America can't be the world's tech leader without immigration reform.
slate.com
slate.com
What happens when a startup goes under? Visa cancelled? Well that's reason to pour more resources in or just pretend it's still alive. What happens if they do some consulting on the side to stay alive? What happens if it ends up all consulting? What happens if people come out with the intention of doing this. How are you going to stop it? Force them to develop products?
What is a startup? Does a lawn mowing startup count? How about if they invent their own lawn mower? in 'The Founder Visa,' Graham proposes that the Governemnt could "use investment by recognized startup investors as the test of whether a company was a real startup." Recognised by who? Do you really want to erect an official barrier to entry for investors?
What about an existing startup in country X that wouldn't mind moving to the US. Now they need an officially recognised investor. They don't need an investor. They need a visa. They can pay for it. The investor is in a position to sell a visa, even if it looks like he is just getting a good deal on some stock. It might even look like that to the investor. I offered a deal. They took it. The power to grant a visa is worth money and even if you can control the granter's morals or incentives (you can't), you cannot control the grantee's reasons for accepting a deal.
4 consultants doing remote work for mostly US clients decide they could double their (say $150k p/a) revenue by moving to the US and doing the same. Theoretically, they can afford up to $150k p/a for the visa. Say they take $100k "investment" form a recognised investor in return for a promise to pay $50k p/a. How would the visa process weed these candidates out. Review the business plan? Make sure that they are planning to build a business that scales? Consulting doesn't scale. Are you sure? Will we have a list of business plans that scale?
The article mentions setting up "a board of investors, entrepreneurs, and tech lawyers who are used to vetting tech ideas; they'd review applications and choose which ones are worthy of a Founder Visa." This, it reckons, would be open to corruption.
I don't think it is possible to have "controlled immigration" that is this controlled to this extent without these ugly issues.
I agree that people will be gaming the system. There is no policy which cannot be gamed, but we have to look at the bigger picture. How many VCs do you think will put their reputation at risk to earn $50k pa? I am not saying the solution the author mentioned is perfect, but its a start. A system can be put in place similar to O1 or EB1 visa but with startups in mind. Every startup will have to go through certain conditions to be eligible to apply. The founders can have 1-2 year temporary visa and if things work out great, they should be granted Green card, or they should be allowed to go through the cycle again.
I think that attempts to minimise distortions by not letting them come into play in the market is closing loopholes. They are usually problematic in themselves.
The ideas posed by pg & this article are that the small issue of defining startup can be easily worked around by piggybacking on the implicit definition of startup used by investors. Either ask them (panel) or use their investment as a qualifier. My criticism of the latter approach is that you can't just assume that investors' actions will be uninfluenced by their newfound superpower. It will allow them to get better terms, for example. It may allow them to get the deal in the first place.You hear of cases startups want an investor primarily for the contacts and advice, rather than capital. I could easily imagine the visa being the primary reason. Since being a 'recognized investor' is such an advantageous position, others will want to do this too. Are YC type organizations more likely to be recognized? If so then this distorts the market in favour of them. YC will become an immigration path (like study is).
The panel approach is also problematic. You are creating a bureaucratic gatekeeper. These tend to be the worst kind. First, the panel decides if a startup is worthwhile. then, the market gets its turn.
My pick out of the two would be a panel. It avoids the need to have recognized investors, only recognized startups. But apart from corruption, expect to have decisions made by bureaucracies before the market gets a crack.
Barriers to immigration are like barriers to trade. Barriers this high in trade would be under incredible pressure.
*I have no problem with immigration. I am not American or in America. i am an immigrant myself (in Australia). My preferred long term solution would be lowering or even removing barriers to immigration completely by some point.
BUT REGARDLESS, America will not be "The World's Tech Leader" with American elementary and secondary schools in the shape that they presently are in (and more multiple choice testing isn't it either..). Funny how this never gets mentioned in these "Tech Leader" debates (cultural math phobia might even deserve being addressed here).
