1ac harvard.doc - deaconsource

Document Sample
1ac harvard.doc - deaconsource Powered By Docstoc
					                                             The Plan
The plan:
The United States federal government should amend the provisions of the EB-5 visa class for immigrant
investors and immigrant entrepreneurs to lower the initial capital investment requirement to $250,000
for immigrant entrepreneurs that can obtain $100,000 of the investment from a qualified U.S. angel or
venture investor.
                                                    Contention 1 Entrepreneurship
No economic recovery now—no good jobs
Herbert 10
[Bob Herbert, ―A Recovery‘s Long Odds‖, The New York Times, 9-13-2010,]
We can keep wishing and hoping for a powerful economic recovery to pull the U.S. out of its doldrums, but I
wouldn‘t count on it. Ordinary American families no longer have the purchasing power to build a strong
recovery and keep it going. Americans are not being honest with themselves about the structural changes in the
economy that have bestowed fabulous wealth on a tiny sliver at the top, while undermining the living standards
of the middle class and absolutely crushing the poor. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a viable
strategy for reversing this dreadful state of affairs. (There is no evidence the G.O.P. even wants to.) Robert Reich, in his new book, ―Aftershock,‖ gives us one of
the clearest explanations to date of what has happened — how the United States went from what he calls ―the Great Prosperity‖ of 1947 to 1975 to the Great Recession
that has hobbled the U.S. economy and darkened the future of younger Americans. He gives the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve credit for moving
quickly in terms of fiscal and monetary policies to prevent the economic crash of 2008 from driving the U.S. into a second great depression. ―But,‖ he writes, ―we did
not learn the larger lesson of the 1930s: that when the distribution of income gets too far out of whack, the economy needs to be reorganized so the broad middle class
                                                   The middle class is finally on its knees. Jobs are scarce and
has enough buying power to rejuvenate the economy over the longer term.‖
good jobs even scarcer. Government and corporate policies have been whacking working Americans every
which way for the past three or four decades. While globalization and technological wizardry were wreaking
employment havoc, the movers and shakers in government and in the board rooms of the great corporations
were embracing privatization and deregulation with the fervor of fanatics. The safety net was shredded, unions
were brutally attacked and demonized, employment training and jobs programs were eliminated, higher
education costs skyrocketed, and the nation‘s infrastructure, a key to long-term industrial and economic health,
deteriorated. It‘s a wonder matters aren‘t worse.
Any growth is unsustainable
Kruger and Hays 10
[Daniel Kruger and Kathleen Hays, ―U.S. Economy‘s Downturn ‗Escape Velocity‖ Growing, Pimco‘s Crescenzi Says‖, Bloomberg, 9-14-2010]
A gain in retail sales for a second month shows the economy is beginning to accelerate, according to Tony
Crescenzi, a portfolio manager and strategist at Pacific Investment Management Co. in Newport Beach, California. ―The economy does have some
degree of escape velocity in that the movement beyond fiscal stimulus and inventory investment requires
consumers to go out and spend,‖ Crescenzi said in an interview on Bloomberg Radio‘s ―The Hays Advantage‖ with Kathleen Hays. Sales at U.S.
retailers climbed 0.4 percent in August after rising 0.3 percent in the previous month, the Commerce Department reported today. Bigger back-to-school
discounts, an increase in the number of states offering tax-free holidays and the restoration of extended jobless
benefits may have helped boost demand. The economy still needs increases in job growth before economic
growth can reach a self-sustaining ―virtuous cycle,‖ said Crescenzi, whose firm operates the world‘s biggest bond fund. ―It‘s important
that this degree of escape velocity has occurred, but you could say the ship is not far enough in orbit to believe
it will stay in orbit.‖ The economy has added an average of 90,000 jobs each month since the start of the year
after posting gains in payrolls in November for the first time since December 2007. ‗Still Undershooting‘
―We‘re still undershooting the job growth that‘s necessary to maintain this escape velocity,‖ Crescenzi said.
No resiliency
Evans-Pritchard 10
[Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, ―No defence left against double-dip recession, says Nouriel Roubini‖, Telegraph UK, 9-5-2010]
―The US has run out of bullets,‖ said Nouriel Roubini, professor at New York University, and one of a caste of luminaries with grim forecasts at the
annual Ambrosetti conference on Lake Como. ―More quantitative easing (bond purchases) by the Federal Reserve is not going
to make any difference. Treasury yields are already down to 2.5pc yet credit spreads are widening again.
Monetary policy can boost liquidity but it can‘t deal with solvency problems,‖ he told Europe‘s policy elite. Dr Roubini said the
US growth rate was likely to fall below 1pc in the second half of the year, despite the biggest stimulus in history: a cut in
interest rates from 5pc to zero, a budget deficit of 10pc of GDP, and $3 trillion to shore up the financial system .
The anaemic pace compares with rates of 4pc-6pc at this stage of recovery in normal post-war recoveries. ―We have reached stall speed. Any shock
at this point can tip you back into recession. With interbank spreads rising, you can get a vicious circle like
2008-2009,‖ he said, describing a self-feeding process as the real economy and the credit system hurt each other.
―There is a 40pc chance of double-dip recession in the US, and worse in Japan. Even if it is not technically a recession
it will feel like it,‖ he added. Hans-Werner Sinn, head of Germany‘s IFO Institute, said the US would have to purge its debt excesses the hard way. ―The
bitter truth is that there is no way out of this with monetary and fiscal policy. They will just have to see their living standards go
down. I see a decade of difficulties for the US,‖ he said.

Entrepreneurs key to avoid economic depression
Kaufmann Foundation 10
[―2010 State of Entrepreneurship Address‖, January 19 2010,]
In a new poll we just completed, entrepreneurs paint a pretty grim picture. One-third of entrepreneurs tell us
they have had to reduce their head counts in the past year, and close to two-thirds have seen their sales volume
decrease. Two-thirds have seen their profitability decline as well. Additionally, and this is very worrisome, over
70 percent of entrepreneurs say that they don‘t expect to add additional employees this year. Worse, with this
continuing unemployment, consumers are understandably nervous about spending. In such an environment, it
won‘t just be more government spending that will get consumers to open their wallets—responsibly, I might
add, we don‘t want consumers overdoing it, as too many were pre-crisis by using their houses as ATMs. But
this responsible spending, both here and abroad, won‘t happen until consumers are once again excited to
spend—not on the things that were around before the housing bubble popped, but on novel products and
services. Once these are developed and widely commercialized, a virtuous cycle can begin. As consumers spend
more, businesses have reason to invest and hire. And the more hiring that occurs, the higher incomes and
spending will be. And then we will have the recovery we all want and are waiting for. But to get this virtuous
ball rolling we need— guess who—entrepreneurs, who are responsible for most of the breakthrough products
that have changed our lives for the better. We need entrepreneurs for today‘s breakthroughs in energy
generation—only they will develop and commercialize the successor to petroleum. We need breakthroughs in
health and medicine—and only entrepreneurs will bend the cost curve and continue to extend life expectancy.
Entrepreneurs also will continue to provide services we need and want, such as Rosetta Stone, Zappos, and We could wait for history to repeat itself, to generate the future Fortune 500, as entrepreneurs have
done in previous downturns. But with another 85,000 jobs lost last month, I, for one, would be much more
comfortable if we had some policies to help history along. Here, then, are some big ideas in that spirit.
The US makes it impossible to get the entrepreneurs we need
Kedrosky and Feld 09
[Paul Kedrosky and Brad Feld, Mr. Kedrosky is a senior fellow at the Kauffman Foundation and an investor. Mr. Feld is a managing director at Foundry Group, a
Boulder, Colo.,-based venture capital firm that invests in start-up companies in the U.S. ―Start-up Visas Can Jump-Start the Economy‖, The Wall Street Journal, 12-2-

Immigrant entrepreneurs are an engine of jobs and growth. We need more of them. While fast-growing companies have long
been the main source of new jobs and innovation, this country makes it outrageously difficult for immigrants to launch new
companies here. This doesn‘t make any sense. After all, Google, Pfizer, Intel, Yahoo, DuPont, eBay and Procter &
Gamble are all former start-ups founded by immigrants. Where would this country be today without their world-changing innovations?
Immigrants have not only founded big, well-known companies. Foreign-born residents made up just 12.5% of the U.S. population in 2008. But nearly 40% of
                                                       Yet we don‘t seem to care. We send recent, foreign-
technology company founders and 52% of founders of companies in Silicon Valley.
born university science and engineering graduates back to their own countries after their student visas expire—unless these
creative sorts are willing to spend some of the most entrepreneurial years of their lives working in a big company under an H-1B visa after they finish their studies.
For those who studied elsewhere, but who nonetheless want to bring their job-creating ideas here, American
policies treat them—the job-creating, trouble-making innovators that they are—as a cross between deadbeats
and queue-jumpers. Why can‘t they wait in line like everyone else to get a visa in five years or so? What‘s their hurry? Their hurry is Joseph Schumpeter‘s
hurry: They want to hustle out and disrupt markets when the opportunity arises. In the 21st century those opportunities don‘t wait for our
interminable, employment-based visa programs. As a result rather than saying "Come and create jobs here" we,
in effect, tell them to shove off. Come back when you have a few million in sales— at which point they will be rooted elsewhere and creating jobs
somewhere else. That needs to end now. Immigrants who come here to create companies create jobs. We need the

