6 ms·

The $100k green card

104 points by dmarinoc 15y ago

sashthebash 15y ago
What about abuse? Wouldn't this invite loan sharks lending money to relatively poor unemployed people in other countries, selling them the American dream and make them work on slavery-like terms for decades until they pay of their debt?
- Symmetry 15y ago
  In the US declaring bankruptcy isn't too bad, so there's a hard limit to how badly they can exploit the people they bring over. Currently people are exploited like this, getting in debt to be transported into the country illegally. However, in that case it's their illegal status depriving them of normal legal protections that makes the situation get so bad. I do expect that most people coming in would require loans, but that most of them would still be better off with this program.
yanilkr 15y ago
From an individual perspective, if you were to put a price on all the uncertainty involved and dealing with things out of your control 100k seems to be a reasonable price to pay. If you are an entrepreneur, this helps you to get over a big mental block, not worry about wrong things and focus on important things like building great products or keep trying. This seems to be a sensible option for all those h1b employees in their initial steps to be startup founders.
fireismyflag 15y ago
The green card already has a $1M tag, even if it is not a simple transaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-5_visa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-5_visa Even so, The idea is not bad, since it is talking about skilled workers and EB5 is for investors
- mortehu 15y ago
  $1M is the amount you need to invest, not spend. Not sure what the expected value of that investment is, though.
techsupporter 15y ago
This is eminently reasonable, so it'll never happen. I'd go a bit farther: - $100,000 in cash money paid to the US Treasury earns an instant I-551 visa along with visas for a spouse and any immediate minor children. - $50,000 buys you a temporary worker visa (2 years?) that isn't tied to an employer. The temporary visa residency time doesn't apply for the time period needed to gain citizenship. At the end of two years you either pay the same $100,000, apply through other means, or depart. On this visa, if you raise at least $200,000 worth of investment or have created $200,000 worth of jobs in your temporary residency period (e.g. 4 FTE @ $50k annual salary) the $100k fee is waived. Each dollar amount is indexed to inflation and adjusted annually for new applicants. Yes, it puts a price tag on residency which some might find unseemly but I think it quantifies a contribution to society and prevents political gamesmanship.
- phil 15y ago
  You'd almost have to say that this article is not liable to the least objection!
  - bdrocco 15y ago
    Except that we'd be putting a price on opportunity... Sure maybe big companies would put up $100k for international talent, but anybody else that would want to immigrate for that price probably isn't doing it to work hard and make their lives better. Isn't that the appeal of the USA? I agree we need to keep more talented foreigners in the country, but a $100k price tag isn't the right solution. How would an immigrant save up that money while studying in the US (or while in their former country)? If he/she drops out of college they wouldn't be able to stay on their student visa... In fact, this author's suggesting we blindly accept anyone that can pay $100k. It seems to me this approach would attract more terrorists and/or criminals with those types of resources abroad than freelancing entrepreneurs. Nevermind that this wouldn't solve the current illegal immigration problem either.
- speleding 15y ago
  I'm all for it. But there might be unintended consequences. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if an enterprising banker started a program to lend you $100K on condition that you pay them x% of your salary for y years. Companies like Microsoft might find that an attractive alternative to the current H1B circus. For a large segment of foreign enterprising individuals this is not a good enough deal though. Looking at myself: When I finished school in the US a decade ago I just spent $100K buying education and I didn't have another $100K available. Now, living in the EU, I have a successful startup and could afford it but I also have a wife and kids and I am no longer able nor willing to move.
coopersloan 15y ago
If say 100,000 people got in for $100,000 in the first year, thats $10 billion in revenue... we accrue around $4 billion in new debt an average day. Doesn't seem significant to me?
- Aloisius 15y ago
  Well I would assume these same people (someone who can just sign a check for $100k) would have significant income which would now be subject to US income tax. Plus, they might start companies, employ people and contribute even more.
  - mittermayr 15y ago
    might. that's the whole point of criticism I believe. this option does not auto-filter the successful folks and invite them, it invites anyone with cash. my chinese friend would be laughing his ass off reading this - he always said, as soon as they make it a cash option, everyone from china and their mother will come. there is money. and it doesn't mean a person is a smart, successful tax-payer just because they have money. things are very different outside of the US, regarding that.
tewolde 15y ago
> Why don’t we let more of them join us? There are two common objections: they will drive down wages, or they will be a drain on tax-funded programs. Both these objections are dead wrong. The truth is that the US economy needs immigration to work. If you doubt it, just look at Japan. In fact, immigration is the largest wealth transfer program from developing countries to the developed. It is already bad enough that poor countries are paying for the upbringing, training and education of these skilled migrants for which they get no compensation. To compound this with this additional tax would be criminal.
- dextorious 15y ago
  """Both these objections are dead wrong. The truth is that the US economy needs immigration to work. If you doubt it, just look at Japan.""" Citation needed. Japan was flourishing in past decades, even without immigration. And the US is not that much better off, debt and economy wise now. """In fact, immigration is the largest wealth transfer program from developing countries to the developed. It is already bad enough that poor countries are paying for the upbringing, training and education of these skilled migrants for which they get no compensation.""" The majority of immigrants from development countries don't have that much training and education. "Skilled migrants" are the exception. Not ever Indian immigrant, for example, is a programmer searching work in the Valley --actually, not even close to 1%.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Aging_of_Japan#Effects_on_society https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Aging_of_Japa... Your standards for national success in fact drive (or at least indicate) this sort of trend: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Demographic_transition https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Demographic_t...
    - dextorious 15y ago
      Well, that's because of Aging of the population --not exactly the same question. How about this: which is preferable: incentives to counter the aging of the population OR embracing immigration?
iscrewyou 15y ago
What I learned from the article: Let them in. Let them pay for our debt. Tell them we can kick them out anytime. That's it.
chubs 15y ago
What if it was a 100k bond, refunded after 5 years of proven good behaviour? (good behaviour = 5 years continuous employment, clear crime record, etc)
- Eurofooty 15y ago
  This is more reasonable than simply taking peoples hard earned.
sgt 15y ago
A very good idea, in my opinion, but I think $100k is too steep. Make it $50k and I would support this. I see that there are lot of negative commenters on techcrunch, particularly from non-americans. That's also interesting.
phil 15y ago
Brilliant. I wasn't sure if he was serious, or if this was a satirical comment on the immigration system. Then I looked at the title of the post (it's been wrongly condensed here on HN).
wazoox 15y ago