After waiting for five years for paperwork to come through we packed up and moved back to the Netherlands, I could simply not justify having my child in school with a potential culture change in case our application would get denied in the middle of his secondary education.
The Canadian system is on paper very entrepreneur friendly but in practice a lot less so.
For maximum irony, after they figured out that we really did move back to Europe and took our investment with us (as far as that was possible, some of the real estate is still up for sale even today) we got our papers within a couple of weeks. So, after we left it was no problem to give us our status, but as long as we were there there wasn't any way to get the process unstuck.
Total frustration. If you plan on moving to Canada, make sure you get your paperwork BEFORE you start anything or make any investments, no matter what the local, provincial or federal government promises you that they will do, once your negotiation position is hollowed out by your investment or move their incentive to give you any status disappears.
And make sure you apply for health care within 30 days of moving there, otherwise you are in for a world of trouble.
Unconvincing.
Despite the current state of affairs in elementary/secondary schooling the US graduates more Ph.D.'s in most fields than can find suitable jobs Excluding occasional shortages there are more than enough excellent students in the US education pipeline to more than fill all advanced degree job openings in the US.
I was brought to the United States by my parents at a very young age. In the process I have inherited the title of an "illegal immigrant" from my parents. The DREAM Act is a legislation 10 years in the making. We have thousands of enterpreneurs, scientists, engineers, nurses, doctors, talent in every field imaginable going to waste in the United States; living in the shadows. Myself included.
Last year I graduated from NYU with a dual degree in electrical and computer engineering. My graduate school plans were shattered because I could not prove my identify for the purpose of taking the GREs. I cannot work, open a bank account, drive, get health insurance, go to a bar, take an interstate bus or train, fly, live or breathe. Yet, I am lucky, because I live in New York City. Those living almost anywhere else in the country cannot go to college or call the police at fear of deportation.
There are hundreds of thousands of us in the United States. I personally know hundreds of children, teens, and now young adults that have had their lives put on hold for Congress to "feel right" for immigration reform. I also know quite a few individuals who could not live like this anymore and have taken their skills elsewhere by going for voluntary departure (a path not open to all).
Next time your legislator tells you that this is not the right time for immigration reform, remind them of the experience of our butchered youth, remind them of the DREAM Act. I am a 23 year old American with no relief, rights, or equality in sight. Tragically, I am not alone.
A super specialised policy/visa designed to milk some of the meatiest benefits from immigration is an ugly hack.
We are eagerly following the all encompassing reforms, while what we actually need is for Congress to make legislation continuously. Who would have thought that this was their job? Instead we make a big deal about big legislations and watch senators flip charts and push rhetoric while working deals behind closed doors.
When advocating for manageable legislation with a whole lot of support and little floor time I've personally heard: "We cannot do it now, because we do not have the White House." "We cannot do it now because we don't have the majority in the Senate." "We cannot do it now because we dont have the 60 vote super majority." "We cannot do it now because its just not the right political atmosphere." This Fall, if health care fails, they'll have a perfect excuse not to touch immigration with a 10 foot pole. "We cannot do it now, because obviously it wouldn't pass, look at health care."
My personal favorite "It takes so much political capital to pass any immigration bill that legislators need to do it all at once and then not touch it for another 20 years." Ironically, that one comes from reform advocates. My personal favorite response to that was by Robert Kerrey (a former Senator, President of New School in New York) - "I got news for you, Congress comes back every year."
In geek terms. Why not iterate and see what works? What we have, obviously doesn't. Any legislation that we come up with today is almost guaranteed not to work in 5 to 10 years.
I was simply making a more general point about restrictions on immigration. If you take in to account all effects including the immigrant, the destination and the country of origin, you get a terrible economic net loss. It is similar to restricting trade in goods and services.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act
We need your support in pressuring legislators to action.
In general, going somewhere else is not possible at all for many. Before one can go somewhere else he has to go back to his country of citizenship. Often thats simply not possible. Yet another case are stateless individuals who have nowhere to go period.