We’ll isolate several internal links—
First is Job Creation
DeAngelis 10
(Enterprise Resilience Management Blog Insights about a new Enterprise Architecture for corporations, governmental agencies, transnational organizations, and nation-
states in the age of globalization. Stephen F. DeAngelis, Principal Author. Bradd C. Hayes, Editor. Entrepreneurs, Innovators, and Immigrants January 27, 2010 in Best
Practices, Current Affairs, Globalization, Innovation | Permalink)
Back in September of last year, Bill George, a professor of management practice at Harvard Business School and author of the new book, 7 Lessons for Leading in
Crisis, wrote an article for BusinessWeek in which he discussed his ideas for creating sustainable jobs ["Putting America Back to Work," 28 September 2009 print
                                      of clinging to yesterday's economy, we should use this opportunity to rally
issue]. Among other things, George wrote: "Instead
around the cause of making the U.S. fully competitive. But what will it take to create sustainable jobs? We need
to refocus on America's great strengths: innovation, entrepreneurship, small business, and new company
formation. These were the engines that drove job growth in the 1980s and '90s. We can do it again by
unleashing these powerful forces. The biggest job creators are small businesses and companies that are expanding, like my former company, Medtronic,
which has created 35,000 jobs in the past 25 years. Yet our national policies, unlike those in many European and Asian nations, often work against them." As George
mentions, he is the former chair and CEO of Medtronic. Currently he serves on the boards of ExxonMobil and Goldman Sachs and, previously, he has served on the
boards of Novartis and Target. His business credentials, in other words, go beyond the classroom. Later in his article, he recommended that the U.S. invest heavily in
"renewable energy, information technology, and health care—three of America's greatest strengths." He also recommended that the country renew its investments in
human capital. He wrote: "With so many workers who lack the skills for tomorrow's jobs, we should institute massive retraining and education programs to prepare
workers for the high-tech jobs where the U.S. has a competitive advantage." I don't disagree with anything George writes. I, too, believe that "innovation,
entrepreneurship, small business, and new company formation" are needed to create more good paying, sustainable jobs. Although we need to do everything we can to
keep American's fully employed, one thing that George doesn't mention is how "new blood" might be able to help us do that. Hiring immigrants may not sound like a
good way to create sustainable jobs in the U.S., but don't be too quick to judge. Before discussing the possible benefits of hiring immigrants, let's face the fact that doing
so could be controversial. A December article in BusinessWeek notes that U.S. businesses are still looking for good foreign talent despite the fact that "continued hiring
of workers from abroad may stoke controversy" ["Still Wanted: Foreign Talent—and Visas," by Moira Herbst, 21 December 2009 print issue]. She reports: "Even as
job losses in the U.S. mount, employers have stepped up the hiring of skilled workers from abroad, according to data from the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services.
The acceleration in recent weeks has put companies close to exhausting the 65,000 visas allotted each year for foreign hires under what's known as the H-1B program.
Some 61,500 visas had been used as of Dec. 8, and the last visas are likely to be claimed within weeks. Once that happens, companies won't be able to use the program
to bring in additional workers until October, the start of the government's fiscal year." Herbst quotes an associate professor of public policy at Rochester Institute of
Technology, Ron Hira, who probably reflects the thinking of many Americas. "With 15.4 million people unemployed in the U.S.," he states, "employers should be able
to find qualified workers here." The fact, however, is that hiring immigrants often reflects their entrepreneurial character, not just their job qualifications. The Wall
Street Journal asserts that "it's crazy to drive away talented young scholars" ["Immigrant Scientists Create Jobs and Win Nobels," by Susan Hockfield, 20 October 2009].
She writes: "Of the nine people who shared this year's Nobel Prizes in chemistry, physics and medicine, eight are American citizens, a testament to this country's
support for pioneering research. But those numbers disguise a more important story. Four of the American winners were born outside of the United States and only
came here as graduate or post-doctoral students or as scientists. They came because our system of higher education and advanced research has been a magnet for
creative talent. Unfortunately, we cannot count on that magnetism to last. Culturally, we remain a very open society. But that openness stands in sharp contrast to
arcane U.S. immigration policies that discourage young scholars from settling in the U.S. Those policies come at
a high price. Graduate and postgraduate student immigrants are essential to creating new, well-paid jobs in our economy. Of the
35 young innovators recognized this year by Technology Review magazine for their exceptional new ideas, only six went to high school in the United States. From MIT
                                                                                                             if as incoming students
alone, foreign graduates have founded an estimated 2,340 active U.S. companies that employ over 100,000 people. Amazingly,
they had told U.S. immigration authorities that they hoped to stay on as entrepreneurs after graduation, they
would have been turned back at the border. Our immigration laws specifically require that students return to their home countries after earning
their degrees and then apply for a visa if they want to return and work in the U.S. It would be hard to invent a policy more
counterproductive to our national interest." At a time when the U.S. is continuing to shed jobs, welcoming
people with the skills and disposition to create hundreds of thousands of jobs simply makes sense. Dr. Hockfield is not
a reporter; she is president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a noted neuroscientist whose research has focused on the development of the brain. She
certainly advocates, along with Professor George, aggressively developing "more homegrown talent"; but, she notes (with more than a little frustration) that the U.S. has
lost its lead in education. "In education, the world is accelerating while we are standing still," she writes. This post, however, is about jobs, not education. Dr. Hockfield
concludes by noting that the two subjects are intricately interwoven. "Today, discovery        and innovation increasingly spring from a creative
network of the finest talent everywhere across the globe. From new advances in medicine to scientific breakthroughs that spawn new
industries and sustainable jobs, the work of science and engineering is being done by individuals who can live almost anywhere. To be part of that global creative
network we must inspire more young Americans to pursue scientific careers, and we must rapidly reform U.S. immigration policies that drive away talented young
scholars who would otherwise decide to live, work and innovate here. We should be proud of our Nobel Prize winners. But we should also craft policies that make it
more likely that future Nobel laureates will do their work inside the U.S." In later Wall Street Journal article, the paper argues that "immigrant entrepreneurs are an
engine of jobs and growth. We need more of them." ["Start-up Visas Can Jump-Start the Economy," by Paul Kedrosky and Brad Feld, 2 December 2009] Kedrosky and
        "While fast-growing companies have long been the main source of new jobs and innovation, this
Feld write:
country makes it outrageously difficult for immigrants to launch new companies here. This doesn't make any sense. After all,
Google, Pfizer, Intel, Yahoo, DuPont, eBay and Procter & Gamble are all former start-ups founded by immigrants. Where would this country be today without their
                                                                                          residents made up just 12.5% of the
world-changing innovations? Immigrants have not only founded big, well-known companies. Foreign-born
U.S. population in 2008. But nearly 40% of technology company founders and 52% of founders of companies
in Silicon Valley. Yet we don't seem to care." Like Dr. Hockfield, Kedrosky and Feld are not reporters either; they are investors. Mr. Kedrosky is
a senior fellow at the Kauffman Foundation and an investor. Mr. Feld is a managing director at Foundry Group, a Boulder, Colo.,-based venture capital firm that invests
in start-up companies in the U.S. Analysts have predicted that the U.S. recovery will be jobless; that is, that unemployment will remain high for several years. Kedrosky
and Feld argue that it doesn't need to be that way. They continue: "In the 21st century those opportunities don't wait for our interminable, employment-based visa
programs. As a result rather than saying 'Come and create jobs here' we, in effect, tell them to shove off. Come back when you have a few million in sales— at which
point they will be rooted elsewhere and creating jobs somewhere else. That needs to end now. Immigrants who come here to create companies create jobs. We need the
jobs." Rather than relying on H-1B visas, Kedrosky and Feld recommend creating a new type of visa they call a "start-up visa." They explain: "It might work like this:
If immigrant entrepreneurs want to start a company in the U.S. and are able to raise a moderate amount of money (perhaps as little as $125,000) from an accredited
U.S.-based venture capital firm or qualified U.S.-based angel investors, we should let them start a company here. It could be a couple of founders with an idea—that's it.
We would give visas to the founders and welcome them in to our country. Would it work every time? Of course not. It would fail more often than not.
often fail. But having failed, the immigrant entrepreneurs could try again, and again . And as long as they are
trying, raising money, creating jobs, and making sales, we would let them stay here. Founders of new
companies are precious for a vibrant economy, and we should welcome them. Indeed, the country would be better served to find
more of them. Some will say a start-up visa program will be abused. They will say that it will become a way to end-run immigration rules, to jump the queue if you
have money. There are at least two answers to these objections. First, to get such a visa you would have to raise money from real investors. Second, Canada and other
countries already allow entrepreneurs to start a company in their country. Shouldn't the U.S. stop worrying so much about keeping these people out, and start worrying
about bringing them in?" They agree with Dr. Hockfield that we should welcome foreign scholars and that "science and engineering graduates should get visas stapled
to their diplomas" because they are the individuals who are going to "create jobs, innovate, and grow the economy." The message, they write, should be: "Uncle Sam
wants you, if you're a prospective entrepreneur." In a recent op-ed piece, former Tennessee congressman Harold Ford, Jr., while chiding Democrats for losing the
public's confidence, agreed that immigrants can play a critical role in our economy ["Democrats, Get Down to Business," New York Times, 25 January 2010]. He
writes that America "should reform [its] immigration policy to ensure that those who contribute to [the U.S.] economy, especially foreign math and science graduates of
American universities, have a clear path to citizenship." While Kedrosky and Feld want to welcome foreigners who seek investment money in the United States, there is
already a program that offers visas to foreigners willing to invest in U.S. companies ["Immigrants invest in U.S. businesses in exchange for visas," by N.C. Aizenman,
Washington Post, 10 January 2010]. Aizenman writes: "The number of foreigners willing to invest $500,000 to $1 million in a U.S. business in exchange for a visa
roughly tripled in the past fiscal year, as dozens of cash-strapped enterprises and local governments scrambled to attract wealthy foreign backers through a previously
obscure provision of immigration law. Under the EB-5 visa program, immigrants who can demonstrate that their investment created or preserved at least 10 U.S. jobs
after two years are granted legal permanent residency along with their spouses and children. Although immigrants are allowed to establish businesses under the program,
most prefer to invest in 'regional centers' -- public or private enterprises that are certified by the government to receive funds from EB-5 investors and that can count
jobs indirectly created by the investment toward the 10 required. The minimum outlay mandated is $1 million, but immigrants can reduce that to $500,000 by investing
in a regional center or establishing businesses in areas designated as economically disadvantaged." At a time when small businesses are still
having difficulty raising capital, hooking up with a foreign investor seems like a good idea. These are obviously not
economically disadvantaged individuals who are going to be a drain on scarce government resources . They are people who can help create jobs
for people who will pay taxes and bolster local economies. Are there downsides to the program? Aizenman admits that even "some avid
proponents of the EB-5 program ... worry that a profusion of fraudulent or ill-advised ventures might soon flourish alongside legitimate ones." On the whole, however,
the benefits seem to outweigh the risks. Another point made by Aizenman is that we are not talking about big numbers. He reports: "Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor at
Cornell University's law school and executive director of a trade association of regional centers, said the number of EB-5 visas being granted falls well short of the
maximum 10,000 allowed each year." In a surprising twist for Congress, where it has been said that the aisles are getting wider and politicians arms are getting shorter,
the EB-5 program has attracted cross-aisle, bipartisan support. The reason: the politicians realize that the program creates jobs. I suspect that there are a lot of
unemployed workers who would gladly have an immigrant employer if he or she could promise a steady paycheck and livable wage.

