6 ms·

With immigration reform off the agenda, some in tech turn to plan B

66 points by haydenlee 12y ago

colinsidoti 12y ago
It's a bit sad that such big players are fighting for such a small, incremental step. The number of successful founders facing immigration problems sounds like it would be orders of magnitude smaller than the number of potential foreign employees. Is my intuition wrong there? I also fear that a "win" here will allow legislators to push off further reform (e.g. "we just did something") instead of serve as a meaningful stepping stone.
- SeoxyS 12y ago
  That may be true, but remember; founders are much important to YC's bottom line than the employees that those founders who become successful may or may not hire later.
  - colinsidoti 12y ago
    Ehhh, that's pretty cynical. I don't want to blindly support YC, but this seems fairly debatable. YC wants to give founders resources to succeed. One necessary resource to succeed is employees. Given the current tech hiring climate, I wouldn't be shocked if more foreign employees leads to a measurable and significant improvement in their bottom line. I think you will need to make a few too many assumptions to argue that one is definitively better for their bottom line. Perhaps one appeal of this approach, though, is that this effort aligns better with legislator's "bottom line" - if you look at their bottom line as job creation.
    - x0x0 12y ago
      So for a rather refreshing change, tech employers should be honest. There is zero engineering shortage; instead, they want to use h1bs to drive down the prevailing wages. There are also plenty of very skilled mid-career engineers who have left the valley for the midwest because of the better net financial situation when a starter home doesn't cost $1.1m. If valley employers paid better, or got their shit together and pushed the governments here to allow affordable housing, they'd have plenty of engineers available.
      - HistoryInAction 12y ago
        ^ This is the exact debate that should be avoided for startups to be successful in driving through ANY change through DC. I don't know enough to say what the correct position is on H-1Bs, but I know that many people believe strongly in both sides. We're too small a community to solve the problem here, so all we can do is be caught up in it and have our proposals die like flies on a spider's web.
        x0x0 12y ago
        and that's exactly why we need the debate: so businesses can't buy themselves a self-serving change
        HistoryInAction 12y ago
        The debate is going on already. Businesses either will or won't be able to buy themselves a self-serving change. But that debate is at a level much higher than that which the startup community can influence. When I say we in this case, I mean the HN crowd and similar. We as in Americans can debate this issue all you like. But if I want a startup visa, then I want to avoid getting caught up in the H-1B debate.
        x0x0 12y ago
        As an employee, I don't particularly want a startup visa: I'm neutral to slightly negative on the idea. But certainly we -- as employees -- should get something in exchange for support. That's how the legislative process works. Bluntly: you're attempting to use support from the startup community to actively buy the change you want while, as employees, we get nothing in return. A bargain! For you.
      - keerthiko 12y ago
        I do believe talking about H1Bs for employees (non-founders) and its effect of driving down prevailing wages is somewhat off-topic. I myself am an Indian citizen. I studied in Boston, moved to California with an upperclassman and started a company during my OPT. The company is fairly well-rooted while bootstrapped, but doesn't have massive funding in place yet. Towards the end of my OPT, I tried to apply for the H1B just because I wanted to continue working on the company I started, and because I'd come to call California home. Are you suggesting my team find an American engineer of equal skill take my place in the tiny company I started for the no-salary I was earning, as cofounder? I'm confused. As it stands I didn't get through the H1B lottery two years in a row, and am now pursuing this O1A visa, although this being my first startup (and job) out of college my track record is a bit sparse.
- HistoryInAction 12y ago
  Okay, lesson one here. There is a huge difference between legislation and executive action. As a community, we will still need immigration reform legislation should the White House agree to push this change through at the regulatory level. Legislation is the only way we get a viable, sustainable solution. And the proposal in the comprehensive immigration bill was the best policy proposal yet, with their non-immigrant X visa and immigrant (green card) EB-6. But to get this small, incremental step done through executive action doesn't involve legislators (except in the negative, aka the effort saw YC going around the Hill asking folks to not link any hypothetical change in this space to the much more politically controversial changes coming about deportations). So while there is a large change Congress continues to do nothing on startup visa or larger immigration reform for the next several years, it won't be because a potential win here will give legislators an out. Finally, yes, the whole point of startup visa is to avoid the increasingly contentious debate over H-1Bs and foreign employees. Founders are small in number but very clearly hire Americans and directly drive economic growth. Politically, it's a no-lose proposition. So it was a feature, not a bug, that this push focused on founders rather than employees, was small and incremental, and was executive focused rather than legislative.