Even if you ignore all the human rights issues and look at the problem from an economically pragmatic point of view, it doesn't make any sense to maintain the status quo. Why should educated and obviously needed Americans be forced out of their homes and shipped out? To "not encourage illegal immigration in the future." Thats the argument I hear. Am I supposed to be a casualty of a political statement? I don't feel anything but American, so the people who wage the "cultural war" for votes and ratings can go ___ themselves. I'm fighting for my rights.
Maintaining the ability to keep people out when they want in requires cruelty. The tighter you want to keep the control, the crueller. The more they want in, the crueller. If you want to really really close a border, you need to be willing to kill people.
Have you ever considered going in to some sort of open battle about this. You're educated. It seems like you have the ability to articulate your position well. You would be able to gain empathy from Americans who will see you as an American under threat of deportation. Are there any support/advice channels for illegal immigrants in the NY?
When you're illegal somewhere your best chance is to lay low until there is some legislation that favors you.
Here in NL there was a guy from Turkey, that had started his own business. Very very successful, in fact, so successful that a newspaper decided to use him as the poster child for illegal immigrants that should get a passport.
Not that long afterwards he was deported, simply for having become 'visible'.
I lived in NYC myself. Besides not having to drive, is it really a better place to be for undocumented immigrants?
First, I think illegal immigration is still ILLEGAL immigration and yes, the laws need to be reformed but until they are, let's not be too devious in how we aid and abet criminal behaviors.
Second and more to the point, anybody who's considering immigrating to the US of A (or Canada) for "technology" will face a rude awakening in another 5-10 years. You're immigrating to the wrong hemisphere. Now if you think you might be a good producer of trash reality TV then hey! Come on over. That's where America truly excels.
I think that your stance is absolutely indefensible since the poster explicitly states that he came to America as a young child and 'inherited' his status as an illegal from his parents.
So, even if he/she has done everything possible to stay clear of the law (if there is one thing you do not do as an illegal it is breaking ANY laws, since that can lead to instant deportation) simply by walking around on the street there is a risk.
If you have been in a country for as long as you remember and you have been a productive element in that society then by any definition you are part of that society, and not a criminal.
To pretend it is otherwise because of a bunch of stupid pieces of paper is putting the horse behind the cart.
So, even if he/she has done everything possible to stay clear of the law ... been a productive element in that society
...in that society then by any definition you are part of that society
We seem to have a different opinion on that.
Personally I think that any system - and any person - that can treat 6 months olds as criminals is seriously broken, and to be held in contempt.
Believe what you like. Personally I am happy with the fact that murder is illegal for everyone not just people over the age of 35. Personally I am happy that theft is illegal to everyone not just people over the age of 40. Personally I like the fact that courts are allowed to deal with assaults committed by minors and even have special rules regarding their care. I believe you have to have rules that apply to everybody, you can't decide that this isn't a crime today but wake up tomorrow and you get death row for it.
For someone that was brought in to the US and is now at an age to have completed their secondary education home is the United States. No amount of paper waving and applying of the rules is going to change that.
Anyway, I'm wasting my time with this, I only wish that in your life you will never ever come up against a situation where you will be forced to realize just how cruel your stance is.
We're not debating murder here, that's just a straw man. We are not dealing with assault, committed by minors or otherwise.
The subject was immigration, specifically by minors too young to even realize what that means.
you will be forced to realize just how cruel your stance is. The subject was immigration, specifically by
minors too young to even realize what that means.
Would you simply leave for a foreign country you have no knowledge of, abandoning your life, severing your relationships, giving up all of the property that you earned through your own endeavors, just because the law is the law?
Any rule that would compel you to do so is simply, unequivocally _wrong_, and deserves to be violated.
6 months difference between legal and illegal seems a bit arbitrary.
Real criminals are people who do harm to others, not people who simply break bureaucratic rules.
"Until the laws change illegal is illegal. We need to enforce the law not change it, illegal is illegal. ILLEGAL"
Did you know that there is butter that isn't butter?
If only our valedectorians got as deep a look as butter did. A man can dream.
