
America to immigrants: keep your entrepreneurs - cwan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-innovations/americas-to-immigrantsgive-me-your-tired-your-poor-but-not-your-entrepreneurs/2012/10/02/938cb15c-0cb9-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html
======
tosseraccount
If America really wants to increase entrepreneurship, make health insurance
portable and not tied to corporate America. That would encourage workers to
start their own business.

Trying to tweak the immigration process in the name of "increased
entrepreneurship" is often just a ruse for "open the borders!!!". Fine in and
of itself if that's your beef. Just please file it right folder.

Letting Congress, political donors, H1-B employers and college administrators
try and engineer the future by selecting "winners" seems like something
they're going to mess up.

Better to have limited, legal only immigration based on a points system rather
than turn it into a subsidy for Sand Hill Road.

~~~
rogerbinns
I'd add two other things to fix too. The first is housing. It is not a triumph
every time the cost of housing goes up. That just diverts funds that could
have been spent on other things into housing, makes it considerably more
expensive to move, and reduces the runway given a certain amount of funding.
We would all be better off if houses were $1 each not $1m each.

The second is the pitiful broadband available all over the country. With
better broadband it is far easier to take advantage of contributors all over
the country. Telepresence would allow collaborators to feel as though they are
in the same room, and is best served by high bandwidths. Data files keep
getting larger so it helps there too. And if you are using a remote computer
displaying locally then again it is best served by higher bandwidths (and
lower latencies).

~~~
potatolicious
> _"We would all be better off if houses were $1 each not $1m each."_

We would? Last I checked $1 can't even build some branches and a tarp.

But to address your main point:

> _"It is not a triumph every time the cost of housing goes up."_

Indeed. Neither is it a triumph every time the cost of food goes up. Or the
cost of gas. Or the cost of clothing. Or the cost of basic needs like the
plumber or the mechanic. We would all (on a micro scale) be much better off if
prices simply stayed put.

Except in an economy where all prices are fixed your entrepreneurship wouldn't
go anywhere either... What you're proposing is a complete removal of the free
market economy and putting _vast_ portions of it under central planning.
History has some indications as to how that works (tip: "disaster" doesn't
begin to describe it).

~~~
rmason
Not in Detroit. True most of the $1 houses are gone but you'd be surprised by
what $100 will purchase.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/detroit-houses-
for-1-dollar-2...](http://www.businessinsider.com/detroit-houses-
for-1-dollar-2012-2?op=1)

~~~
potatolicious
And Detroit isn't the aftermath of a gigantic disaster? ;)

Granted, Detroit is a disaster that _didn't_ come from the nationalization of
vast portions of private property.

------
rdl
It was interesting listening to a fairly liberal guest on Bloomberg/Charlie
Rose the other day, who claimed the search for "comprehensive" immigration
reform was the biggest enemy of high-skill immigration reform right now.

Essentially everyone agrees on easier and longer (to permanent) visas for
future or currently-legal but temporary visa entrepreneurs, high skill
immigrants (for various definitions), etc. There isn't a clear consensus on
how to handle pre-existing other immigrants, or future low-skill immigrants.
There are also weird corner cases caused by long-term illegal/undocumented
presence by children, which is what the DREAM act is supposed to address -- a
child who was brought here shortly after birth, who grew up a US citizen,
graduated high school, college, etc., really doesn't seem the same as an adult
who recently and of his own free will crossed the border.

Part of it is racial/racism, but a lot of it is economics; trying to paint
enemies of mass unskilled immigration or immigration amnesty as just racists
is doing everyone a disservice. But it's also undeniable that the high-skill
immigrants with problems are generally from India and China (where the H1B
system is most broken due to nationwide quotas) and from other parts of Asia,
Europe, etc., and the illegal/low skill immigrants are largely from Mexico,
Guatemala, and other Latin American countries.

There is also some confusion about credentials vs. actual skills, too -- I'd
rather bring Bill Gates in than most people with BA's from diploma mills or
even legitimate PhDs.

The problem with comprehensive reform (as championed by the democrats and
Obama) is that it's all or nothing, vs. incrementally solving each class. The
proponents of comprehensive believe (probably rightly) that solving the most
obvious and pressing problem (the 1 million or so skilled immigrants who are
all currently legal) will take away the drive to solve the 12 million
unskilled/illegal immigrants already here, or the many million who would
immigrate without skills if it were easy and open. It would also quite
possibly lead to a more restrictive regime for the unskilled vs. skilled.