Really a wonderful idea to make USA the safe haven of all criminals around the world. This is the most brain-dead, totally crazy, utterly stupid political proposal I've read in a long time. This sort of thinking (money can buy everything), by the way, makes me sick. This is wrong on so many levels. What floors me even more is to see all HN comments pretending that this is a good idea. At least the techcrunch comments seem to get it.
- techsupporter 15y ago
  Money can already buy you a green card and an even faster path to US citizenship. This article proposes a massive discount on that fee and a streamlined process to boot. Nothing here proposes to get rid of the current system, a system which very much needs to be streamlined. Then again, how exactly should we streamline it? Lots of people hold up Canada and its points-based system as a prime example. Those same people leave out that Canada, in 2010, chopped huge swaths of categories out of that system because they had too many applicants. Whether that same problem would happen in the United States or not is a good question; we have a much larger population/society and much more livable land area. Yes, it's expensive, and unfair, and even biased. It smacks of pay-to-play and partially dims the spotlight on the US' other immigration problems. Does this mean it shouldn't happen until we can get our politicos to get their heads on straight? No. (My better half is a green card holder from a not-rate-limited country. We've had more than a few interactions with USCIS.)
hendrix 15y ago
A modest proposal = satire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal.
- matthewowen 15y ago
  you assume that the author hasn't mindlessly used the title. this is techcrunch. i'm unconvinced.
  - buu700 15y ago
    You, sir, have never clearly not mastered the art of literary analysis.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
bfrs 15y ago
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Ok, so now for some people, its gonna cost $100K, to make it evident. I think my irony meter just broke! ------------------------------ edit: I'm also guilty of not paying proper attention to the title: "A Modest Proposal..." [1]. Sorry. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
- X-Istence 15y ago
  This proposal doesn't change that in any way shape or form. When you as a foreign national are on US soil (legally) you too have those inalienable rights.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
diminish 15y ago
I would suggest the same to Europe. Get piece of land in south Europe which may host 10million people. Create 28th experimental member country of EU with values similar to USA, such as freedom and money-rulez. Families may buy a house and citizenship with travel rights and easier work permits around the europe for 1 million euros (USD1.33M) per person only valid for investors, some experts and tech-engineers. This way Europe may suck the elite of the developing nations and may collect 10 trillion Euros in 5 years to pay the debts of failing Euro members.
- fijal 15y ago
  Not sure about you, but I would be happy to not have USA values anything near my countries in Europe.
- mstepniowski 15y ago
  Upvoted for a great satire.
kennywinker 15y ago
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free", and make them bring $100k in unmarked bills. I think we can all agree the current system is broken. I don't know what a better one is, but whatever it is needs to make room for people who can't afford a $100k entry fee, but would contribute to American society in other ways.
- ziyadb 15y ago
  Immigrants inherently contribute to American society in the following ways: 1. They pay taxes. 2. They spend their money on goods and services supplied by American businesses. That constitutes contribution to American society. If anything, immigrants should be actively sought.
  - SamReidHughes 15y ago
    Actually their contributions are 1. They pay taxes. 2. They work. Their spending of money on goods and services is what they take out of the system.
    - Eurofooty 15y ago
      They do the unpleasant jobs most Americans would consider below themselves. They pay taxes. They should expect acceptance and political representation for it.
      - SamReidHughes 15y ago
        You are not talking about anything I was talking about. Why are you replying to me?
    - matthewowen 15y ago
      that isn't correct. demand for goods and services drives economies.
      - 15y ago
ziyadb 15y ago
This is absurd. I was originally considering moving to the US for my postgraduate studies, however, after speaking with peers I decided against it, as other countries that offer far more favorable visa terms exist. Currently, my leading option is New Zealand, bundled with their student visa is a permit to work 20 hours a week, and a year's residency after the completion of your program among other things. While some of you may not view New Zealand with the admiration that you view the US, as its tech-scene isn't quite as developed. It is a beautiful country nonetheless, free healthcare is available for all residents and citizens, not to mention the all around natural beauty of it. Don't get the wrong impression, there is no doubt that the US is a great place, but it isn't without its problems. I'm not trying to sell you on NZ, the point I'm trying to make is why should I have to bust my balls and save up $100k for a green card when I can have more lenient and reasonable terms in another country with an emerging tech scene? Note: it is probably easier for entrepreneurs to supply $100K for a green card, however, I intentionally ignored that circumstance as they're a minority amongst immigrants and chose to discuss immigration to the US in general. Bottomline: America unknowingly abuses and doesn't treat immigrants with the respect that they deserve, they contribute equally to the economy as any other demographic (if not more), and are a major part of high tech industries, and therefore, of the US economy.
- Eurofooty 15y ago
  Sounds like a "legal bribe". As an extra bonus... With a NZ permanent residency, I believe, one is also permitted to work and reside in Australia; easily the outstanding economy and often top placed in most living standards, job opportunity and economic and political stability surveys. By way of example, Australia's current head of state and head of government are women. If the USA continues to put up unnecessary barriers for up-and-coming entrepreneurs to stay in and benefit the US, why not take your business ideas elsewhere? Frankly there are many more places in the world to live and prosper financially. We live in a global economy, so location should not be always of prime importance for a web-based startup, or...?
  - nisse72 15y ago
    NZ citizens can work and reside in Aus, permanent residents cannot. But it's also worth noting that since a 2002 law change, Kiwis who make that move are considered temporary residents in Australia and don't have the same rights there as Australians: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/kiwis-in-australia/2927216 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/kiw... http://www.indymedia.org.au/2011/04/21/help-appeal-for-a-fair-go-for-kiwis-living-in-australia http://www.indymedia.org.au/2011/04/21/help-appeal-for-a-fai...
Eurofooty 15y ago
I would do it but if there were a health care guarantee for my family. It has to go both ways.
fosk 15y ago
Every time I read or listen to this kind of proposals, I always think that we, as foreign entrepreneurs, can't wait for slow bureaucratic law proposals on immigration and green card. Unfortunately it is today that we face a big handicap. We need a better immigration law now: seriously, now. Without a long visa or green card we can't do long-term plans. It's harder to hire people, if we have to leave the day after tomorrow to our country to get/update/renew our visas. We can't take a long leasing for an office or an house. The real problem is that we can't live in a long-term mindset, and this makes an already difficult game (start a company, grow, hire people, create new jobs) harder to play. We're are here, in a foreign country, hardly trying to make the difference, and start our businesses, realize our ideas, invest a part of our life here, in this country. And we need more help.
X-Istence 15y ago
