7 ms·

This would just allow the rich and connected to choose thousands of people to budge to the front of a 3-5 year long line that other green gard applicants (EB-3)

This would just allow the rich and connected to choose thousands of people to budge to the front of a 3-5 year long line that other green gard applicants (EB-3) are waiting in. If there are resources available to process more EB-5's and EB-6's, then put them to use accelerating the process for the people that have already waited years for their applications to be approved. Accelerate that process and you'll accelerate the creation of startups by our friends that are already here. Edit: Above I said "a 3-5 year line," which is inaccurate. The current line is 7-9 years long.

pg 17y ago
That's such a dishonest way of describing the situation that it's hard to believe it wasn't deliberate. You describe this bill as if it merely allowed powerful people to get their friends into the country, and it's not like that at all. Startup investors are not identical with the rich and connected. Angel investors are generally fairly rich, but not all VCs are. And they're not choosing people at random to bring into the country. They have to invest money in someone's startup to do that.
- tptacek 17y ago
  What does it matter if there are good, hardworking, "non-rich" VCs? There are also bad, lazy, well-connected VCs. You're evoking the intentions behind this bill as if they mattered.
  - pg 17y ago
    In this particular case the reason it matters is that it makes briansmith's comment false.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - netcan 17y ago
      I don't think so. He says "this would just allow." Maybe he didn't qualify it with "the unintended consequence of this bill" or similar but its pretty clear what he means.
    - briansmith 17y ago
      Why is anything I said false? Because I used the word "just"? Take out the word "just" and everything we both said is true: there are VC's that aren't rich, and rich people will be able to abuse this to get their friends green cards, while those without connections have to wait and work for 7-9 years to get their green cards. Look at http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4659.html http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4659.htm.... It says that the US government is just now processing applicants who filed under EB-3 back in 2001 and 2002. Put the "EB-6" people in the same line as the EB-3 people and the proposed legislation becomes a lot more fair, but useless. Speed up the EB-3 process and lots of people stuck working under a H1-B would quit their jobs and start their own businesses. The could do so with the money they've saved, or negotiate fair deals with investors.
      - pg 17y ago
        Ok, if what you meant to say was that the bill could be abused, let's examine that. What protections does it have against abuse, and why do you feel they're inadequate?
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
        briansmith 17y ago
        It effectively reduces the number of EB-2 and EB-3 visas available per year. That is my main objection to it. (I explained how in my two most recent posts in other threads of this discussion). I recommend everybody to read the proposed change to the law. It is a very small "patch" that is easy to read and understand, especially once you've read the rest of the discussion on this topic.
      - davemc500hats 17y ago
        obviously the issue of how fast the INS is able to process legitimate green card applications is an issue, however i don't feel that it's a legitimate reason to exclude this new proposed legislation. we can attack the problem by focusing on improving INS processing times, rather than excluding other valid applicants (of any type). we are certainly not suggesting StartupVisa green card applicants "move to the front of the line" ahead of anyone else, simply that their application be considered fairly & reasonably along with others.
- sdurkin 17y ago
  "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." I think the grandparent is just looking to score a few cheap karma points by stirring up some populism.
- adw 17y ago
  To be fair, you can turn that round; my reading of what Brian said was that he thought this bill was open to abuse, which could make your reading seem disingenuous. Neither interpretation's fair to either of you, though. (I have no horse in this race; living in Europe, the idea of a visa seems a bit anachronistic, really.)
  - blackguardx 17y ago
    I currently live in the US. Can I just move to Europe and get a job? Or, do I have to do some sort of paperwork first (like get a visa)?
    - henrikschroder 17y ago
      If you are not a EU citizen you need a residence permit and a work permit. I don't know how different the rules are between the EU countries, but it's roughly the same everwhere. A work permit is typically tied to an employer, and a residence permit is typically tied to a work permit. Here's the different kinds for Sweden: http://www.migrationsverket.se/info/1074_en.html http://www.migrationsverket.se/info/1074_en.html
      - eagleal 17y ago
        Once you have a Visa/Residence permit (work) in one country you can freely move between all the EU countries. (I live in Italy with residence permit, so I know)
        wheels 17y ago