They even came up with a name for it, "enforcement through attrition." Make our life so horrible that we opt for voluntary departure. How fucked up is that? How full of bigotry do you have to be to come up with something like that?
To people who truly want to help, stop debating, stop listening. Start pressuring your legislators to action!
Second, I didn't immigrate here for "technology" or anything else. I grew up here. I went to school with brilliant engineers who now do brilliant things. I think YC itself is a testament to the talent that exists in this country. So, good luck with that thinking.
That, working my ass off, working my ass off some more, and a whole lot of help from people who care about me, to whom I am in debt for the rest of my life. I know too many who are not as lucky as me and it tears me apart to see their dreams shattered for no sensible reason and no wrongdoing of their own.
NYC is a better place for undocumented immigrants because you can rely on the police to help you, they are legally prevented from inquiring about your immigration status. On the other hand, we have stories of valedictorians being thrown into jail and put into deportation proceedings for rolling a stop sign in places like Texas (some people were able to get driver licenses a while back, in some states, no longer possible).
I can tolerate waiting; while frustrating, that's not the real issue. But it's hard to just live a normal life in limbo, with all the implicit threats. Your documents are tied to your job, so switching jobs will risk, at minimum, starting from scratch; and there is a chance of denial and deportation at every turn. You are also not immune to layoffs, so this can blow up in your face without warning, giving you a very short period of time to fix it. And in the end, even if you survive all the hoop jumps, there is still a chance you will be denied the documents that you've been waiting years to receive.
Compare this to somebody just wanting to do essentially the same work in their home country, where they probably can, minus all the bullshit. This is why the U.S. is in danger: because immigrants can only take so much, and at some point, they simply will move all their ideas and capital back home.
Do immigrants have in all cases a home country to go back to with a better trade-off in this regard than the United States? As long as some countries are sufficiently lousily governed, the United States will always have a ready supply of some kinds of immigrants. The article's point is correct that persons who are able to set up new businesses with new technologies probably have better capacity to shop for a country to live in than most migrants.
A press notice for pg is of course interesting to readers of HN, and it will be one more proof of his notability (no longer doubted) on Wikipedia.
The trouble is that the kind of "comprehensive immigration reform" which politically powerful constituencies are currently pushing is nothing like the kind of immigration reform which would actually be useful.
One thing is sure though - what US is losing, other countries like Canada, UK etc (my roomate left for UK last month, after studying in US and working here for 4 years) are gaining.
Edited: European Unions -> European Union
And once you've decided "who?" ask yourself whether that country will somehow depend upon open-borders, and whether its prominent web magazines will propagandize relentlessly for the same.
People who discuss this do not give two flies for America's "tech leadership" or whatever other baloney abstraction you prefer. It's a political subject only.
But even without immigration reform America _is_ the world's tech leader. So how did we ever get that way without that "immigration reform"?
Obviously someone's pushing his own agenda. This article is from the corporations' point of view; other articles take the workers' view.
Corporations want cheaper workers but workers want higher wages. The usual struggle. Nothing new here.
Not PGs essay, but what the VCs are presenting to Congress. (i.e. Bill #)
Letting in the best of the best is all kinds of win. See "Brain Drain/Gain": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_drain
Albert Einstein is one of the more famous examples, but there are quite a few others.
So these people are skilled in that they learned how to make these widgets in another country outside the USA, but they want to create the widgets here instead? Did they stop making the widgets in the other country? Does it pay more to make widgets here? Why the USA specifically?
(What exactly does the USA produce anymore anyway? Nothing is made here so what are they making?)
Again, I'm not against immigration, but somehow I think this is a smokescreen. If someone wants to come to the USA to go to school, to live, I say welcome, we've got plenty of room, plenty of food, and we need the taxes paid. But let's not make up reasons to come here?
There are thousands of college students graduating in the USA each year who are unemployed. If they don't have the exact skills needed I dare say a 4 year degree proves they can learn the skill rather quickly?
I guess I need real-world examples to understand this better. I still don't understand why college students aren't being trained for these critical jobs, especially if they are in a tech sector which is always attractive.