I am a green card holder, and while I wish I could tell you what it took, all I know from the process is that it took my dad from 2000 till 2004 to even be allowed to start the paperwork and then it wasn't until 2005 that we actually received our green cards. So long as you have a company sponsoring you it is not that difficult to get a green card. It takes time, a lot of it, money and lawyers. Oh, and a complete family medical history, blood draws, and pictures and prints. As a green card holder I have the same rights as any American (while on American soil, the marines won't come rescue me for example as I am still a Dutch citizen), the only right green card holders do not get is the right to vote. Which I find semi ironic considering that we are still taxed the same, but we don't get to choose our representation... something the United States was founded on.
- ajju 15y ago
  >So long as you have a company sponsoring you it is not that difficult to get a green card. This is not true at all. How long it takes to get a green card depends on the category of green card you can apply for (there are at least 4 types of employment based green cards) AND on the country in which you were born. For most people born in India and China, the process takes significantly longer than 1 year. I personally know multiple senior software engineers working for top software companies who have been waiting for over 7 years.
  - jimbobimbo 15y ago
    > For most people born in India and China, the process takes significantly longer than 1 year. A CTO of the company I'm working at is waiting for his green card for almost TEN years! The guy is a key person for the company, has two kids and bought a house, but is still on H1. :(
tomjen3 15y ago
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door. So long as they can pay more than two years average income? Anyone up for building a new country?
- dextorious 15y ago
  Well, that's poetic, but doesn't mean it works out that way in the real world. For one, America was not actually founded solely on "tired and poor masses yearning to breathe free", but on a huge takeover and displacement plan for the native americans. Then, "tired and poor" masses of african americans were used as slaves, and tons of "tired and poor" masses of white people were also used quite like slaves (sharecroppers and the like). And even after that stopped, there was tons of racial tension (do you think Italians, Irish and Jews were welcomed to New York initially?). Another consideration, if tens of millions of muslims, for example, come to the US and change it vote by vote, to follow islamic law, would you like it? Or does you "bring me your..." proposition presupposes that mass immigration will not happen if all is left open?
  - jmj4 15y ago
    > America was not actually founded solely on "tired and poor masses yearning to breathe free", but on a huge takeover and displacement plan for the native Americans. America wasn't founded in order to take anything from Natives; this was a very unfortunate side affect. Your right, slavery was a stain on America for nearly a century. And there was racial tension against Irish, Jews, Italians ect, just like it is for Muslims in some sectors of society right now. But these people were still given an opportunity to flourish through their own doing, and many of them have. The Kennedy's are the most obvious example of an Irish American family doing supremely well despite lingering prejudice towards Irish immigrants. Obviously other examples exist. The Muslim question you bring up at the end is different. The reason people are so scared is that Islamic Law contradicts the notion of freedom. We can and should allow freedom of religion, but not before we ensure that all people are free. And Islamic Law flies in the face of a lot that is presented in our Constitution.
garethsprice 15y ago
As someone who has been going through the green card process for over 3 years now, $100k seems cheap to get rid of all the expense, effort and risk required to do it legitimately under the current system. Having said that, simply "selling entry" would lead to a lot of rich people moving here and buying up property, driving prices sky-high(er) in coastal cities. This is the issue right now in London where lots of Arab and Russian oligarch-types taking advantage of non-domicile tax laws drive up the cost of living but don't contribute to the economy in a meaningful way. Before you say "trickle down", sure they spend money on nannies and posh food, but that's trivial compared to the vast fortunes they store and control outside the UK. Something like an investment or startup visa would help to ensure that people are coming here to be productive members of society. There's the EB-5 ($1m+ and ridiculous amounts of red tape) and the E-2 (Arbitrary amount around $100k, but no route to permanent residence), but both are broken programs.
- beagle3 15y ago
  > This is the issue right now in London where lots of Arab and Russian oligarch-types taking advantage of non-domicile tax laws drive up the cost of living The US tax law is not like that. If you're a legal permanent resident (i.e. a green card holder), you pay taxes for everything you own and make everywhere in the world. So that's not actually a problem. It is also the reason why those Arab and Russian oligarch types won't be moving to the US any time soon. (It's already cheap enough for them at $1M -- going down to $100k won't make a difference. The British requirement, BTW, is 500K pound, which is ~$750K)
- jimbobimbo 15y ago
  > As someone who has been going through the green card > process for over 3 years now, $100k seems cheap to > get rid of all the expense, effort and risk required > to do it legitimately under the current system. As someone who recently got one through employment, I'd say $100k is a hefty price tag: legal expenses on a fully completed GC process is around $10k. During the time you're spending $10k, you are employed and are getting paid prevailing wage for the area of employment (more, if you are good at what you do - employer doesn't want to lose you). Granted, things won't be so rosy for people from India or China due to time constraints, but $100k cash for these folks won't really be that easy either, I guess.
christkv 15y ago
I would like to just see a bi-lateral agreement between the eu and the us for work so you could give an american a job in europe more easily and also work in the us more easily. Having been hiring it's a pain to have to refuse candidates from the us because spain will makes it close to impossible to grant a working visa at the moment. As an alternative they could also just do what australia does which is a skilled immigrant system where you score points for your background.
known 15y ago
Unlike Capitalism, Globalization is Zero Sum. 100K green card cannot fix this fundamental problem.
opinali 15y ago
Asinine idea of the day, there are some many wrong aspects it's even difficult where to start. First, $100k is a big but not absurd amount of money for an American or European (it's roughly 1 year salary of a good engineer), but everywhere else in the world it's much harder to save that kind of money - it's closer, say, to the price of a decent house for a middle-class family. The efffort to save that money will be very different per country of origin, which is very unfair. A Brazilian engineer has 3X better wages than an equivalent Chinese engineer, due to different currency valuation and salary standards. People will start paying for this not with cash but with bank loans. These will be relatively high-risk loans so in practice, people will pay $100k to the US treasury, and maybe another $50-100k in interest to some private bank. And even if the loan is from an US bank, this doesn't necessarily mean "even more money injected in the American economy" - these days, money that goes to banks rarely benefits society in any significant way. Having $100k in cash doesn't necessarily prove that you have the kind of skills that would ensure a well-paid job, and benefit the US economy. Maybe you are a mediocre professional, but you just inherited this money. Or your family helped realize their loved son's immigration dream, so you can only pay for the green card because dad sold his house. Or you just worked your ass off for 20 years in low-pay jobs, having a lot of discipline to save money. Or you made a loan (item above), maybe using family's property as collateral so you don't even have the merit for that loan. End result, a low-skilled worker being granted a green card and maybe becoming a liability to Social Security after failing to get an US job.
- wallygold 15y ago
