# Amicus Curiae Brief — Trump v. Int'l Refugee Assistance Project, 138 S. Ct. 50 (2017) (No. 16-1436) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0753%3A084 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2017 ## 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, V. 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 L. 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 il 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: © ee © ABBE CE BIW: ccccviesscnsinéssctsutiaininaedmnanen 8 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 iv 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, EE 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- Ee 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. 2 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. 4 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. 5 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 6 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. 8 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. 10 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. 11 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. 12 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. 13 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. 58 App. at 17-18. 14 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. 15 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. 16 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. 17 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. 18 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). 19 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 20 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 1V LS. - tf 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 98 7) seep) Mer) Pe Spot ne) eeepwen fT Las cy LY “Tijomot le 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 S 2 : .. - 38 SI o~ fe) — N © ,s, te) wr wT o ch a ‘a t , - = E dy vi i 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 s 7 nd _ phat? > a: re ~ > all . wearwrn & «t oer ar ve ‘ arcd -= 4 oe Ho save | ‘? be. @* wtee ea. Ss ST -” half AT: cr ae ‘fo. — vu 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 ix 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 xl “.°)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 xu 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................ D 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’§. X. 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 XV “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 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.. é '____ 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 67 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 38 June 2017 The ION of feration on the {/ 73 74 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 — % 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. 57 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. 58 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. 61 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 bivtge ge Sgn gis tet e ohn ot etped thet 2 att, cota ©. 2017, p. 6. Fairlie, Robert W. and Magnus Lofstrom, "Immigration and Entrepreneurship,” CESifo Working Paper Series No. 5298, April 23, 2015, available at 62 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, 63 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 1% 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 =, by 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 68 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, 69 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 | | | ic 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. 70 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 > 20 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. 71 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 rs Anders on and Platzer Saxeian 2005 1980- 1998 national corporatio ns. U.S. 25%” venture capital- backed public companies Percentage 24%” of 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. 