The Founder Visa (again)

A little tongue-in-cheek, but to co-opt some general immigration/visa catch phrases:

1. Why do we need to bring in immigrants to found companies? Do we have a shortage of Americans already here who also want to start companies?

2. Or, is Start-up Founder one of those jobs, like picking cabbage, that Americans "just won't do"?

3. Or, is it that American founders are demanding too much compensation?

And this is why "comprehensive immigration reform" needs to be dumped. Visa and legalization are different issues and need to be considered on their own merits.

As somebody who fought for a year to get an O1 visa (and an EB-1 green card, though that didn't quite work out), I can attest to the fact that the problem is not that it is an investor vs. a government official that is deciding whether one meets the criteria, but with the criteria themselves.

I had a top-notch immigration attorney, and a solid case. I was the first employee of a company that now employs north of a hundred engineers and generates tens of millions in tax revenue. By any definition of the phrase "individuals with an extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business, or athletics," I am the kind of person that this visa was meant to attract: talent that results in a net gain for the country.

The problem isn't with the government employees who review the cases; the problem is with the criteria for the visa. It's stuck in a world where 40-year old academics were the innovators. Where instead of showing product traction, revenue, and ability to create businesses, you're expected to show published papers, academic awards, or inclusion in conference panels. Sure, these are still very valid reasons to want somebody to enter the US; but they shouldn't be considered the only reasons.

Quite a few very valuable companies were founded by mavericks, dropouts, or just people who stayed away from academia and instead worked on products. Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Zuck, the WhatsApp guys, the Airbnb guys. None of these guys were academics. Some dropped out of college. None received nobel prizes, but many had shown previous entrepreneurial success. The visa requirements give this no consideration.

--

The full list of requirements, of which you have to demonstrably meet at least three:

1. Documentation of the individual's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor;

2. Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields;

3. Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about the individual, relating to the individual's work in the field for which classification is sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any necessary translation;

4. Evidence of the individual's participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which classification is sought;

5. Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field;

6. Evidence of the individual's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional journals, or other major media;

7. Evidence that the individual has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation;

8. Evidence that the individual has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence.

I fully appreciate the "reasonableness" of reducing the scope of what you're asking for, but (as I'm sure you're aware) the US Government is much more likely to grant 10,000 Startup Visas than to go through the process of granting 100 to 1 group. That's like, the opposite of how they work - it shows favoritism, it takes a lot of process for what seems like insignificant results (whether the USG produces significant results or not, their numbers are never in the hundreds of anything), etc.

I suggest continuing to pool resources and lobby for 10,000 - that is much more likely to yield results.

Survivor bias is the opposite of objectively rational and actionable data.

[edit]

The thrust of his argument is that YC is asking to be granted special privileges, in a circumstance in which they happen to directly benefit, in a way that only helps them unfairly cement their already privileged position.

It'd be hard for me to look at this privilege being granted as anything other than evidence of corporate/investor oligarchical corruption -- an outlook that isn't improved by your referencing their importance to success.