Also, it is an undeniable fact that the US and the Western world in general were in no small part the causes, or certainly exacerbating factors, of these disruptions.
Anyways I don't want to come off as some flag-waving nationalist, I just dont think that the story of immigrant success in the United States should be painted as America exploiting these people's talents at their expense.
There is some empirical evidence for those theories. The US and the West in general have profited of disruptions they caused or partially helped, from scuttling research projects using political pressure and then hiring the researchers into the US up to arming rebellions and indeed military intervention.
Also when you read these biographies you realize that science education has never really been appreciated in the USA or England. These countries do occasionally spit out great innovators, but not because of the educational system. It's because people in the USA are free to peruse what they want, and the USA has lots of capital.
Don't forget these are self-serving documents. This is not a slur on Americans: I once gave a talk at La Vilette in Paris. An English colleague of mine came along. As we walked in he sneered, "this is the kind of place where the French claim to have invented everything." Of course in the UK you can find such places as well. You can find the same elsewhere.
Edison did good work on the light bulb ... building on a Canadian patent. The automobile was not invented in the USA. The A bomb was invented in the USA by ... an international team. Especially in the early 20s the USA was not "far ahead of everyone else".
Where the US does endanger itself is a certain myopia. For example space museums in the US typically only discuss the US space program, as if, apart from a quick mention of Sputnik and perhaps Gargarin, it was the only one. It's understandable that many people will be more interested in the developments of their country! But that view, writ large, means people will suffer crappy things too (e.g. lousy medical system) not realizing that things really are better elsewhere. It also means, when, say, jobs move to China, that that country must be an "enemy". In reality it's not a wealthy country and has a lot of tough problems. And has advanced technology the US does not.
Despite all the rhetoric, the US is high among the most equitable, least racist, safest and politically free countries in the world.
If immigration regulation were relaxed, there would be a flood of well-educated people from China, India and many other nations.
On the other hand, immigrants from western Europe don't have much to gain from moving the the US. They basically would be trading higher salaries for higher expenses.
Contributing to a company attempting to be innovative doesn't mean that you are being innovative, and so the degree at which you are capable of innovation doesn't matter very much. As for people being recruited specifically for innovation, there is essentially no limit in their immigration.
I wouldn't assume the opposite and become a boastful patriot either, but maybe the big leaps taken in the past were so good that people got lazy. You didn't need to innovate or only innovate for money (which isn't nearly as effective a motivator as being annihilated by Germans or ICBMs). There is also the argument of low hanging fruits, but I find that it's easy to undervalue the inventions of things you already know very well.
There is no grand narrative anymore. Things are just chugging along. Covid is a new narrative and voilá: mRNA vaccine.