My original comment is that the 50% of point #2, which is based on this report, is a meaningless number. Suppose each company had 10 co-founders, and 1 of ever

My original comment is that the 50% of point #2, which is based on this report, is a meaningless number. Suppose each company had 10 co-founders, and 1 of every co-founder was foreign born. Then by the definition from this report, 100% of all companies would be founded by an immigrant. Wow! Those immigrants are ambitious to have started every single one of the companies! Now comes a new report, based on the same data, that says "Immigrants are 10% of founders but 15% of the population". Something's wrong - immigrants are underrepresented as founders. Are they lazy? Discriminated against? Do they face too much adversity? So, two reports, one which says "foreigners started 100% of all companies" and the other "foreigners are underrepresented as founders", both base on the same data, but giving very different interpretations of the data. I believe this report was deliberately structured to present the sound bite that "50% of $1B+ companies are founded by immigrants" so that people like you would think it's meaningful. Without knowing the overall founder population, you cannot make a strong conclusion one way or the other. This report does not give those numbers, nor does it make it easy to figure them out myself. Hence why I say it's a propaganda piece meant to influence people who don't have the time to dig into policy wonk details. Like you. The rest of your comment unfortunately continues the ill-informed anti-poor and anti-minority viewpoint that I pointed out earlier by adding racist stereotypes.