7 ms·

The biggest issue I have with the Startup Visa Act is that if this is a person that we want to let in because of an investment, then this is a person we want to

by rajat 17y ago

The biggest issue I have with the Startup Visa Act is that if this is a person that we want to let in because of an investment, then this is a person we want to let in, period. Just give them a green card. What this act tries to do, in a sense, is outsource the decision making (to the investors). The biggest problem with the H1B visa is that it allows the employer to hold this unholy ax over the visa holder. It's absurd and counterproductive. These are people we should want in this country. Arguments against illegal immigration do not apply here. So, if an investor actually invests in a startup with a foreign founder, just give that person a green card or a long visitor's visa depending on what he wants (I assume not everyone wants to move to the US). The whole talk of a successful entrepreneur is ridiculous when so many startups fail. We want that entrepreneur even if this particular venture fails.

BerislavLopac 17y ago
Finally a concrete, constructive suggestion that actually makes sense.
- wdewind 17y ago
  I agree 100% in theory, but in concrete it just doesn't work. How do we determine the person is an entrepreneur we want in? It's easy to say if we are going to give them an H1B or a startup visa (whatever that ends up looking like) we should just give them a green card, but it sounds to me like a major part of this issue is who is actually doing the deciding, not only what the decision itself is. For instance, we trust the government with software patents right now and over and over again they approve what we consider to be horribly damaging patents. We should trust them to evaluate an entrepreneur as well? There is a reason this decision is outsourced to the employers/investors: it's actually the more free solution. Otherwise it's up to the government to determine who's/what's worth paying for, and just hoping they are right. This way we've already established a market for the person before they enter the country. It's far from perfect, but if you just give people green cards how many people do you think will suddenly want to be entrepreneurs to get their green card? The government doesn't seem capable of regulating anything right now, so I'm pretty content to outsource the decision to investors and employers. At least that way they have a chance to get a Fred Wilson, instead of a guarantee not to.
  - fnid2 17y ago
    Investors are only 10% correct at predicting startup success so I'm not sure they are the ones to be relying on for an accurate assessment.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > Investors are only 10% correct at predicting startup success so I'm not sure they are the ones to be relying on for an accurate assessment. We're only relying on them to identify some likely candidates. Those who work out get to stay.
      - fnid2 17y ago
        so if an entrepreneur signs up, (s)he's got a 90% chance of being sent home? I wouldn't like those odds.
  - marze 17y ago
    The existing system favors those who are good at hiking in the desert, as well as a few who are good at jumping through a long series of bureaucratic hoops. Even if this improvement is not perfect it should help, but I agree it should be constructed as intelligently as possible. A good change should error on the side of being overly accepting.
fnid2 17y ago
That's exactly right. Just let them in. America's all about freedom. Indentured servitude does not need a revival.
jbooth 17y ago
It seems like you're arguing that visas should just be expanded, period. I agree. The problem is that when you propose something like that, you get all these groups that are opposed, from the "dey took our jawbs" crowd, equally split among the left and right, to the straight up xenophobic crowd, which mostly lean right. However, if you dress it up and make it sound like we're only importing the right kind of foreigners, with money and oxford accents, it's possible to actually pass something. So that's what we have. The choice is between whittling around the edges to get a few more people in, or not. Unfortunately, wider reforms are off the table at this point, so a preference for them isn't really a valid reason to oppose incremental bits like this.
- geebee 17y ago
  I posted a couple of links in a comment below. A summary is available here: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-08-science-engi... http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-08-science-engi.... The full RAND study is at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241/ http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241/ This is in reference to a RAND study that provides very substantial evidence that engineering and science careers now lag badly behind other options available to highly educated people in the US. I think there's a very sophisticated argument to be made that a visa program designed to remedy a "shortage" of engineers doesn't make much sense. I'm alright with disagreement, of course, but it's very frustrating to hear people dismiss this as a "dey took our jawbs" xenophobia. Does it make sense to create a special visa program in a field that is already, according to objective research, lagging behind other fields? Keep in mind, we're not talking about general immigration here, we're talking about very specific legislation targeting a narrow part of the economy.
  - jbooth 17y ago
    In my opinion, yes, it does make sense. Our system isn't producing enough engineers because many of those with the smarts for it go the finance or MBA route instead. The classes are easier and it seems to generate higher income, so why not, right? So, we can change some of those systemic factors, which I'm all in favor of but in the short term, creating new Americans who may look a little different and have a funny last name will do more to increase the number of American engineers than not doing so. Regarding the too-easy dismissal of this concern as xenophobia, I'll only say that I've met a bunch of people who are for immigration reform in general, but once you talk about H-1B or a similar program, all of a sudden that program's a ripoff which helps the corporations at the expense of the little guy by increasing labor supply. So, what, it was ok to import garden workers but we can't import tech workers? (not aimed at you, aimed at my strawman which I have indeed heard from several otherwise liberal people). Anyways, yeah, once you advocate reducing immigration for the express purpose of not unduly expanding the labor pool, I'm going to call it "dey took our jawbs" -- if that makes the person uncomfortable, they should argue from a different position :)

by rajat 17y ago

BerislavLopac 17y ago

Finally a concrete, constructive suggestion that actually makes sense.

