> Immigrants are found to have higher business ownership and formation rates than non-immigrants.
https://www.sba.gov/content/immigrant-entrepreneurs-and-smal...
And let's go ahead and ignore just how unfair Manifest Destiny was to begin with and even more recently Mexican Repatriation.
When you say it includes all immigrants, do you mean it includes the groups that would be affected when isolated from the rest, or overall?
Looking at >$1B businesses only, as this story does, presents a rather skewed perspective. Per Fiscal Policy Institute "there are nonetheless more small business owners from Mexico than from any other single country... Immigrants born in Mexico make up 12 percent of immigrant small business owners, followed by immigrants born in India, Korea, Cuba, China, and Vietnam." http://fiscalpolicy.org/immigrant-small-business-owners-FPI-...
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/larg...
I also see that you are listing a lot of countries with very small populations and an even smaller number of legal immigrants. If they don't show up in start ups, that would be the first thing I'd check. Not their supposedly lower IQ or education, which I would reject in the case of some of these countries.
No one ever said that screening measure might not have false negatives. The only way to guarantee that no desirable immigrant is ever turned away is to never turn anyone away ever, since there's always a chance. This is not to say that immigration could not be reduced drastically with minimal effect on startup cofounders, based on the research in OP which is being cited for drastically different claims than it implies.
> I also see that you are listing a lot of countries with very small populations and an even smaller number of legal immigrants.
In my sarcastic aside, I listed countries by order of the WP entry; they may be small countries, but they have nevertheless managed to send an awful lot of people into the USA. Numbers is not their problem. And if you are referring to the list of startup founders, many of them coming from small countries (with even smaller immigration into the USA) only emphasizes the disparity in odds between countries...
And as to lying with statistics, I don't think that the left is alone in that.
That so?
> I could throw just as many statistics against you and your drug use if I wanted, but I'm not an authoritarian.
Go right ahead.
> And as to lying with statistics, I don't think that the left is alone in that.
And yet, that still doesn't make it right.
Yes, by way of tautology arguing for a regulation on the movement of people is arguing for a regulation which effects the freedom of individuals and arguing to regulate the freedom of individuals is authoritarian.
> Go right ahead.
" In 2002, 29% of convicted inmates reported they had used illegal drugs at the time of the offense, down from 35% in 1996." - https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm
Vs foreign born people with a total incarceration rate of just 0.57% vs native born people with an incarceration rate of 2.23%.
Obviously, from a statistical standpoint, you are far worse than your average mexican when it comes to crime ;)
'literally any regulation is authoritarian' --timthelion 2017
> you are far worse than your average mexican when it comes to crime
That's not true. The population of Mexican immigrants is not the same as the population of Mexico which is not the same as the population of the USA which is not the same as the fraction of drug users. You also get the conditioning wrong: the relative risk or odds is what matters, and that requires both population prevalences of drug use, and the lifetime drug use rate in the USA is quite high - for hallucinogens alone it's easily 10%. Throw in marijuana, underage alcohol, and so on... Also, illegal immigration is a crime, so if you want to compare crime rates, you ought to be taking that into account in estimating immigrant crime rates. (Illegal immigration is OK because it's victimless? Well, so is using LSD. You can't have it both ways.) Nor can you compare the immigration incarceration rate because the populations differ drastically in demographics (gender, sex etc) and is censored (given deportation, self-deportation, or voluntarily leaving afterwards).
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.