Amicus Curiae Brief — Trump v. Int'l Refugee Assistance Project, 138 S. Ct. 50 (2017) (No. 16-1436)

Supreme Court brief2017

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Supreme Court. U S |

SEP 18 2017

OFFICE OF THE CLERK |

NOs. 16-1436 AND 16-1540

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Anited States

DONALD J. TRUMP,

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.,

Petitioners,

Vv.

INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE

ASSISTANCE PROJECT, ET AL.,

Respondents.

DONALD J. TRUMP,

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.,

Petitioners,

STATE OF HAWAII, ET AL.,

Respondents.

ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF

APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH AND NINTH CIRCUITS

BRIEF OF MASSACHUSETTS TECHNOLOGY

LEADERSHIP COUNCIL, INC., AS AMICUS CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS IN AFFIRMANCE

OF THE DECISIONS BELOW

CHRISTOPHER HART

Counsel of Record

MICHAEL B. KEATING

KRISTYN M. DEFILIPP

DANIEL L. MCFADDEN

FOLEY HoAG LLP

155 Seaport Boulevard

Boston, Massachusetts 02210

(617) 832-1000

chart@foleyhoag.com

Dated: September 18, 2017

BATEMAN & SLADE. INC BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ED Ce FAA EE a ccnsecensecsescesscssescvsesssocseces iv

II.

THE NEW TRAVEL BAN IS

MERELY A CONTINUATION OF

THE PRESIDENT’S

UNCONSTITUTIONAL ANTI-

MUSLIM POLICIES. ...00... eee eeeeeeee 3

A. The President Banned

B. The Federal Courts Ordered

The President To Cease

Implementing The Ban. ............. 4

C. The Revised Travel Ban Is A

Continuation Of The Original

And Is Equally, If Not More,

Se TTR AE A: BOR 6

THE REVISED TRAVEL BAN IS

NOT ONLY ILLEGAL, BUT IT

WILL OPERATE AGAINST THE

PUBLIC INTEREST, INCLUDING

AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF

THE TECHNOLOGY SECTOR............. 8

A. The Domestic Technology

Industry Benefits From

I cisiiniaicatuienitnicsiinditnciinae 9

1. Immigration Supports

The Innovation

SE NC Ss)

2. Immigrants Are

I 11

3. Immigrants Are

Technology Leaders. ...... 12

4. Immigrants Are

Business Leaders. .......... 13

5. Immigrants

Contribute To The

Field Of Medicine........... 14

B. Unless It Is Enjoined, The

Revised Travel Ban Will

Harm The Technology

IN indendsniihadcenbeaidatiiionsiiinkos 15

C. Unless It Is Enjoined, the

Revised Travel Ban Will

Undermine the Competitive

Strength of the Domestic

Technology Industry and Will

Chill the Culture of

a 18

UIT Suhiessiesinsdiapabusiistihidatndmmiviiaiban bibccecnienguien 20

APPENDIX

Mass Technology Leadership Council,

The Economic Impact of Immigration

on the U.S., June 2017

LE OF ES

CASES:

Aziz v. Trump,

No. 17-116, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

20889 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017) ................... passim

Epperson v. Arkansas,

gS SR er ert 19

United States v. Ballard,

Ee SS Fe IE veecienccsnsinininicnecussanensenmmmnniiabaieaneian 19

Hawaii v. Trump,

No. 17-361, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

36935 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017) .................... 2, 7,8

Trump v. International Refugee Assistance

Praject, 187 8. Ct. 2060 (2017)........ccccccssescccsssvcocces 7

Washington v. Trump,

No. 17-141, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

16012 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017),

stay denied by No. 17-35105, 2017

U.S. App. LEXIS 2369 (9th Cir. Feb.

Gi, TERETE FU) vicissaccoscéuseacenniicdansenpmesaibiionmanabeaonnieal passim

STATUTES:

ORDERS:

82 Fed. Reg. 8,977 (Jan. 27, 2017) ............:cecceeeeeees 2,4

Se it BN: DA cicicconesnncesnnsemniniitbniaiedaniancame 4

82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 6, 2017) .............ccccseeseeeeees 2

OTHER AUTHORITIES:

Adam Vaccaro, Boston Business

Leaders Oppose Trump Immigration

Order, The Boston Globe (Jan. 29,

2017), available at

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busine

ss/2017/01/29/chief-says-company-

will-stand-with-employees-from-

banned-countries/5vO00FyvZZp

GPdESCEPDiEN/atory Rta ........cccccccccossssosssreeenees

January 27, 2016 Letter of Edward J.

Ramotowski, Deputy Ass’t of State,

Bureau of Consular Affairs,

September 15, 2017 Tweet from Donald

J. Trump, available at

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrum

p/status/908645 126146265090...............cccccccccees

Trump Advisor Says New Travel Ban

Will Have ‘Same Basic Policy

Outcome, ’FoxNews.com, Feb. 21,

2017, available at

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201

7/02/21/trump-adviser-says-new-

travel-ban-will-have-same-basic-

Zeninjor Enwemeka, Local Tech

Companies Say Trump’s

Immigration Order Is Bad For

Business, WBUR (Feb. 7, 2017),

available at

http://www. wbur.org/bostonomix/201

7/ 02/07/boston-business-travel-ban ...................

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE}

Amicus Curiae is the Massachusetts

Technology Leadership Council, Inc. (“MassTLC”), a

not-for-profit association of companies that

collectively employ more than 170,000 people in the

Massachusetts technology industry. MassTLC

represents a vibrant and growing community of

innovators in fields including software, computers,

robotics, and security products. MassTLC therefore

closely follows issues — including immigration

policy —- that may affect the ability of its members

to build value, attract talent, and compete in the

diverse global marketplace.

‘ LUSURE SIATEMEN’

Massachusetts Technology Leadership

Council, Inc. is a not-for-profit organization based in

Burlington, Massachusetts. It has no parent

company, and no publicly traded organization owns

10% or more of its stock.

INTRODUCTION

MassTLC writes in support of the

Respondents in opposing the Trump

Administration’s (“Administration”) effort to

overturn nationwide injunctions restraining the

1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, counsel for

amicus states that no counsel for a party authored this brief in

whole or in part, and that no person other than amicus, its

members, or its counsel made a monetary contribution to the

preparation or submission of this brief. Petitioner's Letter of

Consent to the filing of all amicus briefs in this matter was

lodged with the Clerk of Court pursuant to Rule 37.3(a) on July

17, 2017. Counsel for Respondents provided written consent to

the filing of this brief pursuant to Rule 37.3(a) on September 6,

2017.

execution of President Donald Trump’s Executive

Order dated March 6, 2017, entitled “Protecting the

Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United

States” (the “Revised Travel Ban”).2 As the Court is

aware, the Revised Travel Ban was issued to

voluntarily narrow an identically titled Executive

Order issued January 27, 2017 (the “Original Travel

Ban”),

The Kevised Travel Ban is arbitrary, illegal,

and does not serve the public interest. This is

fundamentally the same discriminatory “Muslim

Ban” that has been repeatedly enjoined over the last

seven months.‘ Cosmetic changes — such as the

post hoc addition of purported security justifications

— do not alter the fact that this policy still proceeds

from the same irrational and unconstitutional

religious animus. Indeed, the President’s own

Senior Policy Advisor admits that it is intended to

achieve the “same basic policy outcome” as its

patently illegal predecessor.®

MassTLC writes principally to further support

the Respondents’ arguments that the Revised Travel

Ban does not serve the public interest. Rather, the

2 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 6, 2017).

8 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977 (Jan. 27, 2017).

4 See, e.g., Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, 2017

U.S. App. LEXIS 2369, at *3-7 (9% Cir. Feb. 9, 2017); Aziz v.

Trump, No. 17-116, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20889, at *9-13, 27

(E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017); Hawail v. Trump, No. 17-361, 2017

U.S, Dist. LEXIS 36935, at *33-45 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017).

5 See Trump Advisor Says New Travel Ban Will Have

‘Same Basic Policy Outcome,’ FoxNews.com, Feb. 21, 2017,

available at http://www .foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/21/trump-

adviser-says-new-trave]-ban-will-have-same-basic-policy-

outcome.html.

public interest demands an immigration system that

does not discriminate against any religion, and that

is fair, orderly, and predictable. In particular,

technology companies in Massachusetts require such

a system in order to recruit innovators from around

the world to build businesses here at home, and to

sell their products back out into the _ global

marketplace. President Trump’s attempt to ban the

entry of entire nationalities — even when the

person seeking entry clearly poses no risk — is

antithetical to the public interest and undermines

America’s innovation economy and its fundamental

values.

ARGUMENT

I. THE NEW TRAVEL BAN IS MERELY A

CONTINUATION OF THE PRESIDENT’S

UNCONSTITUTIONAL ANTI-MUSLIM

During his recent’ election campaign,

President Trump repeatedly promised to ban

Muslims from entering the United States. As one

court has explained, “[t]he ‘Muslim ban’ was a

centerpiece of the president’s campaign for months,

and the press release calling for it was still available

on his website as of [Feb. 13, 2017].””

Within days of taking office, President Trump

issued the Original Travel Ban. Section 3(c) of that

order immediately prohibited all people from seven

predominantly Muslim countries from entering the

United States, even including returning permanent

6 See Aziz, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20889, at *9-13.

7 See id.

residents and visa-holders residing in the United

States. The President ordered that this exclusion

continue for 90 days, during which time federal

agencies would purportedly review their

immigration security procedures. To implement

this order, the Department of State “provisionally

revoke[d] all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant

visas of nationals” of those seven countries without

any due process or advance notice.!°

Notably, the Original Travel Ban contained

provisions to add additional countries to the

“banned” list, and also to extend the ban indefinitely

beyond the initial 90-day period.1! Thus, with the

stroke of a pen, President Trump suddenly excluded

a vast number of Muslims from the United States,

stripped legal status from many already residing

here, and created well-founded fear that more

nationalities would find themselves banned without

warning.

B. The Federal Courts Ordered The

President To Cease Implementing T!

Ban.

The Original Travel Ban was rapidly enjoined

by numerous federal courts. Most broadly, Judge

8 See Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369, at *3-7.

Notably, the order included a safety valve to permit “religious

minorities.”

® 82 Fed. Reg. 8977, 8977-78.

10 See January 27, 2016 Letter of Edward J.

Ramotowski, Deputy Ass’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs,

Department of State. This letter made a small number of

exceptions for military and diplomatic visas, or case-by-case

determinations “in the national interest.”

il 82 Fed. Reg. 8977, 8978.

James Robart of the U.S. District Court for the

Western District of Washington issued an order that

the federal government was “ENJOINED and

RESTRAINED from .. . [e]nforcing Section 3(c)” of

the Original Travel Ban on a nationwide basis based

on the finding that the Original Travel Ban caused

“significant and ongoing harm” to plaintiff States

(Washington and Minnesota) and their residents.'”

The federal government appealed this order, but

ultimately dismissed the appeal after the 9 Circuit

construed the order as a preliminary injunction and

refused to stay its operation.!3

Notably, at least one court enjoined the

Original Travel Ban based on the strong likelihood

that it would be proved to be an exercise in religious

discrimination. Judge Brinkema of the U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District of Virginia concluded,

based in large part on the President’s own

statements, that the Commonwealth of Virginia had

established such a strong likelihood of success on its

Establishment Clause claim that the Original Travel

Ban should be enjoined on that basis alone.'4

12 Washington, No. 17-141, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

16012, at *7-8 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017).

18 See Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369, at *34

(stay of preliminary injunction denied); Order, Washington, No.

17-35105 (9% Cir. Mar. 8, 2017) (granting federal government's

motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal of preliminary injunction,

including payment of State of Washington's costs).

\4 Aziz, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20889, at *28 n.11.

C. The Revised Travel Ban Is A

Continuation Of The Original And Is

Equally, If Not More, Flawed.

On March 6, 2017, President Trump signed

the Revised Travel Ban, which purports to revoke

and replace his earlier order. Unchanged, however,

is the ban’s basic function: to prohibit people from

predominantly Muslim countries from entering the

United States based solely on their national origin.}®

The Revised Travel Ban will last through at

least late September,!* again purportedly to permit a

review of immigration security procedures, again

subject to indefinite extension, and again subject to

the addition of new “banned” countries. Such

extension is highly probable, given that the

President tweeted on September 15, 2017, that the

“travel ban into the United States” should be “far

larger” and “tougher.”!7

To be sure, while the Revised Travel Ban is

somewhat narrower than its predecessor, it

16 This is prohibited discrimination even if the ban does

not restrict travel from every predominantly Muslim country.

See id. at *26-27 (“The major premise of that argument—that

one can only demonstrate animus toward a group of people by

targeting all of them at once — is flawed.”).

26 In fact, as the Government admits in its brief, the

Administration unilaterally extended for itself the time at

which the clock would begin to run on implementation of

Section 2(c) of the Revised Travel Ban. During the pendency of

this litigation, on June 14, 2017, the President issued a

memorandum providing that the effective date would be keyed

to the lifting or staying of the injunction at issue here. Br. at

37.

17 See September 15, 2017 Tweet from Donald J.

Trump, available at https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/

status/908645 126146265090

nevertheless still achieves (in the words of President

Trump’s own senior advisor) the “same basic policy

outcome.”!8 For example, although the revised order

exempts permanent residents and aliens already

issued visas, the residents of six Muslim-majority

countries still cannot obtain new visas. Inevitably,

travel from those countries will be incrementally

extinguished as existing visas expire.

Further, although the Revised Travel Ban

now contains purported security justifications for

restricting travel from the six remaining countries, it

is telling that these justifications were not proffered

until after the Original Travel Ban had been

enjoined.'9 Asserted now — in the teeth of

numerous adverse rulings — these post hoc

rationalizations are entitled to little weight.”°

The Revised Travel Ban was also enjoined.

On appeal, the Court largely declined to stay the

injunction, opting only to modify it slightly to permit

the Government to deny visas to a small subset of

potential immigrants from the banned countries that

have no business or personal relationship with the

U.S.21. The Administration’s interpretation of the

Court’s order -— excluding non-nuclear family

members from the injunction — prompted the

18 See Trump Advisor Says New Travel Ban Will Have

‘Same Basic Policy Outcome,’n.4, supra.

19 Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369, at *32 &

n.8.

2 Aziz, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20889, at *24 n.10 (citing

Peacock v. Duval, 694 F.2d 644, 646 (9% Cir. 1982)); Hawai,

2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36935 at *39-40, n. 15 (citing Azzz).

21 Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project,

137 S. Ct. 2080, 2088-2089 (2017).

Hawaii District Court to step in to yet again prevent

executive overreach.22 The Ninth Circuit affirmed.?

The Revised Travel Ban has the purpose and

effect of banning Muslims from the United States, as

is evident from the overwhelming record of the

President's statements targeting Muslims. The

Revised Travel Ban also violates the Immigration

and Nationality Act.24 For all of these reasons, as

well as for those set forth in Respondents’ Brief, the

Revised Travel Ban is illegal.

Il. THE REVISED TRAVEL BAN IS NOT ONLY

ILLEGAL, BUT IT WILL OPERATE

AGAINST THE PUBLIC’ INTEREST,

INCLUDING AGAINST THE INTERESTS

OF THE TECHNOLOGY SECTOR.

Although the Revised Travel Ban is contrary

to the public interest in many ways, MassTLC writes

to explain one particular facet of that harm: the

ban’s profoundly disruptive effect on the technology

sector, including in Massachusetts.

22 Hawaii, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109034 (D. Haw. July

13, 2017).

23 Hawaii, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17340, at *39 (9th

Cir. Sep. 7, 2017).

248 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seg.

A. The Domestic Technology Industry

Benefits From Immigration.

5 i i Supports The

Innovation Economy.

The technology industry is a critical driver of

the Massachusetts economy. Nearly 400,000 people

in Massachusetts work in jobs that are either in the

technology sector, or are in technology-related

occupations in other sectors — roughly 13% of the

state’s total workforce.2° This industry is a global

enterprise, fueled in large part by immigration and

international travel. According to one recent study,

as of January 1, 2016, “[i}Jmmigrants have started

more than half (44 of 87) of America’s startup

companies valued at $1 billion dollars or more and

are key members of management or product

development teams in over 70 percent (62 of 87) of

these companies.”26 More than half of Silicon

Valley’s corporate founders are immigrants.?7

The integral role that immigrants play in the

technology industry does not arise because

“immigrants steal jobs” (as some have argued), but

rather because the technology industry is growing

too rapidly to be staffed through domestic labor

alone. By 2020, for example, projections indicate

that 1.4 million computer specialist positions will be

28 Appendix, The Economic Impact of Immigration on

the U.S., June 2017 (“App.”), 15-16. This Appendix is a version

of a publicly-available report published by MassTLC and

available on its website, http://)www.masstlc.org/immigration/.

The report cites original sources for the data relied on in this

brief. MassTLC provides a version of the full report here as an

Appendix for the Court’s convenience.

26 App. at 30.

27 App. at 61.

open in the United States, but domestic universities

will only produce enough graduates to fill 29% of

those jobs.28 In Massachusetts today, there are

seventeen technology jobs for every person who

graduates with a degree in cumputer science or

information technology.?9 Immigrants are

responsible for substantial economic growth. This is

true as a general matter of the country as a whole:

in 2015, immigrants contributed $2 trillion to the

U.S. GDP, which represents 11% of the country’s

total GDP.°° Zooming in on the Massachusetts

technology sector, one study projects that, if half of

Massachusetts’ 3,608 advanced level graduates in

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

(STEM) related fields, studying on temporary visas,

remained in Massachusetts upon graduation, then

4,726 new jobs would be created for U.S.-born

workers by 2021.31

As it stands, immigrant students are

disproportionately more likely to get their degrees in

a STEM field, and international students make up

over 30% of the post-baccalaureate degrees in STEM

fields.°2 Individuals from the six banned countries,

moreover, are more likely to have a bachelor’s

degree, approximately twice as likely to have a

graduate degree, and four times as likely to have a

doctoral degree relative to the native-born

population.?3 Quite apart from this population being

28 App. at 13.

29 App. at 16.

30 App. at 52.

31 App. at 17.

82 App. at 159-60.

38 App. at 150.

a disproportionately educated and skilled one, they

are also part of a population making immediate

positive impacts on the U.S. economy: During the

2015-16 academic year, international students

contributed $32.8 billion to the U.S. economy and

supported more than 400,000 jobs.*4

2. Immigrants Are Inventors.

So too do immigrants drive the development of

inventions and other useful arts. For example, in

2011, 76% of patents awarded to the Top 10 patent-

producing U.S. universities had an inventor who was

foreign-born.*5 In recent years, foreign nationals

contributed to more than three quarters of patents in

the fields of information technology, molecular and

microbiology, and pharmaceuticals.%4

The amount of invention originating from

immigrants can have dramatic effec.s on innovation,

with discernable spillover effects. One academic

study noted that a 1.3 percentage point increase in

the share of the overall U.S. population composed of

immigrant college graduates, and a 0.7 percentage

point increase in that same share composed of post-

graduate immigrants, Jed to an increase in patenting

by approximately 12 to 21%.37 Similarly, as little as

a 0.45 percentage point increase in immigrant

scientists and engineers in the overall U.S.

population increases patenting per capita by

approximately 13 to 32%,.%8 High-skilled

34 App. at 163-64.

35 App. at 37.

36 App. at 38-39.

37 App. at 41.

38 App. at 41.

immigration has an important and discernable

impact on the innovation economy. Limiting such

immigration clearly threatens future innovation.

