
Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups - dankohn1
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/03/17/study-immigrants-founded-51-of-u-s-billion-dollar-startups/
======
bayesian_horse
One of the basic premises of anti-immigrant policies is that you can somehow
influence the ratio of "useful" vs "not-useful" immigrants.

Apart from the idea of sorting people into useful and useless being inhumane,
it also seems to be counterproductive. It looks like every kind of screening
of immigrants will deter the more desirable ones, as far as that determination
is possible on their arrival at all.

~~~
rdl
It wouldn't be hard to have an immigration system which is biased toward
useful vs. not useful. The question is: where do you want to have the cutoff?

I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall"),
combined with a transparent and straightforward points-based system for mainly
immigrant visas. I'd eliminate the inherent racism in the current system
(penalizing India and China vs. Equatorial Guinea and Monaco). As a first
pass, just copy the Canadian or New Zealand systems.

Where we set the threshold for entry is a worthwhile debate. Should it be
anyone who isn't likely to be strongly negative? Anyone where net benefit
exceeds cost? Where net benefit is >3x the annual median income?

A baseline of "not a felon, terrorist, etc." for visitors, a solid system of
constraining visitors to defined periods of time (thus making it easier to
grant visit visas), and a straightforward path to immigration and citizenship
for high-value immigrants is a better starting point than the current
immigration system.

~~~
gumby
> I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall"),

Having lived on the east side of Berlin (post Wall!) I cannot forget that that
wall was supposedly built to keep people _out_ but of course it kept people
_in_.

I am Australian, and I have to admit the points based system does work
there...but. I have lived longest in the USA where the chaos has been
beneficial for the country, and thus for me. Australia doesn't have a culture
of "creative destruction" and its system has kept that from arriving/emerging.

If the US does choose to shut the door and I'll jump through it before it
slams...and continue starting businesses (and creating jobs) elsewhere.

~~~
adrianratnapala
Well, I am inclined to like creative destruction and open borders too. But
Australia and the US are democracies -- they are ruled by the people, most of
whom seem to like a bit more orderliness.

Now if the democratic process is producing something like the White Australia
Policy[1] then we have cause to cry out our moral censure from the rooftops.
But whatever your view on the current points system, that's just a policy
debate, not a great moral issue.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy)

~~~
vacri
The WAP has been dead for more than 40 years, and 28% of the Australian
population was born overseas (21% if you discount poms and kiwis). In
comparison, the UK has 12% foreign-born and the US 14%. If you exclude the
refugee crisis last year as a once-off, the only sizable western countries
taking in more migrants per capita are Spain and Norway.

As national policies go, there aren't many that have been so resoundingly
reversed. The only thing that keeps the WAP alive is people that keep on
referring to it, thinking it represents the current state of affairs.

~~~
gumby
Yes I'm an old fart, born in the (fortunately waning) days of WAP. When I
first visited the US, we landed at D.C. and drove north, because to drive
south would have meant we would have to split up the family to stay in
different hotels. Still, it seemed less racist than Australia.

Nowadays, both have improved but I feel like the positions have reversed. Then
again, I don't think America throws kids off navy ships into the water. And
they have only one overseas concentration camp that I know of, and I don't
think the people in America's wanted to enter the US, unlike the people AUS
sticks in camps.

Nobody is perfect. But really, it's astonishing how far Australia has come.
Now if only the coalition could reflect that.

~~~
vacri
> _Then again, I don 't think America throws kids off navy ships into the
> water._

When did Australia do that? The claim was that the _refugeees_ threw the kids
overboard in order to get a rescue, not that the navy threw them overboard
themselves for a photo op. The scandal was about the government lying about
refugee actions, not that the navy was drowning kids.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_affair)

~~~
bayesian_horse
He didn't say that exactly. On the other hand, there are persistent reports
about the Australian navy letting refugee ships sink.

By the way, often the only alternative to self-scuttling their ships, for the
refugees, is to let their ships be turned around and maybe never reach another
shore for lack of navigation skills, water or fuel.

That comment certainly was a bit hyperbolic, but not that far from the actual
truth.

------
Cuuugi
Whenever I see "Immigration" in the title, i think anti-Trump and get sad.

No one is trying to stop legal immigration.

Tech companies are mad because they are cracking down on H1-B Visa abuse. This
is not a bad thing.

~~~
cromwellian
Really? Than why so many leaked memos show that Bannon and Miller want to
reduce family Visas for those already legally here? Why is Bannon and Miller's
favorite novel a racist French book about Europe becoming less white? Why when
Bannon was interviewed on radio he said he wanted to bring the numbers on
legal immigration way down?

You're fooling yourself if you think this is just about undocumented Mexicans,
Muslims, or H1-B abuse. There's way too much circumstantial rhetoric that's
been said that indicates this is something more and we invite peril if we
don't harshly Critique it.

~~~
pm90
First they came for the "Illegals"...

Rhetoric aside, as you pointed out, this is only the beginning. Authoritarians
always need a scrapegoat to blame for "failed policies". Once one group is
eliminated, on to another.

~~~
jlebrech
this is also called the slippery slope fallacy.

~~~
jinfiesto
While I appreciate the recognition of the fallacy, just because the reasoning
fits the template for a fallacious argument doesn't mean that it is. The
slippery slope argument is only a fallacy if other evidence doesn't exist to
suggest we're on such a slope.

There is historical precedent in this particular instance...

