
Want jobs? Encourage immigration - sathishmanohar
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/25/opinion/wilkinson-jobs-immigration/index.html
======
kiba
Jobs. It would seems that we have an obsession with creating jobs.

If you hear politicians, and if my perception are right, they talk about jobs.
Not whether or not we get more purchasing power than ever before. Not whether
or not our lifestyle is more fulfilling than ever before. Jobs. More jobs.
Less jobs. More competitive Americans. No manufacturing jobs. Colleges not
creating enough people to fill jobs. Robots are destroying our jobs. Robots
need to be maintain by something or someone, probably another robot or human
being.

But jobs are just proxy. A proxy for our self-worth, our independence, or
whether or not we have a future. Jobs, for us, are just means to an end. Yes,
some of us are musicians, football players, programmers, scientists, etc. We
like our jobs. I suspect the vast majority of humans don't really enjoy all
that much working their job.

Rather than talking about creating jobs and destroying jobs, which is an
assumption that exists in a world where there are scarcity and there's boring
things to do for humans to maintain their existence, why not talk about the
end, what should our goal be in life? We can then rearrange our actions in
life based on our conclusion what our life should be and what we want to
achieve rather than just simply on what needed to be done at this point in
time.

After all, if a strong FAI comes, we may not even have jobs. At the same time,
we ought to figure out what's our life purpose other than going to a job and
work for someone or operating a business just to simply maintain our
existence. There's no longer a need to grow your food, goes to the hair saloon
to cut someone's hair, pump the gas, etc. How are we going to live for the
next 10,000 years and 10,000 years beyond that and so on?

~~~
potatolicious
This is a nice thought, and might be relevant a few decades ago when America
was at the top of its game in relation to all the other countries on Earth.
Now, I'm not so sure. You're talking about a post-scarcity society when a
growing portion of Americans can't even put food on the table or a roof over
their head. You're talking the personal fulfillment when more and more
Americans are forced to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet.

It's nice that you have the freedom and the time to ponder such ideological
issues. It's nice that you're able to look higher on the hierarchy of needs
rather than scrabbling for scraps. I mean that in the non-snarkiest of ways,
really.

But for the vast majority of the population they _need_ a job right now. They
don't have time to worry about your high-minded concepts of personal
fulfillment, and whether or not a FAI will usher in a utopia of zero scarcity.
They need to make rent and put groceries in the fridge _this week_.

The politicians are focusing on jobs as a core issue because that's what's
foremost on people's minds. It's foremost on people's minds because _it's
exactly what they need_. They need more jobs in a stronger economy. Imagine if
all the unemployed folk in this country just sat around waiting for the post-
scarcity society to hit them upside the head!

~~~
tokenadult
_You're talking about a post-scarcity society when a growing portion of
Americans can't even put food on the table or a roof over their head._

What are the actual numbers here? How does this situation compare with other
countries in the world?

The huge majority of Americans have, if anything, excessive food on their
tables, and the great majority of Americans live in houses with sounder roofs
over more square feet of floor space than people in most other countries. Why
should Americans feel any urgency about changes in immigration policy when
they know that most people who might like to come to the United States will
instantly have more access to food and housing as soon as they set foot in
America?

~~~
potatolicious
> _"Why should Americans feel any urgency about changes in immigration policy
> when they know that most people who might like to come to the United States
> will instantly have more access to food and housing as soon as they set foot
> in America?"_

Because things out there aren't nearly as bad as the average American
believes. As an Asian immigrant to North America, it's constantly shocking how
backwards many Americans imagine the rest of the world to be. Yes, much of the
world has running water, sewage systems, fast food, and the internet.

Not everywhere else in the world is begging for a National Geographic special,
or commercials full of starving babies pleading for your aid. The India of
1980 is not the same as a the India of 2011. The China seen in Tiananmen
Square is not the same China one sees today. Many Americans' impressions of
the rest of the world seem firmly rooted in the Cold War.

It used to be true that moving to the USA meant pretty much a guaranteed,
dramatic rise in the standard of living. But guess what? America's QOL is
dropping precipitously, while parts of the world previously considered
"developing" can now give America a run for its money in terms of QOL. There's
a great equalization going on, and _that_ is why the US needs to worry about
its immigration policy.

Ten years ago immigrating to the West was _the_ thing. People would smack
their own grandmothers silly for a chance at a one-way ticket out of Asia and
into America. You would be surprised how quickly this has changed. I've known
many people who came to the US and Canada for degrees and then have
voluntarily gone back to Asia, despite offers to stay.

tl;dr: America needs to get its head on straight, it's no longer the gold
standard for quality of life in this world.

------
georgemcbay
I'm pro-immigration, but the article still feels like a bit of a sham to me by
highlightling Brin, Omidyar and Yang without addressing the fact that Sergey
Brin immigrated to America when he was 6, Pierre Omidyar was also 6 and Jerry
Yang was 10.

How do you know then that they'll be massive job creators? Certainly each of
them had ambitious parents and that's something, but then so does just about
everyone who actively works to immigrate to a new place for a better life...
assuming we can't figure out who the next Brin will be when they are 6 or 10
(and we can't), is the author arguing we should just open up the floodgates to
everyone with educated parents? Because that's a heckofalot of people.

~~~
HistoryInAction
But since we don't have a visa that allows for entrepreneurial founders to
immigrate here, how can we have examples to highlight their potential
contributions? The closest thing we can do is point to similar people.

Personally, I think that Vinod Khosla and Manu Kumar are better examples. I'm
of the understanding that Khosla didn't have a valid visa when Sun was
founded, but an exemption was made because of the sheer success of the company
from nearly day 1.

