every time you cut off somebody else’s opportunities, you shrink your own horizons.” To be sure, there are many problems in the world today, but the Balkans, one of history’s bloodiest, most convulsive regions, has been quiescent (for the most part); thanks to Clinton collaborating for the greater good.

The question whether to go “all in” on such collaboration or to restrict ourselves to a narrowly-drawn identity is as vital today as it was during the crises of the 1990s. Arguably, nowhere is this issue more critical — or contentious — than in the debate surrounding immigration policy. Many nations are wrestling with this same basic issue, each according to a slightly different permutation.

In the U.S., for instance, the crux is: Will we stay true to our melting-pot roots, recognizing that our history of constant waves and tributaries of multicultural talent and culture has fueled American innovation and enterprise through every major transformation, from Bermuda-born Sybilla Masters’ corn mill in 1715 (the first patent awarded to an “American” of either gender) to Taipei-born Jensen Huang’s Nvidia? Or will we instead forget the primary driver of our success, veer off into isolationism, and deprive ourselves of the premier global talent that is essential to propel development of new technologies that bring physical, mental and spiritual health and wellness, as well as material prosperity? Elon Musk (and others) defends rolling out the welcome mat for highly-skilled foreign workers, as Uncle Sam did for him (via an “H-1B visa”). Though his language may be a bit blunt, he insists there is a “permanent shortage” of engineering talent in his adopted country. His comments hardly led to universal huzzahs. To say the least. Ironically, by far his main critics come from his supposed “allies” on the Right, not his “adversaries” on the Left.
What do his critics say? “Immigrants are stealing jobs from Americans!”

The facts say otherwise. At least “net net.” Yes, some foreign-born workers are employed “in place” of native-born U.S. citizens. But that (as an economist-academician would say) merely represents some movement “along the Supply Curve.” A “replacement effect” that also occurs whenever a new college graduate applies for a job, or a North Dakotan moves to California to seek new employment. However, a far more significant effect is how foreign-born workers “shift the Supply Curve”—out. They create far more jobs than they “steal.”

What’s more, the data show, the average wage-rate of the jobs is higher. That’s because, as noted in the IOM’s World Migration report, foreign-born employees are overrepresented in
innovation and patents, arts and science awards, and start-ups (including in the Fortune 500), all of which are especially catalytic in exponentially expanding job creation; and real wage growth (i.e., net of inflation). Furthermore, as is the case in every “First World”
country, the population growth rate of native-born U.S. citizens has slowed to a crawl. (The same is true of the UK, Germany, Japan, etc.) Most economists agree that nations with sluggish or declining population growth need immigrants; badly. For instance, recent research by the National Foundation for American Policy revealed that, starting this year (2025), immigrant workers will be the only (net) source of U.S. labor force growth. U.S. economic
growth and living standards will thus languish — absent a continued influx of immigrants.

The question is, of course, how can we prudently manage this influx? Just two variables in a complex managerial equation are security by the receiving nation (i.e., vetting), and mutual incentives (i.e., for both the immigrant, and the host nation).

As the daughter of a diplomat from Ecuador, I have first-hand personal experience in how the fruits of a prudent immigration policy can enrich the “recipient society” while opening up opportunities and channels for the incoming immigrant. I have also had the privilege of weaving in nearly 40 years as an attorney specializing in immigration law, labor mobility, and especially the movement and placement of rigorously vetted foreign-born “franchise players” into the U. S. For instance, I assisted a South Asian architect of an early version of machine learning in the field of credit security, a critical building block of our Intelligent Age.

I helped a young Israeli screenwriter and film producer obtain a Green Card, allowing him to remain in the U.S.; then had the pleasure, like hundreds of millions of others, of watching one of his several Emmy Award-winning shows — Homeland. And I’ve worked with numerous Fortune 50 companies to secure executive talent from every region of the world, boosting their (and our) brain trust; along with their market cap!

The great British economist David Ricardo is known for saying that the nations that thrive and endure are those that make optimal use of the three “Factors
of Production”— Land, Labor, and Capital. Implicit in his still-valid “Labor Theory of Value” is that humans must be mobile. (Similar to Capital.) Though in his day this meant workers needed to be able to move back and forth between Cardiff and Cornwall, these days it means they need to be able to move back and forth between Bangalore and Boston, Riyadh and Raleigh, Lisbon and Las Vegas.

If we in the “First World” refuse to recognize that our economies are symbiotically intertwined with every other nation’s economy, and that this interdependence requires collaboration with the global talent pool — all 8.2 billion of us will suffer.