~~~
jlebrech
it doesn't just work when it applies to bigots, it applies to everyone.

------
capocannoniere
I assume what they really mean by _Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-
Dollar Startups_ is that _51% of $1B+ U.S. startups have at least one
immigrant founder_ , right? (as opposed to _51% of unicorn founders are
immigrants_ )

~~~
freehunter
It also heavily depends on the definition of "immigrant". Uber is listed, for
example. The two founders of Uber are Travis Kalanick (born in Los Angeles,
not an immigrant) and Garrett Camp (born in Canada, resides in San Fransisco).
Is Garrett Camp an immigrant? Sure sounds like it. But is that really in the
spirit of "founded by immigrants"?

I am not arguing in favor of an immigrant ban in any way, I think it's a bad
idea, but when a headline is trying to argue against the ban the president has
put forward and lists people from Canada and South Africa... well I mean yeah
they're technically immigrants, but they wouldn't have been banned by the
policy anyway. Now, Arash Ferdowsi, Iranian co-founder of Dropbox, _that 's_
your success story. Unfortunately the number of billion-dollar startups with
founders born in countries listed in the travel ban is far smaller so it'd
make for a worse headline.

I feel the inclusion of people like Camp and Musk hurts the point the story is
trying to make. We have tons of important people from countries affected by
the immigration ban, and it'd be worth it to highlight those people rather
than just any immigrant. The president has never called for banning all
immigration from any country regardless of anything. So the argument is
disingenuous.

~~~
vineetch
>Is Garrett Camp an immigrant? Sure sounds like it. But is that really in the
spirit of "founded by immigrants"?

Yes, Garrett Camp is an immigrant. He just happens to be white and from Canada
and is thus perceived less as "those other people" and more "American" because
he blends in. If he came from Sudan would you consider him to be "more of an
immigrant"? Your own comment implies this bias even if you didn't mean for it
to sound that way.

~~~
freehunter
>Your own comment implies this bias even if you didn't mean for it to sound
that way.

I see your point, but I disagree in this situation. If there was no context
around the discussion, you'd be exactly right. But there is context, and the
context is the immigration ban put in place by the president. That immigration
ban excludes people from specific countries. This article was very obviously
written to show how important immigration is as a way to counter the reasoning
that bore the immigration ban, but I feel it cheapens the point when you
include immigrants who are not part of the ban.

Basically, if the point of the article was just "immigrants are good", then
yes, you're right. But since the point of the article is "this immigration ban
is bad!", it makes sense to restrict the discussion to people from countries
actually listed on the ban.

To put it another way, what if the article mentioned Canadian immigrants,
South African immigrants, German immigrants, British immigrants.... but no
Iranians? No Syrians. No Iraqis. The conclusion of the article could then be
portrayed as "see? muslim immigrants don't do anything useful anyway! ban
them!" For every immigrant you put in the article that _isn 't_ affected by
the ban, the case _for_ the ban becomes stronger. That's why I think we should
limit our conversation to the context implied by the article's conclusion.

~~~
vineetch
> But there is context, and the context is the immigration ban put in place by
> the president.

Yes, your point only makes sense if the context of the immigration topic was
limited to a travel ban in the countries that the Trump administration is
_currently_ focused on. But there is an even larger context of this
administration's statements regarding immigration. If you are looking to apply
larger contexts then keep in mind Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions' statements
regarding immigration:

\-- Steve Bannon: "When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon
Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think... A country is more than an
economy. We’re a civic society." (He dislikes Asian executives in SV).

\-- Steve Bannon: "Don’t we have a problem with legal immigration? Twenty
percent of this country is immigrants. Is that not the beating heart of this
problem?" (He dislikes legal immigration from any country, not just muslim
majority countries).

\-- Jeff Sessions: "The H-1B program is a “tremendous threat” to American
professionals." (He wishes to curb visa programs for highly educated and
professional immigrants).

At the end of the day, an immigrant is an immigrant. If Steve Bannon or
yourself are accepting Canadian and South African immigrants' contributions,
but wish to isolate those contributions from those of Sudanese, Muslim or
Asian immigrants then there is a deeper bias problem that must be talked
about. The current travel ban might be of 6 muslim majority countries, but you
cannot ignore the very real statements by the Trump administration about their
intention to stop legal immigration from as many sources as possible.

When you keep that context in mind, it makes less sense to add nuance to the
situation and start isolating contributions of immigrants based on the
countries they are from.

------
dankohn1
I appreciate Matt Yglesias's snarky tweet[0]: "Depriving Americans of valuable
founder opportunities". The lump of unicorns fallacy is a nice update to the
lump of labor fallacy [1].

[0]
[https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/841305139440959488](https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/841305139440959488)
[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy)

------
TuringNYC
The irony here:

 _Some people_ see studies like this and think, wow, think of how much we'd
lose if we didnt let in immigrants. Our economy would be smaller, we'd have
fewer jobs, etc.

 _Other people_ see studies like this and think, wow, only us locals should
own, run, and be employed by these Billion-Dollar Startups. Bannon has
explicitly noted this as a goal!

~~~
sneak
This sense of entitlement due to physical proximity of birthplace is
completely arbitrary, ridiculous, and counterproductive.

Discriminating on nationality (which most had zero choice in, and was decided
for them at birth) is the same as discriminating based on skin color or
biological sex. It's just standard anticompetitive in-group/out-group fear-
driven nonsense.