3. Immigrants Are Technology

Leaders.

The highly-educated foreign-born scientists,

mathematicians, and engineers also represent some

of the best in the field. Forty percent of the Nobel

Prizes won by Americans in Chemistry, Medicine,

and Physics since 2000 were awarded to

immigrants.39 In 2016, all six American winners of

the Nobel Prize in economics and scientific fields

were foreign-born.*° From 2010 to 2015, four out of

eight U.S. Turing Award (for computing) recipients

were first or second generation immigrants.*! Since

1925, 63% of Fields Medal (for mathematics)

recipients affiliated with a U.S. research institution

have been foreign born (and a// such recipients have

been foreign-born since 2002).42 Forty-one percent of

National Medal of Science recipients in math or

computer science are foreign-born.‘ In

Massachusetts, 37% of Nobel Prize winners

associated with MIT are foreign-born; 32% of Nobel

prize winners who are current faculty or alumni of

Harvard University are foreign-born;*5 and 75% of

Nobel Prize winners who have been affiliated with

39 App. at 166.

40 App.

41 App.

42 App.

43 App.

44 App.

45 App.

at 166.

at 178.

at 176.

at 180.

at 168.

at 169.

Boston University are foreign-born.*® There is little

question as to the importance of the contributions

that immigrants make to STEM fields, in both the

U.S. and Massachusetts.

4. Immigrants Are _ Business

Leaders.

American companies that are household

names — Microsoft, McDonald’s, U.S. Steel — are

led by foreign-born CEQOs.‘’ As of 2016, over 10% of

Fortune 500 CEOs were born outside of the U.S.; the

same was true for 14% of Fortune 100 CEOs.** In

2016, over 40% of Fortune 500 firms were founded

either by an immigrant or the child of immigrants. 49

The same holds true in Massachusetts. More

than half of the Massachusetts-based Fortune 500

companies were founded by immigrants, or by

children of immigrants.°° Their impact on the

Massachusetts economy has been significant,

generating over $130 billion in annual revenue, and

employing nearly half a million people around the

world.5! At the beginning of this decade, over 17

percent of all business owners in Massachusetts

were foreign-born.52 In 2013, the same was true of

nearly 19 percent of business owners in the greater

4 App. at 169.

4? App. at 29.

4 App. at 29.

4° App. at 29.

5° App. at 26.

51 App. at 26.

52 App. at 27.

Boston area.5® From 2006 to 2010, Massachusetts

businesses owned by recent immigrants had a total

net business income of $2.8 billion.®

Prominent American innovators, past and

present, hail from countries directly targeted by the

Revised Travel Ban, including Steve Jobs (the late

co-founder of Apple, whose father is from Syria), Ali

Hajimiri (an academic and entrepreneur who holds

over 85 U.S. and European patents, who is from

Iran), and Joe Kiani (founder, chairman, and CEO of

Masimo, and also from Iran).®5 [ranian-Americans

either founded or lead mainstays of the technology

sector like Twitter, Dropbox, Oracle, and eBay.*6

Similarly, several of the top venture capitalists who

fund new technology companies were born in

Tehran.5?

5. Immigrants Contribute To The

Field Of Medicine.

Medicine, in particular, has benefitted greatly

from immigrants. More than 25 percent of

physicians practicing in the United States are

foreign-born.°*® Importantly, foreign-born physicians

are disproportionately represented in rural clinics

and public safety-net hospitals treating isolated and

vulnerable populations.5® The simple reason for this

is that the United States does not produce enough

58 App. at 27.

54 App. at 27.

55 App. at 32-34.

58 App. at 32-34.

57 App. at 14.

58 App. at 17-18.

physicians to keep up with demand. According to a

report published by the Association of American

Medical Colleges (AAMC) in 2016, a current deficit

of 11,000 physicians is expected to grow as the

population grows and ages.® The AAMC estimates

that the U.S. will face a shortage of up to 94,700

doctors by 2025.% Almost a third of the shortage

will be primary care physicians.®2 More than 8,400

doctors working in the U.S. are from two of the

countries listed in the Revised Travel Ban: [ran and

Syria.*8 Specifically in Massachusetts, in 2016

almost 1 in 4 physicians graduated from a medical

school outside of the United States (suggesting non-

U.S. origin).®

B. Unless It Is Enjoined, The Revised

Travel Ban Will Harm The Technology

Industry.

Implementation of irrational and

discriminatory immigration policies, including the

Revised Travel Ban, would severely harm the

technology industry in the U.S. generally, and

Massachusetts specifically. Indeed, Massachusetts

has one of the highest numbers of applications for

temporary non-agricultural work permits in the

United States.% The impact is expected to

destabilize the workforce and _ reduce _ the

competitiveness of U.S. technology firms. For

= ~

8° App. at 18.

81 App. at 18.

62 App. at 18.

88 App. at 19.

64 App. at 21.

85 App. at 128.

example, Microsoft’s public securities filings explain

that “[c]Jhanges to U.S. immigration policies that

restrain the flow of technical and professional talent

may inhibit our ability to adequately staff our

research and development efforts.”®* In addition to

stifling recruiting from the “banned” countries, the

Revised Travel Ban could accelerate the rise of

technology hubs abroad, making such locales as

Vancouver, London, and Singapore more “attractive

alternatives to existing hubs” of technology in the

United States, and force companies based abroad to

put off opening offices in the United States.®’ It will

also likely result in the relocation of foreign-born

employees from the United States to other countries

where they can reside without fear of a sudden

revocation of their rights to access their families and

homes.

The Massachusetts technology sector expects

to feel this impact acutely.

As reported in the press, numerous Boston-

based businesses have expressed grave concern

regarding the Administration’s travel ban and its

potential expansion. As Jeff Bussgang, a general

partner at the venture capital firm Flybridge and

professor at Harvard Business School stated, the

travel ban is “the innovation economy’s worst

nightmare.”®* Paul English, founder of the travel

booking site Kayak and startup Lola, expressed

66 App. at 21.

87 App. at 22.

8° Adam Vaccaro, Boston Business Leaders Oppose

Trump Immigration Order, The Boston Globe (Jan. 29, 2017),

available at https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/01/29/

chief-says-company-will-stand-with-employees-from-banned-

countries/5v000FyvZZpGPd5CxPDjfN/story. html.

concern about a Mexican national hired to develop

an app who was worried about traveling out of the

country to visit his family.®® Leaders of

Massachusetts-headquartered technology companies,

from large to small — including GE, TripAdvisor,

Carbonite, Brightcove, and Fuze —have expressed

concern over the direct impact that implementation

of the travel ban had on their businesses.” This

anecdotal evidence is strongly supported by the

empirical data noted above: a high percentage of

founders, managers, and employees of

Massachusetts technology companies are

immigrants and potentially impacted by the Revised

Travel Ban, either directly or indirectly.

It is thus clearly in the public interest —

including in the interests of the Massachusetts

technology industry — for the Court to restrain the

operation of the Revised Travel Ban. The United

States deserves fair, rational, and predictable rules

to govern immigration and international travel.

Such a system permits individuals and companies to

reliably arrange employment and commercial

relationships, without fear that those relationships

will be abruptly disrupted by irrational or

discriminatory policies.

68 Jd.

7” Jd.; Zeninjor Enwemeka, Local Tech Companies Say

Trump’s Immigration Order Is Bad For Business, WBUR (Feb.

7, 2017), available at http:/www.wbur.org/bostonomix/2017/

02/07/boston-business-travel-ban.

The Revised Travel Ban is also contrary to the

public interest because it substantially undermines

the ability of the Massachusetts technology industry

to compete in the international marketplace. It

discourages travel to the U.S. by potential customers

and investors, either because they are directly

impacted by the ban, or because they are worried

that the ban will be unexpectedly expanded to

include additional nationalities. Indeed, this is not a

theoretical concern. Flight bookings to the United

States from January 28, 2017 to February 4, 2017

dropped by 6.5% overall in comparison to the

previous year.”! Bookings to the United States from

the seven targeted countries in the Original Travel

Ban have dropped by 80%.7?

The Revised Travel Ban may also force

companies to move jobs outside of the U.S., locating

businesses where employees live rather than

enticing them to come to the U.S. Similarly, the

Revised Travel Ban discourages talented foreign

students from attending local educational

institutions, from which the technology industry

hires many engineers and scientists to drive

innovation in the United States. Foreign-born

students already in the U.S. will be less likely to

remain, as they may be unable to receive or renew a

visa, or may be fearful of that possibility. The

Revised Travel Ban will inevitably reduce the

71 App. at 271.

72 App. at 271.

relative strength of domestic industry in global

markets, which does nothing to make the United

States more safe, prosperous, or secure.

The technology industry, in Massachusetts as

elsewhere, thrives on a culture of diversity,

inclusivity, and equal opportunity. The Revised

Travel Ban is antithetical to these values. It is a

patently illegal and discriminatory attempt to inflict

harm upon a religious minority.”? This animus was

both proven and magnified by the manner of the

Original Travel Ban’s implementation, which —

without any notice — barred the re-entry of

Muslims who have made their home in our country,

separating them from their homes, families, and

careers. A government that acts to hurt people

based on their religion (or non-religion) undermines

not only the inclusive principles of the modern

technology industry, but also legal principles “rooted

in the foundation soil of our Nation” and

“fundamental to freedom.”"* “Freedom of thought,

which includes freedom of religious belief, is basic in

a society of free men [and women].”75

78 Aziz, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20889, at *9-13, 27.

™ Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 103-09 (1968).

1% United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86 (1944).

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, MassTLC

respectfully requests that this Court affirm the

decisions below.

Respectfully submitted,

CHRISTOPHER HART

Counsel of Record

MICHAEL B. KEATING

KRISTYN M. DEFILIPP

DANIEL L. MCFADDEN

FOLEY HoAG LLP

155 Seaport Boulevard

Boston, Massachusetts 02210

(617) 832-1000

chart@foleyhoag.com

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council, Inc.

Dated: September 18, 2017

APPENDIX

Me ASOSTLCES |

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF

IMMIGRATION ON THE U.S.

June 2017 The &cononuc Impact of Immigration on the {/S8.

compilation of research contributes to a productive

dialogue about the important role immigrants play

as critical drivers of our national leadership in

innovation, economic growth, and global

competitiveness.

We encourage readers of this report to lend their

voices to the conversation and use this research to

complement personal insights and experiences about

the role of immigrants. We welcome broad sharing of

this report and have made it freely available for

download at the following URL:

www.MassTLC.org/Immigration.

Thank you,

/3s/ Thomas Haperoft

Thomas Hopcroft

President & CEO

Mass Technology

Leadership Council, Inc.

Js / Hhblhamad Lt

Mohamad Ali

President & CEO

Carbonite, Inc.

Trustee, MassTLC

/i/ Oteve Kiaufer

Steve Kaufer

President & CEO

TripAdvisor, Inc.

Member, MassTLC

LS.

fimnugration on

AC.

me Bt?)

he Econe

2017 __ The

une 201

“‘HUOTR ad 2OUDI2 20; payynupE

NUCHMUTUE UEEPEUED pO %Z9 0) povedamd ‘7{Oz 10

setodnd KieusAopditie 40) ports H alom - denise zu»

0} uned 8 pum —aouapisay qwautuied Gurmuoyine

fpre2 weed $1) 10 4p] AUD wowed gol puc

BOIEAOUUE 1,490 2000) BU Uta paar ele SUCH IHU JeU >

TEM JUs]e} Butso} ‘s'p

7) seep) Mer) Pe Spot ne) eeepwen fT Las cy

“Tijomot

MOOS

S14 IE Japed] LONISAOUUI SB sNIBIs S/H

drysiapea) yeqo;6 's'p suajeam

quae] queIOIWUT Jo a6e710US

wmaseTicgrnz .

dune 2017 _ The Economic Impact of Immigration on the U.S.

Highest honors

: ..

- 38 SI o~

fe) — N ©

,s, te) wr wT

ch a

‘a t , - =

E dy

etion on the CS.

wwact of jn

_The Economic In

June 2017

al bia ih

O-ring esta

>a 4 Te RP

FIC [TES C' Va

7 nd _

phat? <e

“sore reece ipat , ;

4 =

ci.

‘ |

A=, pa or ” €

em hy sro . ae a. “I sae >> a:

re ~ > all .

wearwrn & «t

oer ar

ve ‘

arcd

-= 4

save

| ‘?

be. @* wtee

ea. Ss

ST -”

half AT: cr ae

‘fo. —

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................-...0-0000000- 1

A. THE IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON

ee e ccoveccscnceoreses 1

B. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE TRAVEL

BAN ON INNOVATION AND THE

euscusons 5

Il COST TO BUSINESSES IMPOSED BY

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER......................2....- 8

C. DEMAND FOR H-1B WORKERS ................. 10

I Massachusetts-Specific

Ga 12

D. THE ROLE OF IMMIGRANTS IN THE

ry) 8), , es (ae 12

L Massachusetts-Specific

TEE a 15

E. THE ROLE OF IMMIGRANTS IN

ERT Ea 17

1. Massachusetts-Specitic

es 20

F. IMPACT OF VISA RESTRICTIONS ON

AMERICAN EMPLOYERS ..............0cc0cceeeeeees 21

1. Potential Impact of the

Proposed Order on Risk

and Instability of

American Workforces................ 21

UL. Potential Impact of the

Proposed Order on the

Competitiveness of U_S.

SS ea 22

Vill

Il.

7: m mi, ? is

a cciniicethaiccrcantan 23

IV. Impact on Massachusetts......... 24

IMPACT OF IMMIGRANTS ON

INNOVATION AND PRODUCTIVITY ........ 28

A. IMMIGRANTS IN LEADERSHIP

SRR. 2 SR ONE a 29

B. INNOVATORS FROM TARGETED

ce 2 a ee 32

C. IMPACT OF IMMIGRANTS ON PATENT

MI ee eee ee) ot 34

D. COMMERCIAL VALUE OF IMMIGRANT

ae 37

E. IMMIGRANTS PATENTING BY FIELD.......... 38

F. SPILLOVER EFFECTS ON

INNOVATION BY IMMIGRANTS ................-. 40

G. IMPACT OF VISA RESTRICTIONS ON

INNOVATION AND PATENTING.......... ade A 45

H. IMPACT OF IMMIGRANT STUDENTS

ON INNOVATION AND PATENTING............. 46

IMPACT OF IMMIGRANTS ON FIRMS .......... 49

J. IMPACT OF IMMIGRANTS ON

SS 52

IMPACT OF IMMIGRANTS ON

ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY............... 57

A. ‘THE IMPACT OF IMMIGRANTS ON

NEw BUSINESS STARTS BY SECTOR......... 58

ae ied Ticem.

2017 The Eco ct of Immi ; ‘the (1,8.

B. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION STATUS,

PARTICULARLY IN HIGH-TECH

EN cet oe, ie et ESS 58

1. Literature Review...................- 58

a. Share of Business

Eee Rae 59

b. Business Formation

| ET 62

i. Descriptive Tables from

Fortune 500 Companies............ 73

ii. Descriptive Tables from

Survey of Business

Owners, 2007 and 2012............ 77

C. IMPACT OF NEW BUSINESSES

STARTED BY IMMIGRANTS.....................--- 86

1. Estimates of Sales,

Employment, and Payroll

Generated by Immigrant-

Owned Firms in 2012................ 86

11. Regional Differences................. 89

V. REGIONAL IMPACT AND

ECONOMIC GROWTH ................ccccccccccececees 90

A. STATE-BY-STATE FACTS FROM THE

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL .........92

B. STEM Post-BACCALAUREATE

DEGREES BY STATE AND STUDENT

U.S. RESIDENCY STATUS .................---0.. 100

C. H-1B VISA AND GREEN CARD

APPLICATIONS BY STATE. .............---.0--0+. 102

D. NUMBERS AND FRACTION OF

IMMIGRANT POPULATIONS BY U.S.

a ccimniies 107

E. PERCENTAGE CHANGES OF

IMMIGRANT POPULATIONS BY

RS 116

F. LEVELS AND PERCENTAGE CHANGES

OF PETITIONS FOR SKILLED

WORKERS, 2010-2016 ..............0...0..0000.. 128

G. FISCAL EFFECTS OF IMMIGRANT

GENERATION, 2011-20138 ...................... 140

VI. HIGH-SKILLED IMMIGRANTS ............... 149

A. (CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGdH-

SKILLED IMMIGRANTS ..............cse0es00es0e- 150

L Education Levels..................... 150

U1. Medical Professionals ............. 152

B. IMMIGRANTS IN THE U.S. MILITARY ...... 155

C. IMMIGRANTS ENROLLED IN U.S.

HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS ....... 159

1. Degrees Conferred in the

ESTER Se i SOS 159

i. Impact of Degrees

Conferred in

pS 161

ii. Economic Benefits of

International Students........... 162

“.°)06h OUT LC

1. Nobel Laureates Affiliated

with Universities in

Massachusetts................-.-..00+ 168

B. MACARTHUR FELLOWSHIP .................... 169

C. RECOGNITIONS IN MEDICINE.................. 172

1 Wolf Prize in Medicine............ 172

i. Top Cancer Researchers.......... 174

iil. Howard Hughes

EE icetinicbencéasiubesenton 175

D. OTHER PRIZES IN STEM ....................... 176

L. Fc itcicinciiesinmnenedionambeiia 176

i. CN OTE 178

ui. National Medal of Science ...... 180

IV. Intel Science Talent

Ae dele OD 182

V. Breakthrough Prize ................ 185

Vi. Simons Investigator’s .............. 188

vu. Blavatnik Awards................... 188

E. MEMBERSHIP IN THE NATIONAL

ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ...............2..00.00++ 189

F. MEDAL OF FREEDOM ...............0csccccesee-s. 189

G. THE CARNEGIE CORPORATION

PRIDE OF AMERICA HONOREBG............... 192

pfQirrtm

1. Existing Research Finds

No Impact of Immigration

on Increasing Crime................

1. Immigrants Are No More

Likely to Be Criminals

than Native-Born

PEE

C. IMMIGRATION AND TERRORISM ..............

i The Link between

Jmmigration and

Terrorism 1s Unclear...............

i. Immigrants Are No More

Likely to Be Radicalized

than Native-Born

Pi a a

D. IMMIGRANTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO

BE THE VICTIMS OF HATE CRIME ..........

RHETORIC AND HATE INCIDENTS

B. ORGANIZED HATE GROUPS ....................

C. ANXIETY IN K-12 EDUCATION................

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TWITTER

i TA TE TCS AF ae ee a

rir ae

210

221

dune 2017 The Economic Impact of Immigration on the l’§.

PROFILE OF IMMIGRANTS FROM

THE SIX COUNTRIES AND OTHER

A. OVERVIEW OF IMMIGRANTS FROM

THI SUK COUN TIRIMG......cccccccccccccccccccsccs:

1. Department of Homeland

Security Data — Summary

, REFERERS ee R A aS eee

a. Countries Covered

Under Current Travel

SE eee Se

b. Mexico, Guatemala,

and E] Salvador .............

