Dennis Nixon, the longtime chief executive of International Bank of Commerce, has strongly criticized a proposal by the U.S. government to charge employers sponsoring H-1B visas a fee of $100,000, cautioning that such a move will make the country less competitive, reduce access to high-skilled individuals, and thereby slow down economic growth. His comments come as a heated national debate rages on how the U.S. should regulate immigration for skilled workers while balancing domestic employment with global competitiveness.

Speaking at a recent industry event, Nixon underscored that the H-1B program has long played a vital role in building America’s technology and innovation ecosystem. He reasoned that the proposed fee—purported to discourage companies from relying too heavily on foreign labor by some policymakers—will have “the opposite effect,” placing U.S. employers, especially small and medium-sized firms, at a severe disadvantage.

The U.S. economy cannot do without such skilled immigrants, who bring in technical know-how, scientific expertise, and a deep understanding of the global market, said Nixon. “H-1B workers don’t just fill seats-they drive innovation,” he said. “The idea that American workers are losing jobs to them is a misconception. In reality, they complement our workforce and help create more opportunities.”

Nixon added that the proposed $100,000 fee might be within the reach of deep-pocketed companies, such as high-tech giants in Silicon Valley, but was far out of the reach of small businesses, startups, and regional ones relying on foreign talent to operate or expand. “This policy would not level the playing field,” he said. “It would tilt it even further in favor of big corporations while killing opportunities for everyone else.”

His remarks reflect similar fears by several economists who argue that such drastic increase in the cost of hiring H-1B workers would drive companies to leave operations abroad, where talent is more accessible and available at lower costs. Others say that already, the U.S. faces shortages of workers in key industries such as cybersecurity, engineering, data science, and healthcare, which cannot be replaced anytime soon by mere domestic training.

The Nixon administration also emphasized the unique skill sets offered by the immigrant workforce: many bring expertise related to emerging technologies, multilingual capabilities, and cross-cultural competencies that help American companies compete in global markets. Many eventually start businesses themselves, he said, creating companies that in turn employ people and spur new economic growth.

Proponents have pitched the proposed fee as a means to prevent perceived abuses of the H-1B system and ensure that U.S. companies prioritize American workers. However, Nixon said the proposal misunderstands how the program works in reality. “The H-1B process is already expensive and highly regulated,” he said. “Adding a $100,000 surcharge won’t make companies hire more Americans-it will simply make the United States a less attractive destination for global talent.”

He further warned that the fee stands to worsen the country’s decline in STEM leadership, noting that other nations–including Canada, the U.K., and Singapore–are more aggressively recruiting foreign workers with simplified pathways and incentives. “If we make it harder to bring talent here, those individuals will go somewhere else. They’re not going to wait for us.”

Apart from economic implications, Nixon pointed out the cultural and community contributions of immigrant workers to the growing international populations of such cities. He drew attention to immigrants’ often enriching local economies and serving as a bridge between U.S. communities and global markets.

Industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and major tech associations have sided openly with Nixon’s interpretation. They say the fee would chill innovation-driven sectors, as well as reduce further the numbers of international students transitioning into the U.S. workforce. As the proposal remains contentious in Washington, Nixon’s comments represent unusually sharp criticism from the banking industry—a sector not often outspoken on immigration policy. His view illustrates how interrelated the issues of immigration policy, business development, and national competitiveness have become. The Biden administration has yet to signal whether it will support or reject the proposal, but business leaders like Nixon warn that the stakes are high. “If we shut the door on global talent,” he said, “we shut the door on America’s future.”