~~~
unethical_ban
Do you argue that culture and community can never have a geographically
component?

~~~
sneak
Not at all, but using force to prohibit people from traveling and
participating in any culture they wish to peacefully interact in is
ridiculous.

------
ctdonath
For the eleventy-millionth time:

Most of those accused of being "anti-immigrant" aren't against immigrants, but
are against _illegal_ immigrants. There _must_ be an orderly process to entry,
primarily to prevent criminals & diseases, and also to keep the numbers
assimilate-able.

The headline alone seems designed to invoke consternation where none existed,
or to construe a common position as anti-immigrant which isn't.

~~~
Cyph0n
So the recent Muslim ban was anti-illegal immigrant? Hmm..

~~~
ctdonath
Snarky misconstrued labelling aside: Yes. Targeted countries chosen (and
approved by prior President!) due to previously-acknowledged problems with the
vetting process. Timeframe for the "ban" was limited & short. "Muslim" was not
specified in any way.

~~~
Cyph0n
Sounds like you didn't hear about people being asked about their religious
affiliation, or POTUS himself noting on a radio show that Christians would get
preferential treatment.

~~~
ctdonath
Religious persecution is a thing. If you're a normal adherent to the state-
sponsored by-far-majority religion of a country, claiming refugee status via
"violent religious persecution" is a stretch. If you're a rare adherent of a
state-persecuted tiny-minority religion being violently exterminated with the
tacit (if not declared) approval of the government, then you are exactly what
refugee status via "violent religious persecution" is legally recognized for.
Kind of hard to discern the difference without asking someone their religious
affiliation.

ETA: Legitimate refugees, people actually being violently persecuted by the
state for some aspect of their minority status, are unlikely to get proper
vetting regardless of the quality of the vetting process, and 'tis quite
humanitarian to take them in if they can be reasonably identified as such.
Those not so persecuted are in the best position for their state to provide
proper vetting, which if their state can't/won't provide proper vetting then
we need to halt their immigration until reasonable vetting can be established.
This has NOTHING to do with religion per se, especially when the allegedly
discriminated-against group has over 5x as many members in other countries who
_can_ apply for properly-vetted visas without any difficulty.

~~~
Cyph0n
So it's a Muslim ban, because the majority of potential immigrants from the
targeted countries are Muslim.

But you have to admit that it got quite outrageous once they started removing
LPRs and dual-citizens of foreign countries from inbound flights.

------
bogomipz
I have an honest question as I was not familiar National Foundation for
American Policy before today.

Does anybody know how they are funded in general or who funded this study?

From some cursory research I see that Stuart Anderson, the person behind the
NFAP worked on the Hill in the INS Office of Policy and Planning during the
first term of George W. Bush. And his organization now regularly releases
studies on public policy. This kind of screams lobbyist to me or at least
retained by lobbyists.

I am not making any judgements on anything in the study or any statements
about the current political climate I am just trying to read critically. I am
curious to hear what other's might know about Stuart Anderson or the NFAP.

------
bluthru
If you want world prosperity this isn't a simple issue at all.

Why should the richest country in the world get richer by taking the best and
brightest who could have helped elevate their own countries? Isn't this just
contributing to a world stratification of wealth?

~~~
sumedh
The problem their own countries dont want to utilize their skills so those
people seek a better future somewhere else.

~~~
bluthru
And how do you break that cycle?

~~~
sumedh
If I had that answer I probably would have been a political leader bringing
change.

------
EternalData
I would argue that the very act of immigration means you're getting a higher-
than-average selection of a country's population. Immigrants, after all, are a
self-selecting group. People who are willing to upend everything in their
lives in order to better themselves and their families would seem, to me, to
be quite well-suited for entrepreneurship.

The other reality is that traditional means of economic ascendancy in
countries are often restricted to immigrants. Best example I can think of is
the non-acknowledgement of certain foreign degrees in America.

------
ralmidani
I'm appalled by the need for statistics showing how "useful" immigrants are.

Combating xenophobia should be a moral issue, not a utilitarian one.

I understand some people will not be swayed by moral arguments, but society
doesn't seem to try anymore. Utilitarian arguments have become the default.

~~~
kolbe
When merely being a person gives you rights to government-issued finite
resources, it has to be a utilitarian argument.

~~~
atomi
You need to be a lawful permanent resident to qualify for any federal public
benefits.

~~~
kolbe
Tell that to the emergency care centers that aren't allowed to turn away
anyone or else they will not receive medicare reimbursements.

~~~
atomi
That is literally the least we can do. Or would you rather we deny emergency
medical treatment and let people just die? They do pay sales taxes, rent
payments (they have to live somewhere) that go towards property taxes and the
majority also pay into social security which they will never qualify for.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/illegal-
immigrant...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/illegal-immigrants-
are-bolstering-social-security-with-billions.html)

And by the way, many have kids that are Americans by birthright. So, I'm not
sure what the benefit is to scapegoating the undocumented immigrant labor
class. Maybe you can answer that.

~~~
kolbe
I'm just offering you counter arguments to the idea that the government
doesn't give out resources to people. I'm sorry you can't handle one
refutation without turning to emotional arguments.

Another is Fannie Mae subsidizing housing. Another is public school. Another
is protection under the law. Another is all public road/land use.