B. WHERE IMMIGRANTS MOVE................

1. AERTS ae eR

i. Literature Review................

m1. Descriptive Tables from

the American Community

ee iniindebinniecteenactbuintinbis

Iv. Public Opinion on

EE ER re

C. HOW IMMIGRANTS SPEND THEIR

Ma aladdin cudbsisansrediboaneatiasiypecaciieuiceees

1. ESET eee ae OR

1. Descriptive Statistics from

the 2003-2015 Current

Population Survey and

American Time Use

ERE eS Re

X1V

...240

a 259

XI. THE IMPACT OF THE TRAVEL BAN

ON THE U.S. TRAVEL INDUSTRY .......... 261

A. CHANGES IN TRAVEL DEMAND

BEFORE/AFTER TRAVEL BAN.................262

7. Flight Search Data.................. 262

i. Flight Booking Data ............... 269

it. Additional Sources.................- 273

B. STATISTICS REGARDING TRAVEL

AND TOURISM BY IMMIGRANTS .............. 276

1. RE ciccceiitinentsisunbinasigen 276

11. Tourism Revenue .................++- 277

“a Ticgrtm

une 2 omii Oo rig? ati

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. The Impact of Immigration on the Tech

Industry

The technology industry is a critical driver of the

U.S. economy. In Massachusetts alone, nearly

400,000 people work in jobs that are either in the

technology sector, or are in technology-related

occupations in other sectors, together comprising

about 13 percent of the state’s total workforce. The

tech industry is a global enterprise, fueled in large

part by immigration and international travel. As of

January 1, 2016, "[iJmmigrants have started more

than half (44 of 87) of America’s startup companies

valued at $1 billion dollars or more and are key

members of management or product development

teams in over 70 percent (62 of 87) of these

companies." More than half of Silicon Valley's

corporate founders are immigrants.

The integral role that immigrants play in the

technology industry is one of job creation,

innovation, and leadership. Far from taking jobs,

immigrants are creating jobs for the native-born

population and helping meet the needs of an

industry constrained by a lack of skilled workers. By

2020, for example, projections indicate that 1.4

million computer specialist positions will be open in

the United States, but domestic universities will

only produce enough graduates to fill 29 percent of

those jobs. In Massachusetts today, there are

seventeen technology jobs for every person who

graduates with a college degree in computer science

or information technology.

Immigrants are responsible for substantial economic

growth. This is true of the U.S. economy where, in

l , iicem,

June 2017 The Economic /mpact of Immigration on the {1,S.

2015, immigrants contributed $2 trillion to the U.S.

GDP, representing 11 percent of the country’s total

GDP. It is also true of the Massachusetts economy,

where one study foun¢ that ‘f half of Massachusetts’

3,608 advanced level graduates in science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

related fields, studying on temporary visas,

remained in Massachusetts upon graduation, then

4,726 new jobs would be created for U.S.-born

workers by 2021.

Research indicates that immigrant students are

disproportionately more likely to get their degrees in

a STEM field — an area of critical domestic talent

shortages — and that international students make up

over 30 percent of the post-baccalaureate degrees in

STEM fields. Furthermore, individuals from Iran,

Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen — the six

countries subject to the President’s revised

Executive Order — are more likely to have a

bachelor’s degree, approximately twice as likely to

have a graduate degree, and four times as likely to

have a doctoral degree relative to the native-born

population. In addition to this population being

disproportionately educated and skilled, they are

also part of a population making immediate impacts

on the U.S economy. During the 2015-16 academic

year alone, international students contributed $32.8

billion to the U.S. economy and supported more than

400,000 jobs.

Immigrants also drive the development of inventions

and other useful arts. For example, in 2011, 76

percent of patents awarded to the Top 10 patent-

producing U.S. universities had an inventor that was

foreign-born. In recent years, foreign nationals

contributed to more than three quarters of patents in

2 nom

June 2017 The Econoniic Jmpact of Immigration on the US.

the fields of information technology, molecular and

microbiology, and pharmaceuticals. The amount of

invention originating from immigrants can have

dramatic effects on innovation, with discernable

spillover effects. One academic study noted that a

1.3 percentage point increase in the share of the

overall U.S. population composed of immigrant

college graduates, and a 0.7 percentage point

increase in that same share composed of post-

graduate immigrants, led to an increase in patenting

by approximately 12 percent to 21 percent.

Similarly, as little as a 0.45 percentage point

increase in immigrant scientists and engineers in

the overall U.S. population increases patenting per

capita by approximately 13 to 32 percent. High-

skilled immigration has an important and

discernable impact on patenting, a key indicator of

innovation in the economy.

The highly-educated foreign-born scientists,

mathematicians, and engineers also represent some

of the best in the field. Forty percent of the Nobel

Prizes won by Americans in Chemistry, Medicine,

and Physics since 2000 were awarded to immigrants.

In 2016, all six American winners of the Nobel Prize

in economics and scientific fields were foreign-born.

From 2010-2015, four out of eight American

recipients of the Turing Award (for computing) were

first or second generation immigrants. Since 1936,

63 percent of Fields Medal (for mathematics)

recipients affiliated with a U.S. research institution

have been foreign-born (and all such recipients have

been foreign-born since 2002). Forty percent of

National Medal of Science recipients in math or

computer science are foreign-born. In

Massachusetts, 37 percent of Nobel Prize winners

3 os. Theo

June 2017 The Economic Impact of lmmigration an the l/S.

associated with MIT are foreign-born; 33 percent of

Nobel Prize winners who are current faculty or

alumni at Harvard University are foreign-born; and

75 percent of Nobel Prize winners who have been

affiliated with Boston University are foreign-born.

American companies that are household names—

Microsoft, McDonald’s, U.S. Steel—are led by

foreign-born CEOs. As of 2016, over 10 percent of

Fortune 500 CEOs were born outside of the U.S.; the

same was true for 14 percent of Fortune 100 CEOs.

In 2016, over 40 percent of Fortune 500 firms were

founded either by an immigrant or a child of

immigrants. The same holds true in Massachusetts.

More than half of the Massachusetts-based Fortune

500 companies were founded by immigrants, or by

children of immigrants. Their impact on the

Massachusetts economy has been significant,

generating over $130 billion in annual revenue, and

employing nearly half a million people around the

world. At the beginning of this decade, over 17

percent of all business owners in Massachusetts

were foreign-born. In 2013, the same was true of

nearly 19 percent of business owners in the greater

Boston area.

From 2006 to 2010, Massachusetts businesses owned

by new immigrants had a total net business income

of $2.8 billion. Prominent American innovators, past

and present, hail from countries directly targeted by

the Revised Travel Ban, including Steve Jobs; the co-

founder of Apple whose father is from Syria; Ali

Hajimiri, an academic and entrepreneur who holds

over 85 U.S. and European patents and is from Iran;

and Joe Kiani, founder, chairman, and CEO of

Masimo who is also from Iran. Iranian-Americans

4 - Cm

June 2017____The Rconomic Impact of Jmmigzation on the [/§.

either founded or lead mainstays of the technology

sector like Twitter, Dropbox, Oracle, and eBay.

Similarly, several of the top venture capitalists who

fund new technology companies were born in

Tehran.

The field of medicine has also benefitted greatly from

immigrants. More than 25 percent of physicians

practicing in the United States are foreign-born.

Importantly, foreign-born physicians are

disproportionately represented in rural clinics and

public safety-net hospitals treating isolated and

vulnerable populations. The simple reason for this is

that the United States does not produce enough

physicians to keep up with demand. A current deficit

of 11,000 physicians is expected to grow as the

population grows and ages. It is estimated that U.S.

will face a shortage of up to 94,700 doctors by 2025.

Almost a third of the shortage will be primary care

physicians. More than 8,400 doctors working in the

U.S. are from [ran and Syria, two of countries listed

in the Revised Travel Ban. In Massachusetts, almost

1 in 4 physicians graduated from a medical school

outside of the United States, suggesting non-U.S.

origin.

B. The Implications of the Travel Ban on

Innovation and the Economy

Creating unnecessary barriers for foreign innovators

and job creators is likely to have an adverse impact

on the technology industry and threaten the

innovation capacity and economic prosperity of the

United States in general, and Massachusetts

specifically. Indeed, Massachusetts has one of the

highest numbers of applications for temporary non-

agricultural work permits in the United States. A

5 “ss JCC tm,

potential impact of the executive order will be the

destabilization of the workforce and the reduction of

U.S. competitiveness. Microsoft's public securities

filings explain that “[c]hanges to U.S. immigration

policies that restrain the flow of technical and

professional talent may inhibit our ability to

adequately staff our research and development

efforts.”

In addition to stifling recruiting from certain

countries, the Revised Travel Ban could accelerate

the rise of technology hubs abroad, making such

locales as Vancouver, London, and Singapore more

“attractive alternatives to existing hubs” of

technology than the United States, and force

companies based abroad to put off opening offices in

the United States. It will also likely result in the

relocation of foreign-born employees from the United

States to other counties where they can reside

without fear of a sudden revocation of their rights to

access their families and homes.

The Massachusetts technology sector expects to feel

this impact acutely. As reported in the press,

numerous Boston-based businesses have expressed

grave concerns regarding the Administration’s travel

ban and its potential expansion. As Jeff Bussgang, a

general partner at the venture capital firm Flybridge

and professor at Harvard Business School stated, the

travel ban is “the innovation economy’s worst

nightmare.” Paul English, founder of the travel

booking site Kayak and startup Lola, expressed

concern about a Mexican national hired to develop

an app who was worried about traveling out of the

country to visit his family. Leaders of

Massachusetts-headquartered technology companies

from large to small—including GE, TripAdvisor,

6 ‘ noc

June 2017 ec } /mme, ? the 11S.

Carbonite, Brightcove, and Fuze—have expressed

concern over the direct impact that implementation

of the original Travel Ban had on their businesses.

This anecdotal evidence is strongly supported by the

empirical data contained in this report: a high

percentage of founders, managers, and employees of

Massachusetts technology companies are

immigrants and potentially impacted by the Revised

Travel Ban, either directly or indirectly.

The impact of the Revised Travel Ban also inhibits

the ability of the Massachusetts technology industry

to compete in the international marketplace. It

discourages travel to the U.S. by potential customers

and investors, either because they are directly

impacted by the ban, or out of concern that the ban

could be unexpectedly expanded. Indeed, this is not a

theoretical concern. Flight bookings to the United

States from January 28, 2017 to February 4, 2017

dropped by 6.5 percent overall in comparison to the

previous year. Bookings to the United States from

the six countries targeted by the Revised Travel Ban

have dropped by 80 percent. Companies are already

considering moving jobs outside of the U.S., locating

businesses where employees live rather than

enticing them to come to the U.S. Moving these jobs

out of the country reduces employment in domestic

support jobs that will be hired in proximity to these

workers.

Similarly, the Revised Travel Ban discourages

talented foreign students from attending local

educational institutions, from which the technology

industry hires many engineers and scientists to

drive innovation in the United States. Foreign-born

students already in the U.S. will be less likely to

remain, as they may be unable to receive or renew a

7 co. TLCem,

lune 2017 __ The B a he US

visa, or may be fearful of that possibility. The

Revised Travel Ban will inevitably reduce the

relative strength of the domestic industry in global

markets.

The technology industry, in Massachusetts as

elsewhere, thrives on a culture of diversity,

inclusivity, and equal opportunity. We hope that by

compiling this research and highlighting the impact

of immigration on the U.S. and Massachusetts

economies, we can productively contribute to the

national conversation and are able to illustrate the

significant impact immigrants have on the growth

and prosperity of our nation.

II. COST TO BUSINESSES IMPOSED BY THE

EXECUTIVE ORDER

One of the primary contributions of immigrants! to

the United States is as members of the workforce.

From 1996 to 2010, immigrants accounted for

roughly half of the U.S. labor force growth.?

Strikingly, immigrants have also been leaders in

innovation and entrepreneurship, comprising over

! Unless otherwise noted, immigrants refer to foreign-born

individuals who are residents of the United States.

2 Orrenius, Pia M. and Madeline Zavodny, “Immigrants in

the U.S. Labor Market,” Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas,

Working Paper 1306, September 2013, available at

hitpe//www callastedore/isset </document:/roscarch/eue)

S20 Li/wpls0G.pdt, accessed March 25, 2017, p. 8

(“Although they make up only 16 percent of U.S. workforce,

these immigrants account for a much larger share of its

growth. Just over half of the increase in the U.S. labor force

between 1996 and 2010 was the result of immigration—

legal and illegal”).

8 ss TCE

Th ? a 1S.

half of Silicon Valley founders.* The executive order

limiting work visas and immigration from select

countries, however, creates significant levels of

uncertainty for immigrant workers and their

employers and has the potential to impose

substantial costs on firms. The proposed order also

increases incentives for firms to outsource their

operations, reducing employment prospects in the

United States generally.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

e By 2020, it is estimated that 1.4 million

computer specialist positions will be open.

However U.S. universities will only produce

enough graduates to fill 29 percent of these

jobs. There are more than 500,000 open

computing jobs, but less than 50,000

Americans graduate from college with

computer-science degrees every year.

e The tech sector accounts for 20 percent of jobs

in Massachusetts. At the same time, there is

a shortage of graduates in tech-related fields;

there is one graduate with degrees in

computer science or information technology

(IT) for every 17 technology jobs in

Massachusetts.

3 Kerr, William, “Why These Business School Professors

Oppose Trump's Executive Order on Immigration,”

Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, January 31,

2017, available at \it))://ybsaw kbbs.diu/item/why-these

Hy Mess-sechoul-prolesscrs-cp psc PRLEDD DD mee Neen iV aden)

ou-immisention, accessed March 25, 2017.

9 AS TCE

J 2017 The E. ok ri], ' : he ILS

In 2014, immigrants comprised 15.6 percent of

the population in Massachusetts and 26.6

percent of science, technology, engineering,

and mathematics (“STEM”) jobs.

Almost 1 in 4 physicians in Massachusetts

were graduates from a foreign medical school

in 2016.

Almost 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies

based in Massachusetts were founded by

immigrants or their children‘ and almost 20

percent of business owners in the Boston

metropolitan area were foreign-born.

Demand for H-1B Workers

The private sector accounts for the intensity of

demand for H1-B workers:

o Top H1-B demands are from firms such

as Wal-Mart, Merrill Lynch, Credit

Suisse, JPMorgan Chase & Co.5

4 “The Contributions of New Americans in Massachusetts,”

New American Economy, August 2016, available at

http /Mwuw now smericnneconeumy ore/Wwp-

content/aploads/2017/02/o10-ma-report.pdf, accessed March

25, 2017, p. 3.

5 “The H-1B Visa Program: A Primer on the Program and Its

Impact on Jobs, Wages, and the Economy,” American

Immigration Council, April 1, 2016, available at

Hii p./ Www sumere nimi cat rneceunetlorg/rescareh/h |b

Vien procrium-liel-sliet aecessed March 25, 2017.

10 “ee LC

June 2017 } of } ' 2 {7S

o Nearly two thirds of requests for H1-B

visas are in STEM occupations with

lower percentages of workers contributing to

the healthcare, business, finance, and

life sciences industries. ¢

e H1-B petitions approved in 2012, by detailed

industry’ (number of petitions; percent of

approved H1-B Petitions):

o Computer Systems Design & Related

Services (110,414; 42 percent)

o Colleges, Universities, and Professional

Schools (16,167; 6.2 percent)

Software Publishers (5,367; 2.0 percent)

Management, Scientific, & Technical

Consulting Services (4,915; 1.9 percent)

o General Medical and Surgical Hospitals

(4,533; 1.7 percent)

e Two thirds of foreign students pursue

bachelor or higher level degrees in STEM,

business, management, and marketing fields

6 “The H-1B Visa Program: A Primer on the Program and Its

Impact on Jobs, Wages, and the Economy,” American

near tersey eangerwes April 1, 5026, eerreenente at

ea ere cee 4, pov satan 26, 2017.

7 “Characteristics of H1B Specialty Occupation Workers:

Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Report to Congress,” U.S.

Citizenship and [Immigration Services, June 26, 2013,

available at

Viliee Woe tte) cok tes he Broth St IN tl ope ER

a coe _ = ———

j :" 20nd" 2OStodte w/M- L/h th " at

aod dvtoyisties pdt, aecessed March 25, 2017, p. 20 and

Table 13A. Percent calculated as number of petitions in

industry divided by total number of petitions.

ll ri4s Ttc mm,

dune 2017 The Economic Impact of Immigration on the [/.S.

in the United States as compared to 48

percent of American-born students.®

1. Massachusetts-Specific Facts

number of H-1B visa sponsored MBAs.°

D. The Role of Immigrants in the Tech Industry

e The U.S. relies heavily on a steady stream of

skilled engineers from other countries to help

create its Feewe. as indicated by the

number of H1-B petitions approved in related

sectors. !°

Ruiz, Neil G. “The Geography of Foreign Students in U.S.

Higher Education: Origins and Destinations,” Global Cities

Initiative: A Joint Project of Brookings and JPMorgan

Chase, August 2014, available at

httus//www brovkings edu/wp-.

content loads/20) VORS/b over u Students Pinel pelt,

accessed March 25, 2017, p. 1.

Allen, Nathan, “Where MBAs Are Most Like:y to Get an

H1B Visa,” Poets & Quants, March 1, 2017, availabile at

bttp://poctsandyguants vom/2017/03/0 inbas-likely-wet-lrtb-

visia/, accessed March 10, 2017. This statistic is calculated

using data from the 13,000 users of the website

bes tae~ JAW WS Uiyetb ase deh oon . According to Sheryle

Dirks, Associate Sean of Career Management at the Fuqua

School of Business at Duke University, “Transparent’s data

looks entirely consistent with what we have seen and

known to be true, specifically at Duke Fuqua over the past

few years anecdotally, as well as talking with our other

business school counterparts.”

Wingfield, Nick and Mike Isaac, “Tech Industry Frets over

Possible Immigration Changes,” The New York Times,

January 27, 2017, available at

Httpasc//Wwww oy tomes com/20) 7/04/27 business/Loch nology

bh th vis nmimigeation. html, accessed March 25, 2017.

12 ies ~ 4

e The U.S. does not produce enough

professionals to all open high-tech jobs:

o There are almost five open positions for

every software developer looking for

work!!

e By 2020, ii is estimated that 1.4 million

computer specialist positions wil] be open,

however U.S. universities will only produce

enoug a to fill 29 percent of these

jobs.'* There are more than 500,000 open

computing jobs, but less than 50, 000

Americans graduate from college with

computer-science degrees every year.!®

Koetsier, John, “Hiring and Hirable in 2013: Agile

Developers,” VentureBeat, December 31, 2012, available at

https deentareb at com/20) 2/12/38 Vhiring -and-biwable-in-

20 L3-agile-developers/, accessed March 27, 2017 (“...4.59

job postings for each and every job-seeking agile

developer.”). The statistic is calculated by talent discovery

company Yoh and jobs site CareerBuilder.