  The efffort to save that money will be very different per country of origin, which is very unfair. A Brazilian engineer has 3X better wages than an equivalent Chinese engineer, due to different currency valuation and salary standards. There's nothing stopping the creation of other paths to residency/citizenship. Everything suggested can be implemented without worsening anyone's situation. I definitely wouldn't call it asinine because it doesn't help everyone equally.
tsycho 15y ago
An automatic green card for immigrants who earn more than $100k annual is a much better idea instead. Such people are very likely well educated and contributing at a high level to their respective professions. They should be exactly the kind of people America wants to keep.
rms 15y ago
This isn't that absurd, right now the great secret of US immigration is that someone with $1M USD of surplus liquid savings can definitely get on the green card track with the advice of their attorney.
- beagle3 15y ago
  Yes, but unless they know they'll be making lots of money, it would cost them a hell of a lot more. The US now has a tax regime that is possibly the worst in the world for people who are somewhat rich, but not superfilthy rich (a category that I guess includes > $1M and < $50M in liquid assets). If you live in the US with a green card (which can expire or be canceled at the governments whim), you take on ALL the obligations of a citizen, including gift tax, estate tax, reporting of everything you ever own outside the US (with a 50% penalty if you knowingly fail to report something -- google FBAR). \ Furthermore, if you do that for a few years, and you move back (say, because your green card was cacneled), you have to pay the "exit tax", which is more or less the estate tax you would have paid had you died that day. If you're making $300K a year, your tax rates are probably around 45% (35% federal, 5-13% state; although e.g. NH has no state tax). The state tax has no treaty cover, so if your income comes from another country, you're likely to be double taxed on that. Also, if you're making under $500K a year, you likely fall under the AMT, which means those attorney fees, tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of them, are not expensible (and neither is almost anything else). I really don't see a reason why someone who already has wealth would pay $100K, let alone $1M, to gain US residency. It is pure lunacy.
tete 15y ago
I had to smirk when I read the following part: Permanent residence in the USA is a valuable asset It really depends on where you live. :)
rudiger 15y ago
Michael Bloomberg has advocated passing a law letting immigrants get a green card as long as they buy a house and live in it for five or ten years. That would probably work a lot better than paying a fee to the federal government, would fix the housing crisis and the economy, and get a lot of rich foreigners to come live in the United States.
sriram_sun 15y ago
$100K might seem too little for people already in the US looking for a green card and it probably is. However, for people outside the US, it is still a significant sum of money. If they are motivated enough to find it, they'll probably be working hard enough to pay it back (ie. don't worry about that person hogging welfare). What I like about this proposal is that it makes it possible for the "right kind of immigrant" to apply as opposed to the $1M that is the current threshold. If you've $1M to spare, the GC is just an expensive membership card to a club and will be treated as such. With no regard to being a citizen, the person will look at it as a pure business transaction. On the other hand, the person scraping together 100K is pretty much betting on their future and making this (the US) their home for multiple generations. These are the kind of immigrants that are desirable.
mathattack 15y ago
Our system is messed up. I would let anyone in with a degree from one of the top 25 or so schools abroad. IIT, Tokyo, Cambridge, etc. Also anyone with a 2 year grad degree in the top 20 in their field in the US can stay. Only lastly would I add buying your way in, though 100k seems low. I would think 200k, with an alternative of making a 500k investment instead of retiring the debt.
- riordan 15y ago
  The surprising thing is we already have this very program: Under the EB-5 program for investors, by investing $500k in a targeted high unemployment area in a capital intensive project that creates jobs, an investor can get a green card. I had no idea this program existed until this NYTimes program on ski resort Jay Peak, which raised $250m through the program. [http://travel.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/travel/with-renovations-jay-peak-in-vermont-grows-up.html?pagewanted=all http://travel.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/travel/with-renovations...] Now if we'd only apply to entrepreneurs what we're already doing for investors...
shareme 15y ago
the implied premise is wrong.. Startups do not produce jobs..especially web 2.0 statups What produces jobs is middle-income Americans who have disposable income to buy products..ie product demand. in fact we should reverse the 30 year trend of tax breaks for the 1% and transfer those tax breaks to middle-income Americans
king_magic 15y ago
As an American, let me preface this by saying that I am in no way opposed to immigration. I am in no way opposed to other cultures. Many of my good friends are not Americans. Here is my problem, though - I look around my floor in a NYC office (I'm a software engineer) and I see very few people who are American citizens. To me, that is very discouraging. It shows that me that Americans who live in the US are becoming less competitive than people from other countries when it comes to technical careers. Again, let me strongly state that I'm have no problem with people from other countries coming to work here - I'm just making an observation that it is somewhat sad that American companies simply cannot find enough Americans to do jobs in America. So what happens if we make the immigration process far easier? I see a lot of complaints in this thread about how difficult/how long of a process it is. But what happens when people from other countries flood in? What happens to the fewer competitive Americans here? Suddenly, it's more expensive to hire them. More expensive to keep them on. I think I have legitimate concerns. They make me less inclined to support making the process easier. Maybe I'm wrong about what I suspect will happen if we let people flood in - and if you think I'm wrong, I'm more than happy to examine any resources that you feel might help me change my mind. However, I don't think I'm wrong. I think it would be a disaster for American workers.
- mvc 15y ago
  If you have capital, you are free to deploy it wherever you feel it can make the highest return. Why should the same not be true of Labour? I'm an H1B from the UK (admittedly Scotland rather than London) and my earning power is twice what it is back home.
  - king_magic 15y ago
    What happens if the number of H1B's doubles? Suddenly availability of candidates skyrockets. The number of job openings plummet. Perfect setup for employers to get away with paying people much less, IMO.
    - mvc 15y ago
      ...and wages around the world balance out giving everyone a fair crack of the whip. Whenever someone suggests raising taxes on the rich, the answer is always "we can't do that because they'll just take their money/jobs and leave". Workers around the world will only get a fair deal when that is possible for them too. You're right that in the short-run, US workers will suffer but in the long run, everyone wins because it means that when setting policy, governments would have to consider the possibility that workers (as well as employers) might be able to find a better deal elsewhere. That's what I like about the US federal system. This would just be rolling it out across the whole world.
dotBen 15y ago
I would write the check right now if this was passed into law. Plus I already paid the US the tax on earning the $100k net (ie more like $150k) Also, this is what it costs just to get an E2 visa right now.
teyc 15y ago
10B is nothing in terms of public debt. Every policy must be driven by policy objectives. For instance, if you want a risk-free way to create jobs in the short term for existing residents in US, a startup visa is a long bet. (There may be other policy objectives that could be achieved with startup visa, for instance acquisition of talent etc, but none of these do much for US's immediate needs)
goodweeds 15y ago
America: Land of the rich, home of the greenback. Of course Scott is a pornographer, so $100k seems like nothing to him.

