Can you elaborate specifically on the rules of the USA startup visa that didn't make sense? For comparison and discussion, you can look at other countries' startup visa programs [1] like Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, etc.
Basically, the idea is to craft the visa rules such that the barriers are high enough that it allows legitimate foreign entrepreneurs with real business prospects to filter through. On the other hand, if you make the criteria "too easy", it becomes a "back door visa" for non-productive foreigners to abuse.
It's a balance between those two outcomes. Did any other country tune their visa policy correctly? If so, what did USA specifically get wrong and what did the other countries get right?
[1] http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/visas-entrepreneurs-h...
The argument being that as we skim the top people from the talent pool of other countries we reduce their capability to push innovation and ideas within their own infrastructure. Instead the USA benefits in that we don't have to have the smartest people just the most attractive place for them to come and help our country. So while I disagree with his message behind this move, I think he inadvertently helped the rest of the world...
That's only tangentially involved in this discussion though. That video is about whether opening immigration pathways to the USA can reduce world poverty. I never reviewed the rules that are being overturned here, so I can't say whether they made sense or not, but they were probably targeted at increasing US economic growth, not reducing world poverty.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-pe...
Most of my friends and extended families have a grand parent or two who were immigrants. If not grand parent then great grand parent.
Grandchildren are not included, hence Donald Trump doesn't qualify.
My definition of immigrant is not a child of an immigrant.
Regardless of your play on semantics, you're still wrong about your grandparents.
F.ex. Budweiser: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HtBZvl7dIu4
How many came here as free and full members of the workforce, allowed to pursue their own career paths as they saw fit?
There's a huge difference between supporting immigration and employer controlled visa programs.
If you place a single bitcoin programmer in the middle of, say, Yemen, that person would be a lot less productive than they would in the US.
This might be marginally improved with the internet (at least the person doesn't have to physically ask questions or purchase books), but only marginally.
Consider:
1. Tough time understanding the needs of paying business customers because the business are smaller and less tech savvy.
2. Tough time hiring other workers to expand because they are fewer schools that produce programmers, managers etc.
3. Tough time with internet, electricity and so forth because the infrastructure isn't there.
4. Tough time with knowing what the legal hoops are for setting up a company and a contract because the institutions have been weakened.
And so on.
Of course there are smart and innovative people there who can do useful work in that context. But that is not the same as the US context.
/Until we learn to package the solution in a nice development kit and resale it back to their homeland at a nice markup.
I mean, if smart people stay in Russia instead of move to the US, is that going to change that rampant corruption and government control make it hard to run a legitimate business in Russia? If smart people stay in China instead of move to the US, does that mean that the oppression that the Chinese Communist Party engages in is going to go away through magic? If smart people stay in Greece instead of move to America, is that going to solve their sovereign debt problems? If smart people stay in Venezuela, how will they solve the problem of there not being enough food to eat?
Those are all examples off of the top of my head. I'm certain less dramatic ones can be easily conjured up for any country where someone may decide to choose USA to start up.
Maybe it's worse for those countries, but in a world of globalisation, it's not irrational to pursue the opportunities in a place where you can get the most bang for your buck. You can always return if you want to, but that's not the path of least resistance.
Basically, if these "smart people" couldn't come to the U.S., there would be no option. They wouldn't have any where else to go, and would have to help their homeland in order to help them and theirs. No other option if they couldn't come to the U.S. instead (if the theory is correct).
Yes, Greece would be closer to solving their financial situation if there were smart people in Greece. What kind of question is that?
I don't think they have a shortage of high IQ people in Greece. They seem to have a shortage of money to spend, and a culture that is hostile to spending less money because of trust issues within their society. How do you throw smart people at that problem to make it go away?
This rule originally required $345,000 in investment from US based investors before the visa is awarded. The amount was then revised down to $250k after comments from the executive and investor community. It then required $500k in recurring revenue and 20% annualized revenue growth in order to extend the visa after 2 years.