Failure to create sustainable job growth results in double-dipping
Aygoren 10
[Sule Aygoren, ―Jobs, Uncertainty Holding Back Multifamily Bull Run‖, GlobeStreet, 9-29-2010,
Beginning with a broad look at the economy, SVP and managing director of research services Hessam Nadji
pointed out that the crawling pace of job growth is the primary reason behind the fears of a double-dip recession.
In the 2001-2003 recession, the US lost 2.7 million jobs, but gained 8.1 million between 2003 and 2007. This
latest downturn saw 8.4 million positions terminated between 2007 and 2009, but has only seen a net gain of
723,000 since year-end 2009. But that figure isn‘t going down anymore, and that‘s good news, said Nadji.
When it comes to job losses, ―it looks like the worst is over,‖ he said. ―We‘re not moving forward quickly, but
at least we established a base‖ when it comes to employment growth. What‘s needed, he noted, is a confidence
boost for corporate America, which has been hesitant about its growth. ―Until confidence shifts, we will not see
growth,‖ said Nadji. ―And the growth has to be led by corporate America, because it‘s not going to be led by
consumers.‖ Programs to spur job creation, such as the SBA, are helpful in starting momentum, he added, but
are not a panacea.

Uniquely, double-dipping causes nuclear war
Fordham 10
[Tina Fordham, ―Investors can‘t ignore the rise of geopolitical risk‖, Financial Times, 7-17-2010,]
Geopolitical risk is on the rise after years of relative quiet – potentially creating further headwinds to the global
recovery just as fears of a double-dip recession are growing, says Tina Fordham, senior political analyst at Citi
Private Bank. ―Recently, markets have been focused on problems within the eurozone and not much moved by
developments in North Korea, new Iran sanctions, tensions between Turkey and Israel or the unrest in
strategically significant Kyrgyzstan,‖ she says. ―But taken together, we don‘t think investors can afford to
ignore the return of geopolitical concerns to the fragile post-financial crisis environment.‖ Ms Fordham argues
the end of post-Cold War US pre-eminence is one of the most important by-products of the financial crisis.
―The post-crisis world order is shifting. More players than ever are at the table, and their interests often diverge.
Emerging market countries have greater weight in the system, yet many lack experience on the global stage.
Addressing the world‘s challenges in this more crowded environment will be slower and more complex. This
increases the potential for proliferating risks: most notably the prospect of politically and/or economically
weakened regimes obtaining nuclear weapons; and military action to keep them from doing so. ―Left unresolved,
these challenges could disrupt global stability and trade. This would be a very unwelcome time to see the return
of geopolitical risk.‖

Second is High-Tech innovation
Hart et al 09
(High-tech Immigrant Entrepreneurship in the United States by David M. Hart, Zoltan J. Acs, and Spencer L.
Tracy, Jr. Corporate Research Board, LLC, July 2009 This report was developed under a contract with the
Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, and contains information and analysis that was reviewed
and edited by officials of the Office of Advocacy. However, the final conclusions of the report do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Advocacy.)
High-Tech Immigrant Entrepreneurship in the United States Executive Summary In this study, we quantify the role of immigrants in high-
tech entrepreneurship in the United States. We report the results of a survey of a nationally representative
sample of rapidly growing high-impact, high-tech companies.1 This group of companies is very important to the
U.S. economy, because they account for a disproportionate share of job creation and economic growth. We find that
about 16% of the companies in our sample had at least one foreign-born person among their founding teams. This estimate is lower than that found in most previous
                                             data show that immigrants play a crucial role in this vital
studies of high-tech immigrant entrepreneurship. Nonetheless, our
economic activity. High-impact, high-tech companies founded by immigrant entrepreneurs and those founded
by native-born entrepreneurs in our sample are similar in many ways. They operate in the same industries and are about the same size.
One important difference between the two is their location. Immigrant-founded companies tend to be located in states that have large immigrant populations. Another
                                  companies in our sample are about twice as likely as native-founded companies
difference is that immigrant-founded
to state that they have a strategic relationship with a foreign firm, such as a major supplier, key partner, or major
customer. Immigrant-founded companies may also have a higher level of technological performance than
native-founded companies, although the evidence on this issue is not conclusive. This study sheds light on high-tech immigrant entrepreneurs as
individuals as well as on the companies that they helped to found. The vast majority of these individuals are strongly rooted in the United States. A large proportion of
them have lived in this country for two decades or more. More than three-quarters of them are U.S. citizens. Two-thirds of them received undergraduate or graduate
degrees here. The 250 foreign-born entrepreneurs on whom we have data hail from 54 countries in all regions of the world. India is the largest source country,
                                                         are rightly concerned that government should sustain a
accounting for 16% of this group, followed by the U.K. at 10%. Policymakers
healthy climate for starting and running high-impact, high-tech companies like those in our sample. Immigration
policy, as it affects highly educated and highly experienced foreign-born individuals who might be drawn into high-tech entrepreneurship, is an important element of
that climate. 6 High-Tech Immigrant Entrepreneurship in the United States 1.0 Introduction A     vigorous high-technology sector is vital to
sustain U.S. prosperity in the 21st century. The new products, services, and business models that the high-tech
sector generates differentiate this nation‘s output from that of the rest of the world and enable capital
accumulation, wage gains, and productivity growth. A high level of entrepreneurship, by which we mean the
founding of new businesses, makes the high-tech sector vigorous. High-tech entrepreneurs, by which we mean the founders of new
high-tech businesses, take risks that managers of existing high-tech businesses choose not to take and recognize opportunities that they fail to spot. High-tech
entrepreneurship requires a rare combination of inclinations, capabilities, and resources. Half of new businesses fail within
five years (Shane 2008), so founders must be optimistic, but also capable of weathering severe challenges. Because the opportunities in high-tech
sectors blend together technological and market factors, individual entrepreneurs and founding teams in these
sectors typically combine technical expertise rooted in formal education with market savvy that flows from
extensive business experience. They must also be able to tap quickly and effectively into networks of customers,
suppliers, expertise, finance, and talent as business opportunities ripen. Foreign-born individuals play an
important role in U.S. high-tech entrepreneurship. By virtue of having left their native land, they may have
entrepreneurial inclinations. Their large presence in American higher education and the U.S. labor force,
especially science and engineering disciplines and occupations, equips them with valuable knowledge that bears
on high-tech innovation. Their outsider status may allow them, in some cases, to recognize ―out-of-the box‖
opportunities that native-born individuals with similar knowledge and skills do not perceive. These capabilities
may be linked to unique entrepreneurial resources, such as access to partners, customers, and suppliers in their
countries of origin. In this study, we quantify the role of immigrants2 in high-tech entrepreneurship in a nationally representative sample of rapidly growing
―high-impact‖ companies (HICs). This class of companies drives job creation and aggregate growth in the United States. We find that, while most previous studies have
overstated the role of immigrants in high-tech entrepreneurship, it is nonetheless very important. For instance, about 16% of the companies in our sample had at least
                                               high-tech companies display better performance in some
one foreign-born entrepreneur among their founding teams, and these
respects than high-tech companies in our sample whose founders were all native-born. We also provide a profile of high-tech
immigrant entrepreneurs. The vast majority are strongly rooted in the United States. Most of them received their highest educational degree here and have become
citizens. 8 Our report begins by situating the subject of high-tech immigrant entrepreneurship in policy and analytical debates about immigration, entrepreneurship, and
technology-based economic development. We then describe our methods and findings. We conclude by highlighting the research and policy agendas that our work
illuminates. 2.0 Policy Context Our research brings together two important areas of public policy: technology-based economic development (TBED) and immigration.
In both areas, recent research points to new ways to achieve desirable policy outcomes. The linkages between them are just beginning to be explored. 2.1 Technological
                                                    importance of technological innovation in economic growth is by now
Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Growth The
firmly established. Well-understood by classical economists, technology‘s contribution to the economy began to be conceptualized and measured after World
War II by modern economists such as Solow (1957), Griliches (1958), Nelson (1959), and Arrow (1962). Applied economists in fields like industrial organization
(Scherer 1984) and agricultural economics (Ruttan 2001) sustained this agenda, and they have been joined in recent years by formal theorists such as Romer (1990) and
Lucas (1988). As McCraw (2007) has written, the twenty-first century is shaping up to be ―Schumpeter‘s Century,‖ a tribute to Joseph A. Schumpeter (1942), the
towering figure whose work on technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth in the first half of the twentieth century set the stage for the advances
of the post-World War II period. 9 Early studies of technology and economic growth in the post-World War II period centered on the contributions of formal R&D.
Economic dynamism in these decades was perceived to flow from the investments made by large organizations with big R&D budgets, including public agencies, like
the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and multinational companies, such as IBM and General Electric. In his 1952 book
American Capitalism, John Kenneth Galbraith described the large company as an ―an almost perfect instrument‖ of technological development. Galbraith argued that
oligopoly provided a sufficient level of competition to stimulate innovation, while also assuring an adequate resource flow to fund large-scale R&D operations and
sufficient confidence that the benefits of these investments would be reaped by firms that built such operations. This conventional wisdom was not entirely accurate.
Beneath the giant redwoods of the Fortune 500, the industrial landscape of the United States contained a thriving undergrowth of smaller and newer companies in the
1950s and 1960s, including some seedlings that would grow into giants themselves, toppling their elders as they did so (Acs and Audretsch 1990). The post-World War
II period heralded not only the expansion of large U.S.-based multinational companies but also the invention of whole new institutional forms, such as the venture
capital firm and the high-tech start-up, which would eventually blossom into a unique entrepreneurial ecology in places like California‘s Silicon Valley and Boston‘s
Route 128 (Kenney 2000, Hsu and Kenney 2005). Indeed, the environment in the United States for high-growth, high-tech start-up companies grew more hospitable
over time, culminating in the entrepreneurial frenzy of the dot-com boom at the end of the twentieth century. 10 Recent   research suggests that high-
growth entrepreneurship is linked to a variety of important economic outcomes. Acs and Audretsch and their
collaborators have shown in several studies that business start-ups are associated with economic growth at the
regional and national levels. For instance, Acs and Mueller (2008) demonstrate that sustained economic benefits from
entrepreneurship at the regional level derive mainly from young (two to five years old), medium-sized (20 to 499 employees)
enterprises and not from small businesses in general or the establishment of branch plants of large firms. Haltiwanger (2009) provides evidence
that companies that are less than five years old account for nearly all net job creation in the United States. Autio
(2005) summarizes a variety of studies (including Wong, Ho, and Autio 2005) showing that 1-10% of new firms generate 40-
75% of new jobs. Henrekson and Johansson (2008, 14) summarize the ―clear-cut result‖ in empirical literature
covering several countries, including the United States: ―a few rapidly growing companies generate a
disproportionately large share of all new net jobs…‖ In addition, as Scherer (1992) points out, competition from new entrants,
even if they fail, forces their older rivals to adapt or die and thus drives productivity growth across the broader
economy. Although young, high-growth companies are present in a wide variety of industries, the dynamics of those in high-technology sectors are especially
important for scholars and policymakers to understand. These companies are more likely than others to be pursuing opportunities
associated with radical innovations that produce positive knowledge externalities and that may have
transformative consequences for society (Baumol, Litan, and Schramm 2007). Because such opportunities are so challenging and so risky, existing
11 businesses are particularly unlikely to find out about them or to pursue them (Utterback 1994, Christensen and Rosenbloom 1995). High-technology
start-ups are one of the main organizational vehicles by which new knowledge in the science and engineering
disciplines is converted into economic benefits (Acs, et al. 2005, Acs, Audretsch, and Strom 2009).
Third is Econ Leadership