The fact of the matter is that we have finite resources. And simply being a
person inside the US's borders give you rights to these resources, and if we
do not make sure that the return we get from the presence of the people we're
letting in at least makes up the cost of bringing them in, then we are doomed.

~~~
atomi
Speaking of emotional arguments, we're not all doomed.

Again, a lot of those public services are paid for through taxes immigrants do
pay into, like property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, registration fees, and
even income taxes. And again, their children are Americans by birthright so
public education is an investment in Americans.

[http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/02/...](http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/02/maria-
teresa-kumar/how-much-do-undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes/)

[http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/pdf/sr133.pdf](http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/pdf/sr133.pdf)

We can argue resource allocation, entitlement programs but considering China
has 1 billion more people with a land mass not much larger than ours, we're
certainly not running out of space.

And if you gave them a pathway to amnesty it would be much easier to allocate
entitlement programs and have common sense taxation.

~~~
kolbe
I don't know what to say other than chill out. You have completely hijacked
the original thread with your ill-argued cliche talking points.

The original statement was "I'm appalled by the need for statistics showing
how "useful" immigrants are." Mine response is that it's a necessary
framework. I in no way gave any conclusions about what I believe is the result
of thinking in that framework, but you seem to harbor some sort of prejudice
that makes it so you've assumed what I think.

~~~
kolbe
Got it. You're a troll whose only response is "umadbro."

~~~
atomi
It's very obvious you're upset since you're resorting to name calling.

No trolling required to upset you. It seems just facts and reality will do it.

------
xt_cube
This argument is weak...

In my humble opinion not only are we doing a terrible job at educating our
youth; but we are also condemning large numbers of them to a live of poverty.

Who is to say what our underprivileged youth could accomplish with the proper
support and education?

Yes, this country was built by immigrants; but things have changed, we must
accept that. Long gone are the days of prosperity for all. I would argue that
today, our system is failing large portions of the population and addressing
these failures should be our top concern.

The current environment of despair and hopelessness that suffocates many
Americans makes it difficult to have a constructive dialog about immigration.
Would you have this discussion in Flint, Michigan? Do homeless veterans have
access to free Airbnb? Do aging Americans who on a daily basis must decide
between food or medicine find this discussion fair? And you know I could go on
and on...

I realize that modernizing our infrastructure or fixing our education system
are very hard problems, addressing poverty and restoring faith in the system
will be even harder. And yes, bringing prosperity and hope to all seems almost
impossible; but these aren't reasons not to try.

My apologies for the rant; but I think many of the discussions around
immigration fail to recognize that America is much more than the wealthy
coasts. There is real suffering out there and we should be sympathetic to that
and realize that despite our real or perceived cultural differences with the
millions of disenfranchised Americans; this country is theirs too!

~~~
shas3
Your comment is premised on the notion that immigration vs. locals is a zero-
sum game. It is not uniformly so.

Restrictionists claim: "If fewer Mexicans, Indians, and Chinese came to the
US, then American citizens would be better off."

There frankly isn't compelling evidence that this will happen. The number of
immigrants using up social services is minuscule and the amount of tax coming
from 100s of thousands of H1Bs (and illegals/undocumenteds) is all going into
social services used by veterans, American seniors, etc.

On top of this, because immigrants are usually the cream of their own
societies and/or have taken big risks coming to the US, themselves and their
children contribute via starting new businesses, etc.

This notion that immigration is part of a zero-sum game is likely flawed.

------
jws
A link to the study for those without WSJ subscriptions: [http://nfap.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/Immigrants-and-Bi...](http://nfap.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/Immigrants-and-Billion-Dollar-Startups.NFAP-Policy-
Brief.March-2016.pdf) [PDF]

------
rs1234
A bunch of folks on this forum love to bash the H1B visa. But that visa is not
so new - this is how America has always filled her need for labor. Please take
a few moments to read about "indentured servants" \- immigrants from Britain
and other parts of Europe who came to the US in 1800s. They were required to
serve 5 to 7 years working in fields. After that they were given land and free
to work for themselves. The H1B visa has similarities. Guess what is the
duration of stay for a H1B visa? 6 years. During this time they are pretty
much tied to the company that sponsored their visa. After that they are given
the green card, which lets them work for any company.

[http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Indentured_Servants_in_C...](http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Indentured_Servants_in_Colonial_Virginia)

~~~
dragonwriter
Wait, are you seriously, non-ironically using the similarity of the H-1B to
indentured servitude as your basis for suggesting that people are _wrong_ to
bash the H-1B?

~~~
rs1234
Yes. I am non-ironically suggesting exactly that. Indentured servitude emerged
as a solution to a socio-economic need in a bygone era, like the H1B does now.
Neither is a perfect system, and all stakeholders concerned - the company, the
employee, competing employees, society - get some benefits, some pain. But
overall, American society is the net beneficiary of the education, skills, and
entrepreneurial drive that immigrants bring with them (circling back to the
original topic). Want proof? Look at the America today that was built by the
ex-indentured servants and their descendants.

~~~
int_19h
People who criticize H1B are not generally criticizing skilled immigration in
general. They're pointing out that the way H1B is set up, it's a very poor
implementation of skilled immigration, especially when you compare it to other
countries (like, say, Canada). The ongoing discussion about switching to a
points-based system for workers, for example, necessarily implies that skilled
immigration track remains.

~~~
dragonwriter
> They're pointing out that the way H1B is set up, it's a very poor
> implementation of skilled immigration

H-1B is primarily a guest worker program, not a skilled immigration program.
That is why despite allowing dual intent, the H-1B is a non-immigrant visa.
There are skill-based immigrant visas in the US system, the H-1B just isn't
one of them.

