Immigration and Entrepreneurs

The federal government has failed to please all sides in the immigration debate.

The current system fails to maintain secure borders. It fails to deal with the demand by businesses and consumers for workers, both low skilled and high skilled, and the fact that immigration benefits the economy by complementing the native-born workforce. It also leaves millions of undocumented workers in a kind of limbo. And it imposes burdens on businesses to serve as immigration police - a job meant to be performed by federal law enforcement.

So, immigration reform clearly is needed. Unfortunately, efforts that fail to deal with the issue in a comprehensive way will only leave substantial problems to deal with down the road.

The worst case scenario would be legislative changes that actually make matters worse, such as border crackdowns without expanding and making more efficient legal immigration channels; trying to deport undocumented workers who have otherwise abided by the law and contributed to the economy; and inflicting additional costs on entrepreneurs and businesses in terms of immigration enforcement mandates.

Another aspect of the immigration story that has been largely ignored in the reform debate is entrepreneurship among immigrants. Considering that immigrants clearly are risk takers, it should surprise no one that immigrants often are entrepreneurial in terms of their career choices.

Consider key findings from two recent reports on immigrants and entrepreneurship:

• In a February 2011 Brookings study, Zoltan Acs and David Hart of George Mason University reported that the founding teams of 16 percent of high-impact, high-tech companies - firms that are responsible for a significant chunk of the nation's economic and employment growth - include at least one immigrant.

• In March 2011, the Kauffman Foundation released its "Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity 1996-2010." That report found: "Immigrants were more than twice as likely to start businesses each month than were the native-born in 2010. The immigrant rate of entrepreneurial activity increased sharply, from 0.51 percent in 2009 to 0.62 percent in 2010, further widening the gap between immigrant and native-born rates. The native-born rate is 0.28 percent."

For the sake of our economy, it is critical that immigration reform be done right, rooted in sound economics as opposed to cheap politics. That means expanding opportunities for immigrant entrepreneurs, not cutting off these important channels of innovation, economic growth and job creation.

_______________

Raymond J. Keating serves as chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council.

High-Tech Immigrant Entrepreneurs

Immigrants are critical to the well-being of the U.S. economy. And that most certainly includes immigrant entrepreneurs.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy released a new study by David Hart, Zoltan Acs, and Spencer Tracy, Jr. titled “High-tech Immigrant Entrepreneurship in the United States.”

Among the findings of a survey of “rapidly growing high-impact, high-tech companies” were:

• “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 studies of high-tech immigrant entrepreneurship. Nonetheless, our data show that immigrants play a crucial role in this vital economic activity.”

• “Policymakers are rightly concerned that government should sustain a 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.”

The full study can be read here.

What are the necessary policy measures? Provide broadbased tax and regulatory relief to spur entrepreneurship and investment in general, while implementing immigration reform that opens more doors for legal immigration.

Raymond J. Keating
Chief Economist
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Immigration and Employers

In case you missed it, read a July 16 Wall Street Journal editorial titled “Blame the Employers.”

The piece noted that the Obama administration is now following the misguided Bush administration’s blame-the-employer policies regarding immigration enforcement. The editorial highlights the problems with the government’s E-Verify system/database to verify the legal status of workers, and the fact that E-Verify cannot catch identity fraud.

And as for the proposal to go to a national biometric ID card, the Journal asks: “But if national ID cards are the silver bullet, why does Europe have so many illegal immigrants despite ID systems that have been in place for decades?”

The Journal correctly concludes: “The broader issue is that the Obama Administration, like its predecessor, has accepted the premise that the key to curbing illegal immigration is a crackdown on employers. That premise is false. Our illegal workforce results from a government policy that severely limits foreign access to U.S. labor markets… What U.S. employers need is legal access to willing workers, not more red tape in the form of a federal worker-verification system.”

Raymond J. Keating
Chief Economist
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Immigrants Impact on States and Localities

The assumption in too many political debates is that immigrants are a net negative on state and local government budgets – especially undocumented workers. But economic reality is quite different.

In late April, the Immigration Policy Center published a valuable report highlighting the findings from a variety of studies looking at immigrations, and their effects on states and localities.

