In a commentary published by The National Law Review, Attorney David A. Keller, founding attorney of Keller Law Group, LLC, argues that the United States is competing in a global war for talent — and that the immigration conversation is often framed too narrowly to address it.

Keller’s central point is that the country’s system was built on an assumption that no longer holds: that talented people need access to the United States more than American businesses need access to them.

“America remains an enormously attractive destination, yet we can no longer assume that the world’s best people will always choose us simply because we are America,” Keller writes.

Scientists, engineers, physicians, researchers, entrepreneurs, and technology professionals now have more choices about where they build their careers and their lives. As Keller notes, global talent can increasingly choose Europe, Singapore, China, Canada, Australia, and other markets that are actively competing for highly skilled people.

That shift, in his view, changes the balance that has shaped U.S. immigration policy for decades — and it means American employers can no longer treat access to international talent as a given.

Keller points to federal labor projections to illustrate how much specialized expertise the U.S. economy will need. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects 5.2 million additional jobs between 2024 and 2034, with healthcare and social assistance accounting for nearly 2 million of them.

Computer and mathematical occupations are projected to grow 10.1%, adding 545,600 jobs, while data scientists and information security analysts are expected to grow 33.5% and 28.5%, respectively. Five of the 15 fastest-growing occupations fall within computer and mathematics, reflecting rising demand for IT and AI-based systems.

These are precisely the areas, Keller writes, where specialized expertise can determine whether an organization grows or falls behind.

Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that immigrants who came to the United States at age 20 or older represented just 16% of U.S.-based inventors between 1990 and 2016, yet produced 23% of U.S. patents. Once their collaborations with U.S.-born inventors were accounted for, their direct and indirect contribution reached 36% of U.S. patent output.

“A laboratory without researchers is simply real estate. A technology company without engineers is simply a corporate entity,” Keller writes. “People create the knowledge, products, companies, and innovations that produce economic growth.”

The Congressional Budget Office offers another measure of the stakes. CBO projects that the immigration surge between 2021 and 2026 would add $8.9 trillion to nominal U.S. GDP over the 2024–2034 period. By 2034, real GDP would be 2.9% higher than it would have been without the surge, while total wages paid would be roughly 3% higher. The surge is also projected to increase federal revenues by $1.2 trillion and reduce federal deficits by $0.9 trillion over the decade.

One of Keller’s most practical observations is that too many companies think only of the H-1B category. It remains an important part of the system, he writes, but it is not the only tool available.

Depending on the individual and the circumstances, an O-1 may provide a pathway for someone with extraordinary ability. An EB-1A can provide a green card pathway for individuals who demonstrate extraordinary ability and can be self-petitioned without a labor certification. An EB-2 National Interest Waiver can also provide a route toward permanent residence when the individual’s proposed endeavor satisfies the applicable national-interest criteria.

Each category carries different eligibility standards, evidence requirements, and strategic considerations — which is why Keller argues businesses need to understand them before a crisis occurs.

Keller’s recommendation is that immigration planning become part of workforce planning. When a company identifies an exceptional international employee, it should ask much earlier what immigration strategy could allow that person to build a long-term future in the United States — a conversation that can sit alongside compensation, equity, benefits, and professional development.

There is also a human cost to waiting. Keller describes an H-1B employee who has spent years building a life in the United States, with children in American schools and a family with a home and a community, only for a restructuring to eliminate their position. In certain circumstances, workers can have a 60-day grace period after employment ends, creating an extremely narrow window to find another qualifying arrangement or otherwise address their status.

“That is an enormous amount of uncertainty to place on a family because a company failed to plan earlier,” Keller writes.

He also notes an irony: some employment-based filings can move quickly when premium processing is available. USCIS currently lists 15-day premium processing for O petitions and EB-1 extraordinary ability, and 45-day processing for EB-2 National Interest Waiver petitions after applicable prerequisites are met. Speed, however, does not eliminate the need for preparation — evidence, strategy, and eligibility must be developed before the deadline becomes urgent.

When businesses approach immigration only after something goes wrong, Keller writes, options can be narrower, timelines can be unforgiving, and the consequences can extend far beyond one employee.

Losing exceptional talent affects the teams around that person. It can interrupt research, slow product development, weaken institutional knowledge, and force businesses to spend money rebuilding expertise they already had.

The impact reaches the surrounding community as well. A skilled worker rents or buys housing, spends money locally, raises children, participates in community life, and potentially creates opportunities for others. When that person leaves, those possibilities leave too.

Keller believes the path forward starts with employers understanding what is actually possible. One business learns what options exist, uses immigration strategically, and sees the value. Competitors take notice. Other employers begin asking better questions. Local communities see the benefits, and that knowledge spreads across industries.

American competitiveness, he argues, cannot be left entirely to Congress or immigration agencies. Businesses have a role in identifying talent, planning for it, and creating realistic pathways for exceptional people to live, work, and thrive here.

“If we want America to remain the place where the world’s most ambitious people build the future, we have to compete for them deliberately,” Keller writes. “Talent is infrastructure. Protecting and attracting it is an economic strategy.”

For consultations or press inquiries, contact Keller Law Group, LLC at www.kellerimmigration.com.