The problem is how to quantify "smartness" in American immigration legal system. For most young hackers like the ones in YC, the green card process becomes alm

The problem is how to quantify "smartness" in American immigration legal system. For most young hackers like the ones in YC, the green card process becomes almost impossible for them because for new bachelor degree holders from a school outside U.S. without any significant working experience, they will be lumped as EB3 if they need a employer and 3 to 4 years in a queue and they need to work to make sure the employer won't go belly up during the process. Otherwise they have to walk a path like Auctomatic founders did to get E-1 or E-2 and they need some capital first to apply for E-1 or E-2 visas. If they apply for H-1B, they can not be the owners of their own company. Current immigration system stresses heavily on academic achievements. But does a guy who finishes Ph.D. or master degree a good hacker? Not necessary. Is he/she a good innovators in product design or technology? Not necessary. Unfortunately, what U.S.A needs is potential stars like Robert Tappan Morris. But in current system, if RTM was convicted of a crime outside U.S., he will be denied of petition. (But I may be wrong because DVD Jon is in U.S. now) If a smart kids can create a Google like company in Europe or China, it won't be his/her interest to immigrate to U.S. to pay big taxes here in coming years for social security deficiency and cost of Iraq war, right? But the current system puts too much stress on past achievements as a proof for "smartness". That may work before when pace of competition is not so fast as 1986, but it starts to be incompatible with current software/internet industry. When green card process takes 4 to 5 years to finish, then only existing big companies can be reliable sponsors. while the real wealth creators are start ups and they are unable to get who they need. When a start up sponsors green card, immigration authority requires tax record (so the company has to exist for at least 1 calendar year), had some news paper reviews for product and blah blah blah so on. The authority will ask "what is techcrunch? the company is on techcrunch but did the company hit WSJ, USA today or NYT? Is this company a real company and not a sham? Oh, the company loses money, how do you guy can run this company for another 5 years to pay for this guy on petition?" Well, if we know the company will be in next 5 years, then it is not a start up just in Angel stage. It is already a serial A/B company. I think the current system may be fixable, but if congress can not even figure out what went wrong (And believe me, I think they are clueness because they may never heard of YC :-) ) How can they fix the problem?