Study: Immigrants and their kids founded 45% of U.S. Fortune 500 companies

> By the time I was twenty, I had lived through a Hungarian Fascist dictatorship, German military occupation, the Nazis' "Final Solution," the siege of Budapest by the Soviet Red Army, a period of chaotic democracy in the years immediately after the war, a variety of repressive Communist regimes, and a popular uprising that was put down at gunpoint... [where] many young people were killed; countless others were interned. Some two hundred thousand Hungarians escaped to the West. I was one of them.

> When he was eight, the Nazis occupied Hungary and deported nearly 500,000 Jews to concentration camps, including Auschwitz. Its commandant, Rudolf Höss, said at his trial that he killed 400,000 Hungarian Jews in three months.[9] To avoid being arrested, Grove and his mother took on false identities and were sheltered by friends.[7] His father, however, was arrested and taken to an Eastern Labor Camp to do forced labor, and was reunited with his family only after the war.[10]

> During the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, when he was 20, he left his home and family and escaped across the border into Austria. Penniless and barely able to speak English, in 1957 he eventually made his way to the United States. He later changed his name to the anglicized Andrew S. Grove.[1][11] Grove summarized his first twenty years of life in Hungary in his memoirs:

> By the time I was twenty, I had lived through a Hungarian Fascist dictatorship, German military occupation, the Nazis' "Final Solution," the siege of Budapest by the Soviet Red Army, a period of chaotic democracy in the years immediately after the war, a variety of repressive Communist regimes, and a popular uprising that was put down at gunpoint... [where] many young people were killed; countless others were interned. Some two hundred thousand Hungarians escaped to the West. I was one of them.[1]

First impressions matter. A job posting for an elite JavaScript ninja with 15 years of ES6 experience is going to have the creator of the job post judged very harshly, even if no other information is viewed. Sometimes that will be wrong, but it will be right often enough to be reasonable.

As for this particular case, an analysis of how they calculated the number has already been done by other who have posted under this same article. If you feel there is a flaw in their logic, you can reply to them directly.

>How is this different from anybody responding to a comment solely by attacking the person who wrote it and their political affiliations rather than attempt to discuss the actual content?

Because it is based on both the author and the content, and the nature of the disagreement is that the content is wrong for reasons that are only incidentally related to the author.

The argument isn't 'study is bad because author is bad. The argument is 'the combination of the author's own stated goals and the creative statistical freedom taken when calculating the figure leads me to believe there is significant bias in and behind this'. There is also a known issue of political groups injecting favorable bias in the work they do.

>Would you question a reply like "Please keep in mind that this opinion came from [a member of party X] / [a supporter of cause Y] so I don't think their opinion is neutral [period]" to one of your comments or remarks?

Well, I don't think any opinion is neutral (at least on matters of politics) to begin with and would overall trust someone who recognizes their biases more than someone who doesn't, even if that is stereotypical of me.

One approach is to try and adopt a system that has a minimal amount of assumptions and inconsistencies. This is the approach taken by economics. The core idea is that, if somebody is willing to exchange their labour/product of their labour for something, then they demonstrably value that thing more at that time than all other possible things for which they could have exchanged their labour/product of their labour. A surprisingly large body of reasoning is built upon this and little else.

This is why most economists, mainstream or otherwise, support immigration. The immigrant wants it, their employer wants it and their landlord wants it, otherwise none of them would have agreed to it, so preventing this arrangement prevents them from realising their top preferences at that time, forcing them to settle for a less desired outcomes. What about the fact it might put a local out of a job? That argument requires some kind of assumptions that how much somebody "deserves" a job depends on where they're born; it's hard to justify without adding extra axioms, and certainly not self-evident (many people argue it's unjust to descriminate based on place of birth). Similarly, what about the argument that immigration destroys cultural homogeneity? This requires some kind of assumptions to justify why cultural homogeneity is desirable, which are hard to even specify, as it requires first clearly defining the concept of culture.

~750K family based immigrants with no requirement for education and wealth requirements in the range of being slightly above poverty for some categories. ~120K refugees, with no requirements ~30K asylees, with no requirements ~50K diversity, with high school education requirement

vs

140K employment based, who you might call educated and/or affluent as it includes investors and people with advanced degrees.

1. https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2017/tab...