The report sums up:

Accurately assessing the costs and contributions of immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, is a challenge, but research shows that between one-half and three-quarters of undocumented immigrants pay federal and state income taxes, Social Security taxes, and Medicare taxes. Moreover, all immigrants (legal and undocumented) pay sales taxes (when they buy anything at a store, for instance) and property taxes (even if they rent housing). … [A] number of state studies … have found that immigrants in general—and the undocumented specifically—contribute to the public treasuries and economies of many states and localities.

Read the entire report here.

The bottom line is that immigrants are a net plus to government’s coffers, and undocumented immigrants are a net plus to state and local economies.

What we need now, and have for some time, is immigration reform that provides real border security, greatly expands and accelerates legal avenues for immigration, and provides a path to legalization for undocumented workers otherwise following the law and contributing to our nation.

Raymond J. Keating
Chief Economist
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Obama’s Opportunity on Immigration

When you look at his campaign positions and record in the U.S. Senate, it’s pretty easy to get down on President-elect Barack Obama in terms of his policies impacting the economy. His proposals on taxes, regulation, trade, government spending, energy – little of this boosts confidence.

However, there is at least one area where the President-elect has the opportunity to make a positive impact on the long-run health of the economy.

In an article just published by Dolan Media Company and Long Island Business News, I wrote:

When it comes to public policy and the economy, there’s at least one area where President-elect Barack Obama seems to get it. That is, immigration.

Make no mistake; immigrants have been the lifeblood of the U.S. labor force in recent times…

Finish reading the column here.

Raymond J. Keating
Chief Economist
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

The Biggies on Immigration

No doubt, the debate over immigration reform will play a part in the presidential and congressional campaigns over the coming three-and-a-half months.

Unfortunately, some, but certainly not all, conservatives have drifted uncomfortably into the anti-immigration camp. They ignore the importance that immigration plays in our economy – in terms of, for example, giving a boost to entrepreneurship, meeting the labor demands of U.S. businesses and consumers, and aiding economic growth.

But perhaps it’s also worth keeping mind a few points made by leading Americans over the years on immigrants and their broad impact on the U.S. In late June, the National Immigration Forum released a collection of quotes from notables in late June.

Those included:

• The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.

- George Washington

• Whether one traces his Americanism back three centuries to the Mayflower, or three years to the steerage, is not half so important as whether his Americanism of today is real and genuine. No matter by what various crafts we came here, we are all now in the same boat.

- Calvin Coolidge

• Everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened the fabric of American life.

- John F. Kennedy

• I received a letter just before I left office from a man. I don’t know why he chose to write it, but I’m glad he did. He wrote that you can go to live in France, but you can’t become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Italy, but you can’t become a German, an Italian. He went through Turkey, Greece, Japan and other countries. But he said anyone, from any corner of the world, can come to live in the United States and become an American.

- Ronald Reagan

• I’ve always argued that this country has benefited immensely from the fact that we draw people from all over the world.

- Alan Greenspan

• When you enlisted into the armed forces you swore to support and defend a Constitution that did not yet fully apply to you. You chose to endure the same sacrifices as your fellow comrades in arms to preserve the freedom of a land that was not yet fully yours. You accepted that you might have to pay the ultimate price on behalf of a nation to which you did not fully belong. Now, you will officially become citizens of the United States, a country to which each of you has already borne true faith and allegiance in your hearts and your deeds.

- Gen. Petraeus addressing a naturalization ceremony for 161 at Camp Victory, Iraq, on Independence Day, 2007

More on the H-1B Visa Shortage

The title of an April 14 report from Information Week said it all: “U.S. Overwhelmed by H-1B Visa Requests.”

The story noted: “During the five-day window in April that the United States was accepting H-1B visa petitions, the government received 163,000 H-1B applications, nearly double the 85,000 visas that can be issued for fiscal 2009 starting Oct. 1.”

This year’s 163,000 exceeded last year’s 133,000 applications accepted during a two-day window.

Obviously, business demands for professional, high-tech workers are not being met, and now firms are left to taking their chances in a lottery.