wdewind 17y ago
I agree 100% in theory, but in concrete it just doesn't work. How do we determine the person is an entrepreneur we want in? It's easy to say if we are going to give them an H1B or a startup visa (whatever that ends up looking like) we should just give them a green card, but it sounds to me like a major part of this issue is who is actually doing the deciding, not only what the decision itself is. For instance, we trust the government with software patents right now and over and over again they approve what we consider to be horribly damaging patents. We should trust them to evaluate an entrepreneur as well? There is a reason this decision is outsourced to the employers/investors: it's actually the more free solution. Otherwise it's up to the government to determine who's/what's worth paying for, and just hoping they are right. This way we've already established a market for the person before they enter the country. It's far from perfect, but if you just give people green cards how many people do you think will suddenly want to be entrepreneurs to get their green card? The government doesn't seem capable of regulating anything right now, so I'm pretty content to outsource the decision to investors and employers. At least that way they have a chance to get a Fred Wilson, instead of a guarantee not to.
- fnid2 17y ago
  Investors are only 10% correct at predicting startup success so I'm not sure they are the ones to be relying on for an accurate assessment.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Investors are only 10% correct at predicting startup success so I'm not sure they are the ones to be relying on for an accurate assessment. We're only relying on them to identify some likely candidates. Those who work out get to stay.
    - fnid2 17y ago
      so if an entrepreneur signs up, (s)he's got a 90% chance of being sent home? I wouldn't like those odds.
- marze 17y ago
  The existing system favors those who are good at hiking in the desert, as well as a few who are good at jumping through a long series of bureaucratic hoops. Even if this improvement is not perfect it should help, but I agree it should be constructed as intelligently as possible. A good change should error on the side of being overly accepting.

fnid2 17y ago

That's exactly right. Just let them in. America's all about freedom. Indentured servitude does not need a revival.

jbooth 17y ago

It seems like you're arguing that visas should just be expanded, period. I agree. The problem is that when you propose something like that, you get all these groups that are opposed, from the "dey took our jawbs" crowd, equally split among the left and right, to the straight up xenophobic crowd, which mostly lean right. However, if you dress it up and make it sound like we're only importing the right kind of foreigners, with money and oxford accents, it's possible to actually pass something. So that's what we have. The choice is between whittling around the edges to get a few more people in, or not. Unfortunately, wider reforms are off the table at this point, so a preference for them isn't really a valid reason to oppose incremental bits like this.

geebee 17y ago
I posted a couple of links in a comment below. A summary is available here: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-08-science-engi... http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-08-science-engi.... The full RAND study is at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241/ http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241/ This is in reference to a RAND study that provides very substantial evidence that engineering and science careers now lag badly behind other options available to highly educated people in the US. I think there's a very sophisticated argument to be made that a visa program designed to remedy a "shortage" of engineers doesn't make much sense. I'm alright with disagreement, of course, but it's very frustrating to hear people dismiss this as a "dey took our jawbs" xenophobia. Does it make sense to create a special visa program in a field that is already, according to objective research, lagging behind other fields? Keep in mind, we're not talking about general immigration here, we're talking about very specific legislation targeting a narrow part of the economy.
- jbooth 17y ago
  In my opinion, yes, it does make sense. Our system isn't producing enough engineers because many of those with the smarts for it go the finance or MBA route instead. The classes are easier and it seems to generate higher income, so why not, right? So, we can change some of those systemic factors, which I'm all in favor of but in the short term, creating new Americans who may look a little different and have a funny last name will do more to increase the number of American engineers than not doing so. Regarding the too-easy dismissal of this concern as xenophobia, I'll only say that I've met a bunch of people who are for immigration reform in general, but once you talk about H-1B or a similar program, all of a sudden that program's a ripoff which helps the corporations at the expense of the little guy by increasing labor supply. So, what, it was ok to import garden workers but we can't import tech workers? (not aimed at you, aimed at my strawman which I have indeed heard from several otherwise liberal people). Anyways, yeah, once you advocate reducing immigration for the express purpose of not unduly expanding the labor pool, I'm going to call it "dey took our jawbs" -- if that makes the person uncomfortable, they should argue from a different position :)