72 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 a 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 (a) - FA hs Notes: [1] Among all 1,503,184 businesses with majority owners, 932,152 (62.0%) reported the year of establishment. A total of 300,666 (32.3%) such businesses were start-ups, defined as businesses 83 ‘: ricom 2 : eration Ss. founded within 5 years of the survey (2008 - 2007), among which 240,252 (80.0%) reported the majority owner's nativity status. [2] Percentages reported were calculated out of the number of start-ups with a majority owner whose nativity status was reported. [3] Asterisks indicate NAICS sectors that cover biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and high-technology firms. Source: United States Census, “2007 Survey of Business Owners,” available at https://fact finder.ceusus. gov/faves/tableservices/jsf/pa produerviawy xitimd are bkink, accessed March 1, es 2017. Similarly, when examining whether the founder of a business was foreign born, the percentage goes from 12 percent for the full sample (Table IV.6) to 17.3 percent for start-ups (Table IV.7). Table IV.6 Survey of Business Owners 2007 — Firms Owned by Founders Percentage of Businesses with Foreign-Born Founding-Owners, by NAICS Sector Maurie «Biers me Sesortog Owre- + ‘. aig s dNaAna, een 7 oe ‘er hAe ** “Fie ote Bt ef * Bet . ae2718 Wm ' 84 Oo. Term dune 2017 __ The FKconamic Impact of Immigration on the LS. Notes: [1] Among all 1,503,184 businesses with majority owners, 832,215 (54.8 percent) reported both the majority owner's founder and nativity statuses. [2] Percentages reported were calculated out of the number of businesses which had a majority owner and reported both the owner's founder and nativity statuses. [3] Asterisks indicate NAICS sectors that cover biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and high-technology firms. Source: United States Census, “2007 Survey of Business Owners,” available at https://faetfinderoonsuw.. ov/frees/tableservices/isfiis ves proctetiicss shia! ‘se--bkmk, accessed March 1, 2017. Table [V.7 Survey of Business Owners 2007 — Companies Founded in or After 2003 by Current Owner Percentage of Businesses with Foreign-Born Founding-Owners, by NAICS Sector 85 css Tico dune 2017 The Econv Notes: [1] Among all 1,503,184 businesses with majority owners, 932,152 (62.0 percent) reported the year of establishment. A total of 300,666 (32.3 percent) such businesses were start-ups, defined as businesses founded within 5 years of the survey (2003 - 2007), among which 173,136 (57.6 percent) reported both the majority owner's founder and nativity statuses. [2] Percentages reported were calculated out of the number of start-ups which had a majority owner and reported both the owner's founder and nativity statuses. [3] Asterisks indicate NAICS sectors that cover biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and high-technology firms. Source: United States Census, “2007 Survey of Business Owners,” available at hetps://tactfinde reccnsus.gov/faces/tablesery teos/st/ pit os fiediet\heow \btid'sre=hbkmk, aecessed March 1, 2017. C. Impact of New Businesses Started by Immigrants 1. Estimates of Sales, Employment, and Payroll Generated by Immigrant- Owned Firms in 2012 Table [V.8 reports estimates of the impact of immigrant owned firms in the U.S. economy in 2012. The estimates are calculated as the product of the 86 ic om une ? Y 7 on oO he {7S total value for the U.S.'6! and the immigrant owned business share. !62 For example, Total sales generated by immigrant owned firms = total U.S. sales x percent of sales generated by immigrant owned firms Assumptions: e Fairlie and Loftstrom (2014) report the shares of total U.S. sales, employment, and payroll for immigrant owned firms using 2007 Survey of Business Owners data.'®3 Given the limitations of the 2012 Survey of Business Owner data, these same estimates cannot be calculated for 2012. Therefore, the following calculations assume that the immigrant owned firms’ shares were the same in 2012 as they were in 2007. 161 162 163 Total U.S. sales, employment, and payroll are from the 2012 Survey of Business Owners available at https /tocttinder vemst 5 ciety > Wexbtmtsre=t'F, aecessed March 1, 2017. _ The immigrant owned businesses’ shares of sales employment, and payroll are taken from Fairlie and Loftstrom (2014), which used 2007 Survey of Business Owner data. Fairlie, Robert W. and Magnus Lofstrom, “Immigration and Entrepreneurship,” CESifo Working Paper Series No. 5298, April 23, 2015, available at hitpav/panersssrys ere dLipene ts bee cete pd ed Lair 92, accessed March 1, 2017. ae; Fairlie, Robert W. and Magnus Lofstrom, “Immigration and Entrepreneurship,” CESifo Working Paper Series No. 5298, April 23, 2015, available at hitps poapers esr cee beat mM obsteact ol Youre ee acosesed March 1. 