Unfortunately, the proposals in this blog entry make me very nervous. I'm all for making it easier to allow talented people entry into the US, but I hate the idea of empowering investors to grant green cards. I think Paul Graham is an inspired investor and a smart guy, but should he be allowed to decide who comes into the country and who doesn't? Should a panel of credible lawyers, VC's, and entrepreneurs be allowed to do this?<p>I think that an employer should be able to offer a <i>job</i>, not US residency. I think an investor should be able to offer <i>money</i> (and advice, guidance, support). But not a green card, no way.<p>Think of the implications here. A young investor really doesn't need the money. He's ramen profitable. But he needs the investor's permission to be a startup <i>in the us</i>! Well, that's one way for VC's to get the upper hand in an era when their money doesn't matter as much.<p>Look, I know hacker news folks tend toward the libertarian side and are generally skeptical of government. But I want the people who decide to award green cards to report to the voting public, not to Larry Ellison. I admire PG, but he doesn't answer to me as a member of the voting public, and he shouldn't. Once VCs gain control over the immigration system, they assume a government role, but we can't exactly vote them out of office if we don't like their decisions. And even if you have faith that PG will be a good guy, do you feel that way about "credible VCs and lawyers?"<p>Winston Churchill said "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Personally, I'm not all that interested in trying out a regime of VCs, no matter how credible a panel has found them to be.<p>As for the "Green cards to all CS majors" idea, I think a very narrow rule targeting CS would discourage US students from this field, and encourage them instead to pursue more protected degree paths like law. I'm worried about any policy that would drive the already low interest in CS among US students even lower. I also think a University should be in the business of granting degrees, not US residency.
I'm a potential user of such a visa.<p>As it stands, right now, I'm likely to start a company outside the US. I'll create jobs overseas instead of here just because of the hassles I've had with US immigration. I find the situation to be rather illogical.<p>I'm currently on a H1B and in the greencard queue. Anti-H1B people love to rave about my taking jobs from US citizens. I get to hear it in person from time to time because, since I'm white and speak English with an indeterminate American style accent, people presume I don't object to them bitching about the Indians and Chinese H1B holders while I wait at the coffee stand.<p>I'd rather start my own company. I've had a startup before in Europe so I know what I'm getting into. Then someone else could take my current job. I'm financially secure (close to $1m cash in the bank in addition to my long-term investments) but:<p>- I want to solve my immigration status and not resort to non-immigrant temporary visas like E-2<p>- I'm not happy to just hand $500k to $1m over to an investment of unknown risk to get an EB-5<p>- There is enough to do while starting up without getting bogged down in convincing some non-expert in the merits of a business plan and a schedule of hiring etc.<p>- My H1B NIW just got a request for evidence despite my letters of recommendation from "household names" in my particular industry (sorry to be deliberately vague).<p>- I have a government in another country willing to throw money at me to startup there<p>Now I could startup abroad and transfer back and jump thru various hoops that way. But, frankly, I have a young family and want to build a permanent base for myself. I rather like Northern California for that but there are many other nice places in the world as well.<p><i>shrug</i> it leaves me confused as to why the US is so hostile to my intention to build a home here and create jobs.
If Brad Feld wanted to encourage entrepreneurship, he'd be bothering his Congresscritters about healthcare reform for 47 million uninsured, not making a special path to citizenship for a handful of people.<p>Yes, we lose some startups because of our immigration laws, but we lose far, far more to job lock-in because of healthcare.
I'm surprised this idea passes anyone's laugh test. There are all sorts of issues here with distorted incentives - if my ability to stay in the US is conditional on running a company, then I will do everything in my power to keep the company limping along, and I will be loath to take certain classes of risks. This seems in tension with the very concept of a startup.<p>But the more fundamental flaw here is privatizing decisions about citizenship. I can't think of anything that's <i>more</i> appropriately handled by government.
I like the way the UK/Canada do it. Why can't the US?<p>You need 75 points.<p>1) An advanced degree gets you 35. A PhD 50 and an MBA 75 (debatable, but good)<p>2) Gross salary over the last year gets you another 30 points (so if you made above $70k/yr)<p>3) Age gets you another 20 (below 28)<p>4) Work experience in the UK and English language qualifications get you another 10 points<p>Sure, this may not work for the people straight out of school (you do need 1 year of earnings and any decent dev with a Master's should be able to pull 75k) - but a couple of years of real world experience after school is probably a good thing, right?<p>Why does the US tie you to an employer? Probably because the H1-B program was a way to bring (relatively cheaper) labor into the US.
This is fantastic. And the initiative speaks volumes of why US is the hub of startups.<p>I would any day opt to move to US and build a company over there given US is relatively a superior matured market segment for online businesses and more than that for the excellent startup ecosystem.<p>In the past have built products predominantly for US audience including a book readers community on facebook (which was my baby) that eventually got acquired by lulu publishing. But now when I am on my own startup I am devoid of deeper & closer understanding into the market/customers, the US presence to promote my products and access to funds, mentors and product launchpad.<p>Recently got a B1 visa to visit US but I was so uncertain of even that given I am self employed, single, with not much assets and in all ways seem to fit a potential immigrant in the view of the consulate. I couldn't have thought of any way to explain the consulate "a regular job" doesn't interest me and I am not going to take away jobs.<p>I am sure a lot of entrepreneurs in this part of the world would be blessed and move to silicon valley following their dreams of building a business and fortune.
%10 of 250k company would simply create a visa for money path.<p>Getting VCs to sit in a government committee and review thousands of visa applications seems rather unlikely, and their success prediction ratio is questionable.<p>The various legibility profiles I've seen (like those in Canada etc) all seem to filter out Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison..<p>Perhaps a solution is to allow investors like YC sponsor something like H1B granted to their companies' founders rather than their own employees.<p>But, is there really a need for all this? Why does anyone have to be in the US in order to start a company? If anything, shouldn't the web make geography <i>less</i> of an issue?
Good to see that someone is acting on it.
However, the following quote makes me worried about the bureaucracy.<p>(1) set up a non-government board consisting of credible VCs, entrepreneurs, and lawyers to vet applicants.<p>It probably is a better solution than what PG proposed in his original essay.
"let the market decide. Startup investors work hard to find the best startups. The government could not do better than to piggyback on their expertise, and use investment by recognized startup investors as the test of whether a company was a real startup."<p>PG's version would eliminate anyone who would bootstrap a startup without external funding. Brad's is a little inclusive.<p>I would rather prefer to leave it at "let the market decide."<p>Any interesting ideas as to how you could convert that statement into an actionable policy for immigration authorities to follow?
Being in the situation myself, I think the implementation Brad is proposing might not be good in the long run (reasons posted by other users).<p>IMO, any co-founder of the company who owns more than a particular amount in the startup and the startup is at a stage where it can afford paying $100k+ salary to the co-founder should be able to obtain a visa. If the startup is VC funded, even better. But again there should be a complete background check and the startup business plan should be assessed by an independent committee before granting a VISA. Also, educational qualifications of the co-founder should be taken into account like PhDs should get the top most priority.
I am a (US) college senior and i really want to start a company after i graduate. But the regulations just make it so difficult for me. It is good to hear that someone cares enough about this issue to start a conversation.