Nager, Adams and Robert D. Atkinson, “The Case for

Improving U.S. Computer Science Education,” May 2016,

available at ittp://www?.itihorg/2016-computer-science-

education.pdt, accessed March 11, 2017, p. 3 (“In 2011,

Code.org projected that the economy would add 1.4 million

computing jobs by 2020, but educate just 4‘ 0,000 computer

science students by then”). The statistics were calculated by

the authors using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,

Code.org, Change the Equation, and the Information

Technology and Innovation Foundation.

“Summary ‘Source Data for Code.org Infographics and

Stats,” Pinte 2015, available at

Litas does google com/doctumentid/ LeySkltxelo vw bst LL hy

pculs! vRtzDN I 2 tt/- Alk/pul, accessed March 27,

2017 (“...there were 580, 940 bachelor’s degrees earned in

STEM in 2015, and only 49,291 of those—8.48%—-were in

Computer Science... There are more than 500,000 open

13 SAS TLC

VA he EF: c Impact of Jmmi, : the {1S

e “Iranian-Americans founded or hold

leadership positions at Twitter, Dropbox,

Oracle, Expedia, eBay, and Tinder. Top

venture capitalists like Shervin Pishevar,

Pejman Nozad, and brothers Ali and Hadi

Partovi, all of whom invest millions of dollars

in technology startups, were born in

Tehran.” !4

« “Immigrant founded engineering and

technology firms employed approximately

560,000 workers and generated $63 billion in

sales in 2012. Immigrant founders from top

venture-backed firms have created an average

of approximately 150 jobs per company in the

United States.”15

computing jobs in the United States.”). The number of

current open computing jobs comes from the sum of the per-

state jobs data from The Conference Board’s Help Wanted

OnLine service. The number of STEM and Computer

Science graduates comes from the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) IPEDS Completions Survey,

obtained using the National Science Foundation (NSF)

WebCASPAR tool.

Waddell, Kaveh, “How Trump’s Immigration Rules Will

Hurt the U.S. Tech Sector,” The Atlantic, February 1, 2017,

available at

hirns/www thesthiotie com/technologv/archive/20 L7/02/ho

W-trips-im nme rntion-rules-will-hurt-the tus tech.

sector/o15202/, accessed March 11, 2017.

Stangler, Dane and Jason Wiens, “The Economic Case for

Welcoming Immigrant Entrepreneurs,” Kauffman

Foundation, September 8, 2015, available at

hitod/woww hectic oredw heat-we-

da/resources/entrenrencurship-palios -clest/the evant

14 nits ~ 4

June

he Fca AC. t the [1S.

e “Inthe United States as a whole, there are

almost as many immigrants in white-collar

jobs (46 percent) as in al! other occupations

combined.”

o “In some states, more than half [of

immigrants] are in white-collar jobs...

the perception that nearly all

immigrants work in low-wage jobs is

clearly inaccurate.” !6

1. Massachusetts-Specific Facts

o The tech sector is critica] to the state's

economy. More than 294,000 people

work directly for the technology sectors

in Massachusetts, which combined with

over 96,000 tech occupations in other

sectors and over 733,000 indirect jobs

supported by the tech sector, comprise

approximately 35 percent of the

workforce in Massachusetts. !’

coe ooh Teo ase te emer. accessed

March 25, 2017.

Costa, Daniel, David Cooper, and Heidi Shierholz, “Facts

About Immigration and the U.S. Economy,” Economic

Policy Institute, August 12, 2014, available at

Niry aM oqaee s publication yyperatee: oo , accessed

March 25, 2017.

MassTLC, “The Connected Commonwealth: How the

Massachusetts Tech Ecosystem is Creating New Growth

Opportunities,” 2016, available at

Lirtp AWWW te the SO Get te ed tebe begs erent,

accessed April 25, 2017, p. 14.

15 14°.) 7T Com

une 2017 iol, , "On an 7S

Together, tech is responsible for 31% of

Massachusetts Gross State Product. !8

o Put together, their output was worth

$160 billion in 2013, the most recent

year for which statistics were

available.” !9

o “In the red-hot Massachusetts

technology field, meanwhile, there are

17 jobs for every one graduate with a

degree in computer science or [T.”2°

o In 2014, immigrants comprised 15.6

perrent of the population in

MassTLC, “The Connected Commonwealth: How the

Massachusetts Tech Ecosystem is Creating New Growth

Opportunities,” 2016, available at

Aétp- 700 wonatestleorg/2016-state-of-technologv-reports

accessed April 25, 2017, p. 15.

Adams, Dan, “Mass. Tech Sector Flourishing with

Challenges Ahead,” Boston Globe, March * }, 2015,

avatlable at

https:/www bostenglobe com/business/20 LO Lavirt-

Miiss-teco-sector-flourishine-but-challenees.

pew ANT NL AN SHiilirls -i 0s ‘ite |, accessed

March 10, 2017.

“The Degree Gap: Honing in on College Access,

Affordability and Completion in Massachusetts,” The

Vision Project, June 2016, available at

hitpvAww wooiass.cou/istomproiwcet/ cocuments/20 16% 20'Rh

March 25, 2017, p. 14.

16 “to55 TC

2037 The } of igratio Ss.

Massachusetts and 26.6 percent of

STEM jobs.?!

o “If half of Massachusetts’ 3,608

advanced level STEM grads on

temporary visas stayed in the state

after graduation...4,726 jobs for U.S.-

born workers would be created by

2021.”22

E. The Role of Immigrants in Medicine

¢ More than 25 percent of physicians practicing

in the United States are foreign-born.?*

Foreign-born physicians are disproportionally

represented in rural clinics and public safety-

“The Contributions of New Americans in Massachusetts,”

New American Economy, August 2016, available at

http /Awww new americnneconomy ure Ww p-

crete updos bE TOP ee cn r-powtndi, accessed March

25, 2017, p. 13.

“The Contributions of New Americans in Massachusetts,”

New American Economy, August 2016, available at

httr-//www Dowamericancconom yore/\ p)-

eontrentiiplouls/2017/02!/n-e-m ropirt. |, accessed March

11, 2017, p. 14.

McCabe, Kristen, “Foreign-Born Health Care Workers

in the United States,” Migration Policy Institute, June 27,

2012, available at

hitp://wuw migrationpolies org/article/foreigo-born-health

- ypeostephews toci. c-etatosf!, accessed March 10, 2017 (“Of

the roughly 853,000 health care professionals employed as

physicians and surgeons in 2010, more than one-quarter

(27 percent) were foreign born.”).

17 “ass TLC ma,

7 Th ? ct of Immi, 102 O U

net hospitals treating isolated and vulnerable

populations.4

e The reason such doctors are in the U.S. in the

first place is that America does not produce

enough physicians to keep up with demand.

According to a report published by the

Association of American Medical Colleges

(AAMC) in 2016, a current deficit of 8,200

primary care doctors and 2,800 psychiatrists

is expected to grow as the population grows

and ages.25 The AAMC estimates that the

U.S. will face a shortage of up to 94,700

doctors by 2025. Almost a third of the

shortage will be primary care physicians.”®

Ross, Casey, and Max Blau, “US health care relies heavily

on foreign workers. Trump's immigration ban is raising

alarms,” STAT, January 30, 2017, available at

https //www suunews com/201 /OU/G0/trump-im migration:

bun-health-workers/, accessed March 10, 2017.

Dall, Tim, Terry West, Ritashree Chakrabarti, and Will

Iacobucci, “The Complexities of Physician Supply and

Demand: Projections from 2014 to 2025,” IHS Inc. and the

Association of American Medical Colleges, April 5, 2016,

available at

httpc//www une org/lownload/ bS0s2/hita/20 16 comples

fier tte etd eet ne a eections di, accessed

March 11, 2017, p. 36.

Dall, Tim, Terry West, Ritashree Chakrabarti, and Wil!

lacobucci, “The Complexities of Physician Supply and

Demand: Projections from 2014 to 2025,” IHS Inc. and the

Association of American Medical Colleges, April 5, 2016,

available at

hitps//ww0w sane ore/downlowd/ DsS8OS2/diba/ZOTG comple s

Te Lh setgeel, at Yd. oy veel BS ee jie, accessed

March 11, 2017, p. 37, Exhibit 22.

18 “Ac. TLCER

2017 __ The tion am the Ii

More than 8,400 doctors working in the U.S.

are from the two countries listed in the

executive order — Syria and Iran.?27

o The share of health care workers that

are foreign-born was 5 percent in the

1960s and was as high as 30 percent by

the 1990s.28

o Healthcare has the largest percentage

of foreign-born and foreign-trained

workers of any industry in the

country.”9

Yasmin, Seema, “Trump Immigration Ban Can Worsen

U.S. Doctor Shortage, Hurt Hospitals,” Scientific American,

February 1, 2017, available at

httos/Awww scientificny orien comearuicley trump

uM Mperation-hoan-ean-w oo n-di-~-Juetoresh os

hospitials/, premeene ai 10, 2017 (“More than 8, 400

doctors working in the U.S. are from two countries listed in

the executive order—Syria and Iran—according to data

from the American Medical Association.”).

Carnevale, Anthony P., Nicole Smith, Artem Gulish, and

Bennett H. Beach, “Healthcare Executive Summary,”

Georgetown Public Policy Institute Center on Education

and the Workforce, June 2012, available at

bttps/cvew veorgetow o odu wy-

ero ty londs/201 PUT Bae adel os» Bw oe Sunnis 9

O07 12.pdt, accessed March 25, 2017, p. 12.

Carnevale, Anthony P., Nicole Smith, Artem Gulish, and

Bennett H. Beach, “Healthcare Executive Summary,”

Georgetown Public Policy Institute Center on Education

and the Workforce, June 2012, available at

hitos //eow voormetow a edu wp

comity wut ples: uUls/POTE TL Lealthewre FxceutLeSumniirs 09

O712.jyxt, accessed March 25, 2017, p. 12 (“Healthcare has

ome proportion of foreign-born and foreign-trained

19 “AS* TLC EE.

¢ Data on older Medicare patients admitted to

hospital in the U.S. showed that patients

treated by graduates of foreign medical

programs had lower mortality than patients

cared for by U.S. graduates. *

1. Massachusetts-Specific Facts

o “This year’s Boston Business Journal

list of the 50 largest employers in

Massachusetts, which excludes

government jobs, totals more than

410,000 Bay State employees. Led by

No. 1-ranked Partners Health Care

System’s 67,600 Massachusetts

employees, the 13 health care

companies on the list alone comprise

more than 172,366 (in some cases this

includes per diem and temp workers) of

those employees.” ?!

workers in the country. Foreign-born workers make up

nearly a quarter (22 percent) of the healthcare workforce,

nearly twice the national average.”).

30 =6Tsugawa, Yusuke, Anupam B. Jena, E. John Orav, and

Ashish K. Jha, “Quality of Care Delivered by General

Internists in US Hospitals Who Graduated from Foreign

versus US Medical Schools: Observational Study,” BM/

356:j273, February 3, 2017, available at

Wire “es br eom/eun: mio bury po. aecessed March

25, 2017.

3. 6 “The List: Health Care, Higher Ed Dominate Bay State’s

Largest Employers,” Boston Business Journal, July 8, 2016,

available at

htte/weaw bizjournals com breton tew «20 LAZO 7 /08/E hy

Te ee eed ee ee

accessed March 25, 2017.

20 —

Z : } on on the L/.

Massachusetts graduated from a

foreign medical school, a likely sign

they were born elsewhere.” *2

F. Impact of Visa Restrictions on American

Employers

i. Potential Impact of the Proposed Order

on Risk and Instability of American

Workforces

e According to Microsoft, “[c]hanges to U.S.

immigration policies that restrain the flow of

technical and professional talent may inhibit

our ability to adequately staff our research

and development efforts.” 5%

e The Computing Research Association, a non-

profit organization representing computing

professionals in academia, government

laboratories, and other areas, noted that the

proposed order “creates uncertainty and

potential hardship among current students

and researchers already here making

%2 “The Contributions of New Americans in Massachusetts,”

New American Economy, August 2016, avai/able at

bi tp /AW ow newmcrentneconony ore/Wwp-

contenUuplonds/20 L7/02/p:0-ma-report. pal, accessed March

25, 2017, p. 15.

88 Microsoft Corporation, Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ending

December “i, 2016, available at

rultge ' oes Nee ten A Ade rt SOOO Ed?

edais: Mat DIG TADOy bt . accessed April 14, 2017, p. 58.

21 Sits - 4

u 7 ? ; orl A

important contributions and endangers our

leadership role in a key field.”*4

iit. Potential Impact of the Proposed Order

on the Competitiveness of U.S. Firms

e The proposed executive order could accelerate

the rise of technology hubs abroad. Vancouver,

London, and Singapore are “attractive

alternatives to existing hubs in the West

Coast of the United States.” 55

« Companies that are based abroad may put off

opening offices in the United States:

o “Already, the number of billion-dollar

technology start-ups, commonly called

‘unicorns,’ that are located outside the

United States has been increasing

significantly. Fifteen years ago, almost

all were in the United States, while

today 86 of the 191 unicorns are in

countries such as China and India. We

can expect this trend to accelerate

because the Trump administration has

34 6Wingfield, Nick and Mike Isaac, “Tech Industry Frets Over

Possible Immigration Changes,” The New York Times,

January 27, 2017, available at

hitps://\ ww uvtimes com/2017/01/27/business/technology

h-th-visn-immigration. html, accessed March 25, 2017.

35 ~Waddell, Kaveh, “How Trump’s Immigration Rules Will

Hurt the U.S. Tech Sector,” The Atlantic, February 1, 2017,

available at

hitps/www theathuoti com/technology/arehiy 6/208 /02/he

Whose migration-robes-wall burt-the es-teeh

~«lin/515202/, accessed March 11, 2017.

22 “4°° Tica

June 2017 The Economic Impact of Immigration on the L/.5.

just added fuel to the fire of innovation

abroad and handicapped our own

technology industry.” 36

e “In fiscal year 2012, fewer than 5% of those

who obtained U.S. permanent resident status

were professionals with advanced degrees,

compared to over 9% of those granted

permanent resident status in Canada...Only

14% of U.S. green cards authorizing

permanent residence — and a path to

citizenship — were granted for employment

purposes in 2012, compared to the 62% of

Canadian immigrants who were admitted for

economic reasons....[mmigrants want to come

to the United States because they see

opportunity in gaps in our economy that they

have the skills to fill. Instead, many are

choosing Canada.”*7

e Research points to an inverse relationship

between temporary immigration and product

36 Wadhwa, Vivek, “Why Trump’s Travel Ban Is So Harmful

to the Tech Economy,” The Washington Post, January 30,

2017, available at

itp // ww Ww: ashingtonnes! com/news/innovatioue/y p/20 |

/0U30/w he-troumpa-trave lL bnneis-so-harmful-to-the-tech-

Sree cs Oe) | ed et accessed March 27,

2017.

Furchtgott-Roth, Diana, “U.S. Loses to Canada When It

Comes to Immigration,” MarketWatch, October 18, 2013,

avatlable at byt hy a 6 «fh wok. Pag atethy eee Seed ed Tatih ’

servant Vit terey tse bee ceet bo treet ee Pte 11S, accessed

March 25, 2017.

23 “45. TLC

outsourcing. When the number of H-1B visas

issued by the U.S. government decreases,

product outsourcing increases. **

e Economic research on the effects of

outsourcing on blue-collar and white-collar

wages finds that outsourcing can decrease the

wage of native-born white-collar workers

when outsourcing industries are blue-collar

worker intensive compared with non-

outsourcing industries.** Using U.S. product

manufacturing data, outsourcing has been

found to decrease the relative wage of white-

collar workers in the 1970s.“

iv. Impact on Massachusetts

e According to Jerry Rubin, president of the

Jewish Vocational Service, many key

Das, Simontini, Ajitava Raychaudhuri, and Saikat Sinha

Roy, “Immigration versus Outsourcing: A Developing

Country’s View,” Journal of Economic Development, 37:2,

June 2012, available at \itty://sww ica ov kr/full-test/s7-

2/i.pdl, accessed April 14, 2017, pp. 129-131.

Hsu, Kuang-Chung, “Does Outsourcing Always Benefit

Skilled Labor?” Review of International Economics, 19:3,

August 2011, available at

http://ontinelibears wihes eom/doi/ lO tit ba biz

95060201 | GO9G Lx/epdt, accessed April 14, 2017, p. 539-

554.

Hsu, Kuang-Chung, and Hui-Chu Chiang, “The Impact of

International Outsourcing on U.S. Workers’ Wages:

Rethinking the Role of Innovation,” /nternational Journal

of Economics and Finance, 6: 5, ne 25, 2014, available at

Tih Le ye toviv ad tonch: oefey 7 7s oe ve, LOY?

G17 ” adhe 14, 2017, p. 1.

24 / Tor

Jimmy the 17S.

industries in Boston, such as health care and

food services, have labor shortages. “[With]

the native-born population remaining

relatively flat, the demand for bilingual

workers soaring, and a large number of

workers reaching retirement age, immigrants

are essential to keep the economy from

‘grinding to a screeching halt.”4!

¢ Immigration is a key source of growth for

Bostor.’s labor supply. Between 1980 and

2010, the number of foreign-born workers in

Boston has tripled, while the number of

native-born workers grew by 4 percent.‘ In

2015, 32 percent of working age people moving

into the Boston area were immigrants who

moved directly from abroad.4

—$—$»a_— -

Johnston, Katie. “MIT Study: Immigrants Vital to Boston's

Economy,” Boston Globe, May 17, 2017, available at

https ww bo tomelohe com/business/2017/05/ 1 7/mit-

study-immigrants-vital-boston

_comyAe Pes N bY RSV Wes beO/story html, accessed

May 17, 2017.

Johnston, Katie. “MIT Study: Immigrants Vital to Boston's

Economy,” Boston Globe, May 17, 2017, available at

Hey fF eee boston: she com/business/20 17/05/17 7/mit-

study -tmmigrants-vitul-boston-

economy OPszl Nby ER stt\ Wy OV beO/story html, accessed

May 17, 2017. This statistic was provided by Marilynn

Johnson, author of “The New Bostonians: How Immigrants

Have Transformed the Metro Area since the 1960s.”

Osterman, Paul, William Kimball, and Christine Riordan,

“Bosten’s Immigrants: An Essential Component of a Strong

Economy,” Jewish Vocational Service, May 10, 2017,

available at bits et

boston ory/imawes/plVOsterman" «lO Report 620

25 “ASS TLC

June 2017 _ The Bcongmic Impact of Immigration on the (1S.

e “3,806 H-1B denials for tech workers in the

metro area cost computer workers [in Boston

in 2007 and 2008 cost] 3,176 potential new

jobs and $72.9M in aggregate wage growth in

the two years that followed. 964 H-1B denials

for tech workers in the metro area cost

computer workers [in Worcester in 2007 and

2008 cost] 761 potential new jobs and $14.7M

in aggregate wage growth in the two years

that followed.” “4

e “58% of Fortune 500 companies based in

Massachusetts were founded by immigrants

or their children. Those firms generate

$136.8B in annual revenue, and employ

466,892 people globally.”*

‘20K inal pdt, accessed May 22, 2017, p. 7 and Table 5.

This statistic was calculated using American Community

Survey data.

“The Contributions of New Americans in Massachusetts,”

New American Economy, August 2016, available at

_—% Sate a es ony orgAVp

contentimplombs/201T 7/2 vss) nowt pdt, accessed March

25, 2017, p. 21.