Visa restrictions on entrepreneurs are crushing U.S. economic leadership
Lindzon et. al 10
[Howard Lindzon in addition to 99 other venture capitalists, Letter to the United States Senate in Support of the Startup Visa, 02-22-2010,]
We write to express our support for the Startup Visa. Since the founding of our country, the entrepreneurial spirit has been a defining characteristic of the United States.
Today we are the world leader in creating new enterprises, advancing innovation, and creating jobs as a result of this entrepreneurial activity.
companies have long been the main source of new jobs and innovation in the United States. However, in recent
years our visa laws have made it unnecessarily difficult for immigrants to launch new companies here. We view this
as a major competitive disadvantage for our country in the 21st century. Companies such as Google, Pfizer, Intel, Yahoo, DuPont, eBay and Procter & Gamble are all
                                                                                     residents made up just
former start-ups founded by immigrants. Yet immigrants have not only founded major, well-known companies. Foreign-born
12.5% of the U.S. population in 2008, while nearly 40% of technology company founders and 52% of founders
of companies in Silicon Valley are foreign-born. As venture capitalists and angel investors, we often fund
companies at their very inception. In cases where there are immigrant founders, it is often impossible for them
to get an appropriate visa to stay in the United States and start their company. Even in cases where the founders already have a
visa of some sort, they typically can't use this visa to start a company. As a result, they often have to leave our country to start their
company, resulting in a loss of innovative entrepreneurs and the correspondingly created jobs in the United
States. There are multiple costs to our country and our economy. First, we lose the entrepreneur, who is a critical part of our society. We then lose the
jobs that are created by the new venture, which in the success case could easily number in hundreds or thousands over the first decade of the company's life. Finally,
we run the risk of losing our reputation as the greatest country in which to start a company. To address this issue, we
support the Startup Visa proposal. Early stage companies are often started with funding of at least $250,000. In these
situations, if a qualified U.S. venture capital investor or a U.S. "super angel" (an angel investor that has a track
record of regularly participating in seed round investments) is willing to commit a significant investment for a
foreign entrepreneur to start a company in the United States, we believe the entrepreneur should be able to get a
"Startup Visa." We believe these thresholds are appropriate for creating credible startups which, if successful, can lead to numerous U.S. based jobs. Vanilla
( is an example of a type of company this visa would apply to. Vanilla has two founders, both Canadian. They spent the summer in
Boulder, Colorado as part of the TechStars accelerator program getting advice, help, and mentorship from over 50 U.S. based entrepreneurs and investors. Numerous
investors were interested in funding Vanilla and helping them to grow their company from Boulder; however neither founder was able to give investors comfort that
they could get an appropriate visa to stay and work in the US. Since then, the founders have relocated to Montreal, raised $500,000, and started their company in
Canada. Today, they are adding three people to their team, all based in Montreal. If successful, they will add many more people to the team over the next few years.
Each year thousands of foreign entrepreneurs face the same situation that the Vanilla founders faced. All of these
entrepreneurs are starting companies with high growth potential where they could be hiring tens or hundreds of
employees over the first few years of their company's existence. When Google first started, it was two founders and an idea - today it is
one of the most important companies in the world. This is the type of company the Startup Visa proposal is addressing. The U.S.
remains one of the most attractive countries for entrepreneurs. It has a culture of risk taking, capital formation,
and an economic dynamism that is the envy of the world. This gives us a competitive edge that we should not
let slip through our fingers.

Plan key to economic leadership – now is key
[Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council, ―MassTLC Supports Start-Up Visa Legislation‖, 03-12-2010,
   throughout our history we've relied on foreign-born entrepreneurs to help spur economic growth. Nationwide,
about a quarter of our technology companies have been founded by immigrants. Here in Massachusetts, some of our most
notable tech giants were created by brilliant, visionary immigrants like An Wang of Wang Laboratories, Desh Deshpande of Sycamore Networks, and Ash Dahod, who
recently sold Starent Networks to Cisco for nearly three billion dollars. Second, now more than ever, our foreign-born students can return to their home countries to find
opportunity. A recent study found that 52 percent of the Chinese students attending U.S. colleges and universities believed they would find greater opportunities if they
returned home after graduation. With some 445K students currently enrolled at Massachusetts colleges and universities, we naturally have one of the nation's largest
                                                                                                               We need to
pools of foreign-born students, a disproportionate talent asset that, in turn, can create tremendous innovation and wealth in our Commonwealth.
retain every one of those students who is willing to strike out on his or her own to start a company and create
new jobs and wealth in our Commonwealth. We believe this tradition of great foreign-born entrepreneurs starting companies
and hiring here must be maintained and nurtured if we are to succeed in an increasingly competitive world. As
connectivity and talent have become globally available commodities, the barriers that foreign-born
entrepreneurs face when starting businesses outside the United States have all but disappeared. To maintain our
leadership position, we need the best entrepreneurs -- domestic and foreign-born -- to stay here and build
tomorrow's leading technology companies in the Commonwealth.

Immediate EB-5 expansion key to economic leadership
Arrison 10
[Sonia     Arrison,    ―Silicon     Valley's    Innovative   Approach                to     Creating       American       Jobs‖,      TechNewsWorld,         03-31-2010,]
Anytime immigration comes up in public debate, you can be sure there will be protectionist groups ready to
pounce, arguing that America should tighten its borders. For instance, the Programmers Guild argues that "the vast majority of start-
ups fail," so visas shouldn't be granted to foreign entrepreneurs because they might not leave the country when their businesses go under.
This is a weak argument, since the entrepreneurs will have to leave the country if they want to work at a
legitimate job, which these professionals will certainly want to do. Perhaps a more serious argument against the bill came from the Paris-based entrepreneur
Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry. Gobry worries that "The Startup Visa Act doesn't actually create new visas. It just takes
existing allotted visas, in the EB-5 class," which allows foreigners into the country if they can invest $500,000 to $1 million in U.S. companies. This
is a good point. The U.S. immigration system does still need to be reformed, and this one tweak won't solve
everything. Still, around half of the EB-5 visas go unused, and when they are issued, they are more about letting
capital into the country rather than talent. The startup visa is a step in the right direction, because it targets talent
and clearly incentivizes smart people to create American jobs. Given tough economic times, Congress should act quickly.
In an increasingly global world, other countries are getting more aggressive in extending incentives to create their own
versions of Silicon Valley. It's time to create more jobs and preserve America's place as the entrepreneurial
capital of the world.

Economic leadership prevents global WMD conflicts
Mead 04
[Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign
Relations, ―America's sticky power,‖ Foreign Policy, March 2004]
THE SUM OF ALL POWERS? The United States' global economic might is therefore not simply, to use Nye's
formulations, hard power that compels others or soft power that attracts the rest of the world. Certainly, the U.S.
economic system provides the United States with the prosperity needed to underwrite its security strategy, but it
also encourages other countries to accept U.S. leadership. U.S. economic might is sticky power. How will
sticky power help the United States address today's challenges? One pressing need is to ensure that Iraq's
economic reconstruction integrates the nation more firmly in the global economy. Countries with open
economies develop powerful trade-oriented businesses; the leaders of these businesses can promote economic
policies that respect property rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Such leaders also lobby governments to
avoid the isolation that characterized Iraq and Libya under economic sanctions. And looking beyond Iraq, the
allure of access to Western capital and global markets is one of the few forces protecting the rule of law from
even further erosion in Russia. China's rise to global prominence will offer a key test case for sticky power. As
China develops economically, it should gain wealth that could support a military rivaling that of the United
States; China is also gaining political influence in the world. Some analysts in both China and the United States
believe that the laws of history mean that Chinese power will someday clash with the reigning U.S.
power. Sticky power offers a way out. China benefits from participating in the U.S. economic system and
integrating itself into the global economy. Between 1970 and 2003, China's gross domestic product grew from
an estimated $106 billion to more than $1.3 trillion. By 2003, an estimated $450 billion of foreign money had
flowed into the Chinese economy. Moreover, China is becoming increasingly dependent on both imports and
exports to keep its economy (and its military machine) going. Hostilities between the United States and
China would cripple China's industry, and cut off supplies of oil and other key commodities. Sticky power
works both ways, though. If China cannot afford war with the United States, the United States will have an
increasingly hard time breaking off commercial relations with China. In an era of weapons
of mass destruction, this mutual dependence is probably good for both sides. Sticky power did not prevent
World War I, but economic interdependence runs deeper now; as a result, the "inevitable" U.S.-Chinese conflict
is less likely to occur.
US key to the global economy
Caploe 09
(David Caploe is CEO of the Singapore-incorporated American Centre for Applied Liberal Arts and Humanities in Asia., ―Focus still on America to lead global
recovery‖, April 7, The Strait Times, lexis)

IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event, made by United States President
Barack Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: 'The world has become accustomed to the US being a voracious consumer
market, the engine that drives a lot of economic growth worldwide,' he said. 'If there is going to be renewed growth, it just can't be the US as the engine.' While
                                                                               the global economy has in fact been 'America-
superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that
centred' for more than 60 years. Countries - China, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Korea, Mexico and so on - either sell to the US or they
sell to countries that sell to the US. This system has generally been advantageous for all concerned. America gained certain historically unprecedented
benefits, but the system also enabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan, and later, many in the Third World - to achieve undreamt-of prosperity.
                    deep inter-connection between the US and the rest of the world also explains how the collapse
At the same time, this
of a relatively small sector of the US economy - 'sub-prime' housing, logarithmically exponentialised by Wall Street's ingenious
chicanery - has cascaded into the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression. To put it simply, Mr Obama
doesn't seem to understand that there is no other engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six
decades. If the US does not drive global economic growth, growth is not going to happen. Thus, US policies to
deal with the current crisis are critical not just domestically, but also to the entire world. Consequently, it is a matter of
global concern that the Obama administration seems to be following Japan's 'model' from the 1990s: allowing major banks to avoid declaring massive losses openly and
transparently, and so perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically alive but in reality dead. As analysts like Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have pointed
out, the administration's unwillingness to confront US banks is the main reason why they are continuing their increasingly inexplicable credit freeze, thus ravaging the
American and global economies.
Econ collapse causes nuclear war
Mead 09 – Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations
(Walter Russell, ―Only Makes You Stronger,‖ The New Republic, 2/4/09,
The damage to China's position is more subtle. The crisis has not--yet--led to the nightmare scenario that China-
watchers fear: a recession or slowdown producing the kind of social unrest that could challenge the government.
That may still come to pass--the recent economic news from China has been consistently worse than most
experts predicted--but, even if the worst case is avoided, the financial crisis has nevertheless had significant
effects. For one thing, it has reminded China that its growth remains dependent on the health of the U.S.
economy. (continued…) A deceleration in China's long-term growth rate would postpone indefinitely the date
when China could emerge as a peer competitor to the United States. The present global distribution of power
could be changing slowly, if at all. The greatest danger both to U.S.-China relations and to American power
itself is probably not that China will rise too far, too fast; it is that the current crisis might end China's growth
miracle. In the worst-case scenario, the turmoil in the international economy will plunge China into a major
economic downturn. The Chinese financial system will implode as loans to both state and private enterprises go
bad. Millions or even tens of millions of Chinese will be unemployed in a country without an effective social
safety net. The collapse of asset bubbles in the stock and property markets will wipe out the savings of a
generation of the Chinese middle class. The political consequences could include dangerous unrest--and a bitter
climate of anti-foreign feeling that blames others for China's woes. (Think of Weimar Germany, when both
Nazi and communist politicians blamed the West for Germany's economic travails.) Worse, instability could
lead to a vicious cycle, as nervous investors moved their money out of the country, further slowing growth and,
in turn, fomenting ever-greater bitterness. Thanks to a generation of rapid economic growth, China has so far
been able to manage the stresses and conflicts of modernization and change; nobody knows what will happen if
the growth stops. India's future is also a question. Support for global integration is a fairly recent development
in India, and many serious Indians remain skeptical of it. While India's 60-year-old democratic system has
resisted many shocks, a deep economic recession in a country where mass poverty and even hunger are still
major concerns could undermine political order, long-term growth, and India's attitude toward the United States
and global economic integration. The violent Naxalite insurrection plaguing a significant swath of the country
could get worse; religious extremism among both Hindus and Muslims could further polarize Indian politics;
and India's economic miracle could be nipped in the bud. If current market turmoil seriously damaged the
performance and prospects of India and China, the current crisis could join the Great Depression in the list of
economic events that changed history, even if the recessions in the West are relatively short and mild. The
United States should stand ready to assist Chinese and Indian financial authorities on an emergency basis--and
work very hard to help both countries escape or at least weather any economic downturn. It may test the
political will of the Obama administration, but the United States must avoid a protectionist response to the
economic slowdown. U.S. moves to limit market access for Chinese and Indian producers could poison
relations for years. For billions of people in nuclear-armed countries to emerge from this crisis believing
either that the United States was indifferent to their well-being or that it had profited from their distress could
damage U.S. foreign policy far more severely than any mistake made by George W. Bush.
(continued………) This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy
the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their
leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during
the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the
League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the
Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial
crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression
poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a
depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be
born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may
still have to fight.
                                              Contention 2 Asia
The US risks losing economic ties with Asia- this will destroy relations and influence
Feigenbaum 10
[Evan A. Feigenbaum, ―Challenge of a changing Asia‖, Business Standard, 9-6-2010]
It‘s been a rough six months in East Asia, as tensions ratchet up in Korea, navies drill, and governments, from
China to Vietnam, trade barbs, claims and counterclaims to the South China Sea. But even as anxieties grow, it
is economics, not security, that still defines the essential strategic reality of Asia today: China is fast becoming
the central player in a new economic regionalism. And as economic integration tightens, the US and India risk
being left out. For its part, the US has endured decades of loose talk about American ―decline‖ in Asia. But in
the months since North Korea torpedoed a South Korean naval corvette in March, America‘s security role has
been strongly reinforced. Yet, ironically, that‘s part of the problem: Even as America‘s security role remains the
backbone of strategic stability, the economic pillars of US credibility are eroding across Asia. In the postwar
period, US leadership in Asia depended not just on alliances, bases and carrier battle groups. It flowed, too,
from a sustained commitment to three economic pillars: market openness, faith in America‘s own
competitiveness and strong US leadership on international trade agreements and regimes. But all three pillars
are now under fierce attack in the US. And this both compounds and further contributes to a rapid erosion of
American economic influence, as China becomes the central player in a growing web of trade and financial
connections. Take Southeast Asia. From 2000 to 2009, China‘s share of Asean‘s total trade increased threefold,
surpassing that of the US, whose share declined by a third in the same period. Meanwhile, when the dust settles
from the current financial crisis, the character of economic globalisation may be significantly changed with
respect to capital flows, production chains and trade patterns. Asian countries are moving forward together in
various ways — on trade, financial arrangements, technical standards and investment rules. And increasingly,
they are moving forward on a pan-Asian basis and without Washington. This is precisely why American
strategy in Asia is simply not sustainable with the kind of trade policy Washington has presently. For
generations, deep trade and investment relationships have been the tangible representation of US economic
weight in Asia, reflecting a widespread faith in the future economic and strategic strength of the US. This was
true in the 19th century, when fast-sailing clipper ships first vaulted America into a role that spanned China,
India and the waters betwixt and between. It remains true today. The good news is that US President Barack
Obama‘s November visit to Seoul has given Washington strong incentives to complete the Korea-US Free
Trade Agreement this fall. But there is virtually no prospect that the US will keep pace with Beijing‘s
burgeoning trade and investment initiatives. And across Asia, anxieties persist about America‘s own economic
prospects: the scope and nature of its recovery from the financial crisis; its commitment to stave off
protectionist sentiment; and whether it can muster a bipartisan political consensus to manage its debts. This
offers a cautionary tale for India. Strategically, India has been bottled up in the subcontinent for generations, but
it wasn‘t always so: Southeast Asia bears the hallmarks of a bygone era in names like ―Indonesia‖ and
―Indochina‖, and Indian sailors once plied the trade routes from the Indian Ocean to the Strait of Malacca. But
as it again ―looks East‖, India risks being left out in Asia because of the significant mismatch between its lofty
strategic goals and more earthbound economic realities. Make no mistake, India‘s strategic connections to East
Asia are being restored. Yet, this is happening, in large part, because India is widely viewed as a potential — if
still very modest — counterbalance to Chinese power. Diplomacy and politics remain the central drivers, not
least, for example, in the invitation to India to become a more active player in East Asian regional groups. But,
at the end of the day, strategic intentions alone cannot sustain a larger role for India in Asia writ large. As
America is rediscovering, economic content is essential. Greater economic content to India‘s relations with East
Asia will be required. And, investment-related reforms will surely be essential, too, to enhance the flow of
goods, capital and opportunity. Trade plays a growing role in the Indian economy, and India has signed
preferential trade agreements with Asean and South Korea. Yet, scale remains a handicap: 11.6 per cent of
Asean‘s trade is with China, just 2.5 per cent with India. Meanwhile, the backbone of East Asian economies
remains integrated supply and production chains to which India is largely irrelevant. More manufacturing in
India‘s southern states could mean greater integration into East Asian supply and production chains, or not.
Likewise with outbound investment from corporate India: it could, perhaps, transform India‘s interactions with
Southeast Asia; but, here too, scale remains a handicap. The business of Asia is still business. And India and
East Asia have some distance yet to travel.
US leadership in Asia prevents nuclear war
Chok ‘4 (Goh Chok, Senior Minister of Singapore, International Institute for Strategic Studies, June 4,
In Asia, as in Europe, unease with America‘s overwhelming global dominance is high. But       Asia is more keenly aware than Europe of the vital role
that the U.S. plays in maintaining global stability. No matter what their misgivings, only a few Asian countries, and certainly no major U.S. ally,
opposed the U.S. on Iraq. There is a clearer appreciation in Asia than in Europe that the fundamental issue in Iraq now is the credibility and resolve of the U.S.. This is
because Asia    still faces many serious security challenges. Kashmir, North Korea and cross-strait relations between
Beijing and Taipei are potential flashpoints. If things go terribly wrong, the conflicts could even turn nuclear. The U.S. is
central to the management of all three potential flashpoints. All three conflicts also have a direct impact on the global struggle against
terrorism. Let me conclude therefore with a few words on each. Potential Flashpoints in Asia The India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir is a
longstanding one, difficult to resolve because of religion and history. If a conflict breaks out, it is not difficult to imagine Kashmir becoming a new theatre for
jihad and a fertile ground for breeding terrorists. But India and Pakistan know that a conflict over Kashmir will have devastating consequences for each other and the
entire South Asian region.    The U.S. holds the ring. The desire of both Islamabad and New Delhi to maintain good
relations with the U.S. gives Washington leverage that it exercised in 2001 to avert a possible nuclear war. 31
North Korea is another potential trouble spot. The terrorists could try to exploit the situation to acquire materials
for WMD. Fortunately, the six-party talks have lowered tensions and the issue is being managed. Whatever their differences, the key actors share a common
interest in the peaceful containment of the issue. I have been told by several leaders who have met Kim Jong Il that he is a rational, well-informed man who
calculates his moves. He must know that an outbreak of conflict with the US will lead to the very outcome that he fears most: regime change or even the disappearance
                             may go to the brink but not step over the edge. The credibility of the US military
of North Korea as a sovereign state. He
option is vital to maintaining peace. 32 The dangers of miscalculation are highest over Taiwan. The issue is extremely
complex because it involves the domestic politics of China, the US and Taiwan and relations between the three parties. Economic forces are integrating Taiwan with the
Mainland but this trend conflicts with Taiwan's desire for a separate identity. Chen Shui-bian's inauguration speech took a conciliatory tone. He must have taken into
account US concerns about maintaining stability in cross-strait relations. But he did not renounce independence. Yet independence for Taiwan is a non-starter. No Asian,
and I believe, no European government, would recognise Taiwan's independence. To do so would earn China's permanent enmity. And China is the economic story of
this century. No Chinese leadership can lose Taiwan and still survive. If Taiwan pushes beyond a certain red line, the Chinese leaders must respond or be rejected by
their people. The result will be war and a permanent rise in Chinese nationalism and hostility. 33                                          The consequences of such
a war will make Iraq seem a small problem. The US has no reasons to open another front with China over Taiwan, given its strategic priorities in Iraq, the Middle East
and the global fight against terrorism. Indeed, President Bush has stated explicitly that he does not support Taiwan's independence. He has also publicly stated that the
                                                               the likelihood of the US being drawn into a cross-
US opposes any unilateral action by either China or Taiwan to change the status quo. Still,
strait conflict is there if wrong signals are emitted by the US. Should such a conflict arise, China might not prevail; at least not in the first
round. China's physical infrastructure would be damaged and economic development set back many decades. But the Chinese leaders have said that they would be
prepared to pay this price and more. Taiwan, however, would be physically and economically devastated. Investor confidence in Taiwan would be shattered. The
economy will go downhill, and not recover for a long time. If the Taiwanese know that this will be the outcome, they may pause to ask whether this price is worth
paying for a bid for independence.