pclark 12y ago
good attorneys are actually doing all the things discussed in this article for the O1
- HistoryInAction 12y ago
  Yep! But what attracted us to this change was that the prep time those good attorneys required has been highly variable. If you have a lot of old media coverage, it could be a 1 month prep time + 2 weeks DC adjudication. If not, it could be an 8 month prep time + 2 weeks DC adjudication. The goal of expanding the criteria definitions to more broadly mesh up with the lifecycle of successful startups and linking in the investor signal parameter into the review process will be to change that curve to be much more bunched up against the 1 month bins. And yes, part of our argument was that startup founders /are/ doing all of these things already. Just it takes time that kills startups, and startups are also doing a lot of extraneous work (e.g. chasing NYT coverage when more TC or re/code coverage is what's needed to get another wave of early adopters or investor interest for that next round's buzz) to qualify for the visa when they should instead be focusing on product and traction.
SeoxyS 12y ago
The O1A visa is definitely the right visa for startup founders. I think that with a little hair-twisting and a good attorney, the current criteria for the visa can be twisted to cover most startup founders who have some kind of a track record. I am by no means someone special in any way, compared to things that many other HNers have done. But I have now received an O1A visa successfully, twice. I think the bigger problem with having that visa (or an H1B) is that it makes the prospect of quitting incredibly daunting. Each time you change your job, you have to leave the country, apply anew, risk being denied, and spend another 10k on legal & filing fees.
- graeme 12y ago
  What was the average legal cost for filing for an O1? I think I could meet the criteria, but being in the US is only marginally useful for me. I was under the impression O1 visas didn't require employment?
  - HistoryInAction 12y ago
    I have been under a mixed impression on the O-1 for a long time myself. Nikki seems to indicate that hers at least was a work-sponsorship. However, though I don't have a similar anecdote to point to, I understand you can do a self-sponsorship O-1 that isn't tied to an employer. More research is needed here.
    - Jare 12y ago
      Alex MacCaw [1] suggests that O1 requires sponsorship from a US company. My anecdotal and outdated experience matches his description. [1] http://blog.sourcing.io/visa-guide http://blog.sourcing.io/visa-guide
  - SeoxyS 12y ago
    The O1 is employer-sponsored. You need a sponsor. The filing fees will run up about 2k including expedited processing (which is usually worth it). You're gonna have to go through a quite thorough process of building up a detailed dossier making your case for the government to review. This can easily cost 5-10k, depending on your attorney and the complexity of your case.
refurb 12y ago
I like the idea of linking a work via to a person who has been able to raise money. I mean, why the hell would you not want that person to stay in the US? One concern might be the ability to game the system, but I think with the right parameters that could be minimized.
codingdave 12y ago
I'm unclear on exactly what change Ohanian is proposing. Most of the changes mentioned can already be used to apply for the visa, can't they? So what is the actual legislative change being proposed? Is the proposal really that YC acceptance becomes a singular criteria for getting the visa? So YC and their peers, in effect, would have full power to grant unlimited visas to people of their choice? If that is what is being proposed, that sounds like a massive conflict of interest, with potential for serious abuse, even if the intent is positive.
- jedberg 12y ago
  > If that is what is being proposed, that sounds like a massive conflict of interest, with potential for serious abuse, even if the intent is positive. Let's say for a moment, for the sake of argument, that YC decided to be unethical and accept payment in exchange for "accepting" people to the program to get them a visa. 1) Would it be so terrible to have people who have enough money to afford such a bribe be in the US contributing to the economy? 2) Do you really think YC would stake their reputation on such an abuse? 3) O1A visas are often given to artists, actors and athletes. Do you think that there isn't at least a few theater and movie production houses (usually underfunded and desperate for cash) that are accepting the payments to list a rich foreigner as an "actor" in their show? In other words, I don't think this is actually a huge concern.