2017. 87 nits June 2017 The Economic finpact of /mmigration on the lS. Fairlie and Loftstrom’s estimates of employment, payroll, and sales use data limited to, “businesses that are classified by the IRS as sole proprietorships, partnerships, 1120 corporations, or employers, and that have sales of $1000 or more. It also excludes publicly held and other firms not classifiable by owner status.”'®4 The following calculations extend the analysis to all U.S. firms reported in the Survey of Business Owners. The analysis assumes that the shares are the same for Fairlie and Loftstrom’s sample of businesses as for the whole population of U.S. businesses. ‘6 Fairlie, Robert W. and Magnus Lofstrom, “Immigration and Entrepreneurship,” CESifo Working Paper Series No. 5298, April 23, 2015, available at https:/papers.ssrn com/sol$/papers cfo’abstraet id@-2’4079 2, accessed March 1, 2017, p. 8. 88 MASSTLOO™m. June 20] 7 The Economic Impact of Immigration on the LS. Table IV.8 Estimated Impact of Immigrant Owned Businesses on the U.S. Economy in 2012 Measure of 2012 Economic Impact Sales, Receipts, or Value of Shipments Employment Payroll (Millions) Metric (Millions) Total U.S. $33,536,848.8 115,249,007 $5,236,446.1 Immigrant 10.0% 9.9% 8.8% Owned Business Share in 2007 Estimate for $3,353,684.8 11,409,652 $460,807.3 Immigrant Owned Businesses Sources: [1] 2012 Survey of Business Owners. [2] Fairlie, Robert W. and Magnus Lofstrom, “Immigration and Entrepreneurship,” CESifo Working Paper Series No. 5298, April 23, 2015, available at http. yap s.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id 259799.', accessed Apri’ 4, 2017. u. Regional Differences Immigrant owned firms’ contributions to the economy are even higher in some regions of the country. Using data from the 2000 Census, Fairlie (2008) showed that, “The total business income generated by immigrant business owners is $67 billion, 11.6 percent of all business income in the United States. Immigrant business owners generate nearly $20 billion or one-quarter of all business income 89 MASSTLC EER. dune 2017 The Ecougmic Impact of Immigration on the lS. in California, and nearly one-fifth of all business income in New York, Florida, and New Jersey.” !® V. REGIONAL IMPACT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH KEY TAKEAWAYS e While immigration policy may be set at the national level, its importance is not distributed equally across the United States. e In terms of number of foreign-born individuals with graduate degrees, the top five states are California, New York, Texas, Lllinois, and Pennsylvania. However, the states with the highest percentage of individuals with graduate degrees are Connecticut, Texas, I]linois, Oklahoma, and Kansas. e States such as California, New York, Texas, Florida, and [linois have the largest number of immigrants and immigrants from the six banned countries. States with the lowest number of immigrants are typically in the upper-plains and Appalachia regions of the United States. e States with relatively small immigrant populations — West Virginia, North Dakota, |. South Dakota, Alaska, and Montana — have 165 Fairlie, Robert, “Estimating the Contribution of Immigrant Business Owners to the U.S. Economy,” Small Business Office of Advocacy, November 2008, available at hitpea: people dese odes rhawhe/papers/published/sbeal. 208 aS 2Oveport "ote role 2ZObusine ss pall, accessed April 14, 2017. 90 ‘ss TiCeom June 2017 ___ The m mi, the 11.8. experienced the largest percentage increases in the share of immigrants in their population and labor force. e Examination of labor certification and residence applications across states also reveals spatial differences. o In 2016, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, and Massachusetts had the most applications for skilled employment visas per 1,000 persons. o New Jersey, Washington, California, the District of Columbia, and Delaware had the most applications for permanent residence applications per 1,000 persons in 2016. o The most applications for temporary agricultural work permits are made in California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Washington. o The most applications for temporary non-agricultural work permits are made in Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Texas. e Finally, there are state-level differences in the fiscal effects of immigrants. Between 2011 and 2013, Alaska, the District of Columbia, Wyoming, New York, and California had the highest state and local expenditures per immigrant independent person. 