Ultimately we seem to be solving the immigration problem by destroying the US
economy (outside high tech and government, neither of which employs a lot of
illegals), thus depressing wages and job opportunities for illegal/unskilled
immigrants, while mexico continues to develop its economy -- it makes more
sense to work there legally for 10% the cost of living and 30% the wage in
many cases.

~~~
_delirium
> It would also quite possibly lead to a more restrictive regime for the
> unskilled vs. skilled.

What I'm worried is that it'll also lead to more market distortion, as the
government tries to micromanage specific industries and quotas, which will
inevitably be based on which industries lobby the most. If it were a fairly
general skilled/unskilled distinction, like Canada's points system, I'd
support that, though.

------
Sharma
Not fully related to this article but inline with the comments what I am
reading.

I am always amazed at the different kinds of programs and rules introduced by
USA for giving permanency to illegal immigrants where as people moving/moved
legally (H1b/L1b etc) have to wait forever(like 10 years and still waiting) to
get that status.People on H1B/L1B can not start a side business and these are
the tech people(mostly) who can add lots of value to the existing market.

~~~
kylecsteele
Your statement that "H1B/L1B can not start a side business" is factually
incorrect. Any legal non immigrant can start a business, who he/she cannot
work for it. That's the problem.

~~~
Sharma
Well I know about that.You can open a company but can not work for it.What is
the use?

------
tokenadult
Vivek Wadhwa writes about his pet issue yet again, with this article including
the key point about his evidence, "I tell Desai’s and others’ stories in my
book," and at least this time a reference to an study by the Kauffman
Foundation

[http://www.kauffman.org//uploadedFiles/Then_and_now_americas...](http://www.kauffman.org//uploadedFiles/Then_and_now_americas_new_immigrant_entrepreneurs.pdf)

of which he was the principal author.

Get ready for the key statistic from the report: "The proportion of immigrant-
founded companies nationwide has dropped from 25.3 percent to 24.3 percent
since 2005. While the margins of error of these numbers overlap, they
nonetheless indicate that immigrant-founded companies’ dynamic period of
expansion has come to an end." Okay, so the change in percentage is within the
standard error of measurement; a percentage change of that kind would be seen
even if there were more immigrant-founded companies than ever, as long as more
native-born Americans than ever found companies; and there is NO indication
that Silicon Valley's flood of innovation has ceased.

What is the problem here? Quantitatively, what is the proof that any policy
change is needed?

AFTER EDIT: Responding to the offense taken by the replies kindly posted
below, let me explain my position. My PERSONAL position on immigration to the
United States as a matter of policy is that I would be happy to see it go back
to the way it was in the 1870s, when anyone could immigrate from anywhere with
hardly any regulation of immigration at all. All of my ancestors arrived in
the United States by those rules--all of my ancestors were in North America
well in advance of the building of the immigration processing station at Ellis
Island in New York City.

I am intimately familiar with United States immigration law, having formerly
worked as an immigration lawyer (as described in my user profile here on
Hacker News) and being the husband of a first-generation immigrant to the
United States from Taiwan. I have lived abroad for six years of my life (in
two separate three-year stays), so I have a pretty good idea of how one
country treats foreign residents from America. The clients for my current
occupation, teaching mathematics lessons through a local nonprofit
organization, included first-generation immigrants from China, India, Russia,
Romania, the Philippines, Korea, Ghana, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, and other
countries I may be forgetting at the moment. I like immigrants, and I like
America to be full of immigrants--that makes life here more interesting.

But to persuade the legislative process in the United States to change the
rules requires more convincing evidence than the anecdotes that Vivek Wadhwa
repeatedly brings forward. Another comment here astutely pointed out that the
recent trend line in immigration from Taiwan is that entrepreneur immigration
to the United States is decreasing. That's because Taiwan has democratized,
liberalized, and prospered during my lifetime. Now people who were born in
Taiwan can pursue their advanced education in many different countries, being
well prepared by the generally excellent primary and secondary education
there, and then can decide for themselves where to settle to establish a
career. They can go back to the country where they grew up and where their
relatives and childhood friends live if they like. I think it's great for
people to have choice like that. I don't think it is any problem for the
United States at all if people from Taiwan develop their entrepreneurial
businesses in Taiwan. The same is true of India and China. People from India
and China continue to come to the United States in large numbers, as I can
personally observe. Some study here and then go back to the countries of their
birth. No one has made a case that United States policy has to change much to
influence the numbers one way or another.