“The Contributions of New Americans in Massachusetts,”

New American Economy, August 2016, available at

http //w WW Oe Re ricnoeconomy ov ves:

cnt ys tbe EE OF te arti ll, accessed March

10, 2017, p. 3 (“58% of Fortune 500 ae based in

Massachusetts were founded by immigrants or their

children. Those firms generate $136.8B in annual revenue,

and employ 466,892 people globally”).

e In 2010, 17.9% of all business owners in

Massachusetts were foreign-born. “6

*« In 2013, 18.8% of business owners in the

Boston metropolitan area were foreign-born. ‘7’

e From 2006 to 2010, new immigrant business

owners in Massachusetts had total net

business income of $2.8 billion, which makes

up 14% of all net business income in the

state. 48

Kallick, David Dyssegaard, “Immigrant Small Business

Owners: A Significant and Growing Part of the Economy,”

Fiscal Policy Institute, June 2012, available at

owners-I'P{-20120G61 Lydd, accessed March 10, 2017, p. 24

and Figure 24.

“Interactive: the Impact of Immigrants on Main Street

Business and Population in U.S. Metro Areas,” Fiscal

Policy Institute and Americas Society/Council of the

Americas, January 14, 2015, available at tip //w ww as

corvore/articles/interachive-lUpact-IM mM wWrants- mai o-steet-

business-and-popularion-us-metrvo-arcas, accessed March

10, 2017. The “Foreign Born Share of Business Owners”

from the American Community Survey 2013 5-Year Data is

18.8% for the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH

Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Fairlie, Robert W., “Open for Business: How Immigrants

are Driving Small Business Creation in the United States,”

Partnership for a New American Economy, August 2012,

available at

Hip ww rope omeccomem orusit ob) thontwes/poacsone

if ovhut trtomes coll, accessed March 10, 2017, p. 33. This

statistic was calculated using data from the American

Community Survey, 2006-2010.

27 ricco

2 he unic Impact } ; nm the (7

Ii. IMPACT OF IMMIGRANTS ON INNOVATION

AND PRODUCTIVITY

Academic and industry research have shown that

immigration has a positive impact on innovation,

productivity, and leadership.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

e Many iconic American brands are led by

foreign-born CEOs. As of March 1, 2016, 10.8

percent of Fortune 500 CEOs were born

outside of the U.S, and 14 percent of Fortune

100 CEOs were born outside of the U.S.

e More than half of America’s startup

companies valued at $1 billion dollars have

immigrant founders, and many key members

of management or product development teams

in these startups are immigrants.

« Many prominent American innovators, past

and present, hail from countries directly

targeted by the Executive Order. These

individuals include Steve Jobs, Ali Hajimiri,

and Joe Kiani.

e Academic research shows that there is a

positive spillover effect of immigrant inventors

and college graduates on native-born

inventors, indicating that immigrants boost

the rate at which native-born inventors file

patents.

e Innovation from the native-born population

increases with expansions of the H-1B

program and the associated inflow of new

workers.

28 x,

e The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

estimated in 2013 that immigration reform

that allows for an increase in the number of

noncitizens who could lawfully enter the

United States permanently or temporarily

would boost real GDP by 5.4 percent by 2033,

and add 9 million workers to the labor force.

A. Immigrants in Leadership Positions

e “Some of the most iconic American brands —

such as Microsoft, McDonald’s and U.S. Steel

— are led by foreign-born CEOs.” 49

o As of March 1, 2016, “10.8% of Fortune

500 CEOs were born outside of the

U.S."50

o As of March 1, 2016, “14.0% of Fortune

100 CEOs were born outside of the

U.S."51

“Immigrant CEOs of the Fortune 500,” Boardroom Jnsiders,

2016, available at Let ge et bee Pe gs Deena te ttl oe eeegetee

Ap ty te OM ty ti ede nt tots: , accessed

Delbenen 29, 2017.

“Immigrant CEOs of the Fortune 500,” Boardroom Insiders,

2016, available at ht t»://info.boardroominsiders.com/get-

au | pheine SLE ed Le ees | Te ae ; accessed

+ a eet 22, 2017.

“Immigrant CEOs of the Fortune 500,” Boardroom Insiders,

2016, available at hh tay://intobourdroominsiders.com/get-

en berber: oO immivrant-coo-list-for-free, accessed

February 22, 2017.

June 2017 The Economic Impact of Immigration on the L’S.

e “Immigrants have started more than half (44

of 87) of America’s startup companies valued

at $1 billion dollars or more and are key

members of management or product

development teams in over 70 percent (62 of

87) of these companies.”®2

e Immigrants are entrepreneurial and are job

creators.

o Immigrants were nearly twice as likely

to start new businesses as the native-

born population as of 2015.5

52 Anderson, Stuart, “Immigrants and Billion Dollar

Startups,” National Foundation for American Policy, March

— ovalinnis at http: Unfap. com/wp-

ve Pe tsi tee beet teed ait Dil bbe er Tb tb

ior rene” AP- Po licy -Brief March- 2016.pdf, accessed

March 10, 2017, p. 1 and Appendix 5. The article examines

a list of billion dollar startups tracked by The Wal/ Street

Journal available at http://graphics.wsj.com/billion-dollar-

club/. The article also uses a mixture of company-provided

information, company websites, CrunchBase, LinkedIn,

and The Wall Street Journal! to calculate the percent of

immigrants who are key members of management or

product development teams. For more information, see

Appendix 5 of the cited article.

53 “Reason for Reform: Entrepreneurship,” New American

ernaeds ae — available at

jptlae ° te vegtrette’. set

avtenyt ints or DIGI WEytre vy peur ale accessed March

10, 2017, p. 1. This study was conducted using the 2013

American Community Survey 5-year data. See Kallick,

David, “Bringing Vitality to Main Street: How Immigrant

Small Businesses Help Local Economies Grow,” Fiscal

Policy Institute and Americas Society/Council of the

Americas, 2015, available at \)¢1))// www.

30 MASSTLCEM.

ct migra th CS.

* In 2014, 20.6% of entrepreneurs

in the U.S. were immigrants,

while making up only 13.2% of

the U.S. population.™

= Immigrants accounted for about

a quarter of founders of new

high-tech companies with at least

one million dollars in sales in

2006.55

« In Massachusetts, 29% of new

high-tech companies with at least

one million dollars in sales in

2006 had at least one key

founder who was foreign-born.*§

-—--——e

“Reason for Reform: Entrepreneurship,” New American

Economy, October 2016, available at

htt. vee Me ed A

cat ity bey wie 20 Potr weou ey |i, accessed March

10, 2017, p. 2.

Wadhwa, Vivek, et al., “America’s New Immigrant

Entrepreneurs: Part I,” Technical Report 23, Duke Science,

Technology Innovation Papers, January 2007, available at

https//napers ssrn com/sol3/papers.chm?abstract_id=990 15

2, accessed March 10, 2017, p.4. The authors used

information provided by Dun & Bradstreet’s Million Dollar

Database, which contains information on U.S. companies

with more than $1 million in sales, and 20 or more

employees, and company branches with 50 or more

employees.

Wadhwa, Vivek, et al., “America’s New Immigrant

Entrepreneurs: Part I,” Technical Report 23, Duke Science,

Technology Innovation Papers, January 2007, available at

31 MASSTLC EM.

June 2017 The Economic Impact of Immigration on the 1S.

o In 2016, 40.2% of Fortune 500 firms

were founded by either an immigrant or

the child of immigrants. 5’

o Businesses owned by immigrants

employed over 5.9 million workers in

2007.58

B. Innovators from Targeted Countries

e Many prominent American innovators hail

from countries directly targeted by the

Executive Order. For example,

o Steve Jobs (Syria), whose father, Abdul

Fattah Jandali, was born in Homs,

Syria, and immigrated to the United

supsip Mav parecer . -susgray cvorppp teres] ppscoper vs fea ep benst yrs tel 1s

, 4 proce tem 10, 2017, p. 7 The authors used

information provided by Dun & Bradstreet’s Million Dollar

Database, which contains information on U.S. companies

with more than $1 million in sales, and 20 or more

employees, and company branches with 50 or more

employees.

“Reason for Reform: Entrepreneurship,” New American

Economy, October 2016, available at

http //ww ww pew oo cericameconomy ore/Wop-

content hel. (/2010/12/E trey: cucu: pal, accessed March

10, 2017, p. 2.

“Reason for Reform: Entrepreneurship,” New American

Economy, October 2016, available at

hii wa new ee riernecononms ore sis pe

content/upload /Z016/12/etreprencur pal, accessed March

10, 2017, p. 2.

32 AS TOC

dune 2017 The Economic Impact of Immigration on the 17S.

States to study in the 1950s.59 Jobs is a

co-founder of Apple.

o Ali Hajimiri (Iran), an academic,

entrepreneur, and Fellow at the

National Academy of Inventors, holds

over 85 U.S. and European patents.

Hajimiri is known for his research in

“electronics and photonics integrated

circuits, and their applications in

various disciplines, including high-

frequency and high-speed

communications, sensing, imaging, and

bio-sensing.” In 2002, Hajimiri co-

founded Axiom Microdevices. ®©

o Joe Kiani (Iran), who is the founder,

chairman, and CEO of Masimo

Corporation has more than 575 issued

and pending patents worldwide. Kiani

is prominent in the healthcare

technology industry, especially

technology relating to sensors, signal

processing, and patient monitoring

devices. Kiani’s company Masimo

Corporation pioneered products such as

59 Baig, Edward C, “Steve Jobs’ biological father was Syrian

migrant, some note,” USA Today, November 16, 2015,

available at

iit ie se WS Moan cops fs eee 201 1]

(G/steyve-jobs biologicaltather-ss cing ral -sone

vnole/79899 150/, accessed March 19, 2017.

60 “Ali Hajimiri,” Caltech High-Speed Integrated Circuits,

March 19, 2017.

33 “As TLC

“Masimo Patient SafetyNet™ — the first

remote monitoring and wireless

clinician notification system designed to

help hospitals improve patient safety

and clinical outcomes by dramatically

decreasing rescue events and costly

ICU transfers.”®!

C. Impact of Immigrants on Patent Activity

e Immigrants have a higher patenting rate than

native-born individuals. ®?

o “Massachusetts’ immigrants also

contribute to the state’s economic

growth and competitiveness by earning

patents on cutting-edge research and

products. In 2011, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology (MIT) earned

[i.e., granted] almost 168 patents,

placing it among the top 10 most

productive [universities] in the country.

More than 72 percent of those patents

“Company Overview of Masimo Corporation,” Bloomberg,

available at

Tee Ce Ss Ce | Te - i SA Te Speecge tt

7h morsontd=5 1 PCR peter tel Ap as 19,

2017.

Hunt, Jennifer, and Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle, “How

Much Does Immigration Boost Innovation’,” American

Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 2, no. 2, 2010, pp.

31-56, available at www jxtov ore/stable/257 60296,

accessed March 5, 2017, p. 37. This is based on data from

the 2003 National Survey of College Graduates.

34 MASSTLCEM,.

had at least one foreign-born

inventor.”®

o At MIT, “the rate of patenting is higher

for foreign-born students (34 percent)

than for U.S.-born students (30

percent).”6

o “...immigrants comprise a large and

vital component of U.S. innovation with

35.5 percent of U.S. innovators born

outside the United States.”® “Another

“The Contribution of New American. in Massachusetts,”

Now American Suenemy, a ene available at

ater, are ne wade PPEVD TVD yy open Wt pe + raf accessed March

22, 2017, p. 14. The article uses data oom a publication

from the same organization. See Patent Pending: How

Immigrants are Reinventing the American Economy,”

Partnership for a New American Economy, June 2012,

available at

7. eee a ee ee nT) he ce 5. Ob. 3 Th

=> s a ee - - ee ee -

ent-

Granados, Samuel, “How Today’s Visa Restrictions Might

Impact Tomorrow’s America,” The Washington Post,

— ms, 2017, available at

eR ed 0 eee CO

impae t/, comands 10, 2017, p. i.

In their study, [TIF “surveyed more than 900 people who

have made meaningful, marketable contributions to

technology-intensive industries as award-winning

innovators and international patent applicants.” Nager,

Adams et al., “The Demographics of Innovation in the

United States,” Jnformation Technology & Innovation

Foundation, February 2016, available at

hito wav? tif ore/2016-demoyraphics-of-

Woovation pd oes EL Poe5s60. TY INTDOTSL TISS 176922,

accessed March 10, 2017, p. 5.

35 MASSTLCEM..

'____ The Economic Impact of Immigration on the US.

10 percent of innovators have at least

one parent born abroad.”®6

o “Over 17 percent of innovators are not

even U.S. citizens, yet are nonetheless

making invaluable contributions to U.S.

innovation. Immigrants born in Europe

or Asia are over five times more likely

to have created an innovation in

America than the average native-born

U.S. citizen.”67

o “At the University of Illinois, for

instance, nine out of 10 of the patents

had at least one foreign national listed

as an inventor, and almost 64% of

patents had a foreign inventor who was

66 Nager, Adams et al., “The Demographics of Innovation in

the United States,” Information Technology & Innovation

Foundation, February 2016, available at

http /www? itifore/20 lt-de mographies-of-

nevittion pdf? yoa=t 21 I995SG0. IS ISTOOLSE | ISS L762,

accessed March 10, 2017, pp. 1, 5. In their study, ITIF

“surveyed more than 900 people who have made

meaningful, marketable contributions to technology-

intensive industries as award-winning innovators and

international patent apphcants.”

Nager, Adams et al., “The Demographics of Innovation in

the United States,” Information Technology & Innovation

emerge February 2016, available at

hitpvAwww 2 iiteore/2016 «lemogr: surhites-cl-

innovation? ga -L2bL995S860_ 19 I9TOOLS | LISS 176022,

accessed March 10, 2017, p. 5. In their study, ITIF

“surveyed more than 900 people who have made

meaningful, marketable contributions to technology-

intensive industries as award-winning innovators and

international patent applicants.”

386 ws TOC:

June 2017 The Egonomic Impact af Immigxation on the L/S.

not yet in a professorial role. This was

despite the fact that in the fall of 2011,

fewer than 47% of the graduate

students studying STEM on Illinois’s

two patent-producing campuses were in

the U.S. on temporary visas.”®

e In 2011, 76% of patents awarded to the Top 10

patent-producing U.S. universities had an

inventor that was foreign-born.®

D. Commercial Value of Immigrant Patents

e Immigrants’ contributions to innovation as

measured by patent activity have also had a

—

“Patent Pending: How Immigrants are Reinventing the

American Economy,” Partnership for a New American

Economy, June 2012, available at

http /waw renew ure onumy or: -ttes/ lt hemes/predp eit

ent-pending.pdt, accessed March 10, 2017, p. 7. The study

pulled data on graduate students enrolled in each major to

conduct calculations. The data were obtained from

University of Illinois at Chicago, Office of Institutional

Research.

“Patent Pending: How Immigrants are Reinventing the

American Economy,” Partnership for a New American

Economy, June 2012, available at

httyo:/www renewoureconomy org/sites/all/themes/poae/paat

cot-pending.pdt, accessed March 10, 2017, p. 1. The study

relies on data on patent assignees available from Patent

Full-Text and Image Database maintained by the U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office, available at

http//pcat ft_usptovov/netahbtm/’TO/. In most cases, when

applying for a patent, inventors submit an oath or power of

attorney form on which they indicate their citizenship. The

study accessed these forms through the publicly-available

Patent Application Information Retrieval, avai/able at

htto//portaluspte.gopae/ Publ Pir.

37 “AS TLC

dune 2017 ___ The Economic Impact of Immigration on the US.

direct positive impact on university revenue,

as demonstrated by how the top 10 U.S.

patent-producing universities earned nearly

$450 million in patent licensure revenue in FY

2010.79

e Patents filed by immigrants are more likely to

be licensed or commercialized as compared to

patents filed by native-born inventors, and

patents that are licensed or commercialized

are more likely to be beneficial to society.7!

E. Immigrants Patenting by Field

e “Foreign nationals were listed as inventors on

more than five out of six (84%) information-

technology patents.”72

70 6“Patent Pending: How Immigrants are Reinventing the

American Economy,” Partnership for a New American

Economy, June 2012, available at

aot RMS RD ek ob og*t® + .--- 51 1G the + sth. | 8

ent-pending.pdf, oemuandtieads 10, 2017, p. 12. These

figures were calculated using the results of the annual

licensing survey from the Association of University

Technology Managers.

7 Hunt, Jennifer, and Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle, “How

Much Does Immigration Boost Innovation?,” American

Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 2, no. 2, 2010, pp.

31-56, available at www jstor org/stable/25760296,

accessed March 5, 2017, p. 37. This is based on data from

the 2003 National Survey of College Graduates.

7% “Patent Pending: How Immigrants are Reinventing the

American Economy,” Partnership for a New American

SE, ome 2012, available at

cut-pe ndings ps le Procenn «a 10, 2017, p. 11. This

statistic is based on data from the Patent Full-Text and

June 2017 The ION of feration on the {/

e “Almost eight out of ten (79%) patents for

pharmaceutical drugs or drug compounds

were invented or co-invented by a scientist

born abroad.”7

e “Immigrants contributed to 75% of patents in

the molecular biology and microbiology

fields.”74

e Immigrants make significant contributions to

the Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics (“STEM”) fields.

Image Database maintained by the US Patent and

Teedomers Office, available at

leit: ts "$0d. a

ae ae ee —<— <= «

“Patent Pending: How sealinianits are Reiaventing the

American Economy,” Partnership for a New American

Economy, —_— 2012, avaliails at

tity. we in es | ies ero i!

ent-pe od pdf, eoneaadiieads 10, 2017, p. 11. This

statistic is based on data from the Patent Full-Text and

Image Database and the publically available Patent

Application Information Retrieval (“PAIR”) website, both of

which are maintained by the US Patent and Trademark

Office, available at

a a ee “ «#2. se , Oe

RAED | 4 S- amas SB ——

liad: segs Brg Poe fe Sop he Ube Pts

pa A} TPN be Bier Se

“Patent ouetion en Immigrants are Reinventing the

American Economy,” Partnership for a New American

Economy, cum on, er at

oT) Ce eed ek 8 Oe Pee)

ent- pending. odt mama 10, 2017, p. 11. This

statistic is based on data from the Patent Full-Text and

Image Database maintained by the US Patent and

Trademark Office, available at

4 . . SS _ ——a== «

June 2017 ? fT igration on the ['_S.

o 99% of the patents from the top 10

patent-generating universities by

foreign-born inventors were in STEM

fields, an area that will have a shortfall

of 230,000 qualified advanced-degree

workers by the year 2018.75

o Asan added benefit, “[e]very graduate

with an advanced degree working in a

STEM.-related field in the United States

has been shown to create on average

2.62 additional jobs for native-born

workers. Sending those people away

doesn’t protect American jobs, it

jeopardizes them.”76

F. Spillover Effects on Innovation by Immigrants

e Academic research shows that there is a

positive spillover effect of immigrant inventors

“Press Release: New Study Reveals Immigrants Are Behind

More Than Three-Quarters of Patents From Top Ten

Patent-Producing American Universities,” New American

Economy, June 26, 2012, available at

http://www rene woureconomy org/news/press-release -neow -

pitted i] ' ' ghitecs "whe «le )

7 ~-Hoettsgt + geal

Ping «Fs Gbog Zah--Ggl gent OT bpp 2 On See ee accessed

March 10, 2017.