91 os nics: A. Seeataitiinie’ Facts from the American Immigration Council Table V.1 presents data for each state on the percentage of the population that is foreign-born in 2013, the percentage of businesses owned by foreign- born individuals in 2010, and net business income from immigrant businesses in 2010. Tables V.2 to V.4 present data on each of these measures, respectively, by state ranking. California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, and Nevada were the states with the highest percentage of foreign-born individuals in 2013. In 2010, the states with the highest percent of businesses owned by foreign- born individuals were California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, and Hawaii. The net business income from foreign-born- owned businesses is highest in California by a substantial margin, followed by Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and I\linois. 92 -™ June 2017 __ ’ S. Table V.1 State-by-State Facts from A a. I * t * C. il Percent foreign Percent business owners that Net business income from Rank State born! 1 Alubamo 14% 43% $437.00,.0M 2 Alaska 71 98% $160,000,000 3 Alona 155% 14 8% $2, 208).000,000 4 Arkansas 45% 4% $287,000,000 5 « aliforma 2h 36 6 $4, 300,000_0m) © Color ado 25% 92% $1.200,000,000 ? Conn teat 139% 16 05 $2,100,000 000 8 Delaware 33% 10 6% $261,000,000 8 Cwstrict of ( chums 14.4% 18 2% $242,000,90) lo Florida 194% 26 1% $13, 300,000,000 it GEOrgA ors j4 8% $2,900,000,000 12 Hawan l7 o€ 225% $772,000,000 ie Idaho Se. 5% $192,000, 000 i4 Manors 140% 21 8% $5, 400,000,000 is Indians 48% a $722 000,000 iT lowa 41% 2% $2 16,000,000 17 Kansas o 8% 5 is $351,000.00) 18 Kentucky 3 Me 416% $451,000,000 io touisana 30. Ter $69 1,000,000 20 Mame 34% 32% $ 120,000,000 i Maryland Me mae $2 .800,00U,000 22 Massachusetts 1S o& 179% $2, 800,000,000 23 Michigan 2 WO #e $1.800,000,000 24 Minnesota 7.4% 6.0% $772,000,000 »% Maysissipy! 2 ve 4%: 5 181,000,c0u 26 Missout! 39% 5 8% $60,000,000 77 Montsna 2. li: $44,100, 00 28 Nebr avke 60% 38% $120,000,000 20 Ne. ada i? 29 lis Si bei wow 30 New Hampshire s™ 7% $252.000,000 oT New letve, J1e> 2a Ox $0. 70).000,00) 32 New Mexnu 10 1% 34% § 389,000,000 ih New York 2s 29 4% $20,600,000 34 North € arolma 7o% 8 6% 51 700 000,000 9 North Datta 27% 1 Se $20, OG) ct) Otio 41% 67% $1, 300,000,0) 3? Oklabomes Sx Sau $447,200.00 * ~©=s Cregon 10 92% $1.$0U,000,000 an Penns yh ana v 91% Ss) Aen 40 Rnode (sland 12% 12% $360,000,000 41 South ( atobna i 3” oF: SS2) noo) 42 South Dakota 25% 11% $13,000,000 43 Tennesse= i? 7s SeSi0nu.0u0 44 Teuas to S% nv %& $10,000,000,000 % Utah a2% o 5 288000 OD w& Vereancat 4% 4% $84,000,000 47 Vege. 148 i“ 2% il ifs 1? ivs ™ ie ai a“ i. oe M“ ‘ 0 iw 6 ig De ’ :W i’ 2 v2 7 i? Zi ' ) Cc 182 «2 35 @ a ana ies 22 Pa 2 ur 1” ' ‘ “vs t. wv ° ; ' al it: 187 1») i” ii ci i°? 2 i? 4 f yi? 143 1% }41 9 . , 3 we tw it. ee ‘ua tvs ts 4 prs 4 me it tes iv td it o a ? $2 4 mm pe ‘/ a itt ts A * ie ah iv Bie i? i ! i e ", 145 ad is ih) en “ss "— ie 1? ie? tte “ 1 tes ! i] 'c5 inv ti} i” ic2 if: 2 2) he 14> i” ies 1s? if: *% . : " fever « ‘ th i? it at ' +* $7? it ¢ Pe t.« ica | he id i> ‘ “i ‘ “ns hh us Its tis 4 ” ie ‘ ". t wf vv? dl (% Ovi vw +5 nl 3 ‘ ! NO vB he? ¢% i ics 157 it) u ln « ; “ ‘¢ test ‘%e ' a) tat re we ”? mee taj ic? “se a 122 iu} he $ ?- he we tle «* ate 1 oi] uP 4 ' tt. i wer ow urea “wee ' q / WAL a of, it fs © he “ee ue i i : we ;? we ese + © ory ee me 4c . 47 a. is ts vb ¢ 8} G* Ot? vr) Wy ' ta ‘® c*? ow@ ee offs ve wed bo i4 Si Ee rs tin wr uv oe ieee mes a; ‘ a at ‘u wt ov ea org ec, ory 1a vee é re 4 ? vl? 7 O93 2, vt 4 ’ 7 “a '' ' ‘i “tt wre 4 “*4 or TY © 25 ei O a” ‘ vi we 4 ‘ , ‘ ee vid we viv ” , . ’ “wl ee "yy 7 ae ‘* vue 7 ? , “ts “nt 4? ‘ . ' me wen 1 i is is iat oe? wie . 