~~~
jhuckestein
That's a fair criticism of the study, but you're misunderstanding the point
Vivek is making. Policy change has ALWAYS been necessary. In fact, it is now a
little bit easier than a few years ago to be an immigrant entrepreneur [1].
The point is that soon these entrepreneurs will just stay in their home
country or move to a more entrepreneur-friendly country instead of going
through all this trouble.

I'm an entrepreneur from Germany and I can't help but feel slightly offended
by your comment. You seem to think either a) I should go back to Germany for
some reason or b) it's cool for me to stay here, but only if I jump through a
series of ridiculous hoops. If you don't feel that way, you should support a
change in legislation.

[1] For example, you can get an EB2 NIW visa as an entrepreneur and I've heard
of many cases where O3 was granted even though the person wasn't really
"notable"

~~~
dpritchett
I have seen several pieces by Wadhwa in Techcrunch [1]. The point usually
seems to be "Microsoft and Google can't hire all the developers they want _at
the price they're willing to pay_ ; we should increase H1-B quotas".

This isn't to say that immigration is bad or that MS and Google aren't having
trouble hiring, it's to say that MS and Google might very well be able to find
more people within the US if they paid more.

Look at it in the context of six top tech companies being caught colluding to
keep domestic employee wages down through no-poach agreements [2].

[1] [http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/30/free-the-h-1bs-free-the-
eco...](http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/30/free-the-h-1bs-free-the-economy/)

[2] <http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html>

~~~
rayiner
Seriously. Microsoft, Google, etc, are in no position to lobby for more H1B
until they address the rampant anti-competitive employment practices in the
industry.

~~~
dpritchett
Google in particular is a fun case study:

    
    
      $1,167,000 revenue per employee     [1]
        $299,000 net income per employee  [1]
        $106,000 mean salary              [2]
    

[1]
[http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=financials&symbol=N%5EGOO...](http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=financials&symbol=N%5EGOOG)

[2] <http://www.salarylist.com/company/Google-Salary.htm>

~~~
rayiner
I like to point out that Google has higher revenues per employee than Goldman
Sachs, but a mid-level banker at GS makes several times as much money as a
mid-level engineer at Google.

~~~
drumdance
This is an excellent point.

I did some quick Googling (ha!) and found that GS net income per employee for
last quarter on an annualized basis was about $119,000, less than half
Google's average

[http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/17/investing/goldman-sachs-
earn...](http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/17/investing/goldman-sachs-
earnings/index.htm)

$962 million * 4 quarters / 32,300 employees = $119,133

~~~
rayiner
I think why this happens is this: if you're on a trading desk of 10 people
that makes $10m, it's easy to quantify your contribution and use that as
leverage to get a big bonus. If you're on one of 10 product teams that each
have 10 people and in total generate $100m in revenue, it's hard to quantify
your specific contribution and use it to negotiate a large bonus, even though
you're bringing in the same revenue on an averaged basis.

I've always wondered why compensation in software engineering is lower
compared to revenues than similar professions. A lot of the things that are
either facially true or commonly held beliefs: software has low capital costs,
good programmers are much more productive than bad ones, a lot of revenue can
be brought in with a relatively small team, are the things that make banking,
law, consulting, and even accounting more relatively lucrative for workers as
opposed to shareholders. But I think there is this holdover perception of
treating software engineers like other engineers, even though the dynamics of
those fields is very different (massive teams coordinating to build pyramids
with huge capital costs).

~~~
dpritchett
Commodity programmers have externally limited individual leverage
(aforementioned 'teams building pyramids' strategy [1]) and systematically
limited measurement (because their measurable output is blended with that of
the supporting organization). On top of all that, any commoditized worker is
going to have extremely limited leverage in salary negotiations due to the
ease of replacing them.

pg's "How to Make Wealth" [2] does a great job of explaining the interplay
between leverage, measurement, and wealth:

 _To get rich you need to get yourself in a situation with two things,
measurement and leverage. You need to be in a position where your performance
can be measured, or there is no way to get paid more by doing more. And you
have to have leverage, in the sense that the decisions you make have a big
effect.

Measurement alone is not enough. An example of a job with measurement but not
leverage is doing piecework in a sweatshop. Your performance is measured and
you get paid accordingly, but you have no scope for decisions. The only
decision you get to make is how fast you work, and that can probably only
increase your earnings by a factor of two or three.

An example of a job with both measurement and leverage would be lead actor in
a movie. Your performance can be measured in the gross of the movie. And you
have leverage in the sense that your performance can make or break it._

[1] <http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/front/node1.html>

[2] <http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html>