The other thing I want to look at is people like Robin Li of Baidu, American
educated, employed by American companies, but when it came time to create a
company, he went home. Possibly, even likely, that was because a company
serving Chinese should be based in China, but it's certain that since he
didn't have a green card, he wouldn't be able to get a visa as a founder to
stay here. America loses when people who could stay here to found companies
return to their country to create jobs and foreign competition there.

~~~
georgemcbay
I don't disagree with you at all on the immigration issues and I fully support
fast track immigration & citizenship for high-value immigrants, I just think
it is intellectually dishonest to use 3 founders who all immigrated before
they were teenagers as examples for a point the author was trying to make when
they don't really fit the narrative. That the author didn't even mention the
age that these men immigrated makes it feel like she was trying to pull a fast
one on the reader who has heard the names but isn't really familiar with their
stories (which will be most readers).

As far as Baidu goes, I don't think it could exist as a non-Chinese company,
and more because of China's government policies than the USA's.

~~~
HistoryInAction
The fit the narrative of 'immigrants are statistically hungrier for startup
success,' specifically referencing this line in the article: "According to
statistics from Partnership for a New American Economy, 40% of Fortune 500
companies were created by immigrants or their children."

From there, the author goes on to say that if the immigrants and their
children are more likely to start companies, why are we preventing young
adults from coming here to start companies, especially if they are validated
by making something people want as demonstrated by either VC validation or
pure revenue numbers? The third path of Startup Visa 2011 is for people valued
enough to receive a US education or H1-B visa, as currently they are not
valued enough to be allowed to start a company, with no visa existing for them
to do so.

I find it a bit of a stretch, but not intellectually dishonest, though I do
see why it's reasonable to think so.

I take the point on Baidu, but that's the sort of company I'm looking to
promote as a counterpoint when we pitch our next follow-ups to ABC and NBC
after Amit's story.

~~~
_delirium
The main thing that seems like a huge stretch is that those are good examples
for an idea of a "parental visa", giving visas to immigrants _with children_
who you think are likely to be good parents, whose kids will then grow up in
U.S. society and be highly successful. Not as good examples in support of the
"entrepreneur visa" idea, which expects the people receiving the visa to
themselves start a company in the short term, something that didn't actually
happen in any of those examples.

~~~
HistoryInAction
I hear you, there are significant flaws in the examples she uses. I still
think they're valid in demonstrating a different point than "entrepreneur
visa." Her point is that there is an 'immigrant' demographic, and this
demographic makes for good founders. Then, and only then, she makes the point
that an entrepreneur visa for founders is a good idea.

The author uses immigrants' children/very young immigrants not immediately
connected to the plan of starting a company to reference the entire immigrant
demographic as a whole, since current US policies make it extremely improbable
we can come up with good positive examples of a young immigrant starting a
company, because US immigration rules prevent this situation from occurring.

Her logic is as follows: -Fact: "According to statistics from Partnership for
a New American Economy, 40% of Fortune 500 companies were created by
immigrants or their children." -Examples: Immigrants' children starting
Fortune 500 companies

The logic here is using the immigrants' children to support the point that
both immigrants and their children start companies, since the only direct
immigrants who started the companies were either much older and already gone
through the green card or broke the rules to start their company.

One of the major problems in our advocacy is that there is this big negative
space that we /think/ can be filled. By definition, because it's a negative
space, there are no positive examples to point to in making the argument.
Positive examples strengthen any abstract argument, so they must be made. In
this case, the author goes to young immigrants not immediately connected to
startups to make the case that immigrants as a class make for good founders.

From there, the author makes one of her major points:

-Argument: US immigration prevents people from starting companies shortly after entering the country due to current visa rules -Example: Amit Aharoni/ABC story -Conclusion: Therefore we should change policy to allow more people like Amit in, hopefully creating more successes in this 'immigrant' demographic.

------
potatolicious
The US really needs to emulate other countries here.

The problem here is that the "immigrant" visa is really the same thing as a
work visa, and that leads to a great deal of abuse.

For one thing, the eligibility is tied to an employer, who is incentivized to
embellish, cheat, and otherwise finagle their way to a visa. The expectation
that the visa is _temporary_ also sets a lower bar for entry - even though
many of these people will eventually become American PRs/citizens.

The recent trend to "stage" the H-1B green card process is a step in the right
direction - though it doesn't go as far as it needs to. There is still a major
problem of indentured servitude. Once an employee has a green card process in
the pipeline their employer has them over a barrel - and many will not
hesitate to use this as an opportunity for abuse.

Not to mention, with the green card backlog the way it is now, it would be
years before "your huddled masses of immigrant entrepreneurs yearning to
breathe free" are actually _able_ to start businesses. First they have to go
through ~8-10 years as a rank and file employee, before they're granted the
legal freedom to pursue their own future. The startup visa would go a long way
to alleviating that, though the heavy involvement of VCs in that initiative
will mean that bootstrappers and other scrappy startups that _don't_ want to
raise hojillions in funding will be still at a severe disadvantage.

How do you fix this? IMO the US needs to setup a track for immigrants to
_immediately_ receive green cards, where having a job offer is _not_ a
prerequisite (though it would certainly help). The focus needs to shift away
from fulfilling "temporary shortages" (which we all know is bullshit) to
simply permanent, mass importation of worthy talent. Set up the process to
filter people based on the assumption that they will permanently stay, as
opposed the the current process where we'll let just about anyone in, since
they're "temporary" H-1Bs anyways. This will raise the calibre of people
you're letting in, and also make sure you're giving top talent maximum freedom
once they're here. The whole "immigration policy masquerading as work permit"
thing _really_ needs to GTFO.

~~~
_delirium
> The US really needs to emulate other countries here.

Which other countries are these? As the holder of an employer-tied 3-year
temporary Danish work permit, with no possibility to even apply for the Danish
equivalent of a green card until I've resided in the country with solid
employment for at least 4 years (and passed a language exam, something the
U.S. _doesn't_ require), I don't think it can be this one...

Though to be fair, the Danish consulate was friendly and efficient with
processing the employer-tied temporary permit.