104 points by dmarinoc 15y ago

What about abuse? Wouldn't this invite loan sharks lending money to relatively poor unemployed people in other countries, selling them the American dream and make them work on slavery-like terms for decades until they pay of their debt?

Symmetry 15y ago
In the US declaring bankruptcy isn't too bad, so there's a hard limit to how badly they can exploit the people they bring over. Currently people are exploited like this, getting in debt to be transported into the country illegally. However, in that case it's their illegal status depriving them of normal legal protections that makes the situation get so bad. I do expect that most people coming in would require loans, but that most of them would still be better off with this program.

yanilkr 15y ago

From an individual perspective, if you were to put a price on all the uncertainty involved and dealing with things out of your control 100k seems to be a reasonable price to pay. If you are an entrepreneur, this helps you to get over a big mental block, not worry about wrong things and focus on important things like building great products or keep trying. This seems to be a sensible option for all those h1b employees in their initial steps to be startup founders.

fireismyflag 15y ago

The green card already has a $1M tag, even if it is not a simple transaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-5_visa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-5_visa Even so, The idea is not bad, since it is talking about skilled workers and EB5 is for investors

mortehu 15y ago
$1M is the amount you need to invest, not spend. Not sure what the expected value of that investment is, though.

techsupporter 15y ago

This is eminently reasonable, so it'll never happen. I'd go a bit farther: - $100,000 in cash money paid to the US Treasury earns an instant I-551 visa along with visas for a spouse and any immediate minor children. - $50,000 buys you a temporary worker visa (2 years?) that isn't tied to an employer. The temporary visa residency time doesn't apply for the time period needed to gain citizenship. At the end of two years you either pay the same $100,000, apply through other means, or depart. On this visa, if you raise at least $200,000 worth of investment or have created $200,000 worth of jobs in your temporary residency period (e.g. 4 FTE @ $50k annual salary) the $100k fee is waived. Each dollar amount is indexed to inflation and adjusted annually for new applicants. Yes, it puts a price tag on residency which some might find unseemly but I think it quantifies a contribution to society and prevents political gamesmanship.

phil 15y ago
You'd almost have to say that this article is not liable to the least objection!
- bdrocco 15y ago
  Except that we'd be putting a price on opportunity... Sure maybe big companies would put up $100k for international talent, but anybody else that would want to immigrate for that price probably isn't doing it to work hard and make their lives better. Isn't that the appeal of the USA? I agree we need to keep more talented foreigners in the country, but a $100k price tag isn't the right solution. How would an immigrant save up that money while studying in the US (or while in their former country)? If he/she drops out of college they wouldn't be able to stay on their student visa... In fact, this author's suggesting we blindly accept anyone that can pay $100k. It seems to me this approach would attract more terrorists and/or criminals with those types of resources abroad than freelancing entrepreneurs. Nevermind that this wouldn't solve the current illegal immigration problem either.
speleding 15y ago
I'm all for it. But there might be unintended consequences. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if an enterprising banker started a program to lend you $100K on condition that you pay them x% of your salary for y years. Companies like Microsoft might find that an attractive alternative to the current H1B circus. For a large segment of foreign enterprising individuals this is not a good enough deal though. Looking at myself: When I finished school in the US a decade ago I just spent $100K buying education and I didn't have another $100K available. Now, living in the EU, I have a successful startup and could afford it but I also have a wife and kids and I am no longer able nor willing to move.

coopersloan 15y ago

If say 100,000 people got in for $100,000 in the first year, thats $10 billion in revenue... we accrue around $4 billion in new debt an average day. Doesn't seem significant to me?

Aloisius 15y ago
Well I would assume these same people (someone who can just sign a check for $100k) would have significant income which would now be subject to US income tax. Plus, they might start companies, employ people and contribute even more.
- mittermayr 15y ago
  might. that's the whole point of criticism I believe. this option does not auto-filter the successful folks and invite them, it invites anyone with cash. my chinese friend would be laughing his ass off reading this - he always said, as soon as they make it a cash option, everyone from china and their mother will come. there is money. and it doesn't mean a person is a smart, successful tax-payer just because they have money. things are very different outside of the US, regarding that.

tewolde 15y ago

> Why don’t we let more of them join us? There are two common objections: they will drive down wages, or they will be a drain on tax-funded programs. Both these objections are dead wrong. The truth is that the US economy needs immigration to work. If you doubt it, just look at Japan. In fact, immigration is the largest wealth transfer program from developing countries to the developed. It is already bad enough that poor countries are paying for the upbringing, training and education of these skilled migrants for which they get no compensation. To compound this with this additional tax would be criminal.

dextorious 15y ago
"""Both these objections are dead wrong. The truth is that the US economy needs immigration to work. If you doubt it, just look at Japan.""" Citation needed. Japan was flourishing in past decades, even without immigration. And the US is not that much better off, debt and economy wise now. """In fact, immigration is the largest wealth transfer program from developing countries to the developed. It is already bad enough that poor countries are paying for the upbringing, training and education of these skilled migrants for which they get no compensation.""" The majority of immigrants from development countries don't have that much training and education. "Skilled migrants" are the exception. Not ever Indian immigrant, for example, is a programmer searching work in the Valley --actually, not even close to 1%.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Aging_of_Japan#Effects_on_society https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Aging_of_Japa... Your standards for national success in fact drive (or at least indicate) this sort of trend: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Demographic_transition https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Demographic_t...
  - dextorious 15y ago
    Well, that's because of Aging of the population --not exactly the same question. How about this: which is preferable: incentives to counter the aging of the population OR embracing immigration?

iscrewyou 15y ago

What I learned from the article: Let them in. Let them pay for our debt. Tell them we can kick them out anytime. That's it.

chubs 15y ago

What if it was a 100k bond, refunded after 5 years of proven good behaviour? (good behaviour = 5 years continuous employment, clear crime record, etc)

Eurofooty 15y ago
This is more reasonable than simply taking peoples hard earned.

sgt 15y ago

A very good idea, in my opinion, but I think $100k is too steep. Make it $50k and I would support this. I see that there are lot of negative commenters on techcrunch, particularly from non-americans. That's also interesting.

phil 15y ago

Brilliant. I wasn't sure if he was serious, or if this was a satirical comment on the immigration system. Then I looked at the title of the post (it's been wrongly condensed here on HN).

wazoox 15y ago

Really a wonderful idea to make USA the safe haven of all criminals around the world. This is the most brain-dead, totally crazy, utterly stupid political proposal I've read in a long time. This sort of thinking (money can buy everything), by the way, makes me sick. This is wrong on so many levels. What floors me even more is to see all HN comments pretending that this is a good idea. At least the techcrunch comments seem to get it.