1) wt why wee ay “ ’ “wr te a | 4b a ary rt | » Le) ’ ar? “as t. 4 + or? wetey 4 4 ’ " ae rae | o. j ; oD m+ wes oO, a? be . ‘| mee ed i s. tA Wty nar uo - i?) “ "e ane ooe8 ee 4 4 v.08 2 | oe at - ’ of we i war Wt» tha vu 4> 2h i my) bee tee i? i” w waa wel ue 4 4 ‘ mat us 4 i 4. “A. of’ went ar °y aa dee ' we ‘ ‘ US Tots ea 023 ou om Note: The U.S. Government's October Ist of the preceding calendar year and runs until Sentember 30th. 106 so» Fiscal Year starts on MASSTLCEEE. [1] U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, “Disclosure Data, ” available at https ve ei er ubabe es rielbobes see pee: ‘Lstactha, amentiae 4, 2017. [2] U.S. Census Bureau, “State Population Totals Tables: 2010-2016,” available at https://www.census. gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popes | ~tuis-totol liml, aecessed April 4, 2017. D. Numbers and Fraction of Immigrant Populations by U.S. State, 2010-2015 The following table and maps present statistics for each state on the number of immigrants, the number of immigrants from the six banned countries, immigrants’ fraction of the population, immigrants’ fraction of the labor force, and the fraction of all immigrants from the six banned countries. In general, states such as California, New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois have the largest number of immigrants and immigrants from the six banned countries. States with the lowest number of immigrants are typically in the upper-plains and Appalachia regions of the U.S. Below, we summarize our findings on the states that have the highest and the lowest values of the each of aforementioned statistics over the 2010 to 2015 time period. We also present data on the Massachusetts. Figures V.1 to V.5 present these statistics for 2010- 2015 spatially on a map of the United States. e All Immigrants: o Largest: California, New York, and Texas are the top 3 in terms of immigrant population. 107 MASS TL CER. June 2017 The Economic Impact of Immigrgtjon on the C!S. o Smallest: The bottom 3 are North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. In general, the upper-plains, parts of Appalachia, and parts of New England are towards the bottom. o Massachusetts: 1,046,391 « Immigrants from Six Banned Countries: o Largest: California has the largest number of immigrants from the 6 countries, by a large margin. o Smallest: Montana has no immigrants from the 6 countries. o Massachusetts: 11,350 e Immigrants’ Fraction of the Population: o Largest: California, New York, and New Jersey are top the list. o Smallest: Parts of the upper-plains, the Midwest, and parts of Appalachia are towards the bottom. o Massachusetts: 15.6% e Immigrants’ Fraction of the Labor Force: o Largest: California, New York, and New Jersey top the list. Florida and Nevada are also high on this list. o Smallest: West Virginia, Montana, and Mississippi comprise the bottom three. o Massachusetts: 18.0% 108 , Th We fa) , On a ‘Ss. e Fraction of Six Banned Countries Relative to All Immigrants: o Largest: The upper-plains and the rust belt essentially have the highest percentage of immigrants from the 6 countries. Minnesota, West Virginia, Maine, South Dakota, and North Dakota make up the top 5. o Smallest: New Mexico, Florida, and Hawaii are the bottom three. o Massachusetts: 1.1% 109 June Table V.8 _Numbers and Fractions of Immigrants, 2010-2015 reget: 6 Bewred = lermgrants factionof ihe Meera: tracton of the tracmon of 6 Sawed Con wet le aad lates Force Courtres Relawwe to Aa = 7 re pers 14 348 : slabs br ae 43 Ls sw i” lnreras ash 19 44; Lh ‘6.% 1% Areenuae Livere ino a™ 61% ow ‘etre 19 426 288 pa) 939 Z* 1% $'o% tom (abe sivaes 71% 9% 14a 1 fre ete 44451 ‘tu igs te aS 1s beamore fi 1s mw een ion™ om C eeectCs kis ©) 4? icv maw 1? Fr tis Pm de 38m 1 15 (6s na Pee ow Le @ 99164 ine?! a8 its i.’ Mawes 2470.9 sa? 17h nw oo” fan “e!) 1) en re eS rot ‘ noes 1? 34 1~ iy ye iM wae s\4070 . «a ann §>% om ~~ 145 640 "9 an sy eh rome: M79 Is a 3s it’s sorte t Isgots ' sO i 4 i” kc aut ime?) a ~*~ sis ii Man 4218 2142 348 i im May 3 Giesss aan 4a vw i” Mai ee ie tte 104% ba ib 6 “um 1m Vv Pes erro ee eas 7% | Merereuhe 446 aD? | ™~ 9“ s™% Moser c7 185 7 72% :” 1% Mistom: 264% 4s i” in i. Re “tera Oo ™ 20% ie Netra ioots t.7 64s is i~ fe .aca syK)? 31 19a" an de* New Hangrhre “aan ws 56s sm i” New * +5 pe2aar? 1) 82° 2: & 55% ~ few Mewin> 274% uu 100% 12H ds Mee tcl aaapora 4's 3) 6 . i” Motth Core os rue ees £499 7% ” i’ Ath trabe ts 2»? ar ai Ss a™ omer ante jo él4 4\% am st ur -s 2‘ime) Peek ™ ?i% 1% wer 5e7 212 e 58% wn in it’ ote tela” a Tre Gee ti * éc% ave % #rede tare ips ase pos? hia’ ms ms wer eta 2i*# te i aa i. ite Bw CH te 25.585 1 14 i i” Teweawe $3822 ore 48y , 2.48 Foon 49998) 70; 16 AN om itm 22) -* 35% 14% eormert 6 16) as an a4. i:e coer | e°ae 3 sas > 7% 1. es 1% Wa Degtc ov ite 4? oye as wl 15% Aedletera tt 1s) i | to" i” anomr 176%) +1 46s Sos 14 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010-2015 Pooled Data, S. Ruggles, K. Genadek, R. Goeken, J. Grover, and M. Sobek, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 6.0, University of Minnesota (distributor), available at hitgeebot ore LOLTSTZ8/ DLN 1 U, accessed April 4, 2017. 