  - walshemj 12y ago
    Moral hazard you want people who pay bribes as immigrants?
  - HistoryInAction 12y ago
    Technically, that already exists on the EB-5 investor green card, which requires an investment of either $500k or $1M and the creation of ten jobs within two years. Except that the investment is intended to be from the applicant's personal capital, which doesn't really work for sweat equity founders. Exactly. More importantly in the incentive structure I foresee, do you think YC's LPs would allow YC to stake their reputation on such an abuse? No, actually, this is incorrect. Those are O-1B visas, for the arts, not O-1A, which is business and science.
dang 12y ago
The submitted title ("YC's Startup Visa Plan B") was editorialized. That's against the HN guidelines.
rmason 12y ago
We definitely need to get more creative with visas. Gov. Snyder here in Michigan has proposed in a meeting with President Obama that he help create 50,000 visas over five years for immigrants willing to live in Detroit. They would either have advanced degrees or exceptional ability in certain fields. http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20140123/NEWS/140129933/snyder-seeks-50000-work-visas-to-lure-immigrants-to-detroit http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20140123/NEWS/140129933... With 700,000 people living in a city that used to hold over two million there's plenty of room.
- HistoryInAction 12y ago
  Actually, just to clarify some sloppy reporting in the Crain's piece, Gov. Snyder (@onetoughnerd) is requesting 50,000 immigrant visas, aka green cards. Big difference from non-immigrant visas. The specific visa requested is the EB-2, which basically requires a Masters or PhD as the credential needed to establish exceptional ability in a specific field.
- bilbo0s 12y ago
  The main problem with that scheme is that it is designed to channel people to where he and the President WANT them... as opposed to where the United States NEEDS them. I think we should give out visas to Masters and PhDs and allow those people to go where they please. That way... we would get the best people as well... not just the most desperate.
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    From a 'rate of employment in the population' perspective surely you don't want people immigrating who will replace native workers (or indeed any worker currently in post)? What's the benefit to the country if a new worker from abroad replaces a current worker but at a lower wage if that means the person 'usurped' needs state assistance or becomes under-employed (and bumps someone else from work to benefit-reliance)? Sure business owners probably benefit but such benefit seems pretty localised. How about if you let a lot of foreign workers come in who are well skilled and they flood a field in such a way that no students leaving college in that field can get a job. The incoming worker likely can accept lower wages which local [likely] debt-laden students can't. The field falls flat - the local population stop training in that field and you've either got a future skill crisis or a long-term reliance on immigrant workers. If you want to preference native/endemic population over immigrants at all then I think you need to be very specific in the immigration you allow.
bubbleRefuge 12y ago
How about re-purposing H1s issued to the sweatshop Indian firms ( which generally bring in the cheap labor) to tech companies and startups. That is probably tens of thousands of visas right there.
- HistoryInAction 12y ago
  Definitely. Unfortunately, that would either require legislation (and something similar has been proposed for a bit by Sens. Grassley (R-IA) and Durbin (D-IL)) or a very contentious regulatory process. Needless to say, the Infosys and Tatas of the world do have a highly developed lobbying arm. As one example of a supportive research group: http://www.offshoreinsights.com/ http://www.offshoreinsights.com/ Startups don't have anything like this, and the tech companies don't want to rock the boat with their outsourcing partners. To learn more, look at the Hatch amendment to S744 (comprehensive immigration reform): http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/22/hatch_amendment_h1_b_compromise_is_great_news_for_immigration_reform.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/22/hatch_amendme...
  - bubbleRefuge 12y ago
    Can't some form of executive action be taken ? Perhaps enforce the H1 rules closer to the vest. The body shops are so bad. They force many of the onshore resources to work full-time then another 3 hours on nights + weekends to feed work to their offshore cohorts so that they can bill out the offshore guys which is where they have even better margins.
    - HistoryInAction 12y ago
      I'd defer to someone like Professors Norm Matloff or Ron Hira on this question. Honestly, I've spent so long trying to keep startup visa out of the H-1B debate that I'm just not that familiar with it. I don't disagree with you, but I don't have a sense of the political landscape to give you an answer that isn't a pure guess.