“Press Release: New Study Reveals Immigrants Are Behind

More Than Three-Quarters of Patents From Top Ten

Patent-Producing American Universities,” New American

Economy, June 26, 2012, available at

http //www renewourcconomy ory/news/press-rolouse-ucw-

4 tem | Ce 7 ‘H-%% Shee * “8. *f i lie , accessed

March 10, 2017.

40 —,

June 2017 _ __ The Economic Impact of Immigration o (1S.

on native-born inventors, indicating that

immigrants boost the rate at which native-

born inventors file patents.7’

o “The 1.3 percentage point increase in

the share of the population compose i of

immigrant college graduates, and the

0.7 percentage point increase in the

share of post-college immigrants,” each

increased patenting per capita in the

U.S. by 12 to 21 percent.78

o A0.45 percentage point increase in

immigrant scientists and engineers in

the U.S. increased patenting per capita

in the U.S. by 13 to 32 percent.”

Hunt, Jennifer, and Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle. “How

Much Does Immigration Boost Innovation?” American

Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 2, no. 2, 2010, pp.

31-56, available at Pettis: WA pede ret te prebaper 2, Ue,

accessed March 5, 20: /, p. 51. This is based on data from

the 2003 National Survey of College Graduates.

Specifically, “The 1.3 percentage point increase in the share

of the population composed of immigrant college graduates,

and the 0.7 percentage point increase in the share of post-

college immigrants, each increased patenting per capita by

about 12 percent based on least squares and 21 percent

based on instrumental variables.” Hunt, Jennifer, and

Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle. “How Much Does

Immigration Boost Innovation?” American Economic

Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 2, no. 2, 2010, pp. 31—56,

available at www jstov.ory/stable/25760296, accessed

March 5, 2017, p. 51. This is based on data from the 2003

National Survey of College Graduates.

Specifically, “The 0.45 percentage point increase in

immigrant scientists and engineers increased patenting per

June 2017 _The Econamic Impact af Immigration on the 1’ S.

o “Immigration could boost innovation

indirectly through positive spillovers on

fellow researchers, the achievement of

critical mass in specialized research

areas, and the provision of

complementary skills such as

management and entrepreneurship.” ®°

o The same positive spillover effect on

patenting created through immigration

may not be replicable by incentivizing

the native-born population alone.®!

capita by about 13 percent based on least squares and 32

percent based on instrumental variables.” Hunt, Jennifer,

and Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle. “How Much Does

Immigration Boost Innovation?” American Economic

Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 2, no. 2, 2010, pp. 31—56,

available at www jatar /sinhh 25760290, accessed

March 5, 2017, p. 51. This is based on data from the 2003

National Survey of College Graduates.

Hunt, Jennifer, and Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle. “How

Much Does Immigration Boost Innovation?” American

Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 2, no. 2, 2010, pp.

31-56, available at www jstorore/stibly 25700206,

accessed March 5, 2017, p. 31.

Specifically, “One should be cautious in drawing the

conclusion that innovation could be sustained by

simultaneously subsidizing natives to study science and

engineering and cutting immigration of scientists and

engineers. The additional natives drawn into science and

engineering might have lower inventive ability than the

excluded immigrants, and such natives might have

contributed more to the US economy outside science and

engineering.” Hunt, Jennifer, and Marjolaine Gauthier-

Loiselle. “How Much Does Immigration Boost Innovation?”

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 2, no. 2,

42 is. Itc:

June 2017 __ The Economic ]mpact of Immigration on the I1.8.

o There is also support for small

crowding-in effects on native-born

patenting from immigration due to H-

1B expansions. ®?

e Additionally, there is evidence that native-

born inventors’ patents were not displaced by

immigrants that were admitted as a result of

expansions in the H-1B visa program.*®3

e Moser et al conclude that German Jewish

emigres who fled Nazi Germany in the 1930s

2010, pp. 31—56, available at

WME jive g ot sble ati, accessed March 5, 2017, p.

“Overall, a 10% growth in the H-1B population

corresponded with a 0.3%—0.7% increase in total invention

for each standard deviation growth in city dependency

[upon the H-1B program].” Kerr, William R., and William

F. Lincoln. “The Supply Side of Innovation: H-1B Visa

Reforms and U.S. Ethnic Invention.” Journal of Labor

Economics, vol. 28, no. 3, 2010, pp. 473-608, available at

wet te hh tie} 665191, aecessed March 5,

2017, p. 475. This analysis was based on data from the

Current Population Survey, in addition to patent records

from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Kerr, William R., and William F. Lincoln. “The Supply Side

of Innovation: H-1B Visa Reforms and U.S. Ethnic

Invention.” Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 28, no. 3, 2010,

pp. 473-508, available at

Wi istrcore stablesLl LOSGAiS 193 |, accessed March 10,

2017, p. 475. This analysis was based on data from the

Current Population Survey, in addition to patent records

from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

43 “so. Tice

June 2

v gration US.

and 1940s increased patenting in the United

States by 31 percent.®4

increase in patenting can be attributed

to emigrants attracting U.S. inventors

to their fields.85

o Data also indicate that the number of

patents filed by native-born inventors

who collaborated with immigrant

professors increased substantially in

the 1940s and 1950s, suggesting that

“emigre professors helped to increase

U.S. invention in the long run, by

training a new group of younger US

invention in the long run, who then

continued to train other scientists.”%¢

Moser, Petra, et al. “German Jewish Emigrés and U.S.

Invention.” The American Economic Review, vol. 104, no.

10, 2014, pp. 3222-3255, available at

wir ystor org/stable/ L3 19531S, accessed March 5, 2017, p.

3222. This conclusion is drawn from an analysis of patent

records available through Google Patents, available at

hirpav/patents yooulk com, in addition to faculty directories

at German and Austrian universities, among other sources.

Moser, Petra, et al. “German Jewish Emigrés and U.S.

Invention.” The American Economic Review, vol. 104, no.

10, 2014, pp. 3222-3255, available at

“ Moletor ore/stiuble/ 1 195518, accessed March 5, 2017, p.

3222. This conclusion is drawn from an analysis of patent

records available through Google Patents, available at

https://patents.google.com, in addition to faculty directories

at German and Austrian universities, among other sources.

Moser, Petra, et al. “German Jewish Emigrés and U.S.

Invention.” The American Economic Review, vol. 104, no.

44 ‘'. TL.Ct-z

June 2017 The Economic Impact of Iu:zmiegration on the LS.

G. Impact of Visa Restrictions on Innovation and

Patenting

e Increases in high-skilled immigration due to

expansions of the H-1B visa program are

associated with higher levels of patent

contributions from immigrants.

o “Total [science and engineering]

employment and [the number of]

invention [in the U.S.] increases with

higher [H-1B] admissions” .®?

o Innovation from the native-born

population also increases with

expansions of the H-1B program and

the associated inflow of new workers.*®

10, 2014, pp. 3222-3255, available at

ep lo ows tab / Litas, accessed March 5, 2017, p.

3253. This conclusion is drawn from an analysis of patent

records available through Google Patents, available at

https://patents.google.com, in addition to faculty directories

at German and Austrian universities, among other sources.

8? Kerr, William R., and William F. Lincoln. “The Supply Side

of Innovation: H-1B Visa Reforms and U.S. Ethnic

Invention.” Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 28, no. 3, 2010,

pp. 473—508, available at

Wis) Jatoror, ‘stables Tu 10866... 31, accessed March 5,

2017, p. 473.

88 “Overall, a 10% growth in the H-1B population

corresponded with a 0.3%—0.7% increase in total invention

for each standard deviation growth in city dependency

[upon the H-1B program].” Kerr, William R., and William

F. Lincoln. “The Supply Side of Innovation: H-1B Visa

Reforms and U.S. Ethnic Invention.” Journal of Labor

Economics, vol. 28, no. 3, 2010, pp. 473—508, available at

45 ‘os SLC

2017 The if : the 1’ S

o Firms that employ H-1B workers show

higher rates of innovation when the

national H-1B admission levels

increase.®9

o In Massachusetts, if all Labor

Condition Applications (LCAs) for H-1B

visas filed by employers in 2014 had

turned into visas, H-1B workers could

have created an estimated 61,256 jobs

for US-born workers by the year 2020.%

H. Impact of Immigrant Students on Innovation

and Patenting

e Increase in the share of foreign graduate

students and skilled immigrants have a

, accessed March 5,

2017, p. 475.

Kerr, William R., and William F. Lincoln. “The Supply Side

of Innovation: H-1B Visa Reforms and U.S. Ethnic

Invention.” Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 28, no. 3, 2010,

pp. 473-508, available at

Wwiww jstor.org/stable/ LO. 1086/65 1934, accessed March 5,

2017, p. 503.

“The Contributions of New Americans in Massachusetts,”

New American Economy, — 2016, available at

.° i! eae le Jiu rien ry ot* Woe

4 pn ee Ae | os ccnennisamalll

1 _.., accessed March

24, 2017, pp. 20-21. ‘The data c on visa demand are drawn

primarily from the 2014 Annual Report produced by the

Office of Foreign Labor Certification within the U.S.

Department of Labor. The multipliers use to produce these

estimates originate in a 2011 report released by

Partnership for a New American Economy and the

American Enterprise Institute.

June 2017 7 mynigraty Ae 17.8.

positive and strong impact on the generation

of new ideas in the United States.

0 Patent quantity: increase in the

presence of foreign graduate students

provides a positive and significant

impact on patenting activity at both

universities and private firms, thereby

contributing to American innovation.®!

0 Patent quality: increase in the share of

skilled immigrants associated with a

rise in number of granted patents at

universities. 9%?

% Cjellaraj, Gnanaraj and Maskus, Keith E. and Mattoo,

Aaditya, “The Contribution of Skilled Immigration and

International Graduate Students to U.S. Innovation,”

World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3588, May

2005, available at...

accessed March 5, 2017, p. 3. This study used data from the

U.S. Department of Education Education Statistics

Quarterly, the Institute for International Education Open

Doors, the National Science Foundation Science and

Engineering Statistics, the U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office, the U.S. Census Bureau Statistical Abstract of the

United States, and the Economic Report of the President.

% Chellaraj, Gnanaraj and Maskus, Keith E. and Mattoo,

Aaditya, “The Contribution of Skilled Immigration and

International Graduate Students to U.S. Innovation,”

World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3588, May

2005, available at iittps://ssrn.com/abstract=7-1 (G25,

accessed March 5, 2017, p. 3. This study used data from the

U.S. Department of Education Hducation Statistics

Quarterly, the Institute for International Education Open

Doors, the National Science Foundation Science and

Engineering Statistics, the U.S. Patent and Trademark

47 x,

e Academic research found that there are

significant and positive spillovers on overall

patenting activity associated with an increase

in the proportion of immigrant college

graduates. %

o A“1 percentage point increase in

immigrant college graduates’

population share increases patent per

capita by 9-18 percent.”

Office, the U.S. Census Bureau Statistical Abstract of the

United States, and the Economic Report of the President.

“For immigrant college graduates ... a 1 percentage point

increase in share increases patenting per capita by 8-10

percent in least squares and 12-18 percent in instrumental

variables, more than the 6 percent based on the individua)-

level data (statistically significantly so in the case of the

highest coefficient), and therefore implying positive

spillovers.” Hunt, Jennifer, and Marjolaine Gauthier-

Loiselle. “How Much Does Immigration Boost Innovation?”

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 2, no. 2,

2010, pp. 31-56, available at

Wi jeior ory stable/25 700296, accessed March 5, 2017, p.

48. This study used data from the National Science

Foundation National Survey of College Graduates, the U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office, and the Harvard Business

School Patent Data File.

Hunt, Jennifer, and Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle. “How

Much Does [Immigration Boost Innovation?” American

Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 2, no. 2, 2010, pp.

31-56, available at www j~tov ore/stable/ 2576002,

accessed March 5, 2017, p. 31. This study used data from

the National Science Foundation National Survey of

College Graduates, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,

and the Harvard Business School Patent Data File.

48 1c:

th iS

I. Impact of Immigrants on Firms

e Allowing for more H-1B visa holders benefits

firms:

o Research suggests that when the H-1B

visa cap is increased, firms that

perform large amounts of research and

development experience increased

productivity and profits.%

* For example, an increase in the

cap on H-1B visas of 110,000

visas from 85,000 to 195,000 may

lead to a 16% increase in firm

profits. %

e An increase in the supply of foreign-born

workers can improve firm outcomes.

o There is evidence that an increase in

the supply of foreign-born workers in an

% Ghosh, Anirban, Anna Maria Mayda, and Francese Ortega,

“The Impact of Skilled Foreign Workers on Firms: an

Investigation of Publicy Traded U.S. Firms,” /ZA

Discussion Paper No. 8684, November 2014, pp.1-47,

available at \\Wi).//'\)) -z_ove/dpSGS Lydt, accessed March 5,

2017, p.1. This study uses data from the Foreign Labor

Certification Data Labor Condition Applications (L.CAs)

Records, and Compustat.

%6 Ghosh, Anirban, Anna Maria Mayda, and Francese Ortega,

“The Impact of Skilled Foreign Workers on Firms: an

Investigation of Publicy Traded U.S. Firms,” IZA

Discussion Paper No. cyt November 2014, pp.1-47,

available at \\\'\) °\\; 1 ulpS6S toll, accessed March 5,

2017, p.24. This a uses data from the Foreign Labor

Certification Data Labor Condition Applications (LCAs)

Records, and Compustat.

49 “oS. TAC

area leads to increased productivity,

faster growth of capital, and better

export performance for firms in that

area.9%7

* These positive effects are

especially potent for firms with

fewer foreign-born employees

prior to the increase.

* Mitaritonna, Cristina, Gianluca Orefice, Giovanni Peri,

“Immigrants and Firms’ Productivity: Evidence from

France,” IZA Discussion Paper No. 8063, March 2014, pp.1-

38, available at \\')). ii) iif ie oe SIM yh, accessed

March 5, 2017, p.1. The study uses data from the

Declaration Annuelle des Donnetes Sociales (DADS)

databases, the O*NET Standard Occupational

Classification (SOC) system, and the Annual Business

survey (EAE). See also, Perri, Giovanni, “The Effect of

Immigration on Productivity: Evidence from U.S. States,”

The Review of Economics and Statistics, 94, No. 1,

February 2012, available at

OLj7#.WPBnuvnyuUk, accessed March 5, 2017, pp. 348-

358.

% Mitaritonna, Cristina, Gianluca Orefice, Giovanni Peri,

“Immigrants and Firms’ Productivity: Evidence from

France,” IZA Discussion Paper No. 8063, March 2014, pp.1-

38, available at .':; 6 1) 1 |. « |; tito: I, accessed

March 5, 2017, p.1. Tie coutinenan dein tnentin

Declaration Annuelle des Donnetes Sociales (DADS)

databases, the O*NET Standard Occupational

Classification (SOC) system, and the Annual Business

survey (EAE). See also, Perri, Giovanni, “The Effect of

Immigration on Productivity: Evidence from U.S. States,”

The Review of Economics and Statistics, 94, No. 1,

February 2012, available at

htto-/Awww_ouftpressioupnals oru/dei/abs/ LOT TO2/REST a0

e Immigrants promote more efficient allocation

of tasks within firms.

o Academic literature suggests that

immigrant workers lead to tasks being

assigned more efficiently to both

immigrant and native-born workers,

increasing overall productivity.%

e “[C]ities whose employers faced large numbers

of denials in the H-1B visa lotteries

experienced considerably less job creation and

wage growth for American-born computer

workers in the two years that followed.” 1

100

mbes Woth sou ot, aecessed March 5, 2017, pp. 348-

358.

Peri, Giovanni, “The Effect of Immigration on Productivity:

Evidence From U.S. States,” The Review of Economics and

Statistics, 94, No. 1, February 2012, pp. 348-358, available

1D etree \ i er accessed March 5, 2017, Pp. . 357. This

study uses date from the Integrated Public Use Microdata

Samples (IPUMS), the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,

and the National Economic Accounts. The author

conjectures that “at least part of the positive productivity

effects are due to an efficient specialization of immigrants

and natives in manual-intensive and communication-

intensive tasks, respectively (in which each group has a

comparative advantage), resulting in a gain in overall

efficiency” (see p. 357).

Peri Giovanni, Shish Kevin, Chad Sparber, and Angie

Marek Zeitlin, “Closing Economic Windows: How H-1B Visa

Denials Cost U.S.-Born Tech Workers Jobs and Wages

During the Great Recession,” The Partnership for a New

American Economy, June 2014, pp. 1-36, available at

51 =,

J. Impact of Immigrants on Productivity

e Considering earnings, patenting,

commercializing and licensing patents,

publishing books or papers and presenting at

major conferences, immigrants on H-1B and J-

1 visas outperformed native-born

individuals. !°!

e In 2015, immigrants contributed $2 trillion to

the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), which

represents 11 percent of its total GDP.!°

..y» , accessed March 5,

2017, p. 4, “The pry uses data from the U.S Citizenship

and Immigration Services, the U.S. Department of Labor,

and the American Community Survey.

101 Murray, Sara, “H-1B, J-1 Immigrants More Productive

Than Americans, Study Says,” Wal/ Street Journal, April

27, 2009, available at

htto://blogs.wsicom/econ. ante a i/27/h-1h-i-1-

2.8 S16) .* “S08 = 0.00 Oe i' . ,tofis f tt 1h. . ca? «

accessed March 5, 2017.

102 “People on the Move: Global Migration’s Impact and

Opportunity,” McKinsey Global Institute, December 2016,

available at

http://www wickinsey.com/~/media/MeKinses/Clobals20Th

ch. oo -*

20 1G.nshx, accessed March 5, 2017, p. 56. This study used

data from McKinsey Global Institute, the OECD database,

the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the United Nations

Department of Economic and Social Affairs (JU NDESA), the

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

(UNHCR), the World Bank, and others.

e The Cmeneiiend Budget Office (CBO)

estimated in 2013 that a reform that seeks to

“revise laws governing immigration and the

enforcement of those laws, allowing for a

significant increase in the number of

noncitizens who could lawfully enter the

United States permanently or temporarily”!

would boost real GDP by 5.4 percent by 2033,

and add 9 million workers to the labor

force. !04

o The CBO also finds that U.S.

productivity would be about 0.7 percent

higher in 2023 and about 1.0 percent

103 “The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security,

104

Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization

Act,” Congressional Budget Office, June 2013, available at

LAS L. “ his tee spb het Bere Bere

2Ubives abe tbibe- bingy soa 4's Sh aT

2017, p. 1. All data are from the Congressional Budget

Office.