What are the possible results? Well, consider the following from an April 13 article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

"We need more qualified people in this country than we have," said Jim Marczak, chief executive of Sycor Americas and its Montreal sister company. Sycor, an IT consulting firm, applied for 40 of the visas, meaning they've agreed to employment contracts with 40 foreign workers, most of them from India and Eastern Europe.

If Sycor should happen to win some of the visas for which it has petitioned, those temporary workers won't be able to work here until October, the beginning of the federal fiscal year. (In Canada, they'd clear immigration in eight weeks.) Those who don't win a visa have been promised back-up offers in Sycor's German and Canadian operations, even though, Mr. Marczak said, "I would have preferred to focus here in Pittsburgh" rather than abroad…

And economists contend the resistance to "professional" immigrants has cost Americans ancillary and support jobs associated with the positions -- secretaries and such that now work at Microsoft's new Vancouver programming center, instead of in Seattle.

"When an employer can't get the workers here, then it's possible that the employer will say, 'Well, we might need to send the work elsewhere,' " said Catherine Wadhwani, an immigration attorney with Spilman Thomas & Battle, Downtown.

That is, business goes elsewhere. And there goes income, consumption, investment, economic growth and jobs.

A Lottery for High-Tech Workers

A lottery? Is this really the best means for setting and running policy that has a direct and important impact of U.S. high-tech firms?

H-1B visas allow professional, often tech-savvy workers to enter the country to meet growing demand from U.S. businesses. The Sacramento Bee reported yesterday:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said Tuesday that it has received more than enough applications to fill the 65,000 annual limit on H-1B white-collar guest worker visas. The filing period for the visas was between April 1 and 7.

The agency said it also received more than enough petitions to fill 20,000 additional H-1B visas filed by U.S. employers on behalf of people with advanced degrees -- beyond the annual 65,000 cap. The final selection of who will get the visas is done by computer-generated lottery.

So, there are far more applications than positions allowed under the law. And a lottery will be used to see which businesses get the workers they need.

This is a screwy system that can do real damage to businesses and the economy.

What to do? That’s simple. Expand the number of H-1B visas to meet market demands.

The Financier, Illegal Immigrants and the Economy

If you have not read a front-page story in the March 19 Wall Street Journal titled “Boston Financier Steps In to Bail Out Illegal Immigrants,” please do so. It is by far one of the most interesting stories I have read, and it neatly sums up the issues at hand on the controversial topic of immigration.

The article opens:

One frigid March morning last year, federal agents raided a factory in this old whaling town, arresting hundreds of illegal immigrants as they sewed vests and backpacks for U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most were shackled and sent to a detention center in Texas, where they faced rapid deportation unless they could post thousands of dollars in bail -- money they didn't have -- to buy time to mount a defense.

Then, a mystery benefactor appeared. The anonymous donor ponied up more than $200,000 to spring 40 people from detention.

The payments, which until now haven't become public despite extensive news coverage of the raid itself, came from Bob Hildreth, a Boston financier who made his millions trading Latin American debt. He was "infuriated" at the televised images of workers being shipped to Texas, he says. Helping them make bail is "payback."

Hildreth called the raid and the breaking up of families “un-American.” In contrast, a local talk radio host Ken Pittman, who is strongly against illegal immigration, was quoted: “I would ask him [Hildreth] to show the same compassion for American workers displaced by these illegal aliens.” As for the factory’s owner at the time, he was arraigned in federal court, and the plant now has a new owner.

What to make of all of this? First, Mr. Pittman doesn’t get the economics of immigration. Immigrants – both legal and illegal – overwhelmingly compliment the native-born workforce. That means that immigrants aren’t taking jobs, but instead are doing jobs not done by those born in this nation. They are responding to market forces. In turn, they are boosting businesses, consumers and the economy.

Second, while no one endorses illegal activity, this scenario clearly spells out the continuing need for comprehensive immigration reform that not only beefs up border protections for national security purposes, but also recognizes economic reality, why people come to this nation and why we need them to come. That means legal avenues for immigration must be expanded, and a path must be opened to legalization for those in the nation illegally but who otherwise are contributing to our economy and society.

