Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

A lot of countries have a lot of rich people at the helm and aren't really, what I would call, benefiting from that. It could even be argued that a lot of the problems in countries are caused by the rich.

I think about it kind of like this: We all want to keep getting richer. I just take that as the rule from which I derive a couple more points on this topic.

First, to be a noticeable increase in wealth, that increase must be appreciable. It must be felt by the wealthy person. I think to appreciate it, it must be a certain percentage change. We probably wouldn't notice a 0.05% increase in our wealth, but we would notice a 50% increase.

Second, assume rich people and poor people desire an equivalent feeling of wealth growth. If I make $10k a year, $1,000 more next year will feel great. I'll have almost $100 more to spend a month. Someone making $100k desires an increase in wealth of $10,000 a year.

Now, if we spread that $10,000 worth of wealth created to make the rich person feel better to the poor people who only needed $1,000 additional a year to feel better, we could have made 10 people happier, instead of just one person happier when that money went to the rich person. $20,000 worth of wealth could make 20 people happier, instead of 1 rich person and 10 poor people = 11 people.

If you believe in Greatest Good for the Greatest Number anyway, but not all subscribe to that philosophy. I do I think. If one person experienced elation at the expense of the whole world, would that be good? Not to suggest that I would offer to harm a minority to bring joy to the world. But I do wonder if growth is beneficial. I think it may not be. It could be bad.

So, I am not sure how to answer your question. I do not know for a fact if it is in a country's self interest to encourage the growth of the investor class with at least $10M in the bank. It may take a lot of stagnation or depression among the working class or creative class to create additional wealth for an already rich minority.

Further from that, if you raise the foundation, quantified as the poverty line perhaps, then it increases the quality of everyone's lives, even the rich. There's less crime, less blight, and people are simply much more pleasant to be around than when there are huge disparities between the rich and the poor.

Only if you are on a low-priority employment-based visa and are Indian or Chinese born (i.e. waiting for priority date to become current). The process is still much too long though, even in other cases.

Not that I want to defend the US immigration and employment visa processes. Far from it. The system as it stands is completely and utterly broken. It turns away many of the very people the nation needs to keep its competitive edge in the world.

Realistically though, it will be quite some time before any politician will be willing - or even able - to show the kind of leadership that is necessary to tackle immigration issues, regardless of the merits of doing so.

we can attack the problem by focusing on improving INS processing times, rather than excluding other valid applicants (of any type). we are certainly not suggesting StartupVisa green card applicants "move to the front of the line" ahead of anyone else, simply that their application be considered fairly & reasonably along with others.

Which, I must confess, appeals to me personally, but if we concede that we need the ability to legislate, then the simple potential for abuse can't be showstopper for any individual piece of legislation.

Rates and/or severity of abuse maybe, but not the simple possibility of it.