~~~
eli_gottlieb
But then why isn't, say, academia incredibly lucrative? It's got both
measurement and leverage in the form of research grants, and leverage as well
in publications.

~~~
jonnathanson
Academia can be _incredibly_ lucrative for rockstar grant writers, leaders in
scientific fields, and authors.

These folks typically don't command astronomical salaries (though they do get
paid much, much more handsomely than you'd imagine). Rather, some of them
publish bestsellers (and demand the university's help in getting access to
leading magazines, publishers, press, etc.). Some of them start their own
labs, companies, or institutions that are funded by the schools. Some of them
clean up on the lecture circuit. Some researchers -- especially in biomedical
fields -- make fortunes (for both their universities and themselves) by
selling or licensing patents to private enterprise.

For instance, I'm a writer by hobby. As such, I tend to hang around a lot of
other writers (note: I don't recommend this). A common complaint among writers
is that writing doesn't pay well. And, on average, that's true. But the world
of writing isn't a neat, Gaussian distribution of income. It's a power-law
distribution. Most writers are lucky to clear $50k a year in academia, or
working for a large and respectable publication. But Malcolm Gladwell earns
well north of $10 million a year. Michael Lewis probably makes even more. And
don't even get me started on fiction. The woman who wrote "50 Shades of Grey"
makes, on average, $3 million _a week_. J.K. Rowling is a billionaire. Stephen
King is probably a near-billionaire. That guy who crapped out "The Da Vinci
Code" could just about afford to purchase the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, were
he so inclined.

Writing, like academia, is an all-or-nothing sport. There tends to be a very
small slice of outsized winners, and a very large slice of abject losers. I
don't mean "winners" and "losers" in a pejorative sense. I mean it in the
sense that the pie is divided very, very, very unevenly. The average is very
low, but the high end is quite high.

This is in stark contrast to, say, i-banking -- wherein a small proportion
make an outlandish amount of money, but everyone else still makes a really
large chunk of money.

------
lbarrow
One of my first jobs out of college was with MobileWorks, a YC company founded
in part by foreign graduate students at Berkeley. I wouldn't have been
employed if the founders hadn't managed to navigate the atrocious laws
preventing foreign entrepreneurs from starting companies in the US.

I'm sure that for every American with a story like mine, there are dozens of
people who could have been employed at companies started by foreign-born
entrepreneurs but never had the chance. The US is doing serious, long-term
damage to itself with these wrong-headed policies.

------
lovamova
I just found that the H1-B visa requires a bachelor's degree. You can't get
work in the US if you're a talented designer or programmer and don't have a
degree.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
This is a problem? If you really want to work in the US, getting a bachelor's
degree is one of the easiest hurdles to cross!

~~~
trustfundbaby
Except that whole "paying for it thing", there are very very few
grants/scholarships for international students and they pay out-of-state fees
plus a little more for being foreigners. Plus, outside of CPT you're not
allowed to work in the US (only 20hrs max, on campus employment is allowed, if
you can get it) to make money.