~~~
marshallp
most european countries have such a xenophobic system, but the uk, canada,
iraland, new zealand, and australia have really open systems in place

~~~
muzz
then those countries should be receiving the benefits of immigrant-
entrepreneurs and now be hotbeds of innovation because of it. it doesn't seem
like that's happening.

~~~
potatolicious
I'm Canadian, I'd argue Canada _is_ receiving the benefits of immigrant-
entrepreneurs.

There are considerable innovations coming out of that country - the fact that
it's not a hotbed for internet startups seems hardly relevant in the big
picture. Businesses are being created by immigrants, who are creating wealth
and employment in their respective communities. The fact that this in general
has nothing to do with dotcoms is really a detail. Canada continues to be
extremely competitive in traditional engineering disciplines, and is world-
leading in many fields of science, not least of which is molecular
engineering. The University of Toronto, after all, still holds the patent on
insulin.

Next time you see a video of the International Space Station, with its
bleeding-edge, unprecedented robotic arm, see if you can zoom and see which
nation's flag is on it. Or dig into the US's collection of scientific and
communications satellites and see how much of their R&D actually occurs in
Canada.

I hope people on HN realize that the word "innovation" applies to all manners
of fields. So often I feel like this community has blinders on, and very
narrowly define "innovation" as "things that occur in _my_ field".

~~~
muzz
The piece cites companies like Google, eBay, and Yahoo. Can you provide three
examples anywhere close to those in terms of number of jobs, in _any_
industry?

The benefit may indeed be non-zero, but it doesn't seem that the benefit is
signficant.

~~~
potatolicious
RIM and ATI? One got acquired and continues to thrive, the other one is busy
circling the drain - but both were innovative, significant employers, and
remain so, on the scale of eBay and Yahoo. Both companies were founded by
immigrants (Chinese for ATI, Greek/Turkish for RIM).

Google is a juggernaut that I won't touch simply because they're such an
outlier, even in the get-big-fast world of dotcoms.

And let's be honest, in terms of job-creating power, this "innovative"
industry of software is a drop in the bucket:
<http://jobs.lovetoknow.com/Largest_American_Employers> \- the employers with
the largest employment impact are not the ones we would traditionally consider
"innovative".

For reference, Google has about 30K employees world-wide.

In any case, we can argue about semantics and labor theory all day. Why don't
you go to Toronto some time, climb the CN Tower, hang out in Chinatown, take
the TTC to Bathurst, Eglington, Pape, and tell me that Canadian immigration
policy hasn't been a gigantic boon for the country.

I'm a Canadian expat in the US right now, and the difference is startling.
Canada has done a remarkable job of integrating its immigrant population into
the middle class - the US likes to imagine itself as a melting pot, but for
the most part ethnic diversity in this country is still separated along
enormous socioeconomic lines - lines that are significantly blurrier in
Canada. The fact that Canadian immigrants are first-class members of society
from day one I believe is key to this difference. As is the fact that a
"straight to permanent residence" policy sets the bar higher. The US is
letting in enormous numbers of refugees and family reunification individual -
people of questionable worth to society - with "straight to PR" tracks, but
still bars the door to working professionals and highly educated academics
with decade-long "indentured H-1B servitude". You tell me if that policy makes
sense.

~~~
int3rnaut
You mentioned Toronto, do you think the immigration policy has had a gigantic
boon for the country, or for Toronto? I'm really just curious.

As a young Albertan, still living and breathing here, I question how well the
'cultural mosaic' has stood the test of time. Granted, I do see some good like
you mentioned, but looking at some of the recent economic impact data (I'm not
an expert in this field and have merely googled and wikapedia'd for my
research) it does look like there are systemic struggles that have developed
over the last 25 years and that good you mentioned, is fewer and far between.
It's a really interesting point of discussion though, so thank you.

~~~
potatolicious
I've personally lived in Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Waterloo, and London
(yeah, one of those is not like the others), and I've been to _many_ other
cities both urban, and rural. The immigration boon is nearly universal across
the board in all the places I have been. I've worked in 3 industries in Canada
- traditional mechanical engineering, software, and astrophysics. Immigrants
are extremely dominant in all three, and many of the top names are first or
second-generation. I think, for the most part, Canada's immigration policy has
turned out remarkably well, and needs to be commended for rather deftly
avoiding the common pitfall that plagues a lot of countries: integrating
immigrants into the middle class, instead of letting them fall into minority
ghettos.

It's not perfect - I'm sure if you look at the data you will still see an
income gap between native-born Canadians and recent immigrants, but having
lived on both sides of the border I have to say America's problems are at
least an order of magnitude worse than ours. The socioeconomic stratification
of immigrants in the US means that several ethnicities are _automatically_
assumed to be poor and uneducated - an assumption that largely doesn't hold
water in Canada. With the sad exception of the aboriginal population, there is
no real ethnic group in Canada that's as systemically impoverished and and
marginalized as the blacks and latinos are in the USA. Sure, we have ghettos,
but by and large they're not defined along racial and ethnic lines. The wide
gaps between races in the US really does encourage a very pervasive
undercurrent of racism that's largely impolite to mention in company, but
easily felt. I simply do not get the same vibe in Canada, and that's a very
good thing.

Having never lived in AB though, I'm interested in hearing your perspectives
on it - I know the racial/ethnic balance there is not quite the same as
Vancouver or Toronto, so maybe the scene is different. I can tell you that in
the extremely industrial town of London, Ontario, the economic stratification
between immigrants and non-immigrants can be more easily felt, but even then
for the most part the poverty that pervades that city is blind to race.

------
microarchitect
Why doesn't the US move to a points-based system like the UK and Canada? This
seems like a simple and sensible solution to a complex problem that ensures
that the people who immigrate are in some sense "useful" to the country.

I also don't understand why the green card backlog isn't being handled
efficiently. Surely, if somebody is paying, say more than 20k in income taxes
every year for, say 5 years in a row, there is reason to believe their
contribution to the country is a net positive. Why not just give them
citizenship and be done with it?