supercanuck 12y ago
Why don't they just divert some of the 32,000 visas from Infosys to Startups? I can't help but notice the inverse relationship between the number of H1-B's sponsored and the average salary by company. http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2014-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2014-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx
- HistoryInAction 12y ago
  It'd be nice. But likely unfeasible politically either from a legislative or regulatory perspective. There are many problems using the H-1B even at a policy level: -Lottery/application in April, don't become active until October -Doesn't work well for founders despite Aug 2011 change allowing founders to arrange their board to serve as "employer": http://www.uscis.gov/news/public-releases-topic/business-immigration/uscis-initiatives-promote-startup-enterprises-and-spur-job-creation-fact-sheet http://www.uscis.gov/news/public-releases-topic/business-imm... -Difficult and long timeline to green card meaning startup failure often leads to a fast mandatory exit from the US, even if investors continue to believe in the founder -Neufeld memo means that startup sponsors are treated at a high level of suspicion by USCIS bureaucrats, which results in an even longer, more time/money/effort intensive process compared to bigtech: http://www.legalactioncenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/lac/Neufeld_memorandum.pdf http://www.legalactioncenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/la...
- keerthiko 12y ago
  Infosys pretty much single-handedly ruined the opportunities for so many non-Americans to move onwards in their career. I really hope the US does something to shut down the Infosys US sweatshops.
nugget 12y ago
Have rank and file developers ever tried to form any sort of association to advocate for their own interests, which seem adverse to those of founder types? It would seem like there are a couple hundred thousand tech types in California alone who would prefer not to have compete with a new flood of H1B and other visa holders. I support the type of candidates that this story is about but my fear would be that it's a back end run by the entrenched interests to turn a small pathway into a large one, and a couple years later we awake to find thousands of ''exceptional'' cubical dwellers in Infosys' new offices.
- HistoryInAction 12y ago
  That is the exact argument against the H-1B re: "highly skilled" requirement. Code monkeys (as distinct from devs) are a very different fish, but DC doesn't know the difference The counter I'd offer is that you should look through the eight criteria as they currently stand: http://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-workers/o-1-individuals-extraordinary-ability-or-achievement/o-1-visa-individuals-extraordinary-ability-or-achievement http://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-workers... If you see obvious hacks for the Infosys types that we can close off, that'd be helpful to discuss here. EDIT: And of course anything resembling a union is verboten among the powers that be in Silicon Valley.
  - x0x0 12y ago
    so maybe if you wanted support from devs you should advocate for those changes
  - nraynaud 12y ago
    I was thinking along the same lines, a startup devop is a completely different person than the person who customizes Lotus Notes or SAP for a blue chip company. I recently interviewed, and the guy was frightened when I told them I would probably not be at the same company in 5 years. Nope, I work night and day, but I'm burnt after 3 years on the same project, that's how it works. But in those 3 years, I bring the dev team from interns to a professional state, get a new UI out, and take some funding (well, at least I did it twice), and try to spread some values I deem good in the team.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rurban 12y ago
Indeed. I'm a H1-B visa holder, with exceptional wages, and my wife is not allowed to work here. Ok, so she finished her Ph.D in the 3 years here. But with all this new visa drama going on, no updates in the visa extension process so far, and the broken promise that spouses will be able to work, I just told my company that I'll have to go back to Germany and work remote from there. Plan B. But the benefit is that I will be able to live in a democratic country again, with a much better standard of living. It's only 7 hours and I worked remote for a couple of US companies before. If companies need those foreigners why should the government on behalf of the unions intervene? Do they know better than the companies which is good for them?
- HistoryInAction 12y ago
  It seems extremely likely that the H-4 spouse EAD (work authorization) change has just been enacted: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2010-0017-0001 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2010-001... It was proposed by the Department of Homeland Security in May, went through a 90 day public comment period, which is now closed. We're waiting for the official announcement.
pteredactyl 12y ago
What, like hiring and training Americans?

