This paper seems very biased on several points. An example: “ A 2010 report revealed that between 1940-2000 there was a 9-18% growth in patents per capita for e

This paper seems very biased on several points. An example: “ A 2010 report revealed that between 1940-2000 there was a 9-18% growth in patents per capita for every percentage point increase in foreign college graduates in the population.” Explained like this it seems there is a direct, linear, causal link between accepting more skilled immigrants and growth in patents. It is not explained how they obtained this and how confident they are in this link and the corresponding paper is behind a paywall. However: 1. The Simple heuristic of changing the order of the causation gives indeed something that seems plausible: countries or states with a more dynamic research environment will produce more patents & attract more foreign students in their colleges. 2. Using the number of patents to measure the benefits of skilled immigrations seems a bit ad-hoc. By carefully choosing the right metrics (patents issued with foreign students in college) instead of one of the considerable number of other possible choices (e.g. stock prices of tech companies with total skilled immigrants population) one can find the conclusion he wants