The CBO calculated these numbers by comparing their

economic projections under immigration reform to their

baseline economic projections for FY 2013 to 2023. See “The

Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic

Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,”

Congressional Budget Office, June 2013, available at

UT Le vi LL he Priya pe , accessed March 5,

2017, p. 3; “The Budget and Sesnseets Outlook: Fiscal

Years 2013 to 2023,” Congressional Budget Office,

February 2013, available at

al Lees “1? | '

or ['vecgenet “wie AYO al li, accessed March 5,

2017. Data are from the Genmenstonal Budget Office.

53 —,

June 2017 The Bconomic /mpact of Immigration en the US

higher in 2033 under a reform scenario

described above. !°5

e “The influx of immigrant college graduates in

the 1990s increased U.S. GDP per capita by

1.4-2.4 percent.” 1%

e The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) estimates

that immigration reform that would seek to

increase the growth of overall population and

the workforce would increase GDP by 4.8

percent over 20 years. !°7

105

106

107

“The Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security,

Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization

ay: ew Budget Office, June 2013, available at

= oe 3 | Ve ree ee hd ee

201 aon por mer A346- Immigy ation. pdf, accessed March 5,

2017, p. 1. All data are from the Congressional Budget

Office.

Hunt, Jennifer, and Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle. “How

Much Does Immigration Boost Innovation?” American

Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 2, no. ~' 20 10, pp.

31-66, available at www jstov org):

accessed March 5, 2017, p. 52. This study —— wa from

the National Science Foundation Nationa! Survey of

College Graduates, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,

and the Harvard Business School Patent Data File.

The BPC study uses the CBO’s analysis on the economic

impact of immigration reform bill S. 744 as a reference case

in which they construct their model on. The BPC has

enlisted the help of Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, in order

to assess the economic and budgetary impact of the

reference case immigration reform. A description of their

methodology and assumptions can be found in Appendix A

of the article. See “Immigration Reform: Implications for

Growth, Budgets, and Housing,” /mmigration Task Force,

Bipartisan Policy Center, October 2013, available at

54 MASSTL CEM.

/ Th ’ ic 7m gration aon t TS

e Skilled immigration leads to macroeconomic

benefits related to employment and wages.

o “A one percentage point increase in the

immigration share in the population

increases income per person by about

6%,” 108

o Over the long run, a 1% increase in

immigration flow to a state has been

associated with an up to 0.9% increase

in income per worker in the state.!09

108

109

htto://edn_bipartisanpoliecy .org/wp-

wntentinnlosrda/site aylt/files/RPC Tmmigration_ Keone

mic [mpact.pdf, accessed March 5, 2017. This study used

data from the Department of Homeland Security Yearbook

of Immigration, the U.S. Census Bureau Annual Estimates

of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex

for the United States, the U.S. Census Bureau National

Population Projections Summary Tables, and the National

Science Foundation Science and Engineering Indicators

and Science and Engineering Doctorates

Ortega, Francesc and Giovanni Peri, “Openness and

income: The roles of trade and migration,” Journal of

International Economics, December 2013, pp. 231-251,

available at

VIA: Pi: AHA: PN ine hls '

* ' ‘ u

— - ~_—_—_——_- — --- —--

a | Te ree RT « 201: ‘ _ accessed March

5, 2017, p.247 This study uses data rom the NBER-UN

dataset, and the International Trade database (BAC]I).

Peri, Giovanni, “The Effect of Immigrants on U.S.

Employment and Productivity,” Federal Reeerve Board of

San Francisco Economic Letter, 2010-26, August 30, 2010,

PP. 1-5, available at \)ttp://www trbat org/economic-

pos te ctype. « [tele tesgell, accessed March 5, 2017, p.3 .

This paper summarizes research by Peri (2009) and Perri

and Sparber (2009).

“i. @ > %

55 MASSTLC Cm.

dune 20]7__The Economic Impact of Jmmmigration an the U7.

e 1,470 economists recently signed an open

letter highlighting some of the benefits of

immigration to innovation and productivity:

o “Immigration brings entrepreneurs who

start new businesses that hire

American workers.” !!°

o “Immigration brings young workers

who help offset the large-scale

retirement of baby boomers.” !!!

o “Immigration brings diverse skill sets

that keep our workforce flexible, help

companies grow, and increase the

productivity of American workers.” !!2

o “Immigrants are far more likely to work

in innovative, job-cveating fields such as

science, technology, engineering, and

110

111

112

“An Open Letter from 1,470 Economists on Immigration,”

New American Economy, April 2017, available at

http://www newamericaneconon ore/wp-

2017.paf, accessed April 12, 2017. >

“An Open Letter from 1,470 Economists on Immigration,”

New American Economy, April 2017, available at

http://www newamericaneconomy.org/wp-

ed ee ce Pueztess Noe of

2017.pdf, accessed April 12, 2017.

“An Open Letter from 1,470 Economists on Immigration,”

New American Economy, April 2017, available at

httoc/Awww me wsmern op a

coutent/uploads/2017/0 UNalk Meonomist-Letter-Aprtl-

2017 pal, accessed April 12, 2017.

56 ,

The nou act of Immigration 'S.

math that create life-improving

products and drive economic growth.”!!4

IV.IMPACT OF IMMIGRANTS ON

ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY

KEY TAKEAWAYS

The literature supports the idea that

immigrants are more likely to start new

businesses. The rates of immigration

entrepreneurship are typically higher for

high-tech sectors of the economy.

As of 2015, 14.6 percent of the Fortune 500

companies have a foreign-born CEO and 15.4

percent of the Fortune 500 Companies have a

foreign-born founder. These percentages rise

to 19.6 percent and 22.8 percent respectively

when looking at high-tech industries.

Data from the Survey of Business Owners

show high shares of business ownerships by

immigrants, especially in sectors that involve

high-tech industries, and among recently-

started firms.

113 “An Open Letter from 1,470 Economists on Immigration,”

New American Economy, April 2017, available at

htto/Avww new americanecononly. ory/wp-

ooete ol/uedoad ~ 2017/0 /N \ 1-H int.-I wtter-April

2017.pdf, accessed April 12, 2017.

June 2017 The Economic Impact of Lamigration on the l/.S.

A. The Impact of Immigrants on New Business

Starts by Sector

Immigrants are a vital part of new business growth

and entrepreneurship, particularly among high-tech

sectors such as engineering and technology.''4 This

section provides an overview of the literature that

examines the prevalence of entrepreneurship and

ownership in immigrant populations. Along with the

prevalence rates in the data, ownership and new

business start rates are calculated using publicly

available sources. These analyses are consistent

with the literature and further suggest that

immigrant ownership has likely been increasing over

the past decade. Using these prevalence measures

and characteristics of immigrant owned firms, an

estimate of the aggregate impact of new businesses,

particularly those in high-tech sectors, founded by

immigrants is determined for the U.S. economy.

B. The Relationship between Entrepreneurship

and Immigration Status, Particularly in High-

Tech Sectors

i. Literature Review

The literature supports the idea that immigrants are

more likely to start new businesses. The rates of

immigration entrepreneurship are typically higher

114 Stangler, Dane and Jason Wiens, “The Economic Case for

Welcoming Immigrant Entrepreneurs,” The Kauffman

Foundation, September 8, 2015, available at

http://www kaulfman.ore/what-we

. 8 M00 to Pere tpe a st A ae “4 ube oat accessed

March 7, 2017.

dune 2017 The Economyse Impact of Jmmigratian on the L/S.

for high-tech sectors of the economy. There are two

measures used to evaluate immigrant

entrepreneurship: the share of business founders

and the business formation rate.

a. Share of Business Founders

The literature supports the idea that the immigrant

share of business founders is high relative to the

share of immigrants in the labor force.

e “To measure business startup activity, we use

panel data created by matching consecutive

months of the 2007-2011 Current Population

Survey (CPS). Immigrants represent 24.9 percent

of all new business owners in the United

States.” 116

e “The immigrant share of new entrepreneurs rises

dramatically in our sample from 16.7% in 1995 to

27.1% in 2008” 116

e “Immigrant entrepreneurs now account for 28.5

percent of all new entrepreneurs in the United

States, up from just 13.3 percent in the 1997

Index. This is close to the two-decade high of 29.5

percent in the 2011 Index, reflecting the United

115 Fairlie, Robert W. and Magnus Lofstrom, "Immigration and

Entrepreneurship,” CESifo Working Paper Series No. 5298,

April 23, 2015, available at

https /papers.ssrn con/suld/papers.ctm abstract 1@=25979

92, accessed March 1, 2017, p. 6.

116 Kerr, Sari Pekkala and William R. Kerr, “Immigrant

Entrepreneurship,” National Bureau of Economic Research,

July, a reeneeg at

i Tks he Ce Le ee ot" i= , aecessed March 1,

2017, 9. 15.

59 =

June 2017 The Economic Impact of Immigration on the L/S.

States’ increasing population of immigrants but

also the much higher Rate of New Entrepreneurs

among immigrants.” !!’

These rates of immigrant ownership reported in the

literature are higher than the share of immigrants

in the labor force. The Bureau of Labor Statistics

reported that foreign-born workers accounted for

16.5% of the labor force in 2014.18

The literature also supports the idea that the rate of

entrepreneurship is even higher for high-tech

businesses.

e “We obtained responses from 2,054

engineering and technology companies

founded in the U.S. from 1995 to 2005. Of

these companies, 25.3% reported that at

least one of their key founders was an

immigrant.” 119

117 Fairlie, Robert W., Arnobio Morelix, E.J. Reedy, and

Joshua Russell, “The Kauffman Index, Startup Activity

National Trends,” The Kauffman Foundation, August 2016,

available at

hrtp:-/Awww.kauftman ore/~/media/kauttmian org/microsites/

, accessed March 9,

— io = — ao ams « ° ot

2017, p. 6.

118 “Foreign-Born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics —

2014”, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of

Labor, May, 21, 2015, available at

aun bl. a. ot bo “Jar te. blaeey be 5 75 bed]

aif accessed March 10, 2017.

119 Wadhwa, Vivek, AnnaLee Saxenian, Ben Rissing, and Gary

Gereff, “America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs,” Duke

Science, Technology & Innovation Paper No. 23, January 4,

60 mm,

120

121

June 2017 The Economic Impact of Iizmigration on the LS.

e “We analyzed Silicon Valley data by

selecting zip codes in the following

counties: Santa Clara, Alameda, San

Mateo and Santa Cruz. We received

responses from 126 companies that fit

these criteria. Of these, 52.4% reported

that their key founders were immigrants —

significantly higher than the California

average of 38.8%.” 120

e “What we have found thus far suggests

that immigrants make a disproportionate

contribution to biotechnology

entrepreneurship in Massachusetts.

According to the U.S. Census, foreign-born

residents of Massachusetts are 14.4

percent of the total population. But we find

that 25.7 percent of biotechnology firms

have foreign-born founders.” }”!

2007, viene at

Aen pepe = cept tte bay

2 guumenian 2017, p. 11.

Wadhwa, Vivek, AnnaLee Saxenian, Ben Rissing, and Gary

Gereff, “America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs,” Duke

Science, Technology & Innovation Paper No. 23, January 4,

2007, pees: at

Hp > pe tee te he pe din ede cs sd tet

2 sommmeditent 3, 2017, p. 31.

Monti, Daniel J., Laurel Smith-Doerr, and James McQuaid,

“Immigrant Entrepreneurs in the Massachusetts

Biotechnology Industry,” The Immigrant Learning Center,

Inc., June, 2007, available at \y0.ty://www.iletr.org/wp-

content/unload. JOLUVOS/imomiveants in _biotechnology-

‘ty ins tas tt, aecessed March 6, 2017, p. 12.

June 2017 The Economic Impact of Immigration on the L’S.

b. Business Formation Rate

The businees formation rate is another metric to

measure immigrant entrepreneurship. This is the

percentage of people who become business owners

from one month to the next. The literature shows

that immigrants have a higher business formation

rate than native-born individuals and that the rates

have been increasing over time.

e “Immigrants continue to be almost twice as

likely as the native-born to become

entrepreneurs, with the Rate of New

Entrepreneurs being 0.52 percent for

immigrants, as opposed to 0.27 percent for the

native-born.” !22

e “The business formation rate per month

among immigrants is 0.51 percent; that is, of

100,000 nonbusiness-owning immigrants, 510

start a business each month. This rate of

business formation is higher than the

nonimmigrant rate of 0.28 percent, or 280 of

100,000 U.S.-born non-business owners per

month.” !23

123

Fairlie, Robert W., Arnobio Morelix, E.J. Reedy, and

Joshua Russell, “The Kauffman Index, Startup Activity

National Trends,” The Kauffman Foundation, August 2016,

available at

Lae | Ses oath _ eho ele DM gechiter cy opts OR2* oe !

Losed tins ety tails Pabtrtp ote tate Hepes irom bide

2017, p. 6.

Fairlie, Robert W. and Magnus Lofstrom, "Immigration and

Entrepreneurship,” CESifo Working Paper Series No. 5298,

April 23, 2015, available at

June 2017 The Economic Impact of immigration an the ['S.

e “Business formation rates are even higher

among immigrants than the nonimmigrant.

The business formation rate per month among

immigrants is 0.62 percent (or 620 out of

100,000). This monthly rate of business

formation is much higher than the non-

immigrant rate of 0.28 percent (or 280 of

100,000).” 124

See Table IV.1 for a full set of data sources relied on

in the literature and Table IV.2 for a full summary of

the business formation estimates in the literature.

——— — —_ — _——— -_——— — — — | -- —_ — - . —_ —

92, accessed March 1, 2017, p. 67.

44 Fairlie, Robert W., “Immigrant Entrepreneurs and Small

Business Owners, and their Access to Financial Capital,”

U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy,

May, 2012, available at

accessed February 27, 2017, p. ii,

Table I[V.1

Summary of Data Sources

Restricte

d Access

US.

America Census independ

n Current Bureau ent

Commun Populati Longitudi Survey/

Yea Autho ity on nal Manual

Study r r Survey Survey Data” _— Search

Immigrant 201 = Kerr x

Entrepreneursh 6 and

ip'* Kerr

The Kauffman 201 _~—s~ Fairlie x

Index — Startup 5 ,

Activity Morel

National Ix, Et

Trends?’ al

125 The Restricted Access Longitudinal Data include the

126

127

Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics database and

the Longitudinal Business database.

Kerr, Sari Pekkala and William R. Kerr, “Immigrant

Entrepreneurship,” National Bureau of Economic Research,

July, 2016, available at

— ee

2017.

Fairlie, Robert W., Arnobio Morelix, E.J. Reedy, and

Joshua Russell, “The Kauffman Index, Startup Activity

National Trends,” The Kauffman Foundation, August 2016,

available at

US fievich Oe baee it pbivy. ect 2° Oi * .t)

y 3° "it a tie tye. white oe _o "te de ' ot fm nn mcd i r

roup activity national Te 201G.pdf, accessed March 9,

2017.

lune 2017 ___ The E, 7 ates he US

immigration and 2014 FairlieandLofstrom «x x

Entrepreneurship ™*

immigrant Entrepreneurs anc 2012 =—‘Fairiie x

Small Business Owners ””

High-Tech immigrant 2009 _ Hart, Acs, and Tracy x

Entrepreneurship in the United

States”

Estimating the Contribution of 2008 _ =Fairlie x

immigrant Business Owners to the

Economy"

28 Fairlie, Robert W. and Magnus Lofstrom, "Immigration and

129

131

Entrepreneurship," CESifo Working Paper Series No. 5298,

April 23, 2015, available at

op? Epes” ps Spf Pid 8 eee Me ths “3

92, anssssed Mand 1, 2017.

Fairlie, Robert W., “Immigrant Entrepreneurs and Smal!

Business Owners, and their Access to Financial Capital,”

U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy,

May, sees, — at

btrye vs yet |) Se

accessed eri 27, 2017.

Hart, David M., Zoltan J. Acs, and Spencer L. Tracy, Jr.,

“High-tech immigrant Entrepreneurship in the United

States,” U.S. Small Business Association, Office of

Advocacy, July, — orgs at

beittyes! wy mbes poy peed lilt eli tee thy dd,

cameos 24, 9017.

Fairlie, Robert W, “Estimating the Contribution of

Immigrant Business Owners to the U.S. Economy,” U.S.

Small Business Association, Office of Advocacy, November,

~2 ofm?ahetrert_W=25970

2008, available at

httos//peonle ueseedu/~rfiirlie/papers/published/sba%20fi

ab treet oo Oimoneei” LObu-iee . yell, accessed

February 24, 2017.

65 MASSTL CEM...

132

The Restricted Access Longitudinal Data include the Longitudinal Employer

Household Dynamics database and the Longitudinal Business database.

Fairlie, Robert W, “Estimating the Contribution of Immigrant Business

Owners to the U.S. Economy,” U.S. Smal! Business Association, Office of

Advocacy, November, 2008, available at

httos://penole ucsc edu/“rfairlie/aoer: /oublished/sba% 20final’ 20) evort %

220i iprant’é2C pdf, accessed February 24, 2017.

Wadhwa, Vivek, AnnaLee Saxenian, Ben Rissing, and Gary Gereff, “America’s

New Immigrant Entrepreneurs,” Duke Science, Technology & Innovation

Paper No. 23, January 4, 2007, available ot

accessed

March 3, 2017.

The Impact of 20 = Anders x

Immigrant 06 onand

Entrepreneurs Platzer

and Professionals

on U.S.

Compethiveness

Silicon Valley's 19 Saxeian x

New immigrant . 99

Entrepreneurs

Immigrant 201 Kerr and Kerr 200 27.1%

Entrepreneur 6 8 -

ship

135

137

Monti, Smith, Laurel Smith-Doerr, and James McQuaid, “Immigrant

Entrepreneurs in the Massachusetts Biotechnology Industry, June 2007,

available at

ae eee —_— ——

ot “accessed Match 4, 2017.

Anderson, Stuart and Michaela Platzer, “American Made: The impact of

immigrant Entrepreneurs and Professionals on U.S. Competitiveness,”

National Venture Capital Association, November, 2006, available at

, accessed February

24, 2017.

Saxeian, AnnaLee, “Silicon Vailey’s New immigrant Entrepreneurs,” Public

Policy Institute of California, 1999, availoble at

31, 2017.

67 =,

1992"

The 201 _ ~=sWFrlie, Moorelix, 201 U.S. 28.5%

Kauffman 5 et al. 4 =

index —

Startup

Activity

National

Trends

immigration 201 _—s* Fairlie and 200 =CU SS. 24.9% immigra

and 4 —_Lofstrom ?- ” nts:

Entrepreneur 201 0.51%!”

138

140

141

142

Kerr, Sari Pekkala and William R. Kerr, “Immigrant

Entrepreneurship,” National Bureau of Economic Research,

July, 2016, available at

_ .., accessed March 1,

e* —e

2017, p. . 16.

States include CA, CO, FL, ID, IL, LA, MD, NC, OR, WA,

and WI.

Fairlie, Robert W., Arnobio Morelix, E.J. Reedy, and

Joshua Russell, “The Kauffman Index, Startup Activity

National Trends,” The Kauffman Foundation, August 2016,

available at

‘ ! ,

fe ts Wed, bates of, eee il | ‘PPP eee

ht we i Auebes, Howitt: tet ee ate opel, i

2017, p. 13.

Fairlie, Robert W. and Magnus Lofstrom, "Immigration and

Entrepreneurship," CESifo Working Paper Series No. 5298,

April 23, 2015, available at

https://papers.ssrn .com/subs/papers.ctovabstract id=25979

92, accessed March 1, 2017, p. 6.

