The Founder Visa Ignores Immigration Reality
kirkwylie.blogspot.com
kirkwylie.blogspot.com
I feel there is little point in hanging out here as long as it is effectively American only (YC, not the boards).
Hacker News is largely American because it's an outgrowth of YC, which is American Only.
I would hardly think having a website portray a particular provincial bias would be a reason to live somewhere.
Seriously, though, we Brits just hang out wherever the interesting conversations are. That's the beauty of teh interwebz: nobody knows you're not a Yank (until you go off and spell something with an s or an extra u or something silly).
Seriously, though, I've not really noticed not being back in a local "tech cluster" on a day-to-day basis these days (except that when I meet people that aren't in the industry they have NO idea what I do; in the valley, everybody has some clue). Mostly we like to know who each other are so we can all drink together. Tech social functions, like ALL social functions here, involve much beer.
It was way easier for me to deal with the Italian bureaucracy once we were married than it would be for my wife to go to the US. And that's saying something: Italian bureaucracy is about as bad as the stereotypes make it out to be.
Something else:
The Fed Govt. doesn't recognize same-sex spouses (e.g. if you're married in Canada, South Africa, etc.). This is due to DOMA. There is currently legislation under way to try change this (UAFA).
Many other countries do recognize foreign same-sex marriages for immigration purposes, even if they themselves don't recognize same-sex marriage.
My folks immigrated from Taiwan to Canada about 15 years ago using the skilled migrant program, when I was just a kid - and the process could not have been better (not to mention superior to the US). Apply, interview (with offices all around the world, you don't even have to travel to Canada), get your papers, fly over.
From day 1 we were treated as equals - and never as unwelcome disturbances (which is how I feel all the damned time here in the US). My folks were allowed to work for anyone and everyone - certainly no bullshit employer-chain like the H-1B visa. We were given the same universal health coverage, the same social benefits... we were equal to a citizen in every way except the vote.
If it's of anyone's interest, we looked at the USA before applying to Canada, but the system was too onerous and far too risky to be of serious consideration. For one thing, for someone who wanted to start a new life with his family in another country, being chained to an employer who would abuse you knowing you cannot quit simply wasn't an appeal. Nor was the incredibly long process to get the green card and finally citizenship (we had Canadian citizenship within 3 years of arrival).
IMHO the US lost out big time. My family earns several times the Canadian average income, and pays taxes on all of it. My mother is an entrepreneur who has supported her local economy - and their kids are all highly educated tax-paying individuals. We were a huge net-win for Canada, and if the US was somewhat less retarded in its immigration policies, we would've easily have been Americans.
Serious question: Why?
If Canada is so great, why the preference for the US? I hear these sorts of things all the time, yet everyone still wants to come to the US. I feel like I am missing a piece of the puzzle.
This is exemplified in the way the US does everything. Even the mere existence of this site is a profoundly American thing. Canadian entrepreneurs rarely cash out to the tune that Valley companies receive. The richest of the rich in Canada are poor compared to the extreme rich in the US. The best schools in the US kicks the shit out of the best schools in most other places (with a few notable exceptions, of course)... etc etc. The US is a country of extremes, and for many immigrants this is very attractive.
This is particularly true for individuals who have already proven their ability to be better than the rest - America gives disproportionate rewards to the high end of the curve than more socialist countries (e.g. most of western Europe and Canada). At the risk of drawing in Randian thought (which really is the nouveau Godwin's Law), socialist countries restrict the rewards to the extremely talented, whereas America does no such thing (at a cost to the bottom half of its bell curve).
This is just not the common case. Generally speaking, the US does give disproportionate rewards to the 'high-end' of the curve so to speak. However this often comes at a cost to everyone else(or the following generation) whether they realize it or not. It's simply harder to notice this happening when it's spread over a generation or two. Examples being health care, the economic pyramid schemes, 'education', care of veterans etc.
Top tier American schools are highly-overrated and highly overpriced these days. They are a much bigger and slower bubble to burst over here. http://www.theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-el...
I believe the key phrase in this article is "entitled mediocrity". The author also spent at least 25 years as a scholar and then Professor at Yale and Columbia.
With all that being said, America is still a great place. It just might be better not to look for the rewards in all the popular places and using the popular methods.
"Top tier American schools are highly-overrated and highly overpriced these days."
Perception, in this case, trumps reality. The reality is that a MIT degree is worth a hell of a lot more in salary than a random eastern European university. Whether or not the education truly is better is moot - people want in on the USA because it generally will lead to a better life than they've got now - assuming "now" is an underdeveloped country.
So why worry? The fact that US culture has soured on immigration is starting to sink in, and other countries like Canada spotted the advantages of welcoming immigrants, which increases the chance that the next Google will be founded outside the US.
Finding out specific information about immigration, school system, job opportunities, or unemployment rate of a certain city in different country is very difficult.
The land of opportunities image (plus global brand of top universities) have served the US well in bringing in immigrants, skilled or not. This kind of marketing gives partial and imperfect information but better than none.
When I was 14, had I knew that Swedish universities do not charge tuition or Canada offers universal healthcare, my college choices would have been different.
Then she qualifies for EB-1 or 2 permanent residence.
Odds are I will be moving back to ole Canada at some point. The US is so busy being afraid of everyone else that they're very, very quickly driving themselves into irrelevance.
Currently Africans are commonly paying over 10,000 euros for an illegal trip to an undetermined European country. The families raise the money for young men even though there's no guarantee whether the kid will end up in Norway or Italy (and often no further than Morocco). Compared to this, a five-year US visa for $50k would be an extremely attractive option. I doubt that desperate young men whose families are hopelessly in debt are the kind of immigrants that the US would want to specifically attract.
No one should ever be able to buy their way into a country with raw cash. Skilled immigration policies that aren't stupid (i.e. H-1B is the dumbest "immigration" policy I've ever seen) are a much better idea.
Then you, too, support reform of the existing US immigration laws (see Kirk's comment above -- investing $1m will get you in).
That being said, the whole idea still sounds sort of sketchy to me. The US (like all industrialized nations) doesn't really need capital - not $1M at a time anyways. What it needs is skilled labour - things that will help the country compete internationally. IMHO skilled labour really ought to be the only form of immigration.
The tax structure in the US is progressive. If we accepted unlimited immigrants we would end up with many low skilled workers coming here. Regardless of whether this is desirable (I think there's moral arguments to be made in its favor), it's politically impossible.
Placing a bar that involves a fix fee per year, if the issues related to being enslaved could be avoid, would attract exactly who we want -- those who would do so much better in a developed country that it's worth while.
I see it as if you were born in the US, you were freely given this thing, the right to live in the US, that is very valuable on a world market. Why not allow others to buy that same thing?
I love EU. It got something right.
I love that the UK has same-sex immigration rights, and had them before much of the rest of the EU. Now they're common-place, but when the UK did it, it was pretty new and special.