66 points by haydenlee 12y ago

It's a bit sad that such big players are fighting for such a small, incremental step. The number of successful founders facing immigration problems sounds like it would be orders of magnitude smaller than the number of potential foreign employees. Is my intuition wrong there? I also fear that a "win" here will allow legislators to push off further reform (e.g. "we just did something") instead of serve as a meaningful stepping stone.

SeoxyS 12y ago
That may be true, but remember; founders are much important to YC's bottom line than the employees that those founders who become successful may or may not hire later.
- colinsidoti 12y ago
  Ehhh, that's pretty cynical. I don't want to blindly support YC, but this seems fairly debatable. YC wants to give founders resources to succeed. One necessary resource to succeed is employees. Given the current tech hiring climate, I wouldn't be shocked if more foreign employees leads to a measurable and significant improvement in their bottom line. I think you will need to make a few too many assumptions to argue that one is definitively better for their bottom line. Perhaps one appeal of this approach, though, is that this effort aligns better with legislator's "bottom line" - if you look at their bottom line as job creation.
  - x0x0 12y ago
    So for a rather refreshing change, tech employers should be honest. There is zero engineering shortage; instead, they want to use h1bs to drive down the prevailing wages. There are also plenty of very skilled mid-career engineers who have left the valley for the midwest because of the better net financial situation when a starter home doesn't cost $1.1m. If valley employers paid better, or got their shit together and pushed the governments here to allow affordable housing, they'd have plenty of engineers available.
    - HistoryInAction 12y ago
      ^ This is the exact debate that should be avoided for startups to be successful in driving through ANY change through DC. I don't know enough to say what the correct position is on H-1Bs, but I know that many people believe strongly in both sides. We're too small a community to solve the problem here, so all we can do is be caught up in it and have our proposals die like flies on a spider's web.
      - x0x0 12y ago
        and that's exactly why we need the debate: so businesses can't buy themselves a self-serving change
        HistoryInAction 12y ago
        The debate is going on already. Businesses either will or won't be able to buy themselves a self-serving change. But that debate is at a level much higher than that which the startup community can influence. When I say we in this case, I mean the HN crowd and similar. We as in Americans can debate this issue all you like. But if I want a startup visa, then I want to avoid getting caught up in the H-1B debate.
        x0x0 12y ago
        As an employee, I don't particularly want a startup visa: I'm neutral to slightly negative on the idea. But certainly we -- as employees -- should get something in exchange for support. That's how the legislative process works. Bluntly: you're attempting to use support from the startup community to actively buy the change you want while, as employees, we get nothing in return. A bargain! For you.
    - keerthiko 12y ago
      I do believe talking about H1Bs for employees (non-founders) and its effect of driving down prevailing wages is somewhat off-topic. I myself am an Indian citizen. I studied in Boston, moved to California with an upperclassman and started a company during my OPT. The company is fairly well-rooted while bootstrapped, but doesn't have massive funding in place yet. Towards the end of my OPT, I tried to apply for the H1B just because I wanted to continue working on the company I started, and because I'd come to call California home. Are you suggesting my team find an American engineer of equal skill take my place in the tiny company I started for the no-salary I was earning, as cofounder? I'm confused. As it stands I didn't get through the H1B lottery two years in a row, and am now pursuing this O1A visa, although this being my first startup (and job) out of college my track record is a bit sparse.
HistoryInAction 12y ago
Okay, lesson one here. There is a huge difference between legislation and executive action. As a community, we will still need immigration reform legislation should the White House agree to push this change through at the regulatory level. Legislation is the only way we get a viable, sustainable solution. And the proposal in the comprehensive immigration bill was the best policy proposal yet, with their non-immigrant X visa and immigrant (green card) EB-6. But to get this small, incremental step done through executive action doesn't involve legislators (except in the negative, aka the effort saw YC going around the Hill asking folks to not link any hypothetical change in this space to the much more politically controversial changes coming about deportations). So while there is a large change Congress continues to do nothing on startup visa or larger immigration reform for the next several years, it won't be because a potential win here will give legislators an out. Finally, yes, the whole point of startup visa is to avoid the increasingly contentious debate over H-1Bs and foreign employees. Founders are small in number but very clearly hire Americans and directly drive economic growth. Politically, it's a no-lose proposition. So it was a feature, not a bug, that this push focused on founders rather than employees, was small and incremental, and was executive focused rather than legislative.

