None from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan or Yemen.
You mean like Steve Job's biological father, who was/is a business owner in America?
Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups
191–200 of 701 posts
Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are already centrally planning immigration. Changing the numbers around on our existing centrally planned system doesn't make it any more or less centrally planned.
It appears we are using different definitions of "central planning". To the degree that the bureaucracy dictates who is allowed to immigrate, when, and for what purpose, the bureaucracy is planning the economy. If your proposal is not affecting who arrives and for what job, then what's the point of it?
Immigration Program X that already exists allows 100k with qualities Y.
Immigration Program A that already exists allows 200k with qualities B.
This is the state of the current world. We have an existing bureaucracy that dictates who is allowed to immigrate, and when.
Make change C so that Program X allows 250k, and Program A only allows 50k.
Change C is not changing the amount of government bureaucracy. We already had the bureaucracy! We were doing the centrally planning already, and making change C does not make it any more centrally planned, because it was already centrally planned.
Imagine a government run factory already exists. Now imagine making a change to the government fun factory. This change is not ADDITIONAL central planning, because it was already a government run factory.
Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
> From what I've read of the report, the 51% were all 100% legal immigrants. Anti-immigrant policies, including ones sold on rhetoric about illegal immigration, often include changes to reduce levels of legal immigration or erect new cosrs and/or procedural obstacles to it, so that people who were legal immigrants under the old system would be prevented or discouraged from legal immigration under the new system.
I'm not aware of this being a variable worth considering. Can you please give me some specific examples so as to sway my opinion?
Two example policies (chosen because they were the first two in a Google search, and show contrasting approaches to the general issue, not, e.g., because of any special relevance of the two institutions):
http://registrar.calpoly.edu/content/stu_info/credit_byexam
http://admissions.utah.edu/apply/special-credit/challenge-a-...
Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I mean, the problem is that we can't afford to "let them all in", so how do you decide who to let in? An immigration policy that is held be numerous other countries that favors skilled immigrants seems to be reasonable. On the other hand, brain drain. How will those countries continue to get better and enjoy a modern standard of living if all the smart people leave?
> the problem is that we can't afford to "let them all in" Why is that? I'm genuinely curious. Are you making an economic or a cultural argument? On the economic side, there's no evidence that immigration, even mass immigration, has any negative consequences, apart from some more competition at the very low end of salaries, which should obviously be addressed. By and large, immigrants are net contributors to the econ…
> there's no evidence that immigration, even mass immigration, has any negative consequences, apart from some more competition at the very low end of salaries
So, in other words, there is evidence that it does have negative consequences?
I myself don't know either way. I just think that, if what you write is true, an impact at the low end of the salary spectrum isn't something to brush off as if it's nothing and doesn't count.
Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he maybe referring to this: Bannon responded: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” he didn’t finish his sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.” http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13653490/steve-bannon-tru...
What a surprise, a request for citation of an outrageous anti-Trump claim results in an avalanche of irrelevant links.
> outrageous ... irrelevant
The citation seems quite clear to me. Perhaps I'm missing something. Was Bannon not complaining about the number of ethnic minorities?
Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups
#196This 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 entrenc…
> for starters there are significantly more tax benefits for starting a business if you are an immigrant.
For example? Legal US immigrants pay the same taxes as everyone else.
> Secondly, immigrants don't have entrenched interests or preoccupations that would otherwise give them a very high opportunity cost to starting their own business.
One of the most popular routes to US [legal] immigration is via family, which naturally leads to preoccupation. Your notion of who immigrants are is very skewed.
Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups
#197One 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.
> One of the basic premises of anti-immigrant policies is that you can somehow influence the ratio of "useful" vs "not-useful" immigrants.