As an outsider, I feel like the US is the opposite of an "agile" government.
It seems like there is a lot bickering and fear-mongering at every level and
important decisions are being made based on populism and emotional appeals
rather than rational decision making. I'm not sure if this is really the case
because my news sources are the likes of Reddit and the so-called "liberal
media", but unfortunately this is perception I get.

~~~
tokenadult
_I feel like the US is the opposite of an "agile" government._

Yes. That is intentional by the design of the federal Constitution. A friend
of mine, an engineer, was discussing American politics with me and another
friend, a mathematics teacher, one day. The mathematics teacher decried the
inefficiency of United States government. The engineer replied, "I'm an
engineer. The one thing I'm afraid of is EFFICIENT government." Many Americans
are strongly in agreement with Henry David Thoreau that "That government is
best which governs least."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)#.2...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_\(Thoreau\)#.22That_government_is_best_which_governs_least.22)

~~~
microarchitect
So what's the reason Americans feel this way? Is there any fundamental reason
why efficient governments are bad?

What does it mean to say that a government "governs the least"? Does it make
the fewest number of laws? Does employ the fewest number of people? Does it
spend the least money? All of the above? Some of the above? Why are these
good?

~~~
jellicle
Americans don't feel that way.

------
jammur
I'm shocked at the amount of xenophobia in the comments on the CNN site. Being
Canadian, I have no idea whether it is representative of the population at
large, but it appears that many Americans have been brainwashed into the
thinking that the only immigrants are the ones driving cabs or working at fast
food. The problem is that everybody has been talking themselves to death about
illegal immigration, and haven't focused on the benefits of legal immigration.
Does the Startup Visa have a chance in hell with the current political climate
surrounding immigration in the US?

~~~
nobody314159265
The problem is that most Americans are the descendents of the people that
arrived, displaced the native population, took their land and exploited it's
natural resources.

So naturally they are wary of people coming along and doing the same to them.

This doesn't really apply to Canada.

~~~
jnbiche
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I have to ask: do you really think
there were no indigenous peoples in Canada when the French and English came to
settle there? Just pristine wilderness?

~~~
marshallp
different scale though, most of canada is still empty and natives can roam
free if they want

------
incosta
I agree that US needs an entrepreneur visas. But I disagree with author's
suggestion that all US-educated graduates must be given green cards. A lot of
them came to US to study because they could afford it (often via wealthy
parents). I don't think it's fair to give green cards only because they
graduated from a US university thanks to their rich parents.

Foreign students have one year after graduation to find an employer, convert
to H-1B and then ask the employer to sponsor the green card. Nothing wrong
with this.

However, of course H1-B to green card to citizenship must be done in a more
timely manner. In many cases it takes too long. The time spent on waiting for
the green card (sometimes as long as 4-5 years or even more, due to slow
bureaucracy) must be in some way counted towards the citizenship requirement
of 5-year residency.

I think as baby-boomer generation starts to retire en-mass, U.S. will have no
choice but to liberalize and simplify its immigration policy. It is competing
against many other developed countries for younger workers and talent, and the
earnings disparity is becoming less of a factor in many developing countries.
There's just no way out but to make immigration process faster and more
attractive if the U.S. wants to win.

~~~
HistoryInAction
There's a 17 month extension, to 29 months, if you graduated in a
technical/STEM field under Optional Practical Training (OPT) which I think
you're referencing:
[http://www.nafsa.org/regulatory_information.sec/regulatory_d...](http://www.nafsa.org/regulatory_information.sec/regulatory_document_library.dlib/sevis/opt_29_month_rule/)

"But I disagree with author's suggestion that all US-educated graduates must
be given green cards. A lot of them came to US to study because they could
afford it (often via wealthy parents). I don't think it's fair to give green
cards only because they graduated from a US university thanks to their rich
parents." Very insightful!

However, the green card wait times are more due to scarcity, with many more
people entering the green card pipeline than by law can exit each year, rather
than slow bureaucracy.

I agree re: the future of immigration policy, but I think the talent war is
even more important than you think. Right now, and since the 60s, US
immigration policy has been aligned on a family-unification platform, and with
strict numerical limits, a huge percentage of American immigration is taken up
by family-based immigration. As liberal and pleasing as it is, it's going to
have to go, as America will have to fully enter the competition for top
talent.

~~~
incosta
Speaking from personal experience, my employment-based green card had been
delayed by about two years because of so-called "FBI name check". Not because
of the quotas. So bureaucracy plays a part (based on what I know, it has been
reduced somewhat after Obama took office).

I am not so sure about the statements on family-based immigration. First, even
close family members often spend many years waiting. More importantly, though:
we all ideally want future Sergei Brins just to come and start next Google and
hire thousands. But let's don't forget that he came to states as a young child
(just as some other founders mentioned in the CNN article) with his well
educated parents. By the time he started Google, he was 20-something and
effectively an American. Would he be able to do this if he just came as a
foreign student? Not so sure. So, we need to get families too, but those who
have not just hopes, but also education. We need smart families, smart
parents. We need to make America attractive to them.

P.S. I am stunned by all negative comments on CNN site saying immigrants take
American jobs, and America educates foreigners, but not its own citizens. It
seems to me many people don't realize that foreign students are in fact paying
for Americans to get to schools by paying much higher tuition fees that make
schools profitable and able to offer scholarships to locals.

~~~
HistoryInAction
Alright, I concede the point to your personal experience.

Agree about the need for "long-term investment" in smart families, but I think
the political importance of strict immigration numbers and the short-term
pressure over the talent war is going to shift US immigration policies away
from families and towards talent.

Re: PS - ugh, completely agree. This is one of the better argued articles in
terms of foreign immigrants = US jobs rather than purely abstract foreign
immigrants = stronger US economy, so the comments are less rancid but still
vile. Compare to Rey Ramsey's piece on HuffPo:
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rey-ramsey/open-americas-
doors...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rey-ramsey/open-americas-doors-to-
in_b_974340.html)

------
muzz
If you read TechCrunch (Wadhwa's pieces especially) or the ABC article
referenced, this piece contains absolutely nothing new, just a rehash of the
same things. Sparse, suspect data, plenty of correlation/causation fallacies,
and topped off with a populist appeal to "create jobs"

~~~
HistoryInAction
One issue in terms of data that I struggle with on researching this issue is
that we're discussing a big empty space and wondering why it is empty.
Immigrants in the US aren't allowed to build companies and create jobs unless
they are very lucky/connected or they wait a long period of time to get their
green card, since no visa currently exists for founders.