        Usually you need a permanent residence permit (Greencard equivalent), and then it has to be a fairly recent one as the laws were only harmonized in the last 5 years. And even then, the permit for most of the EU isn't valid for the UK or Ireland. In Germany the first permit that you get (an H1B equivalent) is tied to one job, and hence, tied to the place where you have that job. After 5 years of working full-time (and a long string of other checklist items), you're eligible to begin the application process for permanent residence (which I now have).
- rms 17y ago
  I of course agree with you that the startup visa is a great idea, but I think Brian's other point is that US immigration as a whole is so fundamentally flawed that there are lots of areas that need large amounts of additional funding. This is a true political point, but there's not much we can do about it. As a political issue, the average American doesn't care about immigrants except for knowing that they want less of them. I give you and startupvisa.com for actually taking a political issue to the point where one of the power-holding senators was willing to introduce legislation. And maybe if it comes to a vote while attached to the military funding bill or something it will pass! I don't think populists have enough power to speak out against the bill, so whether or not it passes probably comes down to random DC "inside baseball". META: I ask that if you (anyone reading this) do not have something profoundly interesting to say that you not reply with any political discussion. US immigration is so unbelievably messed up that there is little productive we can say. Like... there are actually networks of secret immigration prisons that lose people regularly. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100104/stevens http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100104/stevens Also see http://www.amnestyusa.org/uploads/JailedWithoutJustice.pdf http://www.amnestyusa.org/uploads/JailedWithoutJustice.pdf but note that there is a much stronger political message.
  - albertcardona 17y ago
    US immigration as a whole is so fundamentally flawed that there are lots of areas that need large amounts of additional funding Fixing the world one step at a time is not a bad approach. Starting by steps that have great potential for generating wealth is a sensible strategy if you are thinking of taking any more steps.
    - rms 17y ago
      I agree. META: Lest someone else respond to me, I don't mean to imply that there aren't many more viable strategies for fixing the world! If you think you can save the world, I would prefer to discuss it with you via email rather than in this thread.
  - rms 17y ago
    To correct myself, Fred Wilson points out in his blog post that it will be anti-immigration people against this bill, not specifically populists, and the anti-immigration people will be against the bill... so this doesn't come to inside baseball, and people writing to their elected representatives might make a difference.
ericb 17y ago
Speaking from a country's self interest, don't rich people benefit the country more than poor? Isn't the US better off tax-wise, and wealthier, if it is able to tax a millionaire than a cab driver? Is there something morally objectionable about trying to attract "desirables" or is it just that we need to see the visa process in some way as "fair?"
- chime 17y ago
  > don't rich people benefit the country more than poor? Questions like that cannot be answered in any definite manner. If the rich use their capital to create wealth, then it benefits the country. If the rich use it to alter public policy to their advantage, then it harms the country. A new visa process should not enable the rich to game the system unfairly to their advantage at the expense of other prospective applicants.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  Speaking as a Canadian who immigrated from Asia, and know a large number of rich Asians who have also followed the same path, the situation is really not as simple as you put it. The rich are in no way obligated to share their wealth with you - as the Canadian government has unfortunately learned. Our immigration programs have three paths: skilled labour, investment, and entrepreneurial. Skilled labour is simply letting people in who have skills we need, investment expects that you invest a $HIGH_AMOUNT into the Canadian economy (with the expectation, not requirement, of more), and entrepreneurial requires that you run your own business for $TIME before you qualify for citizenship. The first category is usually a win for the country, since these people seek employment and are taxable, not to mention you didn't have to pay for their education. The second and third categories are fundamentally broken - I personally know many families who do the absolute bare minimum to hit the permanent residency requirements, and keep all of their wealth off the books in Asia, bringing them in literal suitcases of cash (staying just under the declaration limit each time). Heck, I know families that are receiving government benefits for low-income families even though they have millions in property overseas. My point is, unless you require rich immigrants to give up a huge chunk of money just to get in, expecting that the rich will contribute to your tax base is IMHO misguided. These people are already rich, for cryin' out loud.
fnid2 17y ago