~~~
int_19h
H-1B is _de facto_ a skilled immigration program. The fact that it's dual
intent, and that you can get a green card through employer sponsorship, seems
to indicate that it is at least partially by design.

Those other programs that you reference are for "extraordinary talent" and
such, and the bar there is much higher than for ordinary skilled immigration.

------
martytheartiste

       The immigrants that started all of these companies including all of the immigrants that have started all of their businesses in the last 30 years that employ Americans...first let me say Thank You. 
      Second.....someone should create a list off all of these companies, their geographic location, number of Americans (not family members) but number of Americans they employ, income, contributions to the communities etc.
      
     Once they have this list maybe each business can submit a small 2 minute video entitled I am an Immigrant and I employ ____ Americans.
    
       Then create a Website that has all of these videos....might want to censor some info to keep telemarketers from contacting these business owners.
    
        To draw attention to these businesses I'd gather up some of the funniest and well known comedians on a Ted Talk. After the comedians break the ice.....have some of the most successful business owners get up on stage an tell the World why they came to America! Why they fled their homeland.....etc......Might even include anything like their sons and daughters serve in the Military, Law Enforcement or local Hospitals. If they are doctors have some of their patients tell the world about how this doctor

saved their life.

------
lumberjack
All pretension aside, you cannot presume to publicly forment xenophobic
sentiments against brown people, implying that they are all kinds of evil,
while at the same time presuming to make yourself attractive to highly-skilled
tech workers from all around the world.

If you embolden racists, they will start harassing and attacking all kinds of
non-white people and that includes, legal recidents from all around the world
because frankly racists don't care.

~~~
ice109
foment

------
Mikeb85
Good study and all, but I think it misses the point of the current sentiment
in the US. Regardless, yes, immigrants are more likely to found businesses
than natives. Whether or not their businesses become billion dollar startups
because of their efforts or venture capitalists is another question, but yes,
they help the economy (As much as those who are a drag on it? Who knows).

I wrote a lengthy post about the effects of immigration recently, so here's
I'll just focus on the issue of human capital.

Immigration creates a situation for rich countries to be able to draw from a
much larger pool of talent than they otherwise would since they take talent
from other countries. This is a great situation for the host country, and
devastates developing economies. It's basically colonialism all over, except
instead of stealing physical commodities you're stealing human capital.

Relevant article:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight)

And of course, there are negative effects in the host country, namely that
there's more competition for jobs, which can drive wages down, eliminate some
jobs for natives altogether, etc... The hope is that this effect is offset by
the job creation effect, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The US rust belt
certainly doesn't seem to be gaining much, but other areas are.

Anyhow, the whole point of this is that there's well known pros and cons to
immigration. It's not all pro, nor all con. You need to ask exactly what you
want the end-game to be - not just for the US, but for the world. Human
capital flight is the single biggest obstacle to development for the third
world. At the same time, it allows the west to gather all the brightest minds
in the world to maintain its hegemony. What's more important - maintaining a
dominant place in the world, or more equal development that doesn't leave
anyone behind? (I mean, I know the answer - we're willing to destroy countries
who go against western hegemony and simply absorb the migrants)

~~~
VikingCoder
> Human capital flight is the single biggest obstacle to development for the
> third world.

Citation needed.

~~~
Mikeb85
There's a million studies done about it. Also, the Wiki link I posted
contained lots of links and references.

Anyhow, here's one:
[http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPTEIA/Resource...](http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPTEIA/Resources/human_cap.pdf)

Quote from it: _Weakness in human capital and particularly skill deficiency is
a drag on investment and growth in Africa. Progress in overcoming shortages of
skilled and trained manpower seems to be disappointingly slow, despite
substantial resources devoted by both governments and donors to this effort
during the last three decades (OED, 1994). This deficiency is sustained at the
same time that Africa is losing a very significant proportion of its skilled
and professional manpower to other markets and increasingly depending on
expatriates for many vital functions._

Edit - here's another:
[http://www.sesric.org/files/article/491.pdf](http://www.sesric.org/files/article/491.pdf)

Relevant quotes:

 _OIC countries face multiple challenges in achieving their development goals
and reducing the gap with developed countries; one of the main challenges is
the plight of human capital flight or what is known as brain drain._

 _In recent times, brain drain has been exacerbated by globalization which has
increased people mobility across country boundaries (see Iredale, 2001;
Shenkar, 2001; Stalker, 2000). Furthermore, the internationalization of
professions and professional labor market has led to an increase in the level
of mobility and thus brain drain as documented in the works of Carr et al.
(2005) and Iredale (2001)_

Like I said, this is a well known, well understood phenomenon. Hell, a
generation ago the Canadian government was trying to stop brain drain to the
US since it was a drag on growth.

Edit2

[http://web.pop.psu.edu/projects/help_archive/help.pop.psu.ed...](http://web.pop.psu.edu/projects/help_archive/help.pop.psu.edu/data-
collections/new-immigrant-survey/P08_Rosenzweig.pdf)

A little more academic (ie. more math-y and economics-y).

~~~
VikingCoder
I was trying to gather more information, not debate.