The idea that only cracking down at the border will “solve” our illegal immigration problem is just plain dumb, as it ignores economic reality. True respect for law means fixing laws that don’t work. That’s the case with many taxes and regulations, for example, and is the case with immigration.

More Immigration Woes for Small Business

Some in Congress have decided to hold seasonal work visas hostage in the overall immigration debate. Unfortunately, this political tactic is having a dire impact on many small businesses.

Consider an important story in the March 14 New York Times titled “Small Business Faces Cut in Immigrant Work Force.” The entire piece warrants reading, but at least note the following key points:

• “For years, William Zammer Jr. has relied on 100 seasonal foreign employees to turn down beds, boil lobsters and serve cocktails at the restaurants, golf course and inn he owns on Cape Cod and in nearby Plymouth. This summer, however, the foreign workers will not be returning, and Mr. Zammer, like other seasonal employers across the nation, is scrambling to find replacements.”

• “In an effort to win support for a comprehensive immigration overhaul, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and its allies have blocked voting on legislation that would allow employers to rehire foreign seasonal nonagricultural workers independent of a 1991 quota. As a result, the government is limited to issuing the 66,000 seasonal work visas set when the visa program, known as H-2B, became law — 33,000 for winter workers and 33,000 for summer workers. Last year, more than 120,000 foreign workers entered the country on H-2B visas. For Cape Cod, the impact has been devastating. Employers will receive only 15 of the 5,000 visas they had requested, according to the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce.”

• “Returning workers became exempt from the cap in 2005, when Congress passed the Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act, and President Bush signed it into law. The act expired in 2007, and Congress passed a one-year extension that was attached to the National Defense Authorization Act. The extension expired on Sept. 30, 2007, the end of the 2007 fiscal year. Employers say that unless Congress acts soon, they will have to scale back operations, because the labor pool in many resort areas is not deep enough to provide new workers, and many people do not want seasonal jobs.”

Movement on immigration reform is needed to aid consumers, businesses and the U.S. economy. But a political tactic to push reform that winds up damaging consumers, businesses and the economy makes no sense whatsoever.

Small Business and the Costs of Dithering on Immigration

As the politicians dither and debate about immigration reform, small businesses struggle with uncertainty regarding their workforce and costs.

The February 12 edition of Long Island’s Newsday ran an excellent article titled “East end again on hold over foreign workers.” The story drives home the importance of H-2B visa workers for many businesses, and the problem as Congress and the White House fail to act.

Consider the following points in the article:

• “At Gurney's Inn in Montauk, one of the largest private employers in the Hamptons, general manager Paul Monte is looking to the summer with high anxiety.

 He's got popular cottages, suites and rooms to let. But if he doesn't have enough staff to clean the rooms, Monte can't rent them. He's got a restaurant and a cafe. But if there isn't enough wait staff and cooks, people will have to be turned away.”

• “The serious problem of 2007 has become even worse in 2008, and it is national in scope: For years, an estimated 66,000 to 70,000 people have been allowed into the United States as temporary, nonagricultural workers on a federal ‘H-2B’ visa. In each of the past three years, the number of H-2B visas granted increased substantially, due to a special exemption, rising last year to a high of nearly 130,000.

 But for various reasons -- prime among them the debate over immigration reform -- those formerly allowed to come here under the program, regulated by the U.S. Department of Labor, cannot return unless Congress acts promptly.

 So the hotels, inns, restaurants and landscaping businesses that have relied on those seasonal employees don't know how or where they will find replacements.”

• “The same kind of potential worker shortages are a headache for luxury hotels in Arizona and Colorado, shoreline resorts in New Jersey and Cape Cod, and even a traveling circus in Texas.”

• “Under the H-2B program, workers prescreened by federal officials are allowed into the country to work for up to 10 months in jobs that their employers certify they cannot otherwise fill. An annual cap of 66,000 new workers on H-2B visas was imposed more than a decade ago. But, under an exemption passed by Congress that took effect in May 2005, any worker who had come into the United States under an H-2B visa in any of the three previous fiscal years could return and not count against the cap.

 Congress did not renew the exemption for this year, causing the current dilemma posed by lack of returning seasonal employees. The nonrenewal stemmed from several reasons -- including strong opposition from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which views the H-2B program as a Band-Aid solution to comprehensive immigration reform.”