So yeah ... not as easy as it seems.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
Um... you have to have the degree _before_ you attempt to enter the US.

~~~
trustfundbaby
That is factually incorrect. You can come here on an F1 visa, get a degree and
then get a H-1b

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
OK. Let's start over.

The original complaint was that someone wanted to come into the US, but the
visa he wanted required that he have (at least) a bachelor's degree before he
could get the visa.

My response was that this was a fairly straightforward hurdle to cross.

Pointing out that it's possible to do things differently by obtaining another
type of visa really doesn't change the original situation.

------
confluence
Entrepreneurs are overvalued. Period.

The glorification and, sometimes deification, of various entrepreneurs as
almost single handedly bringing the world out of the darkness is complete
bullshit and merely an example of the fundamental attribution error writ large
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error>).

People just completely forget that a) the world is an incredibly complex
system that rarely has single factor causes to various effects and b) that
people just don't matter - the ecosystem that surrounds them matters much
more.

For example not worrying about personal security frees up employees to take
more risk. A strong rule of law that attempts to equate wrongs allows people
to focus on value added services rather than the fear of litigation. Access to
cheap raw materials (plentiful mining/food/water) allows one to easily build
things that would be quite simply uneconomical anywhere else. A capitalist
system allows more niches to be profitably exploited than centrally planned
economies. "Special innovative people" are by far the least of your worries.

Systems matter more than any one person and anyone who gives you the "A
player" talk is full of crap - "A player" yourself out of Afghanistan as a
sick female and we'll see who's talking.

------
Zenst
When I see a headline like this one I immediately think of this cartoon :
[http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/wp-
content/uploads/2007/...](http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/wp-
content/uploads/2007/04/first_illegal_immigrants.jpg)

I chuckle a bit and then move onto the headline "America to immigrants: ‘Give
me your tired, your poor’ but keep your entrepreneurs" Written by Vivek Wadhwa
and chuckle some more.

I then having got past the title got to read a rather insightful article about
how it is easy to come and work in America and visa's for that exist. But if
you which to start a company and as such have a situation were you have to
apply for citizenship, then you could have a top 25 existing company in-play
already employing American's and pay lots of TAX then you can still be told
sorry no. That said there was mention of a % drop in immigrant started
companies and this still points to them happening. I suspect the tighter
limits has meant raising the bar beyond what it needs to be for many and with
that perhaps a new type of VISA needs to be made. I don't know the whole
American VISA system that well, but certainly some middle ground from worker
VISA to citizen VISA to cater for those employing American's can be met. Maybe
if they employ so many then they qualify. So for example if you can form a
company and employ say 5 people full time then you are granted say a 5 year
business VISA which is reviewed every 5 years to see that you meet checks and
after say 3 period gain a full citizenship. Something like that, though a lot
more detailed against loopholes I suspect.

But still, very nice read and very good article, despite the interesting
choice of title, albeit once you have read the article you will see why it is
just on so many levels sadly.

------
jfaucett
I'm not a political scientist but being an immigrant myself (not to US but
Germany), I've never understood why the whole issue can't be as simple as just
letting people come in with a visa, applying for jobs (without law enforced
disadvantages), and pay taxes, after x amount of years working and paying
taxes then applying for citizenship and basta. I don't see what countries have
to lose except skilled laborers that are working and paying taxes, boosting
the economy and fostering innovation...

~~~
rayiner
You're considering one case. But in a modern western country, citizenship
comes with many benefits. It obliges the country to educate the immigrant's
kids for free for 13 years each. It obliges the country to extend its social
welfare programs to the immigrant and his family. It's reasonable for the
country to want to control what obligations it incurs. You act like its risk-
free for the host country, but it's not. You consider the immigrant who gets a
job and pays taxes, but what about the ones that fail to get jobs and need
welfare?

~~~
njs12345
There are pretty easy ways around this e.g. require new immigrants to put
enough money in escrow to cover a trip back to their home country and prevent
them from claiming any sort of state benefits for a certain period.

Regardless, I don't really think many immigrants go to another country just to
be unemployed and claim benefits, especially for the people we're talking
about here (those from developed Western countries who want to come to the US
to be entrepreneurs/work in tech), which makes me think people are really
concerned about wage deflation rather than anything else.

~~~
rayiner
Once someone is here, sending them back is a challenge.