techsupporter 15y ago
Money can already buy you a green card and an even faster path to US citizenship. This article proposes a massive discount on that fee and a streamlined process to boot. Nothing here proposes to get rid of the current system, a system which very much needs to be streamlined. Then again, how exactly should we streamline it? Lots of people hold up Canada and its points-based system as a prime example. Those same people leave out that Canada, in 2010, chopped huge swaths of categories out of that system because they had too many applicants. Whether that same problem would happen in the United States or not is a good question; we have a much larger population/society and much more livable land area. Yes, it's expensive, and unfair, and even biased. It smacks of pay-to-play and partially dims the spotlight on the US' other immigration problems. Does this mean it shouldn't happen until we can get our politicos to get their heads on straight? No. (My better half is a green card holder from a not-rate-limited country. We've had more than a few interactions with USCIS.)

hendrix 15y ago

A modest proposal = satire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal.

matthewowen 15y ago
you assume that the author hasn't mindlessly used the title. this is techcrunch. i'm unconvinced.
- buu700 15y ago
  You, sir, have never clearly not mastered the art of literary analysis.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

bfrs 15y ago

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Ok, so now for some people, its gonna cost $100K, to make it evident. I think my irony meter just broke! ------------------------------ edit: I'm also guilty of not paying proper attention to the title: "A Modest Proposal..." [1]. Sorry. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

X-Istence 15y ago
This proposal doesn't change that in any way shape or form. When you as a foreign national are on US soil (legally) you too have those inalienable rights.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

diminish 15y ago

I would suggest the same to Europe. Get piece of land in south Europe which may host 10million people. Create 28th experimental member country of EU with values similar to USA, such as freedom and money-rulez. Families may buy a house and citizenship with travel rights and easier work permits around the europe for 1 million euros (USD1.33M) per person only valid for investors, some experts and tech-engineers. This way Europe may suck the elite of the developing nations and may collect 10 trillion Euros in 5 years to pay the debts of failing Euro members.

fijal 15y ago
Not sure about you, but I would be happy to not have USA values anything near my countries in Europe.
mstepniowski 15y ago
Upvoted for a great satire.

kennywinker 15y ago

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free", and make them bring $100k in unmarked bills. I think we can all agree the current system is broken. I don't know what a better one is, but whatever it is needs to make room for people who can't afford a $100k entry fee, but would contribute to American society in other ways.

ziyadb 15y ago
Immigrants inherently contribute to American society in the following ways: 1. They pay taxes. 2. They spend their money on goods and services supplied by American businesses. That constitutes contribution to American society. If anything, immigrants should be actively sought.
- SamReidHughes 15y ago
  Actually their contributions are 1. They pay taxes. 2. They work. Their spending of money on goods and services is what they take out of the system.
  - Eurofooty 15y ago
    They do the unpleasant jobs most Americans would consider below themselves. They pay taxes. They should expect acceptance and political representation for it.
    - SamReidHughes 15y ago
      You are not talking about anything I was talking about. Why are you replying to me?
  - matthewowen 15y ago
    that isn't correct. demand for goods and services drives economies.
    - 15y ago

ziyadb 15y ago

This is absurd. I was originally considering moving to the US for my postgraduate studies, however, after speaking with peers I decided against it, as other countries that offer far more favorable visa terms exist. Currently, my leading option is New Zealand, bundled with their student visa is a permit to work 20 hours a week, and a year's residency after the completion of your program among other things. While some of you may not view New Zealand with the admiration that you view the US, as its tech-scene isn't quite as developed. It is a beautiful country nonetheless, free healthcare is available for all residents and citizens, not to mention the all around natural beauty of it. Don't get the wrong impression, there is no doubt that the US is a great place, but it isn't without its problems. I'm not trying to sell you on NZ, the point I'm trying to make is why should I have to bust my balls and save up $100k for a green card when I can have more lenient and reasonable terms in another country with an emerging tech scene? Note: it is probably easier for entrepreneurs to supply $100K for a green card, however, I intentionally ignored that circumstance as they're a minority amongst immigrants and chose to discuss immigration to the US in general. Bottomline: America unknowingly abuses and doesn't treat immigrants with the respect that they deserve, they contribute equally to the economy as any other demographic (if not more), and are a major part of high tech industries, and therefore, of the US economy.

Eurofooty 15y ago
Sounds like a "legal bribe". As an extra bonus... With a NZ permanent residency, I believe, one is also permitted to work and reside in Australia; easily the outstanding economy and often top placed in most living standards, job opportunity and economic and political stability surveys. By way of example, Australia's current head of state and head of government are women. If the USA continues to put up unnecessary barriers for up-and-coming entrepreneurs to stay in and benefit the US, why not take your business ideas elsewhere? Frankly there are many more places in the world to live and prosper financially. We live in a global economy, so location should not be always of prime importance for a web-based startup, or...?
- nisse72 15y ago
  NZ citizens can work and reside in Aus, permanent residents cannot. But it's also worth noting that since a 2002 law change, Kiwis who make that move are considered temporary residents in Australia and don't have the same rights there as Australians: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/kiwis-in-australia/2927216 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/kiw... http://www.indymedia.org.au/2011/04/21/help-appeal-for-a-fair-go-for-kiwis-living-in-australia http://www.indymedia.org.au/2011/04/21/help-appeal-for-a-fai...

Eurofooty 15y ago

I would do it but if there were a health care guarantee for my family. It has to go both ways.

fosk 15y ago

Every time I read or listen to this kind of proposals, I always think that we, as foreign entrepreneurs, can't wait for slow bureaucratic law proposals on immigration and green card. Unfortunately it is today that we face a big handicap. We need a better immigration law now: seriously, now. Without a long visa or green card we can't do long-term plans. It's harder to hire people, if we have to leave the day after tomorrow to our country to get/update/renew our visas. We can't take a long leasing for an office or an house. The real problem is that we can't live in a long-term mindset, and this makes an already difficult game (start a company, grow, hire people, create new jobs) harder to play. We're are here, in a foreign country, hardly trying to make the difference, and start our businesses, realize our ideas, invest a part of our life here, in this country. And we need more help.