We can't do A/B testing to see if our suspicions that we'd have more startups
and more jobs for US citizens if we allowed more founders—not more blanket
immigration, mind you—into the country. The people who do find a way in tend
to be the best and the brightest of the pool, so our anecdata looks favorable.
There seem to be indications that immigrants and first-generation citizens
tend to be 'hungrier' than more established populations, though that doesn't
say anything about success/failure rates.

From a physics perspective, it's like hunting dark matter. We suspect that job
growth would result from passing Startup Visa or STEM Green Cards, but
economics theories are nowhere close to the rigor of physics theories. VCs
still only invest in solid, market-driven ideas. I'd rather trust to them and
to the market as a whole as to who sees success than have the government throw
up artificial barriers to block non-Americans from American networks of
capital and talent, especially when it means the failure to launch of startups
that might make my life better.

Kauffman does indicate that young companies produce the most net job growth in
America: [http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/kauffman-foundation-
analysi...](http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/kauffman-foundation-analysis-
emphasizes-importance-of-young-businesses-to-job-creation-in-the-united-
states.aspx) , though as Steve Blank says, 'startups' are lumped together when
there's a large differentiation that needs to be taken into account:
[http://steveblank.com/2011/09/01/why-governments-
don%E2%80%9...](http://steveblank.com/2011/09/01/why-governments-
don%E2%80%99t-get-startups/)

The best bit of public policy analysis I've seen on Startup Visa and
implications for job growth is from the National Foundation for American
Policy (NFAP), but they studied the 2010 Startup Visa, which is much more
limited than even the 2011 Startup Visa. The 2011 version of the bill doesn't
address STEM Green Cards and is strictly limited in an attempt to pass a
conservative House of Representatives, whose majority has a strong anti-
immigration faction.

So we're left with all of the arguments that you state. However, note that a
thoughtful person like yourself isn't the target audience of something on CNN.
The NFAP analysis is probably more 'chewy' for someone who wants to dive into
the issue.

EDIT: Forgot the NFAP link:
[http://www.nfap.com/pdf/092910NFAPPolicyBriefImmigrantEntrep...](http://www.nfap.com/pdf/092910NFAPPolicyBriefImmigrantEntrepreneurVisa.pdf)

------
fragsworth
This logic has always bothered me, and I know lots of you will disagree, but
here it is: Job creation alone is not a noble goal. It should _never_ be used
as a reason for making policy changes.

There's an economic fallacy at place here. Jobs, in and of themselves, do not
benefit us on the whole. You could give some number of people a "job" to walk
around in circles all day long and pay them money for it, but the net effect
would be that society sees no benefit from this. Productive jobs, however, are
good things. There is a conflict, though: the more productive your job is, the
fewer employees are necessary - actually resulting in fewer jobs.

Hopefully you have witnessed this first-hand over the last few decades. Travel
agencies have been replaced by Priceline, Expedia, etc. Tax specialists have
been replaced by TurboTax, TaxAct, etc. Even simple legal matters can be
handled by LegalZoom and the like, reducing the need for lawyers. All
manufactured media products (books, news, movies, music, games) are now
transferred digitally, which eliminates the need for factory workers to
produce physical products. Online banking eliminates the need for bank
tellers. Countless other examples.

Essentially, technology _kills jobs_. We develop software and devices to
handle what was traditionally done by people, and sell the services at a much
cheaper rate because we don't have to pay for all the overhead that old
services once required. This is a _good thing_ , however.

Anyway, I'm all for immigration, and I'm all for tech companies. But the fact
is they destroy jobs more than they create them, and are therefore partially
responsible for the current unemployment rate. The logic behind this article
is all backwards because of this.

~~~
muzz
Agreed. The term for what you describe in your third paragraph is "labor
replacement". There is huge profit to be made in labor replacement, with the
effect of loss of jobs.

It is troubling that few readers pick up on the use of examples with _gross_
jobs created and not _net_ jobs created. In this case, Amit Arahoni's 9 jobs
created are gross, not net. A more-clear example would be that of Craigslist.
How many jobs has Craigslist created? Well, 30 jobs in gross, but likely a
large negative number in net as it played a large part in displacing at least
one entire industry (newspapers).

------
kmfrk
One thing is work visas; another is college visas.

I remember being told (as a European) in the equivalent of high school(?) that
if I wanted to go to an American college, I would have to start preparations a
year and a half in advance - mainly due to the time spent on processing visas.

I would have loved nothing better than to go to an American college, but, at
least at the time, that made it neigh-impossible to apply for an American
college, when studying at a national university or, hell, another university
in Europe or Britain seemed so much easier.

I don't know what other people's experiences are, and it may be a cultural
thing; maybe the process is otherwise facilitated in, say, India and China.

 _EDIT: FWIW, this was after 9/11. Just to account for whatever that may have
changed._

~~~
HistoryInAction
The NYT had an interesting article about increasing numbers of international
students on American campuses, possibly for financial reasons, since most
universities are not need-blind for international students. I'm guessing it's
easier now, and there are certainly professionals who facilitate the process
in China, according to the article.

[http://chronicle.com/article/Chinese-Students-
Prove-a/129628...](http://chronicle.com/article/Chinese-Students-
Prove-a/129628/)

------
cletus
The US immigration and visa situation is really quite horrendous.