pclark 12y ago

good attorneys are actually doing all the things discussed in this article for the O1

HistoryInAction 12y ago
Yep! But what attracted us to this change was that the prep time those good attorneys required has been highly variable. If you have a lot of old media coverage, it could be a 1 month prep time + 2 weeks DC adjudication. If not, it could be an 8 month prep time + 2 weeks DC adjudication. The goal of expanding the criteria definitions to more broadly mesh up with the lifecycle of successful startups and linking in the investor signal parameter into the review process will be to change that curve to be much more bunched up against the 1 month bins. And yes, part of our argument was that startup founders /are/ doing all of these things already. Just it takes time that kills startups, and startups are also doing a lot of extraneous work (e.g. chasing NYT coverage when more TC or re/code coverage is what's needed to get another wave of early adopters or investor interest for that next round's buzz) to qualify for the visa when they should instead be focusing on product and traction.

SeoxyS 12y ago

The O1A visa is definitely the right visa for startup founders. I think that with a little hair-twisting and a good attorney, the current criteria for the visa can be twisted to cover most startup founders who have some kind of a track record. I am by no means someone special in any way, compared to things that many other HNers have done. But I have now received an O1A visa successfully, twice. I think the bigger problem with having that visa (or an H1B) is that it makes the prospect of quitting incredibly daunting. Each time you change your job, you have to leave the country, apply anew, risk being denied, and spend another 10k on legal & filing fees.

graeme 12y ago
What was the average legal cost for filing for an O1? I think I could meet the criteria, but being in the US is only marginally useful for me. I was under the impression O1 visas didn't require employment?
- HistoryInAction 12y ago
  I have been under a mixed impression on the O-1 for a long time myself. Nikki seems to indicate that hers at least was a work-sponsorship. However, though I don't have a similar anecdote to point to, I understand you can do a self-sponsorship O-1 that isn't tied to an employer. More research is needed here.
  - Jare 12y ago
    Alex MacCaw [1] suggests that O1 requires sponsorship from a US company. My anecdotal and outdated experience matches his description. [1] http://blog.sourcing.io/visa-guide http://blog.sourcing.io/visa-guide
- SeoxyS 12y ago
  The O1 is employer-sponsored. You need a sponsor. The filing fees will run up about 2k including expedited processing (which is usually worth it). You're gonna have to go through a quite thorough process of building up a detailed dossier making your case for the government to review. This can easily cost 5-10k, depending on your attorney and the complexity of your case.

refurb 12y ago

I like the idea of linking a work via to a person who has been able to raise money. I mean, why the hell would you not want that person to stay in the US? One concern might be the ability to game the system, but I think with the right parameters that could be minimized.

codingdave 12y ago

I'm unclear on exactly what change Ohanian is proposing. Most of the changes mentioned can already be used to apply for the visa, can't they? So what is the actual legislative change being proposed? Is the proposal really that YC acceptance becomes a singular criteria for getting the visa? So YC and their peers, in effect, would have full power to grant unlimited visas to people of their choice? If that is what is being proposed, that sounds like a massive conflict of interest, with potential for serious abuse, even if the intent is positive.