Immigrant entrepreneurs are key to developing that economic integration
Saxenian 2K
[AnnaLee Saxenian, ―Silicon Valley‘s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs‖, University of California, Santa Cruz,
The Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, 2000]
At the same time that Silicon Valley's immigrant entrepreneurs organized local professional networks, they
were also building ties back to their home countries. The region's Chinese engineers constructed a vibrant two-
way bridge connecting the technology communities in Silicon Valley and Taiwan; their Indian counterparts
became key middlemen linking U.S. businesses to low-cost software expertise in India. These cross-Pacific
networks represent more than an additional "ethnic resource" that supports entrepreneurial success; rather, they
provide the region's skilled immigrants with an important advantage over their mainstream competitors who
often lack the language skills, cultural know-how, and contacts to build business relationships in Asia. The
traditional image of the immigrant economy is the isolated Chinatown or "ethnic enclave" with limited ties to
the outside economy. Silicon Valley's new immigrant entrepreneurs, by contrast, are increasingly building
professional and social networks that span national boundaries and facilitate flows of capital, skill, and
technology. In so doing, they are creating transnational communities that provide the shared information,
contacts, and trust that allow local producers to participate in an increasingly global economy (Portes, 1996). As
recently as the 1970s, only very large corporations had the resources and capabilities to grow internationally,
and they did so primarily by establishing marketing offices or manufacturing plants overseas. Today, by
contrast, new transportation and communications technologies allow even the smallest firms to build
partnerships with foreign producers to tap overseas expertise, cost-savings, and markets. Start-ups in Silicon
Valley today are often global actors from the day they begin operations: Many raise capital from Asian sources,
others subcontract manufacturing to Taiwan or rely on software development in India, and virtually all sell their
products in Asian markets. The scarce resource in this new environment is the ability to locate foreign partners
quickly and to manage complex business relationships across cultural and linguistic boundaries. This is particularly a
challenge in high-technology industries in which products, markets, and technologies are continually being
redefined--and where product cycles are routinely shorter than nine months. First-generation immigrants, like the
Chinese and Indian engineers of Silicon Valley, who have the language, cultural, and technical skills to function well
in both the United States and foreign markets are distinctly positioned to play a central role in this environment.
They are creating social structures that enable even the smallest producers to locate and maintain mutually beneficial
collaborations across long distances and that facilitate access to Asian sources of capital, manufacturing capabilities,
skills, and markets. These ties have measurable economic benefits. Research at the University of California at
Berkeley has documented a significant correlation between the presence of first-generation immigrants from a given
country and exports from California. For example, every 1 percent increase in the number of first-generation
immigrants from a given country, exports from California go up nearly 0.5 percent. Moreover, this effect is
especially pronounced in the Asia-Pacific region where, all other things being equal, California exports nearly four
times more than it exports to comparable countries in other parts of the world (Bardhan and Howe, 1998). This
section presents cases of immigrant entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley who have helped to construct the new
transnational (and typically trans-local) networks. The region's Taiwanese engineers have forged close social and
economic ties to their counterparts in the Hsinchu region of Taiwan--the area, comparable in size to Silicon Valley,
that extends from Taipei to the Hsinchu Science-Based Industrial Park. They have created a rich fabric of
professional and business relationships that supports a two-way process of reciprocal industrial upgrading. Silicon
Valley's Indian engineers, by contrast, play a more arm's-length role as middlemen linking U.S.-based companies
with low-cost software expertise in localities like Bangalore and Hyderabad. In both cases, the immigrant engineers
provide the critical contacts, information, and cultural know-how that link dynamic--but distant--regions in the
global economy.

Immigrant entrepreneurs are key to U.S.-Chinese econ cooperation
Koehn and Yin 02
[Peter H. Koehn and Xiao-Huang Yin, ―The expanding roles of Chinese Americans in U.S.-China relations:
transnational networks and trans-Pacific interactions‖, M.E. Sharpe, pg. 16, 2002]
Among the various social forces that could re-shape U.S.-China relations, Chinese American families are
among the most established global players. Chinese-immigrant entrepreneurs have not only transplanted their
family networks, they also have expanded Chinese-owned trans-Pacific trade, transportation businesses, and
banks. The third type of trans-Pacific family, in particular, illustrates how Chinese Americans who maintain
borderless family networks act to strengthen U.S.-China economic relations—one critically important aspect of
the overall relationship. Businesses on both sides need a gateway to help penetrate each other‘s market. Trans-
Pacific family networks of all three types can provide such a gateway. Family and kinship connections are the
Chinese rim‘s building blocks. Given their global family networks and economic power, Chinese Americans
have profoundly shaped and will continue to influence U.S.-China relations.
U.S.-Chinese economic cooperation solves war over Taiwan and North Korean proliferation
Tanner 04
[Travis Tanner, ―U.S.-China Economic Ties: Key for Asian Stability‖, The National Interest, 4-28-2004]
U.S.-China Economic Ties: Key for Asian Stability Travis Tanner | April 28, 2004 Travis Tanner is the
Assistant Director of China Studies at The Nixon Center.
In an effort to notch up U.S.-China relations on the Bush administration's agenda, three cabinet level officials-
Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans, Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and Secretary of Agriculture Ann
Veneman-together with a Chinese delegation of 70 individuals, participated in the 15th session of the Joint
Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) on April 21st. The Chinese Vice-Premier Wu Yi, Mr. Evans and
Mr. Zoellick jointly chaired the meeting held in Washington DC. This was the highest level delegation to
participate in the session in over a decade. The meeting resulted in, among other assurances, a Chinese
commitment to drop plans to adopt its own wireless encryption standard and to crack down on IPR
infringements, while the U.S. pledged to reconsider its ban on certain high-tech exports to China. The presence
of a relatively large number of top-level bureaucrats suggests the high priority both the United States and the
PRC assign to their mutual economic relationship. Although the commercial benefits of U.S.-China economic
ties are critical components of both nations' economies-the United States is China's second largest trading
partner and China is the United States' third largest trading partner-the benefits extend beyond economic
advantages. Progress, expansion and coordination on economic issues provide the foundation upon which
cooperation on a larger strategic level can be orchestrated and the current and future strain on the relationship
can be managed. Tensions in U.S.-China relations will most likely intensify in the approaching months as U.S.
presidential campaigning picks up and further sparks "anti-China" discussion in the United States. Current
matters of disagreement include Beijing's view that by proposing to sell an advanced radar system to Taiwan the
U.S. is violating the "Three Communiqués" and claims that the reports of Beijing backsliding on human rights
are completely unfounded. Washington is worried over the perceived undervalued RMB, Chinese failure to
comply with certain WTO commitments and alleged U.S. manufacturing job loss to China. Although these are
prickly matters that deserve attention, there are larger tensions on the horizon.Issues that continue to merit
Washington and Beijing's full consideration include how to handle cross-Strait relations and North Korea's
nuclear capabilities. Newly reelected Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian's current trajectory toward establishing a
new constitution for Taiwan and Kim Jong Il's nuclear ambitions present two of the most formidable challenges
current U.S. foreign policy faces. Effective handling of both issues heavily depends on cooperation between
Washington and Beijing.The degree of coordination required to achieve acceptable solutions on both fronts is
extremely high. Thus, in order to successfully manage this relationship, both sides must continue to make
progress where possible and emphasize areas of shared interest-this is most effectively achieved through
cooperation on the economic front. Unless U.S.-Sino relations are firmly rooted, the ability to successfully
secure mutually satisfactory outcomes on these two issues will be difficult at best. Taiwan President Chen Shui-
bian continues to stand by his constitutional reform timetable which calls for an island-wide referendum in 2006
and full implementation of the new constitution in 2008. Chen's plans to establish a new constitution are viewed
by Beijing as an overt move toward independence, and thus, entirely unacceptable. The U.S. has long held a
policy of "strategic ambiguity" toward the Taiwan Strait and insisted that a peaceful solution be reached
between the two sides of the Strait without U.S. involvement. However, in a recent 180 degree turn, the PRC
asked the United States to become more active in mediating between the two sides. This is an opportunity for
the U.S. to abandon its ambiguous cross-Strait policy and play an assertive arbitrating role, thereby increasing
the likelihood of securing the primary American national interest in the region-stability. As North Korea's long-
time friend and ally, the PRC played a constructive role in coordinating the two sessions of "six-party" talks
held in Beijing which aimed at brokering a diplomatic solution between the U.S. and North Korea over
Pyongyang's underground nuclear program. Because Pyongyang and Washington have continuously butted
heads, negotiations have been slow. In an effort to reach a conciliatory resolution, the PRC has encouraged the
U.S. to deviate from its stated objective-complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantling of Pyongyang's
nuclear program-and exercise more flexibility toward North Korea. Washington and Beijing's divergent
approaches to resolving the impasse must be overcome if progress toward an agreement is to be achieved. In a
positive sign that the process may be moving in that direction, it is reported that Kim Jong Il (in an
unannounced trip to Beijing) pledged to soften his stance toward American demands. Military conflict in the
Taiwan Strait or the acquisition of North Korean nuclear weapons by terrorist groups certainly are two scenarios
the leaderships in Beijing and Washington would like to avoid. Therefore, it is essential to continue moving
forward in the realm of economic cooperation where both countries share an increasing number of similar
objectives and where progress is occurring. For both countries, economic growth hinges on the other. During
2000-2003, U.S. exports world-wide increased by 9% while exports to China were up 76%. The U.S. is the
single largest export market for firms in China, taking in 30% of total exports produced. The risk of damaging
the increasingly integrated economic links naturally encourages negotiation and cooperation on a variety of
non-economic related issues, and therefore, expanding economic ties should receive significant attention from
the highest levels of the respective leaderships. The hands of the Bush Administration are full coping with
turmoil in Iraq, the 9/11 hearings and coordinating a reelection campaign. The Chinese, too, are dealing with a
host of domestic problems from economic matters, such as growing inequality and possible overheating of the
economy to potential political unrest in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, steps to ensure stability in the U.S.-China
relationship are taking place. Vice President Cheney's recent trip to China and subsequent talks with the Beijing
leadership, as well as the mutual high-level bilateral support for the JCCT meeting are healthy signals that both
countries are willing to expand resources to further solidify U.S.-China relations. While these are steps in the
right direction, continued strides toward developing economic relations must remain a high priority for both
Taiwan war causes extinction
Hunkovic ‘9 (American Military University, 09 [Lee J, 2009, ―The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict
Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America‖,]