110 MASSTLC EM. June 20] The Econvaic Impact af Jainueration on the t/ Figure V.1] Number of Immigrants, 2010-2015 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Cor munity Survey, 2010-2015 Pooled Data, S. Ruggles, K. Genadek, R. Goeken, J. Grover, and M. Sobek, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 6.0, University of Minnesota (distributor), available at Ll] —, June 2017 The Lconomic impact of jmmigration on the {1S | HO. Ts S/DOTOLN GA! accessed April j 2017 Figure V.2 Number of Immigrants from 6 Banned Countries, 2010-2015 5 oe 4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Communit\ Survey, 2010-2015 Pooled Data, S. Ruggles, K Genadek. R. Goeken. J. Grover. and M. Sobek. 112 x (fit? 207 / Ae fee Cron impar 4 of Jmmigra ti iyi Integrated Public Use Microdata Series University of Minnesota (distributor), available at ICC. ssed Apri | Version 6.0 €rO17 Figure V.3 Immigrants’ Fraction of the Population, 2010-2015 June 2017 The Economic Impact af Immigration on the L/S. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010-2015 Pooled Data, S. Ruggles, K. Genadek, R. Goeken, J. Grover, and M. Sobek, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 6.0 University of Minnesota (distributor), available at Li | Rew Re , accessed April 4 2017 Figure V.4 Immigrants’ Fraction of the Labor Force, 2010-2015 114 June 2017 The Economic /mpact of /muugration op the (78° Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010-2015 Pooled Data, S. Ruggles, K. Genadek, R. Goeken, J. Grover, and M. Sobek, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 6.0 University of Minnesota (distributor), available at p://doi_org/10.18128/D010.\'6.0, accessed April 4, 2017 Figure V.5 Fraction of 6 Banned Countries Relative to All Immigrants, 2010-2015 115 June 2017 __ The Economic Impact of Jmuuigration on the 7.5. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010-2015 Pooled Data, S. Ruggles, K. Genadek, R. Goeken, J. Grover, and M. Sobek, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 6.0, University of Minnesota (distributor), available at http://doi.org/10.18128/DU10.\'6.0, accessed April 4, 2017. E. Percentage Changes of Immigrant Populations by State, 2005-2015 The percentage change in the “Number of Immigrants” corresponds to the percentage change in the total number of immigrants within the state over the 5 year interval (2005-2010 or 2010-2015). The percentage change in the “Number of Immigrants from the 6 Banned Countries” is calculated similarly, but only for immigrants from Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia. The percentage change in “Immigrants’ Fraction of State Population” corresponds to the percentage change in the fraction of immigrants residing in the state over the 5 year interval. Note, this is a percentage increase relative to the fraction of immigrants in the base year -- it is not a percentage point increase. The percentage change in “Immigrants’ Fraction of State Labor Force” is calculated similarly, but its calculations are with respect to the fraction of immigrants in the labor force. The percentage change in the “Fraction of All Immigrants that come from 6 Banned Countries” corresponds to the percentage increase in the share of immigrants that come from Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia. The fraction is calculated out of all immigrants in the state. 116 MASS TLCAM. 