jedberg 12y ago
> If that is what is being proposed, that sounds like a massive conflict of interest, with potential for serious abuse, even if the intent is positive. Let's say for a moment, for the sake of argument, that YC decided to be unethical and accept payment in exchange for "accepting" people to the program to get them a visa. 1) Would it be so terrible to have people who have enough money to afford such a bribe be in the US contributing to the economy? 2) Do you really think YC would stake their reputation on such an abuse? 3) O1A visas are often given to artists, actors and athletes. Do you think that there isn't at least a few theater and movie production houses (usually underfunded and desperate for cash) that are accepting the payments to list a rich foreigner as an "actor" in their show? In other words, I don't think this is actually a huge concern.
- walshemj 12y ago
  Moral hazard you want people who pay bribes as immigrants?
- HistoryInAction 12y ago
  Technically, that already exists on the EB-5 investor green card, which requires an investment of either $500k or $1M and the creation of ten jobs within two years. Except that the investment is intended to be from the applicant's personal capital, which doesn't really work for sweat equity founders. Exactly. More importantly in the incentive structure I foresee, do you think YC's LPs would allow YC to stake their reputation on such an abuse? No, actually, this is incorrect. Those are O-1B visas, for the arts, not O-1A, which is business and science.

dang 12y ago

The submitted title ("YC's Startup Visa Plan B") was editorialized. That's against the HN guidelines.

rmason 12y ago

We definitely need to get more creative with visas. Gov. Snyder here in Michigan has proposed in a meeting with President Obama that he help create 50,000 visas over five years for immigrants willing to live in Detroit. They would either have advanced degrees or exceptional ability in certain fields. http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20140123/NEWS/140129933/snyder-seeks-50000-work-visas-to-lure-immigrants-to-detroit http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20140123/NEWS/140129933... With 700,000 people living in a city that used to hold over two million there's plenty of room.

HistoryInAction 12y ago
Actually, just to clarify some sloppy reporting in the Crain's piece, Gov. Snyder (@onetoughnerd) is requesting 50,000 immigrant visas, aka green cards. Big difference from non-immigrant visas. The specific visa requested is the EB-2, which basically requires a Masters or PhD as the credential needed to establish exceptional ability in a specific field.
bilbo0s 12y ago
The main problem with that scheme is that it is designed to channel people to where he and the President WANT them... as opposed to where the United States NEEDS them. I think we should give out visas to Masters and PhDs and allow those people to go where they please. That way... we would get the best people as well... not just the most desperate.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  From a 'rate of employment in the population' perspective surely you don't want people immigrating who will replace native workers (or indeed any worker currently in post)? What's the benefit to the country if a new worker from abroad replaces a current worker but at a lower wage if that means the person 'usurped' needs state assistance or becomes under-employed (and bumps someone else from work to benefit-reliance)? Sure business owners probably benefit but such benefit seems pretty localised. How about if you let a lot of foreign workers come in who are well skilled and they flood a field in such a way that no students leaving college in that field can get a job. The incoming worker likely can accept lower wages which local [likely] debt-laden students can't. The field falls flat - the local population stop training in that field and you've either got a future skill crisis or a long-term reliance on immigrant workers. If you want to preference native/endemic population over immigrants at all then I think you need to be very specific in the immigration you allow.

bubbleRefuge 12y ago

How about re-purposing H1s issued to the sweatshop Indian firms ( which generally bring in the cheap labor) to tech companies and startups. That is probably tens of thousands of visas right there.

HistoryInAction 12y ago
Definitely. Unfortunately, that would either require legislation (and something similar has been proposed for a bit by Sens. Grassley (R-IA) and Durbin (D-IL)) or a very contentious regulatory process. Needless to say, the Infosys and Tatas of the world do have a highly developed lobbying arm. As one example of a supportive research group: http://www.offshoreinsights.com/ http://www.offshoreinsights.com/ Startups don't have anything like this, and the tech companies don't want to rock the boat with their outsourcing partners. To learn more, look at the Hatch amendment to S744 (comprehensive immigration reform): http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/22/hatch_amendment_h1_b_compromise_is_great_news_for_immigration_reform.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/22/hatch_amendme...
- bubbleRefuge 12y ago
  Can't some form of executive action be taken ? Perhaps enforce the H1 rules closer to the vest. The body shops are so bad. They force many of the onshore resources to work full-time then another 3 hours on nights + weekends to feed work to their offshore cohorts so that they can bill out the offshore guys which is where they have even better margins.
  - HistoryInAction 12y ago
    I'd defer to someone like Professors Norm Matloff or Ron Hira on this question. Honestly, I've spent so long trying to keep startup visa out of the H-1B debate that I'm just not that familiar with it. I don't disagree with you, but I don't have a sense of the political landscape to give you an answer that isn't a pure guess.