I'm not sure why a foreign startup founder with a product that raised $250k from US investors and can confidently say they will have $500k in revenue want to temporarily immigrate to the US? Nothing is stopping them from operating in the US and there are existing visas for business owners operating in the US they can use that don't have all of the related hoops.
I think ultimately this would be underutilized at best and gamed much like the EB5 program at worst.
To make sure I'm not misinterpreting that, you're saying startup founders would rather run their startup company remotely thousands of miles away? E.g. the foreign startup founder stays in France which is 6+ time zones away while his company and employees are working in the USA? To be clear, we're not talking about the mother ship of a mature company opening a branch office in another country but instead, an infant startup company with maybe the founder and 1 or 2 other people. Even if the majority of startup founders wanted that arrangement, what VCs would invest in that type of working structure?
>Nothing is stopping them from operating in the US and there are existing visas for business owners operating in the US they can use that don't have all of the related hoops.
If you look at the other USA visa options[1], they are not exactly redundant with the proposed startup visa. (E.g. EB5 requires higher amount of $1 million from the immigrant which basically means the immigrant is already wealthy instead of starving entrepreneur with no money. The other visas are based on talent/skill such as advanced hard-to-find PhD or require employers to sponsor. The immigrant is his own employer.)
[1] http://fundersandfounders.com/coming-to-america-for-entrepre...
I don't think a foreign startup with 1 or 2 employees is going to attract $250k investment from US investors. (source: I once started a tech company in south america, US investors rarely invested outside of the US in early stage businesses) I think this would just be too risky for the US investor.
On the other hand if there was a startup that were within 2 years reach of $500k recurring revenue and 20% growth and were derisked to the point that US investors were interested in putting up real money then they are probably established enough that they wouldn't want to make the move for such a short time frame.
I think when people first read about this visa rule they imagined it'd be more ycombinator hacker types ("infant startup company with maybe the founder and 1 or 2 other people") when in reality that wasn't the case.
As someone pointed out a couple weeks ago [1]:
> From the article:
> "To qualify for the rule, entrepreneurs would have to meet high standards. A foreigner must demonstrate that he or she will contribute to economic growth or job creation and show that a reputable investor has put at least $250,000 into the company. Under this rule, they can stay in the U.S. for 30 months, with the possibility of a 30-month extension. They cannot apply for a green card during this period."
> This sounds like a pretty lame visa. How are you supposed to build a startup if you only have 30 months to do so? Why would investors risk $250k if the founder may be deported in 30 months? What happens after the extension period?
So from your link, that startup rule got wrong the 'Defining Success: Criteria for Permanent Residence' which states:
> Conditional entrepreneur visas can typically be renewed or converted to permanent residence after two to four years if the immigrant creates a successful business. (An exception is the Australian Venture Capital Entrepreneur program, which provides immediate permanent residence.)
But here the rule is simply: 'They cannot apply for a green card during this period.'. So even if your startup is successful, you're kicked out after 2.5 or 5 years.
I know everyone likes blaming Trump for everything but i’m happy when they decide to reform immigration programs that don’t make sense.
It was never intended as a path for large numbers of good people to immigrate to the USA, and so makes no sense for that. It was just meant to get government out of the way of people who are likely to generate jobs here.
Democracy in action.
People with a likely decent track record are willing to put their money down on, "This person can create jobs." Would you prefer to have those jobs created or not? Saying yes to the option is very much not a zero-sum game.
The difference here is that a job offer or an investment is a decision made by an employer or an investor. US citizenship or work/residency, on the other hand, is a status not with an employer or an investor but with the US government and the citizens it represents.
And yet he did see the value in the startup path. Which led to him starting a company that grew to a decent size and got acquired and continued to provide innovations and value for the new parent company. And kept many people employed. All because of what this one founder started.
So, from a jobs standpoint, and from an innovation and business expansion standpoint, I would say the visa made plenty of sense.