Fairlie, Robert W. and Magnus Lofstrom, "Immigration and

Entrepreneurship," CESifo Working Paper Series No. 5298,

April 23, 2015, available at

or .} [7 4

ship 1 Native-

born:

0.28%

Immigrant 201 =‘Fairiie 201 ___siIndividua Iimmigra

Entrepreneur 2 0 Is ages nts:

s and Small 20-64 0.62%"

Business who do Native-

Owners not own born:

3 0.28%

business

in the

first

survey

month.

High-Tech 200 _—s Haart, Acs, and 200 ="“High 16%

immigrant 9 Tracy 2- impact” =

Entrepreneur 200 = compani

ship in the 6 es in the

United States high-tech

sector

143

144

colywtatog f } - hth, to

brite = ps epee TT RE) Lee ie RA ee

92, ieee: 1, 2017, p. 7.

Fairlie, Robert W., “Immigrant Entrepreneurs and Small

Business Owners, and their Access to Financial Capital,”

U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy,

May, 2012, available at

Litige. 44 chet sean’ i"

primary Wis 27, 2017, p. ii.

Hart, David M., Zoltan J. Acs, and Spencer L. Tracy, Jr.,

“High-tech immigrant Entrepreneurship in the United

States,” U.S. Small Business Association, Office of

Advocacy, July, 2009, igear=pee at

lgtges ov Pee Kh. werferd vealt pep ie ate epi

accessed February 24, 2017, p. 5.

pate th bib sy Meet gel,

June 2017 Flag ct of ; the T'S

Table [V.2 (continued)

Summary of Results: Immigrant Share of Business

Founders and Business Formation Rates

immigra

nt Share

of Business

Yea Author Data Founde Formatio

Study r s Range Sample rs n Rate

Estimating 200 _ =s~ Fairlie 1996- U.S. 16.7% Iimmigran

the - 2007 - ts:

Contribution 0.35%"

of Immigrant Native-

Business born:

Owners to 0.27%

the Economy

145 Fairlie, Robert W, “Estimating the Contribution of

146

Immigrant Business Owners to the U.S. Economy,” U.S.

Small Business Association, Office of Advocacy, November,

2008, available at

08. Se) Re ee 0 ee ce sotph te te, ot bee Wthete

_ _, accessed

February 24, 2017, p. 18.

Fairlie, Robert W, “Estimating the Contribution of

Immigrant Business Owners to the U.S. Economy,” U.S.

Small Business Association, Office of Advocacy, November,

2008, available at

https://people.uesc.cdu/~rfairlie/pavers/published/sha% 206i

_. «., accessed

February 24, 2017, p. 19.

June 2017 _ The Economic Impact of Imuugration an the U.S.

America’s 200 Wadhw = 1995- US. U.S.:

New 7 a, 2005 engineerin 25.3%

Immigrant Saxeian g and aad

Entrepreneu , etal. technology Silicon

rs companies Valley:

with > $1 52.4%

million in _

sales or >

employees

Immigrant 200 Monti, 2006 Biotechnol 25.7%

Entrepreneu 7? Smith- ogy ”

rsin the Doerr, companies

Massachuset McQua founded in

ts id New

Biotechnolog England.

y Industry Excludes

subsidiarie

s of larger

companies

or multi-

147 Wadhwa, Vivek, AnnaLee Saxenian, Ben Rissing, and Gary

Gereff, “America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs,” Duke

Science, Technology & Innovation Paper No. 23, January 4,

ey, oe at ;

4 Ee 08 eb eee aut oe bod

Lean Sided ne —_

. 5 pon Pe 2017, p. il.

148 Wadhwa, Vivek, AnnaLee Saxenian, Ben Rissing, and Gary

Gereff, “America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs,” Duke

Science, Technology & Innovation Paper No. 23, January 4,

2007, available at

“Milye~ pe tpety bit eerpeeceh a pcnpe tier teh cad ced tet]

2. accessed March 3, 2017, p. 31.

148 Monti, Smith, Laurel Smith-Doerr, and James McQuaid,

“Immigrant Entrepreneurs in the Massachusetts

Biotechnology Industry, June 2007, available at

http:/Awww.issuelab.org/resource/immigriaint entrepreneurs

accossed Match 4, 2017 .p. 2.

June 2017

The Economic Impact of Immigration on the US.

The Impact

of immigrant

Entrepreneu

rs and

Professionals

on U.S.

Competitive

ness

Silicon

Valley’s New

immigrant

Entrepreneu

Anders

on and

Platzer

Saxeian

2005

1980-

1998

national

corporatio

ns.

U.S. 25%”

venture

capital-

backed

public

companies

Percentage 24%”

technology

firms

started

between

1980 and

1998 with

Indian or

Chinese

immigrant

CEOs

160 Anderson, Stuart and Michaela Platzer, “American Made:

The Impact of Immigrant Entrepreneurs and Professionals

on U.S. Competitiveness,” National Venture Capital

Association, November, 2006, available at

http://www cvontenthyst com! Vmertiin bade study olf,

accessed February 24, 2017, p. 13.

‘651 Saxeian, AnnaLee, “Silicon Valley’s New Immigrant

Entrepreneurs,” Public Policy Inetitute of California, 1999,

available at

hitped/wws pp ore/combent{pubs/roort/E GOONS oll,

accessed March 31, 2017, p. 23.

orca,

June 2017 _ The Evenomic Impact of Immigration on the I'S.

ii. Descriptive Tables from Fortune 500

Companies

The literature has focused on all types of business,

but there is also a publicly available dataset that

provides ownership and founder information for

Fortune 500 companies in particular. Highlighted

below are statistics similar to those found in the

literature, as well as some potential explanations for

why the figures may be different for the Fortune

500.

e As shown in Table IV.3, in the 2015 list of

Fortune 500 firms, 14.6 percent were headed

by foreign born CEOs and 15.4 percent were

founded by foreign-born individuals. Of

companies in the 2015 list in high-tech

industries, 19.6 percent were headed by

foreign-born CEOs, and 22.8 percent were

founded by foreign-born individuals.

e The percentage of Fortune 500 companies

with a foreign-born founder is lower than the

immigrant share of entrepreneurs reported in

the literature using the recent Current

Population Survey data. As shown in Table

IV.2, estimates using Census data from the

past decade range from 24.9 to 28.5 percent.

However, the 15.4 percent share for Fortune

500 companies with a foreign-born founder

(Table IV.3) is consistent with the estimates

using older data. For example, data from 1996

73 is. - Tick

June 2017 The Economic Impact af Immigration on the (7S.

to 2007 show immigrant entrepreneurship

share of 16.7 percent!52 (Table IV.2).

e In 2015, Fortune 500 companies with foreign-

born CEOs generated over $1.6 trillion in

revenue, and those founded by foreign-born

individuals generated over $1.8 trillion in

revenue. !53 These values are both larger than

the entire GDP of Canada in 2015.14

Furthermore, in 2015, Fortune 500 companies

with foreign-born CEOs employed over 4

million people worldwide and Fortune 500

companies founded by foreign-born

individuals employed over 3.7 million people

worldwide. Both of these numbers are larger

than the entire population of Connecticut in

2015. 155

152 Fairlie, Robert W, “Estimating the Contribution of

Immigrant Business Owners to the U.S. Economy,” U.S.

Small Business Association, Office of Advocacy, November,

2008, available at

htiye. te tel ose _tte Prats iL fe tae “ei thype efron] tog PQUhs

OM u-tie . sll, accessed

1p P VO, DF Vere enye my, Ti ee

February 24, 2017, p. 18.

163 Fortune, “Fortune 500,” available at

Pbigs bet feces tt pipe tll», accessed March 2,

2017.

1544 The World Bank, “Gross Domestic Product 2015,” available

at ht. slo tahank worldhbonk oraldataldownlondlt (DP pA,

accessed March 17, 2017.

155 United States Census Bureau, “Annual Estimates of

Resident Population,” available at

Wipe te dere wee a te ee ea ae

oluctview xhtmlsrecbkmkhttps://fiet finder. consus.gov/fic

aL ee Oe et TT eth bie

74 mm,

dune 2017 __ The Economic Impact of Iaumigration on the LS.

Table IV.3

Percent of Foreign-Born CEOs and Founders among

U.S. Fortune 5600 Companies

2015

Percent of Companies with Percent of Companies with

Foreign-Born CEO Foreign-Born Founder”!

15 4:

)) BY

Notes:

[1] High-tech industries include: Computers and

Office Equipment, Health Care: Pharmacy and

Other Services, Information Technology Services,

Aerospace and Defense, Computer Software,

Pharmaceuticals, Semiconductors and Other

Electronic Components, Network and Other

Communications Equipment, Electronics and

Electrical Equipment, Computer Peripherals,

Medical Products and Equipment, Scientific,

Photographic and Control Equipment, Chemicals,

and Energy.

[2] Information on founders was sourced from

Partnership for a New American Economy’s “The

New American Fortune 500” and supplemented with

information from online research on the country of

origin for founders of companies that have been

added to the list since 2010.

pele ce ase POS pert NP pebiate ot Abe ORO eg Oe

O15, accessed March 17, 2017.

75 om,

dune 2017 The Economic Impact of Immigration on the U.S.

Sources:

{1] Fortune, “Fortune 500,” available at

http://beta.fortune.com/fortune500/2015/, accessed

March 2, 2017.

[2] Partnership for a New American Economy, “The

"New American’ Fortune 500,” June 2011, available

beet pe We WS bette Weeder Orns Ory Sll~ alltde tic pen)

ne/img/new-american-fortune-d00-iune-201L1L.pdf,

accessed March 2, 2017, Appendix A.

[3] Biography, “Sergey Brin Biography,” November

2, 2016, available at

ait: /iwww.biography.com/people/sergey-brin-

2105.5, accessed March 30, 2017.

‘4 Biography, “Rupert Murdoch Biography,” October

17, 2016, available at

Hitige awk dee rigebiy oe pebbled

uti sts, accessed March 30, 2017.

[5] Viterbi, Andrew, “Reflections of an Educator,

Researcher, and Entrepreneur,” 2016, available at

http://www.biographv.com/people/sergev-brin-

12103333, accessed March 30, 2017.

[6] Blagg, Deborah, “Kumar Mahadeva,” September

1, 2013, available at

https://www.alumni.hbs.edu/stories/Pages/storv-

Hardie bias “PN eihin BUOS, accessed March 30, 2017.

[7] Swartz, Jon, “SanDisk CEO Eli Harari Proves

He’s No Flash in the Pan,” June 28, 2010 available

hie vostodav30.usatoday.com/moneyv/companics/m

anagement/profile/2010-06-27-sandisk-el-

harari N. htm, accessed March 30, 2017.

{8} McFadden, Robert, “Sidney Harman, Newsweek

Chairman, Is Dead at 92,” April 13, 2011, available

76 =,

June 2017 ic Impact of Immigration an the U.S.

vty FW WA ANE eetes cree OPE DOPED Peleus -ptueesntreredin

\4harman.html, accessed March 30, 2017.

[9] Business Insider, “Meet the Richest Tech Tycoon

in 14 Major Countries around the World,” July 19,

2014, available at

http://www.businessinsider.in/small-

business/tech/slide list/38639795.cms, accessed

March 30, 2017.

ui. Descriptive Tables from Survey of

Business Owners, 2007 and 2012

Another publicly available data source cited but not

used in the literature to determine foreign-born

ownership rates is the Survey of Business Owners

and Self-Employed Persons (SBO) conducted by the

Census Bureau. This survey collects information on

the characteristics of businesses and their owners.

The survey defines business ownership as possessing

at least 51% of a business’s stock or equity, sampling

1.75 million and 2.3 million nonfarm businesses with

receipts of at least $1,000 that filed Internal

Revenue Service tax forms in 2012 and 2007,

respectively. Respondents include firms with no paid

employees, in sectors 11 through 99 according to the

North American Industry Classification System

(NAICS), with the exceptions of NAICS 111,112, 482,

521, 525, 813, 814, and 92. The Census Bureau does

not claim the CBO data to be representative of all

U.S. businesses. Data from the 2012 SBO are only

provided as tabulated estimates of aggregate

numbers and percentages of businesses in the

United States; microdata are available only for the

2007 SBO.

It should be noted that analyses based on the SBO

are not directly comparable to analyses based on

77 ~

datasets such as the CPS, which is employed in

multiple studies on immigrant share of business

founders (see Table IV.1). Major differences include:

1) business owners who are primarily wage and

salary workers are included in the SBO, but

excluded from the CPS; 2) the CPS data is collected

at the individual level, whereas the SBO data is

collected at the business level (thus multiple

businesses owned by one individual count multiple

times in the SBO but only once in the CPS); and 3)

only the “majority owner” with at least 51% of a

business is included in the SBO, while multiple

“minority owners” with smaller shares of a business

are included in the CPS. '56

In 2012, approximately 14.4% of all businesses are

estimated to be owned by immigrants (Table IV.4a);

this is slightly lower than the percentage of foreign-

born business owners (15.0%) reported in 2007

(Table IV.4b). The discrepancy may be due to a

change in the immigrant-identifying question in the

166 U.S. Census Bureau, “Survey of Business Owners and Sell-

Employed Persons (SBO): Methodology,” =— 9, 2016,

available at bisveliw Wie =e vip ”

pocecone ner N 18, 2017: Us. thn ciate. ines

rgeeae Survey (CPS): a available at

‘tit: SCR ee Ye De | ee Cee |) bee ee “hae

eas sin eel ‘anata March 30,

2017: Fairlie, Robert W. and Alicia M. Robb,

“Entrepreneurship, Self-Employment and Business Data:

An Introduction to Several Large, Nationally-

Representative Datasets,” IZA Discussion Paper Series No.

4052, available at \it\y)://ttp.izeory/dp 1052. pul, accessed

March 25, 2017, pp.8-10.

78 —-

u Z : igratio LS.

SBO: the 2007 survey identified foreign-born

business owners, which included individuals born to

Americans overseas and were hence U.S. citizens by

birth; the question in the 2012 survey was modified

to identify only business owners who were not U.S.

citizens by birth. Both figures were higher than the

percentage of foreign-born individuals!5’ in the

general US population (12.9% in 2012, 12.6% in

2007), '58 reflecting a higher share of business

ownership among immigrants than those who are

native-born.

187 U.S. Census Bureau, “About Foreign-Born Population”,

available at

horn/about bum], accessed March 18, 2017. “Foreign-born”

refers to individuals who are not US citizens at birth,

including naturalized US citizens, lawful permanent

residents, temporary migrants, humanitarian migrants,

and unauthorized migrants.

88 U.S. Census Bureau, “Current Population Survey — March

2012 Detailed Tables”, Characteristics of the Foreign-Born

Population by Nativity and U.S. Citizenship Status

Estimates Table 1.1, available at

born/cps-2012 html, accessed March 18, 2017 and U.S.

Census Bureau, “Current Population Survey — March 2007

Detailed Tables”, Characteristics of the Foreign-Born

Population by Nativity and U.S. Citizenship Status Table

1.1, available at

— — ee ees ee <= ee - - — sa ——— —

born/eps-2007 ht accessed March 18, 2017. The

percentage of foreign-born individuals is calculated as

(Total population — Native-born population)/Total

population using data tables based on the Annual Social

and Economic Supplement of the Current Population

Surveys in 2012 and 2007.

June 2017 The Economic Impact of Immigration og the £'.S.

The shares of foreign-born business owners are often

even higher in sectors which involve “high tech”

industries (NAICS Code 33, 42, 44, 51,54), '59 at

15.1% and 18.0% in retail trade (44-45) in 2012 and

2007, respectively (Table IV.4a and Table IV.4b).

Pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturers are

more broadly included in the manufacturing sector

and biotech research is included in professional,

scientific and technical services, thus it is harder to

determine using these aggregate codes whether

similar rates are apparent in these particular sub-

sectors.

1589 U.S. Census Bureau, “Census Explorer Q&A,” How do you

define the “tech” jobs in the People, Education and Income

Edition?, avadindis at

pee zr suey. , accessed March 18,

2007. The } page ae A. ‘a hyperlink to a spreadsheet

sawing “list =e estes eaall to ae “tech” companies at

x, anes 18, 2007.

160 Computer & peripheral equip & software wholesale

(421430), Other electronic parts & equipment whsle

(421690), Computer and computer peripheral equipment

and software merchant wholesalers (423430),Other

electronic parts and equipment merchant wholesalers

(423690),Computer and software stores (443120).

80 =

June 2017 The Economic Impact of Immigration on the LS.

Table IV.4a

Survey of Business Owz2re 2012 — All Sectors

Percentage of Businesses with Foreign-Born

Owners, by NAICS Sector

ee eo Se why

Tas Tekh oi ctr et nina rr

a More qurvng, ae o! ard 67) VaRton 127,488

unis b.0/e

4 \omnh oow im eae ve

55 Mantes one 5 04 iw

42 Wh« lenate tr ate 24, 106 am

ua Pi tal trade 119.819 ” oS

664400) Warnoew’ shor are asietenwage ’) um vA

Ss! ivirm@er uew

260s Faes ne ad once cf 60d) 21..% ais

a) leal ests ec andrents ane cavre 712.149 10 4%.

iz) fF ractossi es, trent) 29 8 oer cal Cervees SAS as

a Mange Mev common ee ant enters ee nie "=?

M4 Aan dete wet wuppest and waste (of agement ard re Cir om erates 1o88 OAS nm

| Lowe st one! sory cet “ae _.

oe Heal carr and s& of am Mane 1765468 iss

71 Arts 00 ertpewet pifec. mum Lovey ans

4a écecrrrned aim end tosd ore twee Fd

sn Onhet weve escort put eter \ir vom) AR) aang

Notes:

[1] Numbers of businesses were estimates based on

the sample of 1.75 million businesses that responded

to the 2012 SBO. Approximately 0.8% all business

owners did not report whether they were born US

citizens. Business ownership is defined as having 51

percent or more of the stock or equity in the

business.

[2] Percentages reported were calculated out of the

number of businesses that reported the owner's

nativity status.

[3] Asterisks indicate NAICS sectors that cover

biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and high-technology

firms.

Source: United States Census, “2012 Survey of

Business Owners,” available at

https://factfinder.census.goyv/faces/tableservices/jst/pa

egress pee PL be Shite sce Dhak, accessed March 1,

2017.

81 —,

June 2017_ The Economic Impact of Immigration op the L/S.

Table IV.4b

Survey of Business Owners 2007 — All Sectors

Percentage of Businesses with Foreign-Born

Owners, by NAICS Sector

Penta @ Owe 's Uwerhaeca off

“- ll en a

ase is 15 74

Notes:

[1] Among all 2,165,680 businesses covered by the

2007 SBO, 1,503,184 (69.4%) had a majority owner,

defined as an owner with 51% or more of the stock or

equity in the business. The majority owner's nativity

status was reported by 847,154 (56.4%) such

businesses.

[2] Percentages reported were calculated out of the

number of businesses which had a majority owner

and reported the owner's nativity status.

[3] Asterisks indicate NAICS sectors that cover

biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and high-technology

firms.

Source: United States Census, “2007 Survey of

Business Owners,” available at

hitps://facthnder.conusus.goy/fices/Lableseryvices/jst/pia

feo prnbietctow stitmrl ae bhauwk, accessed March 1,

2017.

82 ncm

The higher share of immigrants in business

ownership is even more apparent when examining

recently founded

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.