And there aren't a ton of well-established people from western countries
clamorimg to come here. There are some, but the majority are less established
people--students, etc. It's a higher-risk demographic than you imply.
Entrepreneurship is inherently quite risky, and there are plenty of unemployed
people in tech.

~~~
njs12345
Unemployment is not pleasant in the US. I'm inclined to believe that most
people from a Western nation would up and leave willingly if they weren't
having much success, and that people from less developed nations would too if
they weren't able to claim benefits. Being an immigrant isn't easy after all -
if you're going to be unemployed it's probably easier to be unemployed in your
home nation where you have a support network.

------
0ren
While I may agree that the US should do more to encourage immigrant
entrepreneurs, I do not think that the author chose a good openning example.

The author points to statistics about tech companies started by immigrants and
presents Desai as part of the team that developed new technology, but Desai
studied MBA and he was only doing an administrative job at IR Diagnostyx[0].

Moreover, the openning example does not seem to be precise; the author claims
that Desai was not given an opportunity to start his business, which does not
seem to be aligned with Desai being affiliated with IR Diagnostyx from 2009 to
Feb 2012[1]. Furthermore, upon graduation in 2009, the US did give Desai 12
months of OPT[2], for which self-employment does qualify. In fact, if Desai
had studied Science/Tech/Engineering/Math, he would have been give an an
extension of 17 months of OPT[3], for a total of ~2.5 years to work on his
business.

[0] [http://it-
jobs.fins.com/Articles/SB130652363641519729/Americ...](http://it-
jobs.fins.com/Articles/SB130652363641519729/American-Dream-Fades-
for-H-1B-Hopefuls)

[1] <http://www.linkedin.com/in/hardikadesai>

[2] Optional Practical Training, assuming he was on F1 visa as a student:
[http://icenter.stanford.edu/students/current/employment_faq....](http://icenter.stanford.edu/students/current/employment_faq.html)

[3]
[http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f...](http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ff791c491861a110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD)

------
gregors
seems like fud to me, how else could you explain this?
[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/29/us-usa-visa-
extrao...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/29/us-usa-visa-
extraordinary-idUSBRE85S09A20120629)

------
photorized
Re: "But the U.S. government wouldn’t provide Hardik with a visa to start the
company. Hardik had no difficulty in getting an H1-B visa that allowed him to
work, but immigration rules did not allow him to work for a company that he
started. So, he abandoned his entrepreneurial dreams."

Obstacles like this shouldn't stop an entrepreneur. I had to do the whole H1-B
thing myself, while bootstrapping another business on the side - and there are
no rules against that. I know others who did the same. Have a job, launch a
company in your spare time.

~~~
mavelikara
Was the startup you launched on the side profitable? Were you able to draw any
income from it?

------
gideon_b
As an American citizen working in Canada I have the same problem on the other
side of the fence. My work permit is tied to my Canadian employer and it is
not possible for me to get a work permit as a self employed worker or an
entrepreneur.

From what I understand this is a fairly universal problem with immigration
policy. Most developed countries are unwilling hand over work permits for
hopes and dreams. I wish there was a way around this but as far as I know you
cannot start a company without permanent residency.

------
tomasien
I wonder if there are any stats or correlations between universal healthcare
(or something similar) and entrepreneurship. It's supposed to increase job
churn, which is awesome for the economy, and you'd think more people would
start their own businesses if saving their healthcare wasn't a consideration.

