6 ms·

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

by 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.
      - briansmith 17y ago
        My friend's applied for her green card 1.5 years ago. The best estimate for her getting the green card is 2017--about 8.5 years from the start of processing. That is the typical EB-3 wait time. Are you saying you'd have EB-6 applications also take 8.5 years?
        davemc500hats 17y ago
        i'm saying that solving INS processing times by not introducing new visa legislation is a rather ass-backwards perspective. furthermore, the job creation / economic output benefits don't need to wait for green card processing to be solved. there's being practical, and then there's simply being defeatist. i'd rather be part of trying to provide solutions to INS processing times than to wait on innovative solutions to job creation & immigration reform.
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.

by pg 17y ago

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.
    - briansmith 17y ago
      My friend's applied for her green card 1.5 years ago. The best estimate for her getting the green card is 2017--about 8.5 years from the start of processing. That is the typical EB-3 wait time. Are you saying you'd have EB-6 applications also take 8.5 years?
      - davemc500hats 17y ago
        i'm saying that solving INS processing times by not introducing new visa legislation is a rather ass-backwards perspective. furthermore, the job creation / economic output benefits don't need to wait for green card processing to be solved. there's being practical, and then there's simply being defeatist. i'd rather be part of trying to provide solutions to INS processing times than to wait on innovative solutions to job creation & immigration reform.

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.