The part of this that really worries me is that would-be founders, after making their pitch, are now waiting to find out if the investors have bestowed the right to live and work in the US upon them. I understand that it is complicated. The US only takes about 1.2 million immigrants legally into the country every year, and because of our emphasis on family reunification, this means that startup founders may not get o…
It shouldn't be the only way to get a (nonimmigrant in this proposal, incidentally) visa. But I really do believe it should be one way--it's hard to argue that more startups would hurt the economy.
I agree with you that there is a level of discomfort inherent in letting investors influence who gets visas, but honestly they know more about what startups have a chance at great success than government officers.
They did make it easier to get an H1B visa as an entrepreneur: http://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/entrepreneur-visa-guide I'm not sure if anyone's ever successfully received one, however. More here: http://www.murthy.com/2012/12/17/entrepreneur-h1b-petitions-...
That USCIS guide is strange... it lists H1B only under "Nonimmigrant Visas" even though the H1B is dual-intent.
It's crazy to me that countries like Chile are courting (read: begging) entrepreneurial talent and the US acts like we can throw a wall up around the country and pretend like that's still a good thing. NOT allowing a few thousand talented, motivated, educated, english-speaking entrepreneurs seems foolish.
Many of the millions of unemployed US citizens/voters would argue that there are a few thousand talented, motivated, educated, english-speaking entrepreneurs in their ranks from which YC can choose.
I am pretty sure there are already mechanisms for the rich to buy US citizenship. EB-5. Secure funding for your start-up, boom you're a US citizen as soon as you invest in jobs, etc. in the US. The rich have their ways.
What if YC selected ~100 projects per year, gave each their $500k so they could buy their way in...
"Blame" is the wrong way to think about any major policy decision. Instead, you want to think of the effects of the new policy - whether or not anyone intends to do harm (most people don't), will harm result? The grandparent poster's experience with a similar policy in Canada is very relevant there. I don't personally have a position about founder visas - I'm a U.S. citizen, so they don't affect me - but I do think t…
The way I understood the poster, the harm came from the government canceling the old investor visas. That seems pretty easy to fix: just add new visas on top of the old ones. The consequences of the way it happened were pretty clear: a bunch of people who previously would use the old investor visas (where you could put up your own money, I imagine) now can't. The effects of this decision shouldn't have been surprisin…
The problem is that you and I don't control what the government does. Government stupidity is a reality that has to be factored into decision-making. And maybe there's a way around it in this case - perhaps whoever drafts & sponsors the Founder Visa law just needs to be aware of the potential pitfall and make everyone else involved aware of why there need to be separate founder & investor visas, most of the time stupid decisions are made because reasonable people don't have all the information necessary - but it's still really important to be aware of it so you don't create unintended consequences. Saying "Well, I had the right idea, it just turned out to be a disaster because of other people" doesn't stop it from being a disaster.
This is a JOKE. Let Y Combinator? Oh yeah, bro? Wow. If the US were to give ONE company this right, that would be complete bllsht. I like YC, but think before you speak.
This is a terrible idea. VCs have proposed the same solution in Canada; the government canned the old investor visa and allowed founders to get a startup when they receive investment from some of our VCs. (There were many more investor visa than VCs can even process. We'll end up with less total job creation. You have to be careful what you lobby for, and how it will be implemented!) What was once a process over whic…
> What was once a process over which government had visibility is now in the hands of the private sector, with firms that have historically discriminated on age, ethnicity, gender, etc. That logic would suggest companies shouldn't be allowed to hire non-immigrants without government approval either, since they've historically discriminated against people with non-immigrant hires too. But as far as I know, you're not…
If a company as large as IBM systematically discriminates, I sure hope they end up in legal trouble.
Why only YCombinator? You're not proposing a solution to the problem here. You're proposing what YCombinator wants.
There are legitimate, promising founders and startups outside of YC too, you know. Sorry about the snark..it's just aggravating when piecemeal, self-serving solutions like this one are proposed.
Down-voters: explain, please? You don't think the experience from this type of policy being tried somewhere else is relevant? That it won't backfire?
The way you explained it, it seems you're blaming the VCs for something that was government's fault (it was the government's decision to cancel the old visas, instead of keeping them in parallel with the new one).
Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to be more careful how I state things.