X-Istence 15y ago

I am a green card holder, and while I wish I could tell you what it took, all I know from the process is that it took my dad from 2000 till 2004 to even be allowed to start the paperwork and then it wasn't until 2005 that we actually received our green cards. So long as you have a company sponsoring you it is not that difficult to get a green card. It takes time, a lot of it, money and lawyers. Oh, and a complete family medical history, blood draws, and pictures and prints. As a green card holder I have the same rights as any American (while on American soil, the marines won't come rescue me for example as I am still a Dutch citizen), the only right green card holders do not get is the right to vote. Which I find semi ironic considering that we are still taxed the same, but we don't get to choose our representation... something the United States was founded on.

ajju 15y ago
>So long as you have a company sponsoring you it is not that difficult to get a green card. This is not true at all. How long it takes to get a green card depends on the category of green card you can apply for (there are at least 4 types of employment based green cards) AND on the country in which you were born. For most people born in India and China, the process takes significantly longer than 1 year. I personally know multiple senior software engineers working for top software companies who have been waiting for over 7 years.
- jimbobimbo 15y ago
  > For most people born in India and China, the process takes significantly longer than 1 year. A CTO of the company I'm working at is waiting for his green card for almost TEN years! The guy is a key person for the company, has two kids and bought a house, but is still on H1. :(

tomjen3 15y ago

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door. So long as they can pay more than two years average income? Anyone up for building a new country?

dextorious 15y ago
Well, that's poetic, but doesn't mean it works out that way in the real world. For one, America was not actually founded solely on "tired and poor masses yearning to breathe free", but on a huge takeover and displacement plan for the native americans. Then, "tired and poor" masses of african americans were used as slaves, and tons of "tired and poor" masses of white people were also used quite like slaves (sharecroppers and the like). And even after that stopped, there was tons of racial tension (do you think Italians, Irish and Jews were welcomed to New York initially?). Another consideration, if tens of millions of muslims, for example, come to the US and change it vote by vote, to follow islamic law, would you like it? Or does you "bring me your..." proposition presupposes that mass immigration will not happen if all is left open?
- jmj4 15y ago
  > America was not actually founded solely on "tired and poor masses yearning to breathe free", but on a huge takeover and displacement plan for the native Americans. America wasn't founded in order to take anything from Natives; this was a very unfortunate side affect. Your right, slavery was a stain on America for nearly a century. And there was racial tension against Irish, Jews, Italians ect, just like it is for Muslims in some sectors of society right now. But these people were still given an opportunity to flourish through their own doing, and many of them have. The Kennedy's are the most obvious example of an Irish American family doing supremely well despite lingering prejudice towards Irish immigrants. Obviously other examples exist. The Muslim question you bring up at the end is different. The reason people are so scared is that Islamic Law contradicts the notion of freedom. We can and should allow freedom of religion, but not before we ensure that all people are free. And Islamic Law flies in the face of a lot that is presented in our Constitution.

garethsprice 15y ago

As someone who has been going through the green card process for over 3 years now, $100k seems cheap to get rid of all the expense, effort and risk required to do it legitimately under the current system. Having said that, simply "selling entry" would lead to a lot of rich people moving here and buying up property, driving prices sky-high(er) in coastal cities. This is the issue right now in London where lots of Arab and Russian oligarch-types taking advantage of non-domicile tax laws drive up the cost of living but don't contribute to the economy in a meaningful way. Before you say "trickle down", sure they spend money on nannies and posh food, but that's trivial compared to the vast fortunes they store and control outside the UK. Something like an investment or startup visa would help to ensure that people are coming here to be productive members of society. There's the EB-5 ($1m+ and ridiculous amounts of red tape) and the E-2 (Arbitrary amount around $100k, but no route to permanent residence), but both are broken programs.

beagle3 15y ago
> This is the issue right now in London where lots of Arab and Russian oligarch-types taking advantage of non-domicile tax laws drive up the cost of living The US tax law is not like that. If you're a legal permanent resident (i.e. a green card holder), you pay taxes for everything you own and make everywhere in the world. So that's not actually a problem. It is also the reason why those Arab and Russian oligarch types won't be moving to the US any time soon. (It's already cheap enough for them at $1M -- going down to $100k won't make a difference. The British requirement, BTW, is 500K pound, which is ~$750K)
jimbobimbo 15y ago
> As someone who has been going through the green card > process for over 3 years now, $100k seems cheap to > get rid of all the expense, effort and risk required > to do it legitimately under the current system. As someone who recently got one through employment, I'd say $100k is a hefty price tag: legal expenses on a fully completed GC process is around $10k. During the time you're spending $10k, you are employed and are getting paid prevailing wage for the area of employment (more, if you are good at what you do - employer doesn't want to lose you). Granted, things won't be so rosy for people from India or China due to time constraints, but $100k cash for these folks won't really be that easy either, I guess.

christkv 15y ago

I would like to just see a bi-lateral agreement between the eu and the us for work so you could give an american a job in europe more easily and also work in the us more easily. Having been hiring it's a pain to have to refuse candidates from the us because spain will makes it close to impossible to grant a working visa at the moment. As an alternative they could also just do what australia does which is a skilled immigrant system where you score points for your background.

known 15y ago

Unlike Capitalism, Globalization is Zero Sum. 100K green card cannot fix this fundamental problem.

opinali 15y ago

Asinine idea of the day, there are some many wrong aspects it's even difficult where to start. First, $100k is a big but not absurd amount of money for an American or European (it's roughly 1 year salary of a good engineer), but everywhere else in the world it's much harder to save that kind of money - it's closer, say, to the price of a decent house for a middle-class family. The efffort to save that money will be very different per country of origin, which is very unfair. A Brazilian engineer has 3X better wages than an equivalent Chinese engineer, due to different currency valuation and salary standards. People will start paying for this not with cash but with bank loans. These will be relatively high-risk loans so in practice, people will pay $100k to the US treasury, and maybe another $50-100k in interest to some private bank. And even if the loan is from an US bank, this doesn't necessarily mean "even more money injected in the American economy" - these days, money that goes to banks rarely benefits society in any significant way. Having $100k in cash doesn't necessarily prove that you have the kind of skills that would ensure a well-paid job, and benefit the US economy. Maybe you are a mediocre professional, but you just inherited this money. Or your family helped realize their loved son's immigration dream, so you can only pay for the green card because dad sold his house. Or you just worked your ass off for 20 years in low-pay jobs, having a lot of discipline to save money. Or you made a loan (item above), maybe using family's property as collateral so you don't even have the merit for that loan. End result, a low-skilled worker being granted a green card and maybe becoming a liability to Social Security after failing to get an US job.

wallygold 15y ago
The efffort to save that money will be very different per country of origin, which is very unfair. A Brazilian engineer has 3X better wages than an equivalent Chinese engineer, due to different currency valuation and salary standards. There's nothing stopping the creation of other paths to residency/citizenship. Everything suggested can be implemented without worsening anyone's situation. I definitely wouldn't call it asinine because it doesn't help everyone equally.