I know personally that I started my own business specifically because I was
allowed to stay on my parents healthcare until I'm 25(26? Shit I should figure
that out) so even with $5k in savings, I was like why not?

~~~
tomasien
That's a massive over-simplification of my insatiable call to be a builder,
but without the security of health insurance coverage I might not have done it
straight out of college.

------
makmanalp
I actually know that it _is_ possible to get an H-1B for a legitimate business
that you, as a foreign entrepreneur, founded. I also know that such
applications are very rare and very thoroughly scrutinized to make sure it's
not an immigration loophole, and there is the restriction that you cannot be a
majority shareholder, which kills it unless you have partners.

Less known is that a person can also sponsor you for an H-1B if you are going
to be working for them.

------
GNUAerospace
“H-1B workers may be hired even when a qualified US worker wants the job, and
a US worker can be displaced from the job in favor of the foreign worker.” US
Department of Labor

The US government and corporations have sold you out as a US CITIZEN. See the
proof
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU&](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU&);

------
winter_blue
Is anyone here rejoicing at the fact that due erroneous U.S. immigration
policies India and China are suffering less brain drain??

------
ta12121
Regarding the title, I assure you that the poor and the tired have a harder
time immigrating to the U.S. than any entrepreneur.

------
Jd
Title is confusing. It should be "would-be immigrants" not "immigrants."

------
arbuge
It's hard to understand how byzantine and ridiculous the immigration system is
unless you've been through it.

I have no idea whose interest it is currently serving - I know for a fact not
America's though.

------
dxbydt
oh its a vivek wadhwa piece...if vivek says the sun rises from the east, i'm
much more likely to believe it must be the west. vivek periodically writes
these half baked partisan anecdote-ridden pieces & calls it "research"....as a
former immigrant and a recipient of the so-called "genius visa" (EB1), i'm
very sympathetic to the cause. yes, immigration to the USA is very hassly and
the laws must be vastly simplified etc... but this won't do. this sort of
article is akin to a startup job post on HN. "Immigration. Its broken! We must
fix it. We are a group of yc founders who will build immigration from scratch
in Ruby on Rails. For the harder parts we will ofcourse use PHP. You must be a
rockstar immigrant with 100 years of immigration behind you. For bonus points,
show me your immigration in github. Solve this immigration puzzle on our
website using only backbone.js and coffeescript, and you can score an
exclusive lunch with us, cooked by immigrants, catered by immigrants,
exclusively for you, the immigrant. Don't forget to carry your H1B visas on
your person, you never know when you might be deported! Apply already, but
only after you decode our bcrypt secured ROT13 encrypted immigration email and
pay processing fees of 13 dollars 26 cents exclusively in bitcoins".

founding companies is not simply a matter of talent and risk-appetite, which,
arguably, the STEM immigrant has more of. its also a matter of feeling secure
with your finances, having a house in a good school district, having a CD or
two for the rainy day, having some connections to the VC community, having the
time & desire to hack up a prototype & blog about it & build a community &
attract enough interest...all of which immigrants are less likely to do, given
that we are already preoccupied with keeping a job, keeping our immigration
papers in order, gradually building up savings, digging ourselves out of the
negative equity hole that most of us are in because we borrowed money to get
here in the first place...i could go on and on, but i won't. suffice it to
say, the sun definitely rises in the west, because vivek has said its the
east.

------
bduerst
Doesn't the O-Visa allow you to create and run a business?

~~~
codegeek
O visa is for exceptional ability and they really mean exceptional. So who
qualifies for those ? people with scientific researches, publications,
inventions etc. Not the average hacker.

~~~
gregors
Shera Bechard got one

------
ck2
In perspective, does ANY country do this "right" ?

------
stewie2
the DREAM Act is not for real dreamers.

------
urgeio
The US isn't the only place to start something, try Berlin and say goodbye to
any visa problems.

Top 5 reasons why you should move to Berlin, now:

1\. Lowest livings costs with highest quality of living. Stay in gorgeous,
perfectly renovated apartments in pre-WWII residential buildings with high
ceilings, right in the middle of the center and pay a fraction of costs of any
other capital (even cheaper than any Eastern European capital). No need for a
car—Berlin has one of the densest subway nets and wide streets make biking
fun.

2\. A vibrant and fast growing ecosystem of smart people. A vast number of new
software talents, founders, software companies and VCs are moving to Berlin,
every day (Twitter, Google, Soundcloud, Early Bird and many more).

3\. People here are open-minded, outgoing, mix well and international—no need
to learn German, everyone speaks English! Making new friends is a matter of
days. Visit tons of networking and startup events, every week.

4\. Easy work permissions—Europeans do not need any and can work from day one
and the rest applies for the hassle-free Blue Card.

5\. Berlin's night life is unmatched, huge and changing every day (plus
ridiculously cheap). Berlin has got some of the most dazzling, naughty, and
original clubs on the face of the Earth.

Berlin is calling and getting the new tech hub of Europe. If you are
passionate about building great software, we’d love to talk with you. If you
don't live in Berlin yet, we could help to fix that.

=> <http://urge.io/jobs> (shameless plug)

~~~
tomjen3
I wouldn't want to start a company in Germany, but I wouldn't mind working
there. I like Berlin though I would hate to help pay the bailout money for
Greece.

~~~
Agathos
What's your attitude to starting a company in the USA? The Greek bailout is
puny next to the projected Medicare deficit. Then add Social Security, state
and local pensions...

~~~
tomjen3
I would love to. Can't really get a visa though.

I don't mind bailing out medicare or SS. I just don't want to transfer my work
to somebody who will shit on me for doing it and then use the funds to pay
people who call me evil.

