America can't be the world's tech leader without immigration reform.

What kind would be useful?

Forget tech leader - merely being the leader in terms of population growth or influence requires a significant boost in population. There are many people of means who would like to move to the US who could fill all those homes sitting empty and rejuvenate the economy.

I agree with you to a certain extent and would have upvoted if rather than pointing out all the ways of gaming it, you could have at least mentioned 1 way of solving the problem.

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.

Two words. DREAM Act. http://dreamact.info

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.

Without getting into a very detailed discussion, let me put it this way. I think a convoluted system is the price of such a system. It boils down to the need to define startup. This is something we are better off not doing. Once you give startups special rights of some sort, companies & people have an incentive to be 'startups' rather than just companies. People might have an incentive to be startups rather than professionals. This is the kind of distortion I was talking about.

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.