It's entrepreneurial servitude. You come in and build a business to our specifications, making a certain amount of money for the rich investors or you lose your rights to live here. When the entrepreneur is booted out because (s)he was unable to generate $1M in revenue a year after 2 years in business, what happens to the business? Do the investors retain ownership? What legal rights does the entrepreneur have over the business (s)he created? There are no laws in America protecting the rights of these entrepreneurs who are not citizens. They are here to build a business, hopefully, but if they miss the marks, they lose everything! Their home, their business, their employees, and potentially the rights to any revenues, IP, or equity in the company they founded. Do you think some rich investors who have the ability to have our nation's laws changed to their favor are going to stop taking money out of a business because its entrepreneur isn't allowed to live in the U.S. anymore? It'll be business as usual for them, with or without the entrepreneur who created the business. This bill is good for no one but rich investors. It's definitely not good for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship has absolutely nothing to do with venture capital or investors or people with at least $10M in the bank. It's about creating businesses with the sweat off your back. If we are going to reward something -- reward that -- no strings attached! Especially not strings attached to the fingers of the same rich folks who have caused so many problems in our nation already! This is so horrible. What is happening to our country??
- tptacek 17y ago
  That's a good question. What happens to the Americans working for the company when its founder is forced to leave the country?
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - briansmith 17y ago
    They take all the intellectual property to the investors' other, wholly-owned company.
    - deleted 17y ago
matrix 17y ago
"The current line is 7-9 years long." Only if you are on a low-priority employment-based visa and are Indian or Chinese born (i.e. waiting for priority date to become current). The process is still much too long though, even in other cases. Not that I want to defend the US immigration and employment visa processes. Far from it. The system as it stands is completely and utterly broken. It turns away many of the very people the nation needs to keep its competitive edge in the world. Realistically though, it will be quite some time before any politician will be willing - or even able - to show the kind of leadership that is necessary to tackle immigration issues, regardless of the merits of doing so.
- briansmith 17y ago
  I think EB-3 is "normal" priority. The Indian/Chinese EB-3 backlog is 9 years. The current "rest of the world" EB-3 backlog is a little over 7 years. See http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4659.html http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4659.htm....
dgallagher 17y ago
According to the letter submitted by Senators Kerry and Lugar, it would only affect resources for EB-5 visas (no mention of EB-3 visas): To make visas available, we would amend immigration law to create a new EB-6 category for immigrant entrepreneurs. We would draw from existing visas under the EB-5 category. The EB-5 permits foreign nationals who invest at least $1 million in the U.S., and thereby create 10 jobs, to obtain a green card. In areas where unemployment is high, foreign nationals need only invest $500,000 to obtain residency. Though roughly 10,000 visas are annually allocated for the EB-5 category, less than half were used in FY 2009, so the addition of immigrant entrepreneurs should not present an unreasonable burden. http://startupvisa.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dc-startup-visa-act-2-24-10.pdf http://startupvisa.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dc-startup-vi... This merely branches a new visa off from EB-5, which is separate from, and has different intentions than, EB-3. EB-5 visas are not all being used up anymore, so both Senators are attempting to put those waisted EB-5's to good use. They imply that the proposed EB-6 visas "should not present an unreasonable burden" on the system.
- briansmith 17y ago
  That's not how it works. Whatever EB-5's don't get used eventually trickle down to EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3. They don't just go unused. If EB-6's start using them up, then there will be fewer EB-3's available every year.
  - davemc500hats 17y ago
    i'm pretty sure that's incorrect, as the existing EB-5 visa allocations have a specific target of 10,000 visas (which are currently not even close to being used up, only ~1,000 are used every year). if anything, prioritization is likely to work the other way: EB-1s first, then EB-2s, EB-3s, etc. see language below for EB-1 priority visa workers (with "extraordinary abilities"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-1_visa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-1_visa note: i am not an immigration lawyer (IANA[I]L). you may also wish to review language for the Immigration Act of 1990: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990
rms 17y ago
Brian, if you want to start your own lobbying group to fix any of the flaws in US immigration policy, I sincerely wish you the best of luck.