• “With anxious constituents sending up flares, more than 90 members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, sent a letter to President George W. Bush in late January, imploring him to lift the cap through an executive order. So far, [U.S. Rep. Tim] Bishop said, they have not gotten a response.

 A White House spokesman said Friday that the request would require review by the Department of Homeland Security.

 A House bill to renew the H-2B exemption is stalled in committee, as the time needed to process any additional H-2B visa applications grows short.”

• “Bob Sakaniwa, an associate director with the Washington-based American Immigration Lawyers Association, said Congress would have to take action within the next two to three months to address the coming H-2B worker woes.”

Sticking one’s head in the sand over the economic realities of immigration is not just a problem in theory. It is a very real problem for U.S. businesses and their customers.

Arizona: Business as the Immigration Police

On Thursday, February 7, a federal judge upheld an Arizona law that effectively mandates that business owners serve as the immigration police.

As the Associated Press reported: “Businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants could face a business license suspension lasting up to 10 days under the new law. Second-time violators would have their business licenses permanently revoked. The law also requires businesses to use an otherwise voluntary federal database to verify the employment eligibility of new workers.”

The judge rejected arguments brought by several business groups that immigration policy is a federal matter – which, of course, it is. The groups plan to appeal.

The AP story also noted: “The law is intended to weaken the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak across the border and lessen Arizona's role as the busiest illegal gateway into the country. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that illegal immigrants account for one in 10 workers in the Arizona economy.”

So, the law places additional burdens and penalties on businesses; mandates that businesses use an untested, flawed federal database; and directly intends to reduce the supply of labor for local businesses.

This and other misguided state and local laws make clear why comprehensive reform is needed at the federal level on immigration – action that both secures the border and secures our economy by expanding legal avenues for immigrants who simply seek economic opportunity and thereby contribute to the U.S. economy.

It is not the job of entrepreneurs and businesses to play immigration police. That’s the federal government’s job.

Upate on Immigration: A New Form, A New "No Match" Rule in the Pipeline, and New Legislation

If you recall, SBE Council strenuously opposed the “no match” rule advanced by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) due to its unreasonable burden on small employers, as well as the fact that it rests upon the notion that the Social Security Administration (SSA) database is generally clean of errors, and kept up-to-date (which, it is not). Several labor unions and business organizations sued the government, asking a judge to stay the “no match” rule. The judge agreed. At the end of last week, the DHS filed a motion to stay the rule, and said the department would re-work it to take into account the judge’s concerns. SBE Council will carefully monitor this process – that is, we will review the re-worked rule when it is released for public comment to ensure it is reality-based and does not unduly hurt small firms.

Meanwhile, a bill has been introduced in the House and Senate that would mandate use of the Basic Pilot E-Verify program – essentially the federal government’s database that employers would be required to use to verify social security numbers and the eligibility of employees. It is a well-documented fact that the database has many errors (which is also a key argument in the “no match” rule legal challenge). Unfortunately, the proposed legislation incorporates the worst features of the “no match” rule. The Secure America through Verification and Enforcement Act, or “SAVE” Act -- introduced by Reps. Heath Shuler (D-NC) and Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), and Senator Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) would require employers to use the flawed government database to verify workers, and when reconciling the eligibility of employees “in question” following receipt of a no-match letter. The turn around time for reconciling no-match letters also appears unrealistic.

Why does Congress continue to hoist these really bad ideas on small business without first fixing the core problems?

Finally, employers need to know that beginning December 26, 2007, you will need to use the new I-9 form when hiring new employees. Please click here for more information, and to access the new I-9 form.

North Dakota, Population Loss, and Immigration

North Dakota is not exactly a hot spot.

From 2000 to 2006, only two states actually lost population. One was Louisiana, which is not surprising given Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. The other was North Dakota, with a decline of almost one percent. Neighboring South Dakota grew by 3.5 percent, and the overall U.S. by 6.1 percent.

On the SBE Council Small Business Survival Index 2007, North Dakota ranked a respectable, though far from stellar 20th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Index ranks the states according to their public policy climates for entrepreneurship. There’s obviously room for improvement, especially given the fact that South Dakota ranked best in the nation, deriving big benefits from not imposing any personal income, individual capital gains, corporate income and corporate capital gains taxes.