2017 » Kconamic I a. migration on the L/S. Tables V.9 and V.10 present these summary statistics for each state in the periods 2005-2010 and 2010-2015. Below, we summarize our findings on the states that have the highest and the lowest values of the each of aforementioned statistics over the 2010 to 2015 time period. We also present data on the Massachusetts. Figures V.6 to V.10 present these statistics for 2010-2015 spatially on a map of the United States. Percentage Changes, 2005-2010: e Number of Immigrants: o Largest: Wyoming, Kentucky, lowa, Alabama o Smallest or Most Negative: Montana, Michigan, New Hampshire o Massachusetts: +7.49% e Number of Immigrants from 6 Banned Countries: o Largest: Alaska, Mississippi, Alabama, Maine, North Dakota o Smallest or Most Negative: Missouri, New Hampshire, Idaho o Massachusetts: +52.37% e Immigrants’ Fraction of State Population: o Largest: Kentucky, Iowa, Alabama, Vermont o Smallest or Most Negative: Colorado, Michigan, Idaho, Arizona, New Hampshire, Montana o Massachusetts: +1.65% e Immigrants’ Fraction of State Labor Force: co Largest: Alabama, Wyoming, lowa, South Dakota, Louisiana, Kentucky 117 MASSTL CEE. June 2017 __ The Economic Impact of Jmmigration on the (7.8. o Smallest or Most Negative: Colorado, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Arizona, West Virginia, Montana o Massachusetts: +3.24% e Fraction of All Immigrants that Come from 6 Banned Countries: o Largest: Alaska, Mississippi, North Dakota, Maine, Rhode Island, Delaware o Smallest or Most Negative: Iowa, District of Columbia, Arkansas, Missouri, New Hampshire, Idaho o Massachusetts: +41.75% Percentage Changes, 2010-2015: e Number of Immigrants: o Largest: North Dakota, West Virginia, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware o Smallest or Most Negative: Vermont, Alabama, New Mexico, Maine o Massachusetts: +12.76% e Number of Immigrants from 6 Banned Countries: o Largest: West Virginia, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ka.sas, New Hampshire o Smallest or Most Negative: lowa, Alaska, Oklahoma, Maine, Mississippi o Massachusetts: -6.39% e Immigrants’ Fraction of State Population: o Largest: West Virginia, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware o Smallest or Most Negative: Hawaii, New Mexico, Alabama, Maine co Massachusetts: + 8.82% 118 J The omic Im Immigration on t. U Immigrants’ Fraction of State Labor Force: o Largest: West Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Alaska o Smallest or Most Negative: California, Hawaii, Alabama, Mississippi o Massachusetts: +8.85% Fraction of All Immigrants that Come from 6 Banned Countries: o Largest: West Virginia, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin o Smallest or Most Negative: Maine, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska, Mississippi o Massachusetts: -16.98% 119 lune 2017 _ The E, ol nteeatl he ILS Table V.9 Percentage Change in Immigrants 2005-2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010-2015 Pooled Data, S. Ruggles, K. Genadek, R. Goeken, J. Grover, and M. Sobek, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 6.0, University of Minnesota (distributor), available at hitp://dorore/LOLIStZS8/D0LO.\ 6.0, accessed April 4, 2017. 120 oom Percentage Change in Immigrants 2010-2015 .* — ~~ a _ — —- - a Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010-2015 Pooled Data, S. Ruggles, K. Genadek, R. Goeken, J. Grover, and M. Sobek, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 6.0, University of Minnesota (distributor), avaiable at lity /doLors/10. 18t28/D010.\.6.0, accessed April 4, 2017. 121 hoc June 201] The Economic impact of Immigration on the ¢ Figure V.6 Percentage Change in Number of Immigrants, 2010- 2015 ee er e = « Source: U.S. Census Bureau. American Communit’ Survey, 2010-2015 Pocled Data, S. Ruggles, K Genadek. R. Goeken. J. Grover. and M. Sobek. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 6 | 2? ‘une 20) lAe Bcenomic impact af /mmigration on the | LJniversity of Minnesota (distributor), available at O.18128/1) \.0, accessed April 4 Ain wi iua* ’ Figure V.7 Percentage Change in Number of Immigrants from 6 Banned Countries, 2010-2015 % = » oe June 2017 The Economic Impact of Immigration on the 1S. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010-2015 Pooled Data, S. Ruggles, K. Genadek, R. Goeken, J. Grover, and M. Sobek, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 6.0, University of Minnesota (distributor), available at http://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V6_0, accessed April 4, 2017. Figure V.8 Percentage Change in Immigrants’ Fraction of State Population, 2010-2015 a Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010-2015 Pooled Data, S. Ruggles, K. Genadek, R. Goeken, J. Grover, and M. Sobek, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 6.0, University of Minnesota (distributor), available at http. — ot.org/10.18128/D010.V6.0, accessed April 4, 2017. 