For example, I'm an Australian. That means I qualify for (and have) an E-3
visa. What's that you might ask? It's a special work visa _created
specifically for Australian nationals_. It applies for two years and can be
renewed indefinitely.

What's more, unlike an H1B visa, it's not subject to quotas and the employer
doesn't first need to "prove" they couldn't find a suitably qualified domestic
worker (a system fraught with abuse that simply acts as a wealth transfer
system from companies to immigration lawyers).

The problem? When I need to renew it, it may take USCIS _months_. Plus it's
more expensive than applying for a fresh visa. Also, once approved they renew
your _status_ not your _visa_. What does that mean? It means if you leave the
country for any reason you don't have a valid visa to re-enter the US so you
have to get a new visa anyway.

Basically, you need to leave the country every two years to apply for a new
one (since you can't apply within the US, of course).

What's more, each time I will have to fill out the exact same set of questions
(DS-160), make an appointment, give them my passport and wait for it to be
returned.

Why does this visa exist? Essentially to settle a trade dispute between the US
and Australia over wheat. Australia does not subsidize wheat. The US does (as
does Europe) to a huge degree, yet Australian wheat is _still_ price
competitive but the US keeps Australian wheat out of the US on the flimsy
grounds of "quarantine" (something Australia complained loudly to the WTO as
an artificial restriction of trade for years, which like most things that are
not to the US's advantage, it simply ignored). This was eventually settled and
the E3 visa was one byproduct of this.

But you can see just how screwed up the system is that factors like this cause
visas to be created.

Others have posted about the whole H1B problem (quotas, etc) and the backlog
of green card processing basically allowing employers to treat you like
indentured servants. That needs to change.

Some argue H1B visas are used to pay substandard wages in lieu of employing
domestic workers. The substandard wages bit is true but that's because of the
H1B processing problem. The real problem for domestic software engineers at
least is that most people who call themselves "engineers" or "programmers"
_suck_.

I've been shocked at some of the people I've interviewed, their inability to
code very simple problems and their complete lack of theoretical foundations.
_And those are the ones that make it past resume screening and phone screens".

The government needs to accept that tech companies are basically the most
mobile in the world. Look at big tech companies and you'll see they need data
centers, some of which need to be in the US (which really doesn't employ that
many people). Everything else can be done from _anywhere*. Barriers to entry,
kneejerk legislation (eg Sarbanes-Oxley) and software patents are all
contributing to driving the future Googles and Facebooks elsewhere.

All of this makes me a little sad actually because the US has forgotten it's
route. The US is a country of immigrants (IIRC population 2 million in 1800,
50 million in 1900).

One of the reasons I've come to New York to work is because I want to see it.
New York is the beating heart of commerce and you can see capitalism and
commerce in every form here, some pretty, some not-so-pretty.

I want to see it before it doesn't exist anymore.

My picture of the US is one of decay, rotting from within, collapsing under a
mountain of debt and unsustainable policies that will be its downfall. The
Roman Empire was enormous and collapsed. The British Empire was enormous and
collapsed. Don't think it can't happen again.

~~~
ryanackley
I do agree that the US immigration system sucks. As an Australian, you may not
realize the current state of immigration policy in your own country.

I'm an American and I live and work in Sydney. I came in on the 457 subclass
visa. Not sure if you're familiar with it. It's pretty much the same as the
H1B (No E-3 equivalent in the other direction unfortunately). The employer has
to prove the job can't be filled by a domestic worker. This particular visa
program is also rife with abuse by employers looking to keep costs down [1]. A
typical H1B visa holder in the USA would have their health insurance paid for
by their employer. 457 visa holders are usually required to purchase their own
since everyone else is covered under the national health care system. H1B visa
holder's children in the USA can attend public schools for free. 457 visa
holders in Australia have to pay public school tuition (~$5k/year/child) in
Australia on top of paying normal federal and state taxes. Personally, I'm
very satisfied with my situation but this isn't the case with all 457 visa
holders.

Much like the US, Australia is a nation of immigrants. Most people I've met
here are 2nd generation (i.e. their parents immigrated). Yet, there is a
surprising amount of opposition to immigration[2].

[1][http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/employers-avoid-fines-despite-
visa...](http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/employers-avoid-fines-despite-visa-abuse-
sanctions-20110725-1hx98.html)

[2][http://www.smh.com.au/national/allout-assault-over-issue-
of-...](http://www.smh.com.au/national/allout-assault-over-issue-of-boat-
people-20110821-1j4sg.html)

~~~
cletus
Firstly, you're quite right: I'm not aware of how the 457 works in Australia
since (obviously) I don't have to get one. My understanding though is that in
spite of the problems you brought up (which are news to me), at least
processing is very quick and the process itself doesn't seem to be subject to
as much politicking as the US system (IMHO).

As for the health insurance [1], this is definitely news to me and I'm a
little surprised because it was passed by the Labor (left-wing) government.
It's not all bad though: there are arrangements for countries with reciprocal
health care agreements (mainly a handful of European countries).

If you think about it, that's fair enough. A broken arm in the US without
health insurance could bankrupt me. The US doesn't provide Australians health
care. Why should Australia provide it to Americans? It's just that the US
doesn't provide health care to _Americans_ either.

It's a good tip for those going to work in Australia: negotiate for employer-
paid health insurance.

Honestly though, I don't think Australia is such a great place to live anymore
(compared to 10+ years ago) for no other reason than the _insane_ cost of
living. It's cheaper for me to live in downtown Manhattan than it is in inner-
city _Perth_ and buying lunch doesn't cost me $15 here.

But I digress...

It is my understanding the Australian visa and residency system isn't
paralyzed however. Getting a residency visa is (or at least was) relatively
straightforward if you're degree-qualified and you speak English.