A cover story in the November 26 USA Today (“North Dakota’s aging face: Can a culture resist change?”) is worth reading as well. It is a fairly balanced piece about the shortage of people and workers in North Dakota, coupled with a resistance among some resident to change via immigration. A couple of points are worth highlighting from the piece:

• “Attitudes along the nation's northern tier indicate that the level of anger about illegal immigration has little to do with firsthand experience. Among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, North Dakota ranks 48th in terms of its percentage of foreign-born population. Montana ranks 49th.

“Yet in the month before a bipartisan effort to overhaul the nation's immigration policy collapsed last June, Montana's junior senator was inundated with calls opposing the plan, which would have offered an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship.

“‘I got more comments in one month (on the immigration bill) than I did in a whole year on Iraq,’ Tester says.”

• “Some strategists argue that lawmakers are overreacting to a vocal minority. ‘They have a megaphone from one side stuck in their ear,’ says Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster who has worked for groups advocating immigration changes that include a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants.”

The article also noted that the state received a 10-year federal grant in 1999 to boost jobs and stem population loss. Surprise, surprise -- that hasn’t worked too well.

Here are a couple of obvious ideas for North Dakota to embrace. First, dramatically reduce the tax and regulatory burden in the state to make North Dakota a far more attractive place to live, work, and invest in and start up a business.

Second, embrace anyone willing to come to the state to live and work, including immigrants. The state’s members of Congress should be leading the way in supporting legislation that will not only secure our borders, but expand legal avenues for immigration for those willing to work and make a positive contribution to our country. After all, if any place needs immigrants, it’s North Dakota.

Immigrant Entrepreneurs

The immigration debate, of course, is not just limited to the United States. Financial Times columnist Michael Skapinker talks about the United Kingdom’s point system for immigration scheduled to go into effect next year in a November 20 piece.

Will the UK plan work?

Well, Skapinker reports: “Had either the young Bill Gates or Steve Jobs decided to set up in Britain rather than the US, they would not have qualified for entry. Neither would Michael Marks, the Russian immigrant who started with a stall in Leeds market and built it into Marks and Spencer. Nor would Sir Montague Burton (originally Meshe David Osinsky), whose Burton clothing chain is now part of Sir Philip Green’s Arcadia empire. It is fortunate for Sir Philip that he was born in the UK, because he would not have qualified under the points system. Neither would other leading British-born entrepreneurs such as Sir Richard Branson and Sir Alan Sugar.”

What’s the problem? Skapinker continues: “The problem is not the people skilled-migrant programmes let in. It is the potential business creators they keep out – all those entrepreneurial types who were unsuited to university. The Home Office says its points system is based on ‘attributes which predict a migrant’s success’ but I doubt British governments are any better at picking winning immigrants than they were at picking winning car or computer companies. The Home Office says it has plans for potential entrepreneurs but cannot yet say what they are.”

Skapinker is absolutely right.

Whether it is in England or in the U.S., a close-the-borders or just-let-in-the-presumed-smart-people immigration strategy – rather than generally expanding legal avenues for immigration and then using taxpayer resources to stop the bad guys from getting in – means not only that labor demands will not be met, but also that immigrant entrepreneurs will be barred from entering.

Does this matter? Well, in May 2007, the "Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity: 1996-2006" was published by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Regarding immigrants and entrepreneurship, it reported: "Immigrants continued to have a substantially higher rate of entrepreneurial activity than native-born individuals in 2006... The rate of entrepreneurial activity for immigrants increased slightly from 0.35 percent in 2005 to 0.37 percent in 2006, while the rate for the native-born declined slightly from 0.28 percent in 2005 to 0.27 percent in 2006." The 1996 to 2006 data from this report show the rate of entrepreneurial activity for the native-born ranging between 0.26 percent to 0.30 percent, versus a range of 0.30 percent to 0.41 percent for immigrants. In every year, the immigrant rate exceeded the native-born rate, with the differences being much wider since 2002, compared to 1996-2001.