But now that you mention it, none of those citations support your hyperbole
that human capital flight "is the single biggest obstacle". They all refer to
it as "a" problem, or "one of the main."

~~~
Mikeb85
Sorry, I'm just jaded (seems any statement on the internet is met with "source
please").

Anyhow, it's not politically popular to state such in today's climate, but it
is the largest impediment to development. We could also add war, famine, and a
lack of institutions, but those are arguably caused by a lack of development
and lower human capital. It's not exactly a politically correct thing to say
but, if all the educated people move away from a country, who's left to rule
it?

Anyhow, lots of sources list corruption, inequality, human capital flight - my
opinion is based on both my education (in economics) as well as my experience.

------
dmode
This is the link to the actual study [http://nfap.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/Immigrants-and-Bi...](http://nfap.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/Immigrants-and-Billion-Dollar-Startups.NFAP-Policy-
Brief.March-2016.pdf)

Indian immigrants seem to lead the pack, but it is still the tip of the
iceberg. If the current shackles are taken off from Indian immigrants, I bet
there will be way more entrepreneurs. I would love the calculate the impact on
US GDP based on immigrants who are not allowed to start a company

------
swanson
The linked study has one "key finding" that "The billion dollar startup
companies with an immigrant founder excel at job creation" but I don't see
anything in the study to indicate how the job creation at these immigrant
founded companies compares to "non-immigrant" founded companies. The provided
data appears to just be a table listing how many jobs were created at these
companies with no mechanism for relative comparison.

Does anyone know of existing evidence to support this claim?

~~~
ugabugawoowop
this study is bullshit, don't bother

------
iconjack
None from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan or Yemen.

~~~
akhilcacharya
You mean like Steve Job's biological father, who was/is a business owner in
America?

~~~
camus2
> You mean like Steve Job's biological father, who was/is a business owner in
> America?

You mean like his father who abandoned him?

~~~
akhilcacharya
Doesn't change his ancestry.

~~~
camus2
> Doesn't change his ancestry.

Doesn't change the fact that Jobs was an american citizen, not an immigrant.

~~~
akhilcacharya
...because of birthright citizenship

...that the same people oppose

------
nerdponx
What percentage of all startups are founded by immigrants? If it's on the
order of 51%, you can't rule out the possibility that this number just
reflects the base occurrence rate of immigrants in the "population" of all
startup founders.

~~~
davidf18
Good studies _must_ discuss denominators as well as numerators. The 51% is
misleading. What would be important to know is how many immigrants were
founders with a denominator of how many founders were there.

Moreover, there is some (wrong) assumption that an American could not have
been a founder in place of the immigrant founders of a similar company.

H1-B visas were created for the intent of _not_ displacing Americans but
rather filing jobs for which Americans do not have the skill.

Americans have skills for almost all of the jobs that are filled with H1-B
visas. There should be a independent committee that verifies that there are
absolutely no Americans available for each individual job.

~~~
basseq

      The 51% is misleading. What would be important to know is 
      how many immigrants were founders with a denominator of 
      how many founders were there.
    

The statistic here is: "51% of unicorns had at least one founder who was born
in another country". Palantir, for example, is included as an "immigrant-
founded company", which it is, but Peter Thiel (Germany) is one of five co-
founders. So with a subset of one company, only 20% of founders were
immigrants.

------
kolbe
I'd be careful with this information. It did not serve German Jews in the 30's
very well to emphasize the fact that they had become important elements of
media, finance and science. Instead of showing appreciation, there was a
backlash by Germans who felt they were being excluded from these things. It's
even easier to see how that same misguided victim sentiment could be applied
to immigrants "taking" the opportunities to create and own tech from American.

~~~
metaphorm
your point is relevant but I think you're missing the conclusion that first
comes to my mind. when dealing with revenge-driven mobs of ignorant bigots,
there is NOT rational argument that can persuade them. this is implied by your
statement and I agree.

what is to be done though?

the only historically proven thing a person in a potential victim class (such
as my own Jewish grandparents) could do in those circumstances is flee for
their lives. I hope that things never get to that point in America. We've
already a few steps in the wrong direction though.

~~~
kolbe
I'd personally start by not calling them racist bigots at every opportunity.
They may have "started" this whole conflict, but they hold the cards. Until
Fentanyl takes care of the problem for you, we should probably deprioritize
fucking with them.

------
DodgyEggplant
A 250 years study found that immigrants and their descendants founded 100% of
any U.S. business

------
sauronlord
And "immigrants" killed over 99% of the native North American population with
small pox and the like.

We are all immigrants really. I agree with the spirit of what the article is
about, but there is a serious Us vs. Them going on here that will not end
well.

------
that_guy1
And the amoutn of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups founded by illegal immigrants?

~~~
bayesian_horse
Some of these entrepreneurs actually abused their visa, so technically, even
tech founders often are illegal immigrants.

------
synicalx
I wonder what would have happened if they stayed in their own countries? Would
they have built billion dollar or even million dollar businesses there as
well? Would that have been of more benefit to said countries than allowing one
of their best and brightest to "jump ship"?

------
drumttocs8
Wouldn't it be more useful to see the percentage of total startups- and even
better, the percentage of GDP created by these startups? That would seem to
include key measures such as job creation, etc. Simply measuring the
percentage of giant companies doesn't seem as useful.

------
Anarchonaut
No one questions immigration. Conservatives complain about 'illegal
immigration' believing that this would be the source of most criminal
activity, ignoring that the 'war on drugs' is the real problem.

------
known
I'll grab software jobs; You should do menial jobs; This type of uncivilized
Caste system will not work in USA
[https://qz.com/919782](https://qz.com/919782)

------
Steeeve
Wait a second.

You can come to the US, start a company, employ yourself, and support your own
h1-b?

~~~
pravula
No. You cannot apply for your own H1B. This memo should be useful.

[https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoran...](https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-
Employee%20Memo010810.pdf)

~~~
trustfundbaby
incorrect. That changed recently [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-
immigration-a-ste...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-immigration-
a-step-in-the-right-
direction/2011/08/03/gIQA2bGgsI_story.html?utm_term=.8b051354c5fe)

------
notadoc
If you go back far enough, immigrants or children of immigrants founded likely
99% of US companies. Is this really surprising given the US is a almost
entirely a nation of immigrants?

------
DarkKomunalec
Now that we know immigrants are better businesspeople than those US-born, the
next logical step is to find out which immigrants are the best, and
preferentially allow those...

------
vikiomega9
I was unable to get past the paywall (with the web option) but I'm wondering
if race and inherent privilege that comes with it is considered in the study.

------
kingmanaz
Place a moratorium on legal immigration. The economy is a means rather than an
end, and, three-hundred-million people is more than enough for North America.

~~~
rat87
No it's not enough

Immigrants make our country great

------
known
Behind every great fortune there is crime;
[https://qz.com/889524](https://qz.com/889524)

------
virtuabhi
For the people saying why an article from 2016 is on the front page, here is
why this issue is still relevant:

"Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can't
restore our civilization with somebody else's babies." \- Congressman Steve
King, Republican Iowa, 12th March,
[https://twitter.com/SteveKingIA/status/840980755236999169](https://twitter.com/SteveKingIA/status/840980755236999169)

------
eugeneionesco
How many of them were illegal immigrants? Can't read the article because it's
behind a paywall for me.

~~~
akhilcacharya
Why does it matter?

~~~
artursapek
Because most of the anger at Trump and his admin has been around their plan
for deportation of criminal illegal aliens

~~~
akhilcacharya
And yet people all across the country protested at airports a few weeks ago...

~~~
artursapek
Well sure, because that travel ban was ridiculous. I'm just saying most of the
time "Trump" and "immigration" are mentioned together it's regarding the
southern border, not ME immigration.

~~~
rat87
It shouldn't be.

Unauthorized immigrants face the most immediate danger due to the law but the
Trump administration is hostile to legal immigration as well. They're seeking
to decrease legal immigration and considerimg an executive order to deport
legal immigrants for using welfare.

They are trying to ban by executive order legal immigration from arbitrary
Muslim majority countries and all refugees (possibly temporarily but I expect
them to try to extend it).

Steve Bannon sees the number of asian CEOs (which he greatly overestimates) as
a bad thing.

~~~
buckbova
> They are trying to ban by executive order legal immigration from arbitrary
> Muslim majority countries and all refugees (possibly temporarily but I
> expect them to try to extend it).

Arbitrary? This is blatantly false and disingenuous.

There are some 50 majority muslim countries and these were not pulled out of a
hat.

------
mavdi
So 49% were founded by native Americans?

------
kingmanaz
>Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups

Curious if the overwhelmingly-Jewish editorialists at WSJ would likewise
rationalize unlimited non-Jewish immigration to Israel based on spurious
"greater good" economic arguments.

Maybe there's something more important than the economy at stake when deciding
the fate of a national inheritance?

~~~
rat87
America is a nation of immigrants. We haven't been an Anglo Saxon nation in a
while and aren't a white nation.

Israel is a homeland for Jewish refugees(and the Arabs that remained there
after the independence war).

~~~
kingmanaz
In other words, "one standard for me and another for thee".

~~~
r00fus
Yes all countries should all have the same laws and culture!

~~~
kingmanaz
Why not? They seem to have the same editorialists (ethnically speaking)...

------
xname2
How about Canada? They have a point system. Should they have even a higher
percentage?

------
coder007
To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In. No thanks!

------
tapatio
When you have nothing to lose, you take large risks.

------
hvmonk
Who exactly is not an immigrant in the states? If one traverse lineage of any
of these so called "non-immigrants", within 3-4 generations one will see they
were an immigrant too.

~~~
TheGirondin
Anyone who was born in the US is not an immigrant.

------
h4nkoslo
It's fascinating to see how the people pushing this argument prioritize
economic nationalism exactly to the extent it promotes open borders, and
exactly no further.

------
mediocrejoker
This article is from March, 2016

------
rebootthesystem
This dovetails nicely into another discussion [1] I got tangled into because I
don't view the world as the average HN user seems to. It's about the claim
that the richest n% take-up the bulk of opportunities (or some versions
thereof).

The same HN readership who believes this narrative also gets on board with the
idea that we need immigrants in order to innovate.

If the latter is true it very much supports my claim that opportunity in the
US has never been greater and that the rich are not keeping anyone from
reaching for the stars.

It also supports the idea that rising inequality has nothing to do with the
rich doing things the rich do but rather a complex set of factors, ranging
from education to lack of drive and motivation. Some choose to blame others
(the rich) for their ailments instead of going after root causes. The latter
is far more difficult and time consuming.