This is exactly what the study shows is not just possible but easy in screening by nationality. Think about US immigration statistics by country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Stat...): you'll see lots of Central and South American countries. Now take a look at what the study finds (http://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Immigrants-and-Bi...):
"The leading country of origin for the immigrant founders of billion dollar companies was India with 14 entrepreneurs, followed by Canada and the United Kingdom with 8, Israel (7), Germany (4), China (3), France (2), Ireland (2) and 12 other countries with one entrepreneur.2
India: 14
Canada: 8
United Kingdom: 8
Israel: 7
Germany: 4
China: 3
France: 3
Ireland: 2
Armenia: 1
Azerbaijan: 1
Argentina: 1
Egypt: 1
Holland: 1
Iraq: 1
Norway: 1
Russia: 1
Singapore: 1
South Africa: 1
South Korea: 1
Uzbekistan: 1"
Does this look remotely like current US immigration? It does not. (Hey, you know what countries I don't see on that startup founder list? Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, El Salvador, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Jamaica, Colombia, Haiti, Honduras, Peru, Ecuador...) If you were building a model to predict startup founding by nationality and personal details like IQ or ethnicity (no prizes for guessing what ethnicity that 1 South Africa founder is, or what religion that 1 Iraqi founder is), and designing immigration policy around that, it would look nothing like what has gone on for decades.
Using startup founders as an argument for the status quo of illegal immigration is a deeply dishonest bait-and-switch piece of equivocation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division ) and it makes my teeth grind every time I see someone go 'did you know 50% of startup founders/CEOs/scientists are immigrants?' Justify it on its own merits, don't pretend that Indian brahmins and Israeli Jews' accomplishments have anything to do with not building a wall along the Mexican border!
This is a very similar fallacy as the 'US has only 5% of the world population, therefore it only has 1 out of 20 of the best researchers/programmers/entrepreneurs' (most recently seen on Paul Graham's Twitter). This is not remotely the case because of differing health & political & economic & scientific development & mean IQ, and the further out on the tail you go (such as 'best programmers in the world') the more lopsided the global distribution becomes - much the same way that women make up 50% of the population but do not make up 50% of people over 7 feet tall or the NBA.
Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apart from the idea of sorting people into useful and useless being inhumane, it also seems to be counterproductive. Universities do it.
There are many alternatives if you are denied from a university, such as applying to a different university or learning online instead. There is only one America
Yes, but America is one of many "countries". If you want to extend the example to universities, then you have to compare America to say "Harvard". Potential students always have the chance to go to other universities, some with definitely lower standards of entry. Same goes for America and other countries.
E.g. I wasn't smart enough to get a fancy scholarship and entry to a top-tier American university? But, I sure was able to get into a good university in a third-world country. Options are available! America is not the only answer out there, so to phrase it as if America has the sole responsibility of fixing the world's problems is kind of one-sided.
Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups
#199I'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.
"Combating xenophobia should be a moral issue, not a utilitarian one."
Equating 'pro immigration' with 'morality' is the rather problematic basis of your statement.
Many countries (most, in fact) do just fine without large scale immigration policies.
Many nations with immigration are struggling to cope.
Moreover, there are serious flaws with US immigration policy such that one could be opposed to it on that basis.
Very, very few people 'hate immigrants'. But significant numbers of people think it's inappropriate to have people sneaking across the border, without documentation or status, and others just don't support large scale immigration, or perhaps have other criteria.
Re: Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups
#200One 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.
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 Gui…
I think building a wall will increase the net flow of illegal immigrants as currently more people are leaving than entering.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-...
I don't think you need >3x the annual median income (that's top 10%) for immigrants to benefit.
Economics research says high wage immigrants benefit while low wage immigrants benefit the natives on net, although it may harm some natives.
In my opinion, even if it may harm some natives, due to the poverty alleviating effects of immigration, we should open immigration to anyone who doesn't have a criminal record. This isn't that crazy, till 1914 in the U.S.:
"Generally, those immigrants who were approved spent from two to five hours at Ellis Island. Arrivals were asked 29 questions including name, occupation, and the amount of money carried. It was important to the American government that the new arrivals could support themselves and have money to get started. The average the government wanted the immigrants to have was between 18 and 25 dollars ($600 in 2015 adjusted for inflation). Those with visible health problems or diseases were sent home or held in the island's hospital facilities for long periods of time. More than three thousand would-be immigrants died on Ellis Island while being held in the hospital facilities. Some unskilled workers were rejected because they were considered "likely to become a public charge." About 2 percent were denied admission to the U.S. and sent back to their countries of origin for reasons such as having a chronic contagious disease, criminal background, or insanity."
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Island#Primary_inspectio... )
What I want is this minus the racism and disqualification for health problems except maybe for contagious diseases.