125 om, lune 20] 7 The Economic Impact of /mmigration on the [7 S Figure V.9 Percentage Change in Immigrants’ Fraction of State Labor Force, 2010-2015 — source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Commun Survey, 2010-2015 Pooled Data, S. Ruggles, K Genadek, R. Goeken, J. Grover, and M. Sobek, integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 6 University of Minnesota (distributor), availab/e at | ist accessed April 4 20] June 20] The Econoauc Impact of dmmmigration on the Figure V.10 Percentage Change in Fraction of All Immigrants that come from 6 Banned Countries, 2010-2015 . Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Communit} Survey, 2010-2015 Pooled Data, S. Ruggles, K. Genadek, R. Goeken, J. Grover, and M. Sobek, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 6.! 7,7 & dune 2017 __The Economic Impact of Immigration on the T'S. University of Minnesota (distributor), available at oy ee ee , accessed April 4, 2017. F. Levels and Percentage Changes of Petitions for Skilled Workers, 2010-2016 The demand for foreign skilled labor can be measured by examining data on Labor Condition Applications (“LCA”). Whenever a U.S. company wants to hire a foreign worker through the H-1B, E- 3, or H-1B1 visa programs, the petition needs to be certified by the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification (“OFLC”). e Temporary Agricultural Work Permits: o The most applications for temporary agricultural work permits are made in California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Washington. e Temporary Non-Agricultural Work Permits: o The most applications for temporary non-agricultural work permits (often used in resorts, among other areas) are made in Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Texas. 128 Figure V.11 Labor Condition Applications per 1000 Persons in Fiscal Year 2016 Note: The U.S. Government’s Fiscal Year starts on October list of the preceding calendar year and run until September 30th 129 «cy ferme 20] lhe Economic impact of immigration an the 1/8 June 2017 ___ The Economic Impact of Immigration on the "5. Sources: [1] U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, “Disclosure Data,” available at hitpa://www tovergulibercert doleuiegosy/perlorniines diaticfin, accessed April 4, 2017. [2] U.S. Census Bureau, “State Population Totals Tables: 2010-2016,” available at hitps://www.census.gov/data/tables/20 L6/de mo/popes total.html, accessed April 4, 2017. 130 june Pt) ] - 7A fe Wnoomic {mpact of dmimigration Cn} the TIS Figure V.12 Annual Growth in Labor Condition Applications, Fiscal Years 2010-2016 Note: The U.S. Government's Fiscal Year starts on October Ist of the preceding calendar year and runs until September 30th {1] U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, “Disclosure Data,” availab/e at https://www.toretgulaborcert.doleta.gov/pertormiance Aut.tclin, accessed April 4, 2017. [2] U.S. Census Bureau, “State Population Totals Tables: 2010-2016,” available at https://www.census, gov/data/tables/20 LG/demo/popes t(/stais total lintl, aecessed April 4, 2017. 132 : , . — , ar. 4 7, , - “f " srry ’ i OTONMC LT Paci OG fils sEs« Figure V.13 umployment-Based Green Card Applications per 1000 People in Fiscal Year 2016 June 2017 __ The Economic Impact of Immigration on the [1S Note: The U.S. Government's Fiscal Year starts on October 1st of the preceding calendar year and runs until September 30th. Sources: [1] U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, “Disclosure Data,” available at https://www.foreignlaborcert .doleta.gov/performance data.cim, accessed April 4, 2017. [2] U.S. Census Bureau, “State Population Totals Tables: 2010-2016,” available at httpos://www.census.vov/data/tables/20 16/de mo/popes t/strte-total html, accessed April 4, 2017. 134 , fi . , Li tei ii se, ict 4 ii j ia ‘ Figure V.14 Annual Growth in Employment-Based Green Card Applications, Fiscal Years 2010-2016 $ . re ee > > | & ” : A ll Note: The U.S. Government's Fiscal Year starts on October lst of the preceding calendar year and ru intil September 30th Ju igrath the I1.S. Sources: [1] U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, “Disclosure Data,” available at oes — Ss 6 tk oe lata. in. emnusd tool 4, 2017. [2] U.S. Census Bu [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0753%3A084. Public record. Not legal advice.