A war between China, Taiwan and the United States has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict and a
third world war, therefore, many countries other than the primary actors could be affected by such a conflict, including
Japan, both Koreas, Russia, Australia, India and Great Britain, if they were drawn into the war, as well as all
other countries in the world that participate in the global economy, in which the United States and China are the two
most dominant members. If China were able to successfully annex Taiwan, the possibility exists that they could then plan
to attack Japan and begin a policy of aggressive expansionism in East and Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific and even into India,
which could in turn create an international standoff and deployment of military forces to contain the threat . In any
case, if China and the United States engage in a full-scale conflict, there are few countries in the world that will not be
economically and/or militarily affected by it. However, China, Taiwan and United States are the primary actors in this scenario, whose actions will determine its
eventual outcome, therefore, other countries will not be considered in this study.

North Korean prolif causes extinction
Hayes and Hamel-Green, 10 – *Executive Director of the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development, AND ** Executive Dean of the
Faculty of Arts, Education and Human Development act Victoria University (1/5/10, Executive Dean at Victoria, ―The Path Not Taken, the Way Still Open:
Denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia,‖

The international community is increasingly aware that cooperative diplomacy is the most productive way to tackle the multiple, interconnected global challenges
                                                                                  Korea and Northeast Asia are
facing humanity, not least of which is the increasing proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.
instances where risks of nuclear proliferation and actual nuclear use arguably have increased in recent years. This
negative trend is a product of continued US nuclear threat projection against the DPRK as part of a general program of coercive diplomacy in this region, North Korea‘s
nuclear weapons programme, the breakdown in the Chinese-hosted Six Party Talks towards the end of the Bush Administration, regional concerns over China‘s
increasing military power, and concerns within some quarters in regional states (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) about whether US extended deterrence (―nuclear
                                                                                     The consequences of failing to address the
umbrella‖) afforded under bilateral security treaties can be relied upon for protection.
proliferation threat posed by the North Korea developments, and related political and economic issues, are
serious, not only for the Northeast Asian region but for the whole international community. At worst, there is the possibility of
nuclear attack1, whether by intention, miscalculation, or merely accident, leading to the resumption of
Korean War hostilities. On the Korean Peninsula itself, key population centres are well within short or medium range missiles. The whole of Japan is likely
to come within North Korean missile range. Pyongyang has a population of over 2 million, Seoul (close to the North Korean border) 11 million, and Tokyo over 20
million. Even a limited nuclear exchange would result in a holocaust of unprecedented proportions. But the
catastrophe within the region would not be the only outcome. New research indicates that even a limited nuclear war in the region would rearrange our global climate
far more quickly than global warming. Westberg draws attention to new studies modelling the effects of even a limited nuclear exchange involving approximately 100
Hiroshima-sized 15 kt bombs2 (by comparison it should be noted that the United States currently deploys warheads in the range 100 to 477 kt, that is, individual
warheads equivalent in yield to a range of 6 to 32 Hiroshimas).The studies indicate that the soot from the fires produced would lead
to a decrease in global temperature by 1.25 degrees Celsius for a period of 6-8 years.3 In Westberg‘s view: That is not global winter, but the
nuclear darkness will cause a deeper drop in temperature than at any time during the last 1000 years. The temperature
over the continents would decrease substantially more than the global average. A decrease in rainfall over the continents would also follow…The period of
nuclear darkness will cause much greater decrease in grain production than 5% and it will continue for many
years...hundreds of millions of people will die from hunger…To make matters even worse, such amounts of smoke
injected into the stratosphere would cause a huge reduction in the Earth‘s protective ozone.4 These, of course, are not the
only consequences. Reactors might also be targeted, causing further mayhem and downwind radiation effects,
superimposed on a smoking, radiating ruin left by nuclear next-use. Millions of refugees would flee the affected regions. The direct
impacts, and the follow-on impacts on the global economy via ecological and food insecurity, could make the present global financial crisis pale by comparison. How
the great powers, especially the nuclear weapons states respond to such a crisis, and in particular, whether nuclear weapons are used in response to nuclear first-use,
                                                There could be many unanticipated impacts on regional and
could make or break the global non proliferation and disarmament regimes.
global security relationships5, with subsequent nuclear breakout and geopolitical turbulence, including
possible loss-of-control over fissile material or warheads in the chaos of nuclear war, and aftermath chain-
reaction affects involving other potential proliferant states. The Korean nuclear proliferation issue is not just a regional threat but a
global one that warrants priority consideration from the international community.
                                                              Contention 3 Solvency
No DAs—

A. CIR being debated now
Wong 9-15 (Robert Menendez pushes immigration reform in tough climate, SCOTT WONG ,9/15/10 4:05 PM
EDT, Politico
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) is promising to introduce a major immigration reform bill this month, even as the
volatile issue promises to be a nonstarter in this political season for Democrats who want to avoid even more
controversial votes. His announcement Wednesday, before about 200 pro-immigration activists at a church near Capitol Hill, came a day after Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) signaled he would try to pass a separate bill next week providing citizenship to young, undocumented immigrants if they attend
college for two years or join the military. Sources familiar with the Menendez bill said it would include border security provisions, employment verification, a
temporary-worker program and a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants now living in the U.S. ―A journey of a 1,000 miles begin with a single step,‖
said Menendez, the Senate‘s lone Hispanic member. ―There can be no chance if there is no legislation. The reality is that legislation gives the process, the vehicle by
which to garner support and to move forward.‖ But Menendez, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, conceded that the election would make it
difficult to get any real floor time for an immigration debate this fall. Menendez and two vocal reform backers in the House — Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and Nydia
Velazquez (D-N.Y.) – said they would meet with President Barack Obama Thursday afternoon to request his support for the new legislation and the immigrant-student
bill, known as the DREAM Act. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday the president backed the act as a senator and that the Obama administration
supports it now. ―Certainly it‘s our hope that working with Congress we can see progress on that,‖ Gibbs said. ―And none of that will replace what has to happen from a
comprehensive level and a comprehensive perspective to deal with the issues around immigration reform.‖ Reid said he would attach the DREAM Act as an
amendment to the annual defense spending bill, though that proposal has been met with fierce opposition from Republicans who accuse Democrats of trying to excite
their Hispanic base before the Nov. 2 elections. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) blasted the legislation on the Senate floor on Wednesday, saying it provides amnesty for
lawbreakers and an economic incentive that encourages more illegal immigration. ―The DREAM Act would grant amnesty to millions of immigrants who have entered
the U.S. illegally,‖ he said. Menendez said he‘s yet to secure any support from Republicans for his legislation, something he needs to overcome the 60-vote threshold to
advance the bill in a possible lame-duck session. ―The
                                              elections make for a difficult context to be able to get people to focus on
this but it is my hope that we will be able to amass support before the elections and we can seek to galvanize it
after the elections,‖ Menendez said. ―Certainly what I will introduce in the Senate will have plenty of
Republican ideas in it.‖ Menendez‘s bill is similar to a proposal Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) rolled out earlier this year in
an op-ed in The Washington Post. Graham, however, has since taken a tougher stand against illegal immigration, and vowed not to support the DREAM Act as an
amendment. If the Senate fails to pass the amendment, the DREAM Act could be included in the Menendez bill. "When the Democratic leadership says they're going to
bring up the defense bill and put the Dream Act on it as an amendment, well that is very offensive to me. Obviously their actions are all about politics,‖ Graham said in
a statement. ―Democrats are trying to check a box with Hispanic voters at the expense of our men and women in uniform,‖ he added. ―It's very unfortunate they are
planning to use the defense bill in such a fashion." The Reid proposal was met with derision from members of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, which opposes a
path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. ―The DREAM Act is a nightmare for the American people,‖ said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, a caucus member and the top
Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. ―It is an assault on law-abiding, taxpaying American citizens and legal immigrants.‖ Gutierrez   said the new
Menendez legislation would be a companion bill to the one he introduced in the House last year. That bill has
more than 100 co-sponsors, all Democrats. ―We need a bill introduced, something people can get behind, something
the president can say, ‗That‘s what I want passed,‘‖ Gutierrez told reporters. ―That‘s how legislation gets done
here.‖ Just blocks from the Capitol, faith and immigration leaders from as far as Arizona and Hawaii packed the Lutheran Church of the Reformation, and cheered
when Menendez vowed to press forward with a bill. But they warned that this was only the first step. ―A legislative show is not going to be
acceptable,‖ Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, told POLITICO. ―We expect Democrats and Republicans to
lead the nation forward in fixing the broken immigration system.‖ Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for
Community Change, one of the event‘s organizers, described a newfound momentum for backers of comprehensive immigration
reform. ―Months ago, pundits in D.C. wrote us off and left us for dead,‖ he said. ―Well, we have a message for
them: We are back.‖

B. Current version of CIR being debated includes EB-5, but not the plan—means you have no link
Text of Senator Menendez’s CIR Bill
Section 434. Expansion of EB-5 Program EB-5 Extension: EB-5 visa holders, their spouses, and children may receive
conditional permanent resident status and then apply to have the conditional status removed. This section amends INA
216A(d)(2) to allow them to extend by two years the time permitted to file a petition to remove conditional status. EB-5
Program Study: The DHS Secretary will conduct a study on (1) current job creation counting methodology and initial
projections under INA Section 203(b)(5) and on (2) how best to promote the employment creation program described in
such section overseas to potential immigrant investors. EB-5 Full-Time Equivalents: To qualify for an EB-5 visa, aliens
must create 10 full-time jobs. This section amends INA 203(b)(5)(A)(ii) to permit EB-5 visa holders to create full-time or
fulltime equivalent jobs. It defines ―full-time‖ to mean employment in a position that requires at least 35 hours of service
per week at any time, regardless of who fills the position. ―Full-time equivalent employment‖ is defined as employment
representing the number of full-time employees that could have been employed if the reported number of hours worked by
part-time employees had been worked by full-time employees. This shall be calculated by dividing the part-time hours
paid by the standard number of hours for full-time employees.