supercanuck 12y ago

Why don't they just divert some of the 32,000 visas from Infosys to Startups? I can't help but notice the inverse relationship between the number of H1-B's sponsored and the average salary by company. http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2014-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2014-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx

HistoryInAction 12y ago
It'd be nice. But likely unfeasible politically either from a legislative or regulatory perspective. There are many problems using the H-1B even at a policy level: -Lottery/application in April, don't become active until October -Doesn't work well for founders despite Aug 2011 change allowing founders to arrange their board to serve as "employer": http://www.uscis.gov/news/public-releases-topic/business-immigration/uscis-initiatives-promote-startup-enterprises-and-spur-job-creation-fact-sheet http://www.uscis.gov/news/public-releases-topic/business-imm... -Difficult and long timeline to green card meaning startup failure often leads to a fast mandatory exit from the US, even if investors continue to believe in the founder -Neufeld memo means that startup sponsors are treated at a high level of suspicion by USCIS bureaucrats, which results in an even longer, more time/money/effort intensive process compared to bigtech: http://www.legalactioncenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/lac/Neufeld_memorandum.pdf http://www.legalactioncenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/la...
keerthiko 12y ago
Infosys pretty much single-handedly ruined the opportunities for so many non-Americans to move onwards in their career. I really hope the US does something to shut down the Infosys US sweatshops.

nugget 12y ago

Have rank and file developers ever tried to form any sort of association to advocate for their own interests, which seem adverse to those of founder types? It would seem like there are a couple hundred thousand tech types in California alone who would prefer not to have compete with a new flood of H1B and other visa holders. I support the type of candidates that this story is about but my fear would be that it's a back end run by the entrenched interests to turn a small pathway into a large one, and a couple years later we awake to find thousands of ''exceptional'' cubical dwellers in Infosys' new offices.

HistoryInAction 12y ago
That is the exact argument against the H-1B re: "highly skilled" requirement. Code monkeys (as distinct from devs) are a very different fish, but DC doesn't know the difference The counter I'd offer is that you should look through the eight criteria as they currently stand: http://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-workers/o-1-individuals-extraordinary-ability-or-achievement/o-1-visa-individuals-extraordinary-ability-or-achievement http://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-workers... If you see obvious hacks for the Infosys types that we can close off, that'd be helpful to discuss here. EDIT: And of course anything resembling a union is verboten among the powers that be in Silicon Valley.
- x0x0 12y ago
  so maybe if you wanted support from devs you should advocate for those changes
- nraynaud 12y ago
  I was thinking along the same lines, a startup devop is a completely different person than the person who customizes Lotus Notes or SAP for a blue chip company. I recently interviewed, and the guy was frightened when I told them I would probably not be at the same company in 5 years. Nope, I work night and day, but I'm burnt after 3 years on the same project, that's how it works. But in those 3 years, I bring the dev team from interns to a professional state, get a new UI out, and take some funding (well, at least I did it twice), and try to spread some values I deem good in the team.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

rurban 12y ago

Indeed. I'm a H1-B visa holder, with exceptional wages, and my wife is not allowed to work here. Ok, so she finished her Ph.D in the 3 years here. But with all this new visa drama going on, no updates in the visa extension process so far, and the broken promise that spouses will be able to work, I just told my company that I'll have to go back to Germany and work remote from there. Plan B. But the benefit is that I will be able to live in a democratic country again, with a much better standard of living. It's only 7 hours and I worked remote for a couple of US companies before. If companies need those foreigners why should the government on behalf of the unions intervene? Do they know better than the companies which is good for them?

HistoryInAction 12y ago
It seems extremely likely that the H-4 spouse EAD (work authorization) change has just been enacted: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2010-0017-0001 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2010-001... It was proposed by the Department of Homeland Security in May, went through a 90 day public comment period, which is now closed. We're waiting for the official announcement.

pteredactyl 12y ago

What, like hiring and training Americans?