pg 17y ago

That's such a dishonest way of describing the situation that it's hard to believe it wasn't deliberate. You describe this bill as if it merely allowed powerful people to get their friends into the country, and it's not like that at all. Startup investors are not identical with the rich and connected. Angel investors are generally fairly rich, but not all VCs are. And they're not choosing people at random to bring into the country. They have to invest money in someone's startup to do that.

tptacek 17y ago
What does it matter if there are good, hardworking, "non-rich" VCs? There are also bad, lazy, well-connected VCs. You're evoking the intentions behind this bill as if they mattered.
- pg 17y ago
  In this particular case the reason it matters is that it makes briansmith's comment false.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - netcan 17y ago
    I don't think so. He says "this would just allow." Maybe he didn't qualify it with "the unintended consequence of this bill" or similar but its pretty clear what he means.
  - briansmith 17y ago
    Why is anything I said false? Because I used the word "just"? Take out the word "just" and everything we both said is true: there are VC's that aren't rich, and rich people will be able to abuse this to get their friends green cards, while those without connections have to wait and work for 7-9 years to get their green cards. Look at http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4659.html http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4659.htm.... It says that the US government is just now processing applicants who filed under EB-3 back in 2001 and 2002. Put the "EB-6" people in the same line as the EB-3 people and the proposed legislation becomes a lot more fair, but useless. Speed up the EB-3 process and lots of people stuck working under a H1-B would quit their jobs and start their own businesses. The could do so with the money they've saved, or negotiate fair deals with investors.
    - pg 17y ago
      Ok, if what you meant to say was that the bill could be abused, let's examine that. What protections does it have against abuse, and why do you feel they're inadequate?
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
      - briansmith 17y ago
        It effectively reduces the number of EB-2 and EB-3 visas available per year. That is my main objection to it. (I explained how in my two most recent posts in other threads of this discussion). I recommend everybody to read the proposed change to the law. It is a very small "patch" that is easy to read and understand, especially once you've read the rest of the discussion on this topic.
    - davemc500hats 17y ago
      obviously the issue of how fast the INS is able to process legitimate green card applications is an issue, however i don't feel that it's a legitimate reason to exclude this new proposed legislation. we can attack the problem by focusing on improving INS processing times, rather than excluding other valid applicants (of any type). we are certainly not suggesting StartupVisa green card applicants "move to the front of the line" ahead of anyone else, simply that their application be considered fairly & reasonably along with others.
sdurkin 17y ago
"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." I think the grandparent is just looking to score a few cheap karma points by stirring up some populism.
adw 17y ago
To be fair, you can turn that round; my reading of what Brian said was that he thought this bill was open to abuse, which could make your reading seem disingenuous. Neither interpretation's fair to either of you, though. (I have no horse in this race; living in Europe, the idea of a visa seems a bit anachronistic, really.)
- blackguardx 17y ago
  I currently live in the US. Can I just move to Europe and get a job? Or, do I have to do some sort of paperwork first (like get a visa)?
  - henrikschroder 17y ago
    If you are not a EU citizen you need a residence permit and a work permit. I don't know how different the rules are between the EU countries, but it's roughly the same everwhere. A work permit is typically tied to an employer, and a residence permit is typically tied to a work permit. Here's the different kinds for Sweden: http://www.migrationsverket.se/info/1074_en.html http://www.migrationsverket.se/info/1074_en.html
    - eagleal 17y ago
      Once you have a Visa/Residence permit (work) in one country you can freely move between all the EU countries. (I live in Italy with residence permit, so I know)
      - wheels 17y ago
        Usually you need a permanent residence permit (Greencard equivalent), and then it has to be a fairly recent one as the laws were only harmonized in the last 5 years. And even then, the permit for most of the EU isn't valid for the UK or Ireland. In Germany the first permit that you get (an H1B equivalent) is tied to one job, and hence, tied to the place where you have that job. After 5 years of working full-time (and a long string of other checklist items), you're eligible to begin the application process for permanent residence (which I now have).
rms 17y ago
I of course agree with you that the startup visa is a great idea, but I think Brian's other point is that US immigration as a whole is so fundamentally flawed that there are lots of areas that need large amounts of additional funding. This is a true political point, but there's not much we can do about it. As a political issue, the average American doesn't care about immigrants except for knowing that they want less of them. I give you and startupvisa.com for actually taking a political issue to the point where one of the power-holding senators was willing to introduce legislation. And maybe if it comes to a vote while attached to the military funding bill or something it will pass! I don't think populists have enough power to speak out against the bill, so whether or not it passes probably comes down to random DC "inside baseball". META: I ask that if you (anyone reading this) do not have something profoundly interesting to say that you not reply with any political discussion. US immigration is so unbelievably messed up that there is little productive we can say. Like... there are actually networks of secret immigration prisons that lose people regularly. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100104/stevens http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100104/stevens Also see http://www.amnestyusa.org/uploads/JailedWithoutJustice.pdf http://www.amnestyusa.org/uploads/JailedWithoutJustice.pdf but note that there is a much stronger political message.
- albertcardona 17y ago
  US immigration as a whole is so fundamentally flawed that there are lots of areas that need large amounts of additional funding Fixing the world one step at a time is not a bad approach. Starting by steps that have great potential for generating wealth is a sensible strategy if you are thinking of taking any more steps.
  - rms 17y ago
    I agree. META: Lest someone else respond to me, I don't mean to imply that there aren't many more viable strategies for fixing the world! If you think you can save the world, I would prefer to discuss it with you via email rather than in this thread.
- rms 17y ago
  To correct myself, Fred Wilson points out in his blog post that it will be anti-immigration people against this bill, not specifically populists, and the anti-immigration people will be against the bill... so this doesn't come to inside baseball, and people writing to their elected representatives might make a difference.