Immigrants arrive at our shores devoid of these pre-conditions. Why, then, is
it that they excel and thrive? Simple: Drive, motivation, dedication,
commitment, grit and lack of victim mentality.

This should come as no surprise to anyone who understands subjects such as
competitive sports. Often the difference between athletes of similar physical
capabilities is in their minds far more than anything else. Same
characteristics I listed above: Drive, motivation, dedication, commitment and
grit.

A few months ago I could not dead-lift 325 lbs when just a few days earlier I
had done 320. I could not get the damn thing off the ground. My trainer looked
at me and said: "Dude, it's all in your head. Take five minutes and think
about that". Minutes later I completed my set as if nothing had happened.

If it is true that we need to "import" innovators and entrepreneurs this is a
sign that our approach to education (and other areas) need a serious pivot.
With over 300 million people this country should not need to import
entrepreneurs or well qualified candidates. Tech companies would not be crying
for qualified people if our educational system was doing a good job.

How many high school kids graduate with a solid understanding of how business,
money and finances work? Virtually none.

Our kids graduate with, for the most part, a binary view of the world ahead:
Enlist in the military or be a good employee for life. The vast majority of
them have trouble calculating a tip at a restaurant and couldn't tell you what
simple interest is if their life depended on it. They know more about Kim
Kardashian than they do about business, finance, investment and career
building.

How can this be good for the US?

And we blame the rich for a gap in equality? How about we stop living in
fantasy and address real problems?

Interestingly enough, another thread on HN today [2] echoes some of the issues
with education as it pertains to opportunity. A quote I like from the current
top comment:

"At the same time, we have a public school system that after 18 years with a
child...has not actually prepared them to get a job. That's borderline
criminal IMHO."

Clearly some understand the realities of where we are failing while others
prefer the simpler path of blaming others for all problems.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13847775](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13847775)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13858508](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13858508)

------
shas3
This article is from 2016.

------
draw_down
I think immigrants are good even when they don't found billion dollar
companies.

------
pascalxus
Persons with Brown eyes founded 51% [XX%] of Billion-Dollar Startups.

------
notliketherest
*LEGAL immigrants.

------
kingmanaz
"Immigrants" also destroyed Southern California.

Try making distinctions.

------
frozenport
Proof that immigrants are stealing our unicorn jobs!

------
OniBait
Why is a study from a year ago being brought up now?

------
jbverschoor
Immigrants founded 100% of U.S.

------
randyrand
which of those were illegal immigrants? isn't tha particularly what trump
wants to stop?

------
ugabugawoowop
so since when wsj compares legal immigrants to illegal immigrants, there is
bias right there.

------
somid3
Title says it all. That is why the US is kicking immigrants out.

------
awt
I wonder if this is true in China and Japan as well.

~~~
xapata
Fair point. It's plausible that the act of immigration selects for more
motivated people.

~~~
empath75
What alternative explanation would their be?

~~~
xapata
Well, there's always the cultural one. Personally, I think attributing the
cause to culture is sloppy research.

------
jecjec
Therefore, we need unbridled in-migration of Hispanics and Arabs!

------
dominotw
Thwarted by paywall but why does there need to be a "study" on this? Can't you
just gather this info from govt databases?

~~~
Waterluvian
'study' doesn't always mean collecting primary data.

~~~
dominotw
Shouldn't all news articles start with the word 'Study' then since all of them
require some sort of data gathering?

------
partiallypro
This is true but it needs perspective, and I am by no means anti-immigrant.
I'm actually a pretty open border person, and am 100% against Trump's
proposals (though perhaps there are some instances of H1B being abuse [see
Disney].) However, this study should have a big caveat, for starters there are
significantly more tax benefits for starting a business if you are an
immigrant. Secondly, immigrants don't have entrenched interests or
preoccupations that would otherwise give them a very high opportunity cost to
starting their own business. So the start-up industry is a bit skewed in favor
of immigrants naturally.

I would love for us to equal the playing field, not by blocking immigrants,
but by leveling the field on tax benefits and subsidies (ideally getting rid
of subsidies and flattening the structure) and have reforms that lower the
opportunity cost of all Americans that allows them to start their own
business. There are way more reforms needed too outside of that, which
everyone already has to deal with in regards to starting a business.

So, imo, the complaint or point here shouldn't be that immigrants are better,
or Americans are worse or there's only so much of the pie etc...it should be
that we need reforms that makes it easier for everyone to start a business.

~~~
timewarrior
Can you please share the details on the tax benefits? I am an immigrant and
have started and sold companies and I didn't find any tax benefits.

~~~
partiallypro
I should clarify, there's no -direct- tax benefits. It's largely to do with
capital (immigrants generally pool capital better) which they can write off
for years. Most Americans don't put up as much personal capital. There are
also grant programs and guaranteed loans which immigrants can utilize which
regular citizens generally don't have access to. Though on a whole the raising
of capital is similar.

------
smdz
By attracting and immigrating the best and brightest, the US actually does
injustice towards its citizens.

And then its also an unfair act against other countries. The other countries
that send immigrants technically stay poorer and weaker - because their talent
is gone!!!

Make a choice - Do we want to keep pouring in the best and brightest from the
globe - or Do we want to keep our citizens employed? - Can't have both in
longer term. Keep it unsolved and something extreme might happen to resolve
it.

~~~
int_19h
> Keep it unsolved and something extreme might happen to resolve it.

Why not speak openly about what you have in mind wrt "resolving it"?