I agree that there is anti-immigration sentiment but the example you point to
about _illegal_ immigration (namely "boat people" from Indonesia and beyond).
The problem there is that an awful lot of "asylum seekers" are nothing more
than "economic migrants" attempting to jump the queue, where such migration is
paid for by essentially indentured servitude to people smugglers once they
arrive, possibly for years.

There are many reasons to clamp down on illegal immigration. [1]:
[http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/457-health-insurance-faq-
visa...](http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/457-health-insurance-faq-visa-
holder.htm)

~~~
brc
I saw an article in a British paper last week. It basically said the UK-
Australia people flow is drastically declining.

They went on about a whole lot of made-up factors like people missing their
families and the rest, but the simple fact of the matter is that the cost of
living in Australia is out of control.

It used to be you could sell your crappy 2 bedroom semi in an outer London
suburb and move to a nice big home in Australia, and have plenty of money left
over to send the kids to a good school.

Nowadays that's not the case.

Same for the young Australian - you used to be able to go to London for a
couple of years, save up your money and come back with a decent stash of
savings. Also no longer the case.

Honestly I think Australia is choking on it's property prices which has
fuelled massive debts. It's why your chicken sandwich costs $15, because the
rents are out of control because of the price the owner paid for the shop.

W/regards to not having access to Australian healthcare, I already knew that
because I met a NZ guy ages ago who explained the whole deal. Not sure what
the situation is now but back when the conversation took place there was no
reciprocal agreement and people from NZ had to pay full-freight to get access
to healthcare.

~~~
Zakharov
Well, the Australian dollar has doubled in value. That makes it much harder to
migrate.

~~~
brc
Yes, that was my point, though sadly I seem to have omitted it.

Also, the UK authorities are making it much harder for Australians to stay on
after completing a 2 year working holiday visa.

------
barumrho
In Canada, international students are given work permit up to 3 years after
graduation and after 1 year of full-time employment they can apply for
permanent residency. I think the US could benefit from a similar policy.

------
ry0ohki
While I agree we need to encourage immigration, the "facts" stated in this
article seem like a causation does not imply correlation argument that drive
me nuts.

------
resnamen
It's not a zero-sum game when you bring in bright people. Smart people create
opportunity around them.

On the other hand, I'm not so enthusiastic about lowering immigration barriers
so we can get cheap workers to robotically throw together CRUD forms. (I guess
that work is outsourced, anyway?)

------
cletus
I believe humanity is approaching an important turning point that will either
herald in a new era and a new way of thinking or there are going to be some
dark times ahead.

The entire of human history has thus far been fueled by population growth.
When there were 10 million of us, this wasn't a problem. When there were 100
million of us, this wasn't a problem. When there were 1 billion of us, it was
_mostly_ not a problem. Now as we zero in on 10 billion... it's becoming a
problem.

The way our society and our economy works should in so many ways tell you this
is true. Look at the urban decay that occurred in many American cities in the
20th century.

Urban decay post-WW2 was fuelled by the interstate system, the cheapening cost
of owning a car and that it was cheaper to build new communities than it was
to maintain existing infrastructure.

Some cities experienced negative population growth with devastating
consequences (eg Detroit, Baltimore). Certainly in Detroit's case, there are
large swathes of the city that really need to be returned to wilderness. But
who's going to pay for the demolition, relocation and clean up?

The Western world is essentially dying with net migration being pretty much
the only reason any Western country is growing at all. The social experiments
of the early 20th century (ie state-funded retirement) are, at present rates,
ultimately unsustainable when we get down to 3 or even 2 employed people pre
retired person (initially it was in excess of 50 to 1 at least for Social
Security).

An aging population is a natural consequence of slowing population growth,
just like urban decay is. So far we've largely shown ourselves at being ill-
equipped at dealing with either, except for politicking around migration,
which basically just kicks that can further down the street.

It is my opinion that there need to be an awful lot less of us and there will
be one day, one way or the other. As much as people point to space as a
solution to these problems we have an economy built in basically digging not-
that-deep holes for our metals. While there are metal-rich asteroids out
there, the cost of moving, processing and using those materials is so many
orders of magnitude more expensive (both realistically and conceivably) that I
have to wonder if it will _ever_ be comparable (although it might one day be
viable just because every other way has become so expensive, which will be an
earth-shattering adjustment for us all).

So migration is, I believe, a short term fix. But it doesn't address what I
believe to be a key driver in unemployment: we're slowly automating our way
out of the most unskilled jobs (and increasingly skilled jobs too). That too
will be a challenge.

------
droithomme
There are a lot of countries that lobby for their citizens to enjoy an open
border policy where their people can be able to freely come to the US to live,
work and own property. Oddly though, these countries do not have open border
policies where Americans can come to live, work and own property in their
countries.

Let's say you are British. You can move pretty freely throughout much of
Europe, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, with a minimum of hassle.

If you are American, the situation is very different. There are very few
countries you can easily emigrate to. Yet most countries want rights for their
people to be able to immigrate to the US.

I would be in favor of a global open border policy. Eliminate passports,
visas, and all restrictions on the flow of people. As opposed to now where
through WTO style agreements goods travel much more freely than people.

But I don't support one sided policies where people can move easily in one
direction but not the other.

------
ypcx
Funny, just today I stumbled upon this video while randomly strolling through
the avenues of YouTube: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d70KhYzBhT4>

------
mbesto
The bottom line is this: How do you assess one's talent? If this were possible
then a system could work, otherwise it will never be perfect.

------
mgh2
Americans need to support the Startup Visa:
[http://trendguardian.blogspot.com/2010/03/support-startup-
vi...](http://trendguardian.blogspot.com/2010/03/support-startup-visa.html)

I think Obama is starting to hear too:
[http://trendguardian.blogspot.com/2011/04/startup-america-
te...](http://trendguardian.blogspot.com/2011/04/startup-america-tell-white-
house-how-to.html)

------
etz
how many immigrants would it be necessary to let in the country to have one of
these success stories?? If we let in only the best and brightest, then success
is assured! But if we do the right thing, and let nature take it's
course....Assuming that the person is a 1 percenter, then it would only take
one hundred people to create wealth. On the other hand, the united states has
300 million people, if 25 percent of the successful startups are by
foreigners, then that would mean about 75 million people would have to enter
the country to create 25 percent. All for 15 or 20 THOUSAND jobs. What will
the rest do??

------
wavephorm
I distinctly remember 2001-2003 during in the post dot-com, post-911 recession
when there was loud outcry to cancel all visas to open up jobs for American-
born workers. And in subsequent years these ideas took on the form of erecting
a wall around Mexico, and eliminating technology-related visa categories, and
ending up in today's environment of extreme hostility toward business
travellers at American ports of entry.