ericb 17y ago

Speaking from a country's self interest, don't rich people benefit the country more than poor? Isn't the US better off tax-wise, and wealthier, if it is able to tax a millionaire than a cab driver? Is there something morally objectionable about trying to attract "desirables" or is it just that we need to see the visa process in some way as "fair?"

chime 17y ago
> don't rich people benefit the country more than poor? Questions like that cannot be answered in any definite manner. If the rich use their capital to create wealth, then it benefits the country. If the rich use it to alter public policy to their advantage, then it harms the country. A new visa process should not enable the rich to game the system unfairly to their advantage at the expense of other prospective applicants.
potatolicious 17y ago
Speaking as a Canadian who immigrated from Asia, and know a large number of rich Asians who have also followed the same path, the situation is really not as simple as you put it. The rich are in no way obligated to share their wealth with you - as the Canadian government has unfortunately learned. Our immigration programs have three paths: skilled labour, investment, and entrepreneurial. Skilled labour is simply letting people in who have skills we need, investment expects that you invest a $HIGH_AMOUNT into the Canadian economy (with the expectation, not requirement, of more), and entrepreneurial requires that you run your own business for $TIME before you qualify for citizenship. The first category is usually a win for the country, since these people seek employment and are taxable, not to mention you didn't have to pay for their education. The second and third categories are fundamentally broken - I personally know many families who do the absolute bare minimum to hit the permanent residency requirements, and keep all of their wealth off the books in Asia, bringing them in literal suitcases of cash (staying just under the declaration limit each time). Heck, I know families that are receiving government benefits for low-income families even though they have millions in property overseas. My point is, unless you require rich immigrants to give up a huge chunk of money just to get in, expecting that the rich will contribute to your tax base is IMHO misguided. These people are already rich, for cryin' out loud.