tsycho 15y ago

An automatic green card for immigrants who earn more than $100k annual is a much better idea instead. Such people are very likely well educated and contributing at a high level to their respective professions. They should be exactly the kind of people America wants to keep.

rms 15y ago

This isn't that absurd, right now the great secret of US immigration is that someone with $1M USD of surplus liquid savings can definitely get on the green card track with the advice of their attorney.

beagle3 15y ago
Yes, but unless they know they'll be making lots of money, it would cost them a hell of a lot more. The US now has a tax regime that is possibly the worst in the world for people who are somewhat rich, but not superfilthy rich (a category that I guess includes > $1M and < $50M in liquid assets). If you live in the US with a green card (which can expire or be canceled at the governments whim), you take on ALL the obligations of a citizen, including gift tax, estate tax, reporting of everything you ever own outside the US (with a 50% penalty if you knowingly fail to report something -- google FBAR). \ Furthermore, if you do that for a few years, and you move back (say, because your green card was cacneled), you have to pay the "exit tax", which is more or less the estate tax you would have paid had you died that day. If you're making $300K a year, your tax rates are probably around 45% (35% federal, 5-13% state; although e.g. NH has no state tax). The state tax has no treaty cover, so if your income comes from another country, you're likely to be double taxed on that. Also, if you're making under $500K a year, you likely fall under the AMT, which means those attorney fees, tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of them, are not expensible (and neither is almost anything else). I really don't see a reason why someone who already has wealth would pay $100K, let alone $1M, to gain US residency. It is pure lunacy.

tete 15y ago

I had to smirk when I read the following part: Permanent residence in the USA is a valuable asset It really depends on where you live. :)

rudiger 15y ago

Michael Bloomberg has advocated passing a law letting immigrants get a green card as long as they buy a house and live in it for five or ten years. That would probably work a lot better than paying a fee to the federal government, would fix the housing crisis and the economy, and get a lot of rich foreigners to come live in the United States.

sriram_sun 15y ago

$100K might seem too little for people already in the US looking for a green card and it probably is. However, for people outside the US, it is still a significant sum of money. If they are motivated enough to find it, they'll probably be working hard enough to pay it back (ie. don't worry about that person hogging welfare). What I like about this proposal is that it makes it possible for the "right kind of immigrant" to apply as opposed to the $1M that is the current threshold. If you've $1M to spare, the GC is just an expensive membership card to a club and will be treated as such. With no regard to being a citizen, the person will look at it as a pure business transaction. On the other hand, the person scraping together 100K is pretty much betting on their future and making this (the US) their home for multiple generations. These are the kind of immigrants that are desirable.

mathattack 15y ago

Our system is messed up. I would let anyone in with a degree from one of the top 25 or so schools abroad. IIT, Tokyo, Cambridge, etc. Also anyone with a 2 year grad degree in the top 20 in their field in the US can stay. Only lastly would I add buying your way in, though 100k seems low. I would think 200k, with an alternative of making a 500k investment instead of retiring the debt.

riordan 15y ago
The surprising thing is we already have this very program: Under the EB-5 program for investors, by investing $500k in a targeted high unemployment area in a capital intensive project that creates jobs, an investor can get a green card. I had no idea this program existed until this NYTimes program on ski resort Jay Peak, which raised $250m through the program. [http://travel.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/travel/with-renovations-jay-peak-in-vermont-grows-up.html?pagewanted=all http://travel.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/travel/with-renovations...] Now if we'd only apply to entrepreneurs what we're already doing for investors...

shareme 15y ago

the implied premise is wrong.. Startups do not produce jobs..especially web 2.0 statups What produces jobs is middle-income Americans who have disposable income to buy products..ie product demand. in fact we should reverse the 30 year trend of tax breaks for the 1% and transfer those tax breaks to middle-income Americans

king_magic 15y ago

As an American, let me preface this by saying that I am in no way opposed to immigration. I am in no way opposed to other cultures. Many of my good friends are not Americans. Here is my problem, though - I look around my floor in a NYC office (I'm a software engineer) and I see very few people who are American citizens. To me, that is very discouraging. It shows that me that Americans who live in the US are becoming less competitive than people from other countries when it comes to technical careers. Again, let me strongly state that I'm have no problem with people from other countries coming to work here - I'm just making an observation that it is somewhat sad that American companies simply cannot find enough Americans to do jobs in America. So what happens if we make the immigration process far easier? I see a lot of complaints in this thread about how difficult/how long of a process it is. But what happens when people from other countries flood in? What happens to the fewer competitive Americans here? Suddenly, it's more expensive to hire them. More expensive to keep them on. I think I have legitimate concerns. They make me less inclined to support making the process easier. Maybe I'm wrong about what I suspect will happen if we let people flood in - and if you think I'm wrong, I'm more than happy to examine any resources that you feel might help me change my mind. However, I don't think I'm wrong. I think it would be a disaster for American workers.

mvc 15y ago
If you have capital, you are free to deploy it wherever you feel it can make the highest return. Why should the same not be true of Labour? I'm an H1B from the UK (admittedly Scotland rather than London) and my earning power is twice what it is back home.
- king_magic 15y ago
  What happens if the number of H1B's doubles? Suddenly availability of candidates skyrockets. The number of job openings plummet. Perfect setup for employers to get away with paying people much less, IMO.
  - mvc 15y ago
    ...and wages around the world balance out giving everyone a fair crack of the whip. Whenever someone suggests raising taxes on the rich, the answer is always "we can't do that because they'll just take their money/jobs and leave". Workers around the world will only get a fair deal when that is possible for them too. You're right that in the short-run, US workers will suffer but in the long run, everyone wins because it means that when setting policy, governments would have to consider the possibility that workers (as well as employers) might be able to find a better deal elsewhere. That's what I like about the US federal system. This would just be rolling it out across the whole world.

dotBen 15y ago

I would write the check right now if this was passed into law. Plus I already paid the US the tax on earning the $100k net (ie more like $150k) Also, this is what it costs just to get an E2 visa right now.

teyc 15y ago

10B is nothing in terms of public debt. Every policy must be driven by policy objectives. For instance, if you want a risk-free way to create jobs in the short term for existing residents in US, a startup visa is a long bet. (There may be other policy objectives that could be achieved with startup visa, for instance acquisition of talent etc, but none of these do much for US's immediate needs)

goodweeds 15y ago

America: Land of the rich, home of the greenback. Of course Scott is a pornographer, so $100k seems like nothing to him.