~~~
jnbiche
Do other business travelers experience this extreme hostility at US ports of
entry? I don't do nearly as much international travel as I used to, so I'm
really interested in hearing others' experiences.

~~~
Mikushi
Yes, i am french (from France), been living in Montreal for 5years know,
speaks perfect english (no silly french accent), but anytime i have to go to
the US i get treated like shit by immigration agent when they see my passport.
And it's been consistent across the 20+ times i've had to cross the border.

Sometimes they even go into what i believe to be none of their business, last
christmas i was coming back from France, going through Washington (just a 6h
stop), and despise the fact i had my ticket saying i was going to Montreal, my
canadian working visa, the U.S. agent bombarded me with question on what i was
gonna do in canada, where i was staying, on a not so friendly tone as if i was
lying.

This is why i now refuse whenever possible to go through the U.S..

As for the Visa situation, it is really a pain, i had numerous companies
contacting me -thinking i was Canadian as i list my town as Montreal- from SF
or Seattle, then after successful interviews, getting refused by they H.R.
department because i'm French and VISA paperwork is either too much or just
not even possible for them.

~~~
felipemnoa
>> the U.S. agent bombarded me with question on what i was gonna do in canada,
where i was staying, on a not so friendly tone as if i was lying<<

This seems to be pretty standard. They are trying to catch you on a lie. I
don't know about the "not so friendly tone" though. I guess it depends on the
agent and what kind of day/issues he is having.

~~~
Mikushi
Yeah but last time i checked, Canada is not part of the U.S. and with a visa
and ticket, that should be enough for him, if somebody wants to grill me it
should be a Canadian Immigration agent.

~~~
tokenadult
[AFTER EDIT: I'm withdrawing an earlier statement in the first posting of this
comment after doing some fact-checking prompted by the reply below. Thanks.
I'll look up some more analysis of the current policy and its historical
origins over the next few days. The sentence below was the last sentence in
the original version of this comment.]

It's regrettable that today skepticism at the border is so general--surely
most visitors to the United States, including you, mean no harm to the United
States--but there are legal problems with being selective about whom to
interrogate, so almost every visitor is questioned.

~~~
worldvoyageur
That some of the 9/11 attackers entered the US through Canada is a thoroughly
debunked myth. Plus, all the attackers entered the US legally, with valid
visas. The startling persistence of the myth attests to its power to support a
particular side of the debate about 'illegals' or 'weak borders'.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumors_about_the_September_11_a...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumors_about_the_September_11_attacks#Claims_that_terrorists_entered_the_United_States_through_Canada)

Misinformation: rumors later shown to be false:

[...]

Claims that terrorists entered the United States through Canada On September
12, 2001, Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA chief of counter-intelligence told
the press that five of the terrorists had entered Maine from Canada via a
ferry from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia and/or a remote border point in Saint-
Théophile, Quebec near Jackman, Maine.[1] The myth was revived again in April
2009 when Janet Napolitano, the United States Secretary of Homeland Security,
informed a Canadian television interviewer that some of the terrorist-
hijackers who carried out the September 11 attacks entered the United States
from Canada. In the same month, senator John McCain also told Fox News that
some of the 9/11 hijackers did come through Canada.[2]

------
greenName
Increase supply of labor, decrease wages. Econ 101, folks. The Wall Street
types benefit from immigration. There might be "more jobs" but there will be
lower pay checks. Working Americans are the targets in this upper class scam.
Polls show that most Americans are for moderating immigration. Strangely, rich
Democrats are the ones most for open borders and "free" trade. The party of
labor? No way.

~~~
gjm11
Decreased wages for those who have jobs, _plus more people having jobs_ ,
might be an excellent tradeoff even if it wouldn't appeal to a 100% selfish
person who has a job and doesn't fear losing it.

And you need to be awfully careful about what "polls show that most Americans
are for". For example, polls show that most Americans would like to see US
foreign aid reduced from about 25% of GDP to about 10% of the federal budget.
The trouble is that the actual level of US foreign aid is about 1% of the
federal budget. So, do "polls show" that most Americans would like foreign aid
cut by 2.5x, or that most Americans would like foreign aid increased by 10x?
-- In the absence of more information about what "most Americans" actually
think the level of immigration is, and what they think its impact is, polls
purporting to show that most Americans would like more or less immigration are
pretty uninformative about what would actually benefit most Americans, or what
they would choose if they had better information.

It would be better to keep party politics out of this. (Though from what
you've written I wonder whether party politics are your only reason for being
interested in the matter at all.)

------
unfare
The editor are modding all dissent in this page down. Can't handle another
side of the story ? Shame.

~~~
philwelch
"Editor"? That's not how HN works.

------
known
I disagree. Unless USA aligns Immigrant & Non-immigrant Visas and Outsourcing
to Caste system in India and Human Rights in China, American middle class will
be destroyed. [http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/sep/29/un-says-indias-
cas...](http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/sep/29/un-says-indias-caste-system-
a-human-rights-abuse.htm) [http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-
show-1-tech-...](http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-show-1-tech-
apple-workers-forced-to-sign-no-suicide-pledge/20110504.htm)