fnid2 17y ago

It's entrepreneurial servitude. You come in and build a business to our specifications, making a certain amount of money for the rich investors or you lose your rights to live here. When the entrepreneur is booted out because (s)he was unable to generate $1M in revenue a year after 2 years in business, what happens to the business? Do the investors retain ownership? What legal rights does the entrepreneur have over the business (s)he created? There are no laws in America protecting the rights of these entrepreneurs who are not citizens. They are here to build a business, hopefully, but if they miss the marks, they lose everything! Their home, their business, their employees, and potentially the rights to any revenues, IP, or equity in the company they founded. Do you think some rich investors who have the ability to have our nation's laws changed to their favor are going to stop taking money out of a business because its entrepreneur isn't allowed to live in the U.S. anymore? It'll be business as usual for them, with or without the entrepreneur who created the business. This bill is good for no one but rich investors. It's definitely not good for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship has absolutely nothing to do with venture capital or investors or people with at least $10M in the bank. It's about creating businesses with the sweat off your back. If we are going to reward something -- reward that -- no strings attached! Especially not strings attached to the fingers of the same rich folks who have caused so many problems in our nation already! This is so horrible. What is happening to our country??

tptacek 17y ago
That's a good question. What happens to the Americans working for the company when its founder is forced to leave the country?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- briansmith 17y ago
  They take all the intellectual property to the investors' other, wholly-owned company.
  - deleted 17y ago

matrix 17y ago

"The current line is 7-9 years long." Only if you are on a low-priority employment-based visa and are Indian or Chinese born (i.e. waiting for priority date to become current). The process is still much too long though, even in other cases. Not that I want to defend the US immigration and employment visa processes. Far from it. The system as it stands is completely and utterly broken. It turns away many of the very people the nation needs to keep its competitive edge in the world. Realistically though, it will be quite some time before any politician will be willing - or even able - to show the kind of leadership that is necessary to tackle immigration issues, regardless of the merits of doing so.

briansmith 17y ago
I think EB-3 is "normal" priority. The Indian/Chinese EB-3 backlog is 9 years. The current "rest of the world" EB-3 backlog is a little over 7 years. See http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4659.html http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4659.htm....

dgallagher 17y ago

According to the letter submitted by Senators Kerry and Lugar, it would only affect resources for EB-5 visas (no mention of EB-3 visas): To make visas available, we would amend immigration law to create a new EB-6 category for immigrant entrepreneurs. We would draw from existing visas under the EB-5 category. The EB-5 permits foreign nationals who invest at least $1 million in the U.S., and thereby create 10 jobs, to obtain a green card. In areas where unemployment is high, foreign nationals need only invest $500,000 to obtain residency. Though roughly 10,000 visas are annually allocated for the EB-5 category, less than half were used in FY 2009, so the addition of immigrant entrepreneurs should not present an unreasonable burden. http://startupvisa.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dc-startup-visa-act-2-24-10.pdf http://startupvisa.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dc-startup-vi... This merely branches a new visa off from EB-5, which is separate from, and has different intentions than, EB-3. EB-5 visas are not all being used up anymore, so both Senators are attempting to put those waisted EB-5's to good use. They imply that the proposed EB-6 visas "should not present an unreasonable burden" on the system.

briansmith 17y ago
That's not how it works. Whatever EB-5's don't get used eventually trickle down to EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3. They don't just go unused. If EB-6's start using them up, then there will be fewer EB-3's available every year.
- davemc500hats 17y ago
  i'm pretty sure that's incorrect, as the existing EB-5 visa allocations have a specific target of 10,000 visas (which are currently not even close to being used up, only ~1,000 are used every year). if anything, prioritization is likely to work the other way: EB-1s first, then EB-2s, EB-3s, etc. see language below for EB-1 priority visa workers (with "extraordinary abilities"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-1_visa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-1_visa note: i am not an immigration lawyer (IANA[I]L). you may also wish to review language for the Immigration Act of 1990: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990

rms 17y ago

Brian, if you want to start your own lobbying group to fix any of the flaws in US immigration policy, I sincerely wish you the best of luck.