Relaxing capital requirements solves
Kaufmann Foundation for Entrepreneurship 10
[―2010 State of Entrepreneurship Address‖, January 19 2010,]
First, let‘s rationalize our immigration system. Over the last decade and a half, fully one-quarter of all technology firms founded in the United States
were started by immigrants. Factor in first-generation Americans—the children of immigrants—and the percentage rises. Reggie Aggarwal, founder and CEO of Cvent,
has created some 500 jobs in the Washington area. Reggie is here today and will share his perspective during our panel discussion. Our immigration policy needs to be
friendlier to people like Reggie and his parents. We could start by offering instant citizenship to any of the thousands of bright young people from foreign countries who
                                             change the provisions of the EB-5 visa, the so- called ―entrepreneur‘s visa.‖
graduate from our universities. We also should
Rather than requiring prospective immigrants to bring cash into the country—the current rule requires
$1,000,000 (or $500,000 if the company is in a distressed area)—we should favor those who plan to come and start companies,
and extend their visas once they begin hiring American residents. Countries such as Singapore already allow in new
immigrant entrepreneurs who bring in far less, $50,000, than we require. The United States simply cannot afford to
lose the emerging global race for entrepreneurial talent.

Our specific visa revisions solve
Dallas Business Journal 10
[―Create Jobs, get a green card‖, 5-7-2010]
Andres Ruzo came to America in 1980 to pursue a degree in engineering from Texas A&M University. He calls himself a Peruvian by birth and a Texan by choice. He
founded his fast-growing company, Rowlett-based LinkAmerica, in 1994. But getting to that point wasn‘t easy. ―I know how difficult it is to be an immigrant who
wants to start something here,‖ Ruzo said. ―I tried to get my H-1B Visa, which required me to work for five years, and then going from there, I needed another five
years to become a resident, so it took 10 years." With $40.7 million in annual revenue, LinkAmerica ranked No. 13 on the Dallas Business Journal‘s 2010 list of North
                        New legislation coming out of Washington could provide a shortcut for foreign-born
Texas minority-owned businesses.
entrepreneurs. Ruzo says the proposed changes will create U.S. jobs, bring money to North Texas and open up a
bridge for foreigners to invest in America. Introduced by U.S. Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Richard Lugar,
R-Ind., the law would allow immigrant entrepreneurs to secure visas if their startup can raise $1 million in
investment, or generate $1 million in revenue, and create five full-time jobs within two years. Called the Startup
Visa Act of 2010, the legislation requires the entrepreneur to initially raise $250,000, of which $100,000 must
come from a qualified U.S. angel or venture investor. The Startup Visa Act has enjoyed bipartisan support, despite a nationwide immigration
dispute, as well as the backing of 160 venture capitalists from across the country. ―Global competition for talent and investment grows more intense daily, and the
United States must step up or be left behind,‖ Kerry said in a statement. Lost opportunities The Startup Visa Act would create a new type of two-year visa called an EB-
6. It‘s a hybrid of existing visas, the H-1B, a temporary visa for immigrants working in high-tech or other specialized fields, and the E-B5, also known as the investor‘s
visa, which provides a method of obtaining permanent residence for foreign nationals who invest at least $1 million and create at least 10 jobs in the United States.
            startup visa would create jobs and increase America‘s global competitiveness, rather than helping
Supporters say the
immigrants compete for existing ones, which is what many argue H-1B does. The new visa will also ease the threshold
demanded by the E-B5, which attracts the wealthiest investors and not necessarily the most entrepreneurial. Edwin
Rivas, an economics senior at Southern Methodist University and an international student from El Salvador, will graduate this month and has come up with a fat list of
business ideas he wants to pursue. But current visa options were either too expensive or too restrictive, Rivas said. So he has decided to
take his business ideas to El Salvador, even as he admits the business climate there is less favorable. ―The startup visa is exactly what I have been hoping for, but it‘s
too late for me,‖ he said. ―I wish it passed while I was still in school.‖ Nezar Chafni, an SMU finance senior from the United Arab Emirates who will also graduate this
month, secured an American job through the H-1B visa. Instead, Chafni plans to go back to his native country to launch a software company he founded here. ― If
get something like the startup visa, I would move the company back here,‖ he said. ―I already have people who are
investing in my company.‖

Plan decreases the risk for entrepreneurs
K9 Ventures 10
[K9 Ventures is a a fund focused on concept-stage (sub $100k) and seed-stage (sub $1M) technology startups in the San Francisco Bay Area , ―The truth about the
Startup Visa‖, March 2010,]
Pascal argues that the Startup Visa increases, rather than decreases the risk for entrepreneurs. I don‘t see how this is the case. I came
to the US on a student visa, and decided to stay to start a company (for the full story, see my previous post on My Story and Support for the Founders Visa). I had nine
                                                                                       In the case of the Startup
months of practical training left to get the company going. If it succeeded, I still needed to cross the hurdle of getting a visa.
Visa you get two years to start, with extensions thereafter. If you fail, there is nothing preventing you from
getting a new Startup Visa— provided you can find sources for funding for your next idea. Or, if you want to get
a job you can apply for a visa for that too. The Startup Visa doesn‘t change the risks for an entrepreneur I chose to
start my company in the US because I felt that it was the right place to do it — it was my choice. Having made that choice,     the Startup Visa makes it
easier for an entrepreneur like me to come to the US, or to stay in the US, as the case may be.
We control the economy internal link—entrepreneurs thrive during a recession
Wadhwa 08
[Vivek Wadhwa, ―Startups: The Upside of a Downturn‖, BusinessWeek, 11-7-2008,]
In early October, Sequoia Capital summoned executives at its portfolio companies for an urgent meeting to discuss survival in the economic downturn. The presentation
at the meeting, titled "R.I.P: Good Times," quickly made its way onto the Internet, adding to fear in the startup community in Silicon Valley and beyond. Sequoia, after
all, is one of the most respected venture capital firms in the country, an early backer of Google (GOOG) and several other huge technology successes. One takeaway
from Sequoia's presentation was clear:   With the economy souring, now is a bad time to launch a venture or to expand an
existing business. Or is it? The founders of Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Caterpillar (CAT), McDonald's (MCD), and Walt Disney (DIS) might not agree. All
of those companies were founded during an economic downturn. So were Adobe (ADBE), Intel (INTU), and Compaq (HP). Bill Gates didn't let a recessionary
environment stop him from launching Microsoft (MSFT). Chuck Schwab founded his discount brokerage during the recession of 1974. And in 1982, U.S.
unemployment was soaring to the highest levels in decades; that didn't stop Scott McNeely and Vinod Khosla from launching Sun Microsystems (JAVA). In fact, 18 of
the 30 current Dow Jones industrial index companies were launched during economic downturns, according to research by Reference Capital Management, a venture
capital fund based in Tigard, Ore. I, myself, have been through the startup process twice, in both economic ups and downs. My first company, Seer Technologies, was
conceived at New York investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston (CS) after the market crash of 1987. The bank soon needed to divest key technologies. Despite the
gloomy economic market, by 1989 we had raised the capital needed. And with almost no competition in sight, we grew the startup to a public company with $120
million in revenue in 1995. I started working on my second startup, Relativity Technologies, in late 1996, before the dot-com boom. We built the products, understood
our markets, and recruited a solid executive team. The result? By 1998, we had venture capitalists tripping over each other to give us money, and I was able to raise
about $10 million over two years to expand a successful startup. My advice for other tech entrepreneurs thinking of launching right now? Don't wait. A
is your ally in building a lean, thriving company. Consider the following four advantages. Less competition. An
economic downturn clears the competitive landscape for startups. Most of the "me-too" companies with inferior
products and weak business models go out of business, and fewer are started. Plus, it becomes a lot easier to do
licensing deals with universities and business partners—no one else is. Lower costs. It is a buyer's market, and
you can negotiate deals on real estate, equipment, and materials like never before

. Salaries are lower for new hires, and there is little pressure to give big salary increases to existing staff. Easier
to recruit and keep employees. You will readily find people who have been laid off and are eager to get back to
work. They will accept lower salaries in return for stock and take the risk of joining a startup. And rather than
focusing on getting a job with a competitor who pays a little more money, employees are usually content to
build tenure and focus on your success. Less pressure to expand. Rather than rushing to expand your business,
you have the luxury of doing it right. You can conceive of better products, test them carefully to make sure they
work and meet customer needs, and experiment with different business models. Since you are not in a frantic
rush to get a product out or build market share, you can do things more methodically. True, it is harder to raise
venture or angel capital in bad economic times, but such funding is not the main source of capital for most
startups anyway. Research that my group at Duke University is conducting in partnership with the Kauffman
Foundation shows the majority of first-time entrepreneurs fund their startups from personal savings and borrow
from friends and family. So you are going to be getting money from the same sources whether it is now or
during a booming economy. The big difference is that you have a chance to build your company the right way if
you start now—and you have better odds of perhaps being listed on the Dow Jones one day.

Shared By: