
The $100k green card - dmarinoc
http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/10/immigration-100000-green-card/
======
ziyadb
This is absurd. I was originally considering moving to the US for my
postgraduate studies, however, after speaking with peers I decided against it,
as other countries that offer far more favorable visa terms exist. Currently,
my leading option is New Zealand, bundled with their student visa is a permit
to work 20 hours a week, and a year's residency after the completion of your
program among other things.

While some of you may not view New Zealand with the admiration that you view
the US, as its tech-scene isn't quite as developed. It is a beautiful country
nonetheless, free healthcare is available for all residents and citizens, not
to mention the all around natural beauty of it.

Don't get the wrong impression, there is no doubt that the US is a great
place, but it isn't without its problems. I'm not trying to sell you on NZ,
the point I'm trying to make is why should I have to bust my balls and save up
$100k for a green card when I can have more lenient and reasonable terms in
another country with an emerging tech scene?

Note: it is probably easier for entrepreneurs to supply $100K for a green
card, however, I intentionally ignored that circumstance as they're a minority
amongst immigrants and chose to discuss immigration to the US in general.

Bottomline: America unknowingly abuses and doesn't treat immigrants with the
respect that they deserve, they contribute equally to the economy as any other
demographic (if not more), and are a major part of high tech industries, and
therefore, of the US economy.

~~~
techsupporter
The answer to your question is that you shouldn't. The US has some serious
immigration problems right now and it's a fact of political life in this
country that getting them worked out quickly is not going to happen. We have a
fractured government (not just the two parties holding different reins of
power) and a screwed up lobbying system. You are exactly the kind of
immigrants we as a nation want, but there is an incredibly shrill minority
that shouts down _anything_ that's immigration-related when it looks like that
change could benefit "them durn illegalz" who are already here. This article
is about trying to get some sort of change through quickly that would allow
people who are going to provide direct investment into our country. The price
tag puts it out of reach of all but "business people," so the screeching
fringe will probably keep its mouth shut.

Unfortunately, this is the system US citizens have right now and, for my
compatriots who agree with me and would like to see you on a plane tomorrow,
ready to study here, graduate, be inspired by, and enrich our society, I am
truly sorry we couldn't get the change done in time for you. We're working on
it.

/ _buys another ream of paper for more letters to various representatives_

~~~
ziyadb
I commend you on speaking out and pushing towards change. It's people like you
who make America the great country that it is.

With regard to FUD on the part of the masses driving legislation, I suppose
it's an intrinsic part of democracy. Which implies the following:

The vast majority of those satisfied by the status quo are the uninformed
members of the public. On the other hand, the highly educated and those
driving the economy are strong proponents of leniency in immigration, as
evident by the frequent discussions on popular forums such as leading
publications and HN.

The average American believes that more opportunities are made available to
them, regardless of whether they're qualified, if they stop immigrants from
coming and stealing their jobs. Which I suppose is a reasonable conclusion for
an uninformed person to reach.

The solution? Inform the public, for after all, the US is a democracy, and
it's in their hands to change the system. Explain how immigration is essential
to the development and progress of economies, educate people on the
implications of immigration.

PS: I would be interested to learn if there are any non-profits that run
campaigns that aim to educate and inform the public.

~~~
mtviewdave
>Explain how immigration is essential to the development and progress of
economies, educate people on the implications of immigration.

I'd say that if you want to fix high-skilled immigration, that's exactly the
argument you should not make.

What you should do is make an argument that appeals to American culture and
sensibilities. Most Americans have ancestors who suffered--some a little, some
a great deal--to come to America This is such a strong part of American
culture that one of our major holidays, Thanksgiving, basically got it start
from the spirit of gratitude that comes from surviving the horrors of trying
to immigrate to the New World.

So an argument that boils down to "we're so awesome, how dare you make us bust
our balls to become Americans" is going to rub a lot of voting Americans the
wrong way. Especially when coupled with a condescending Vivek-Wadhwa-style
"you Americans couldn't possible grow your economy on your own, so you should
be grateful we immigrants want to come at all." Most Americans expect
immigrants to be grateful for the opportunity to come to America, not the
other way around.

So, as I said, make an argument that appeals to American culture and
sensibilities. In my opinion, the biggest problem with skilled immigration is
that 1) H-1B is tied to employment, and 2) so many H-1B visas are consumed
fradulantly. So fight against H-1B fraud by insisting on strong enforcement of
immigration law. Very few Americans will argue with that, and it will help
open up H-1B slots.

And push for H-1B to be decoupled from employment, using the (accurate)
argument that the current scheme is basically indentured servitude, a concept
that most Americans (as part of our founding mythology) know is a Bad Thing.
If H-1B wasn't tied to employment, you wouldn't need a Startup Visa. You
wouldn't need the permission of an employer to move to the U.S. And it
wouldn't matter (as much) if your green card application took years.

------
techsupporter
This is eminently reasonable, so it'll never happen. I'd go a bit farther:

\- $100,000 in cash money paid to the US Treasury earns an instant I-551 visa
along with visas for a spouse and any immediate minor children.

\- $50,000 buys you a temporary worker visa (2 years?) that isn't tied to an
employer. The temporary visa residency time doesn't apply for the time period
needed to gain citizenship. At the end of two years you either pay the same
$100,000, apply through other means, or depart. On this visa, if you raise at
least $200,000 worth of investment or have created $200,000 worth of jobs in
your temporary residency period (e.g. 4 FTE @ $50k annual salary) the $100k
fee is waived.

Each dollar amount is indexed to inflation and adjusted annually for new
applicants.

Yes, it puts a price tag on residency which some might find unseemly but I
think it quantifies a contribution to society and prevents political
gamesmanship.

~~~
phil
You'd almost have to say that this article is not liable to the least
objection!

~~~
bdrocco
Except that we'd be putting a price on opportunity... Sure maybe big companies
would put up $100k for international talent, but anybody else that would want
to immigrate for that price probably isn't doing it to work hard and make
their lives better. Isn't that the appeal of the USA?

I agree we need to keep more talented foreigners in the country, but a $100k
price tag isn't the right solution. How would an immigrant save up that money
while studying in the US (or while in their former country)? If he/she drops
out of college they wouldn't be able to stay on their student visa...

In fact, this author's suggesting we blindly accept anyone that can pay $100k.
It seems to me this approach would attract more terrorists and/or criminals
with those types of resources abroad than freelancing entrepreneurs.

Nevermind that this wouldn't solve the current illegal immigration problem
either.

------
opinali
Asinine idea of the day, there are some many wrong aspects it's even difficult
where to start.

First, $100k is a big but not absurd amount of money for an American or
European (it's roughly 1 year salary of a good engineer), but everywhere else
in the world it's much harder to save that kind of money - it's closer, say,
to the price of a decent house for a middle-class family.

The efffort to save that money will be very different per country of origin,
which is very unfair. A Brazilian engineer has 3X better wages than an
equivalent Chinese engineer, due to different currency valuation and salary
standards.

People will start paying for this not with cash but with bank loans. These
will be relatively high-risk loans so in practice, people will pay $100k to
the US treasury, and maybe another $50-100k in interest to some private bank.
And even if the loan is from an US bank, this doesn't necessarily mean "even
more money injected in the American economy" - these days, money that goes to
banks rarely benefits society in any significant way.

Having $100k in cash doesn't necessarily prove that you have the kind of
skills that would ensure a well-paid job, and benefit the US economy. Maybe
you are a mediocre professional, but you just inherited this money. Or your
family helped realize their loved son's immigration dream, so you can only pay
for the green card because dad sold his house. Or you just worked your ass off
for 20 years in low-pay jobs, having a lot of discipline to save money. Or you
made a loan (item above), maybe using family's property as collateral so you
don't even have the merit for that loan. End result, a low-skilled worker
being granted a green card and maybe becoming a liability to Social Security
after failing to get an US job.

~~~
wallygold
_The efffort to save that money will be very different per country of origin,
which is very unfair. A Brazilian engineer has 3X better wages than an
equivalent Chinese engineer, due to different currency valuation and salary
standards._

There's nothing stopping the creation of other paths to residency/citizenship.
Everything suggested can be implemented without worsening anyone's situation.

I definitely wouldn't call it asinine because it doesn't help everyone
equally.

------
bfrs
_"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."_

Ok, so now for some people, its gonna cost $100K, to make it evident.

I think my irony meter just broke!

\------------------------------

edit: I'm also guilty of not paying proper attention to the title: _"A Modest
Proposal..."_ [1]. Sorry.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal>

~~~
X-Istence
This proposal doesn't change that in any way shape or form. When you as a
foreign national are on US soil (legally) you too have those inalienable
rights.

------
garethsprice
As someone who has been going through the green card process for over 3 years
now, $100k seems cheap to get rid of all the expense, effort and risk required
to do it legitimately under the current system.

Having said that, simply "selling entry" would lead to a lot of rich people
moving here and buying up property, driving prices sky-high(er) in coastal
cities.

This is the issue right now in London where lots of Arab and Russian oligarch-
types taking advantage of non-domicile tax laws drive up the cost of living
but don't contribute to the economy in a meaningful way. Before you say
"trickle down", sure they spend money on nannies and posh food, but that's
trivial compared to the vast fortunes they store and control outside the UK.

Something like an investment or startup visa would help to ensure that people
are coming here to be productive members of society. There's the EB-5 ($1m+
and ridiculous amounts of red tape) and the E-2 (Arbitrary amount around
$100k, but no route to permanent residence), but both are broken programs.

~~~
jimbobimbo
> As someone who has been going through the green card > process for over 3
> years now, $100k seems cheap to > get rid of all the expense, effort and
> risk required > to do it legitimately under the current system.

As someone who recently got one through employment, I'd say $100k is a hefty
price tag: legal expenses on a fully completed GC process is around $10k.
During the time you're spending $10k, you are employed and are getting paid
prevailing wage for the area of employment (more, if you are good at what you
do - employer doesn't want to lose you).

Granted, things won't be so rosy for people from India or China due to time
constraints, but $100k cash for these folks won't really be that easy either,
I guess.

~~~
lambda
Everyone in this thread seems to assume that people will have to front the
cash. Wouldn't it be more likely that they'd get a loan?

But yeah, $100k does seem a bit steep. That's almost the price of a college
education, and a substantial fraction of the price of a good house. And in
this economy, a lot of people are already having trouble paying both of those
off; adding $100k on top of that for immigration would put this out of the
reach of many people that I think that we do want to encourage to move here.

As a natural born citizen of the US who has many foreign friends, I am
appalled at what they have to go through to get citizenship here. Some of them
have managed to pull it off; some have given up and moved back home, or to
other countries in which it's easier to get a work visa. And these are Ivy-
league educated folks with masters degrees and PhDs in business and technical
fields. I cannot believe that we are making it so difficult for such people to
come to the US.

~~~
garethsprice
(From experience:) You need to show where all money came from that you use
towards meeting immigration requirements. For most uses you can't use the
proceeds of a loan to count towards it.

$100k's pretty cheap for a professional - there's enough of a salary
differential between the US and most other places in the world (especially
once factoring taxes in - eg. pay is high in Switzerland but so are taxes)
that it would not take more than a few years to make back the $100k.

Agree that it's shocking how difficult it is for smart, educated individuals
to immigrate at a time when the country _needs_ to be attracting global talent
to maintain it's lead.

------
X-Istence
I am a green card holder, and while I wish I could tell you what it took, all
I know from the process is that it took my dad from 2000 till 2004 to even be
allowed to start the paperwork and then it wasn't until 2005 that we actually
received our green cards. So long as you have a company sponsoring you it is
not that difficult to get a green card.

It takes time, a lot of it, money and lawyers. Oh, and a complete family
medical history, blood draws, and pictures and prints.

As a green card holder I have the same rights as any American (while on
American soil, the marines won't come rescue me for example as I am still a
Dutch citizen), the only right green card holders do not get is the right to
vote. Which I find semi ironic considering that we are still taxed the same,
but we don't get to choose our representation... something the United States
was founded on.

~~~
ajju
>So long as you have a company sponsoring you it is not that difficult to get
a green card.

This is not true at all. How long it takes to get a green card depends on the
category of green card you can apply for (there are at least 4 types of
employment based green cards) AND on the country in which you were born.

For most people born in India and China, the process takes significantly
longer than 1 year. I personally know multiple senior software engineers
working for top software companies who have been waiting for over 7 years.

~~~
jimbobimbo
> For most people born in India and China, the process takes significantly
> longer than 1 year.

A CTO of the company I'm working at is waiting for his green card for almost
TEN years! The guy is a key person for the company, has two kids and bought a
house, but is still on H1. :(

------
fireismyflag
The green card already has a $1M tag, even if it is not a simple transaction
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-5_visa>

Even so, The idea is not bad, since it is talking about skilled workers and
EB5 is for investors

~~~
mortehu
$1M is the amount you need to invest, not spend. Not sure what the expected
value of that investment is, though.

------
tomjen3

        Give me your tired, your poor,
        Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
        The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
        Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
        I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
    

So long as they can pay more than two years average income?

Anyone up for building a new country?

~~~
dextorious
Well, that's poetic, but doesn't mean it works out that way in the real world.

For one, America was not actually founded solely on "tired and poor masses
yearning to breathe free", but on a huge takeover and displacement plan for
the native americans.

Then, "tired and poor" masses of african americans were used as slaves, and
tons of "tired and poor" masses of white people were also used quite like
slaves (sharecroppers and the like).

And even after that stopped, there was tons of racial tension (do you think
Italians, Irish and Jews were welcomed to New York initially?).

Another consideration, if tens of millions of muslims, for example, come to
the US and change it vote by vote, to follow islamic law, would you like it?
Or does you "bring me your..." proposition presupposes that mass immigration
will not happen if all is left open?

~~~
jmj4
> _America was not actually founded solely on "tired and poor masses yearning
> to breathe free", but on a huge takeover and displacement plan for the
> native Americans._

America wasn't founded in order to take anything from Natives; this was a very
unfortunate side affect. Your right, slavery was a stain on America for nearly
a century. And there was racial tension against Irish, Jews, Italians ect,
just like it is for Muslims in some sectors of society right now.

But these people were still given an opportunity to flourish through their own
doing, and many of them have. The Kennedy's are the most obvious example of an
Irish American family doing supremely well despite lingering prejudice towards
Irish immigrants. Obviously other examples exist.

The Muslim question you bring up at the end is different. The reason people
are so scared is that Islamic Law contradicts the notion of freedom. We can
and should allow freedom of religion, but not before we ensure that all people
are free. And Islamic Law flies in the face of a lot that is presented in our
Constitution.

~~~
dextorious
> America wasn't founded in order to take anything from Natives; this was a
> very unfortunate side affect.

I'm not sure. The whole point of the conquest of the Americas was pillaging
and exploiting the new continent by and for the European nations. Even the
words "conquest, conquistador" etc speak volumes.

America (as in "the US") itself, was just some of those people descendants
that declared themselves a new sovereign nation. But they too had to take the
land from its previous inhabitants, an operation that started before the US
established and declared independence, and continued even after that.

~~~
Symmetry
"Conquest" wasn't ever a word commonly used by those particular Europeans that
ended up later forming the USA, though. That was how the Spanish talked about
what _they_ were doing. The English ideology was all about "settling" or
"colonizing". The English didn't see the natives as a resource to be exploited
by an obstacle to be either ignored to negotiated with. This later caused many
problems due to the English and Native Americans having very different notions
of property and what buying land meant.

~~~
dextorious
"""This later caused many problems due to the English and Native Americans
having very different notions of property and what buying land meant."""

Yeah, especially as for the English it meant "taking your land for peanuts".

------
kennywinker
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free",
and make them bring $100k in unmarked bills.

I think we can all agree the current system is broken. I don't know what a
better one is, but whatever it is needs to make room for people who can't
afford a $100k entry fee, but would contribute to American society in other
ways.

~~~
ziyadb
Immigrants inherently contribute to American society in the following ways:

1\. They pay taxes.

2\. They spend their money on goods and services supplied by American
businesses.

That constitutes contribution to American society. If anything, immigrants
should be actively sought.

~~~
known
They DON'T spend their money on goods and services supplied by American
businesses. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittance#Asia>

~~~
Symmetry
Unless they aren't eating or sleeping while they're in the US, they're still
spending some of their money on US businesses. And remittances are by far the
most effective form of foreign aid...

------
sashthebash
What about abuse?

Wouldn't this invite loan sharks lending money to relatively poor unemployed
people in other countries, selling them the American dream and make them work
on slavery-like terms for decades until they pay of their debt?

~~~
Symmetry
In the US declaring bankruptcy isn't too bad, so there's a hard limit to how
badly they can exploit the people they bring over. Currently people are
exploited like this, getting in debt to be transported into the country
illegally. However, in that case it's their illegal status depriving them of
normal legal protections that makes the situation get so bad.

I do expect that most people coming in would require loans, but that most of
them would still be better off with this program.

------
diminish
I would suggest the same to Europe. Get piece of land in south Europe which
may host 10million people. Create 28th experimental member country of EU with
values similar to USA, such as freedom and money-rulez. Families may buy a
house and citizenship with travel rights and easier work permits around the
europe for 1 million euros (USD1.33M) per person only valid for investors,
some experts and tech-engineers. This way Europe may suck the elite of the
developing nations and may collect 10 trillion Euros in 5 years to pay the
debts of failing Euro members.

~~~
fijal
Not sure about you, but I would be happy to not have USA values anything near
my countries in Europe.

------
tsycho
An automatic green card for immigrants who earn more than $100k annual is a
much better idea instead. Such people are very likely well educated and
contributing at a high level to their respective professions. They should be
exactly the kind of people America wants to keep.

------
christkv
I would like to just see a bi-lateral agreement between the eu and the us for
work so you could give an american a job in europe more easily and also work
in the us more easily. Having been hiring it's a pain to have to refuse
candidates from the us because spain will makes it close to impossible to
grant a working visa at the moment.

As an alternative they could also just do what australia does which is a
skilled immigrant system where you score points for your background.

------
rms
This isn't that absurd, right now the great secret of US immigration is that
someone with $1M USD of surplus liquid savings can definitely get on the green
card track with the advice of their attorney.

~~~
beagle3
Yes, but unless they know they'll be making lots of money, it would cost them
a hell of a lot more.

The US now has a tax regime that is possibly the worst in the world for people
who are somewhat rich, but not superfilthy rich (a category that I guess
includes > $1M and < $50M in liquid assets).

If you live in the US with a green card (which can expire or be canceled at
the governments whim), you take on ALL the obligations of a citizen, including
gift tax, estate tax, reporting of everything you ever own outside the US
(with a 50% penalty if you knowingly fail to report something -- google FBAR).
\

Furthermore, if you do that for a few years, and you move back (say, because
your green card was cacneled), you have to pay the "exit tax", which is more
or less the estate tax you would have paid had you died that day.

If you're making $300K a year, your tax rates are probably around 45% (35%
federal, 5-13% state; although e.g. NH has no state tax). The state tax has no
treaty cover, so if your income comes from another country, you're likely to
be double taxed on that.

Also, if you're making under $500K a year, you likely fall under the AMT,
which means those attorney fees, tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of
them, are not expensible (and neither is almost anything else).

I really don't see a reason why someone who already has wealth would pay
$100K, let alone $1M, to gain US residency. It is pure lunacy.

------
tewolde
> Why don’t we let more of them join us? There are two common objections: they
> will drive down wages, or they will be a drain on tax-funded programs.

Both these objections are dead wrong. The truth is that the US economy needs
immigration to work. If you doubt it, just look at Japan.

In fact, immigration is the largest wealth transfer program from developing
countries to the developed.

It is already bad enough that poor countries are paying for the upbringing,
training and education of these skilled migrants for which they get no
compensation. To compound this with this additional tax would be criminal.

~~~
dextorious
"""Both these objections are dead wrong. The truth is that the US economy
needs immigration to work. If you doubt it, just look at Japan."""

Citation needed. Japan was flourishing in past decades, even without
immigration. And the US is not that much better off, debt and economy wise
now.

"""In fact, immigration is the largest wealth transfer program from developing
countries to the developed. It is already bad enough that poor countries are
paying for the upbringing, training and education of these skilled migrants
for which they get no compensation."""

The majority of immigrants from development countries don't have that much
training and education. "Skilled migrants" are the exception.

Not ever Indian immigrant, for example, is a programmer searching work in the
Valley --actually, not even close to 1%.

~~~
burgerbrain
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Aging_of_Japa...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Aging_of_Japan#Effects_on_society)

Your standards for national success in fact drive (or at least indicate) this
sort of trend:
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Demographic_t...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Demographic_transition)

~~~
dextorious
Well, that's because of Aging of the population --not exactly the same
question.

How about this: which is preferable: incentives to counter the aging of the
population OR embracing immigration?

~~~
burgerbrain
Aging population is countered by immigration, something that Japan is
notoriously harsh on. "Success" appears to have the effect of lowering birth
rates, as my second link talks about.

There are of course efforts and policies in place to encourage people to have
more kids, but focusing on those is ignoring the obvious and proven solution.
Furthermore, they do not seem to work. At least not well enough.

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Aging_of_Japa...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Aging_of_Japan#Government_policies)

~~~
dextorious
Well, if your number one priority is to have a young population (whatever it
is), to keep the economy grinding, then that would be a solution. But then
you're using people just as interchangeable economic entities, i.e "I need X
young workers so that I have that economic outcome".

If, on the other hand, your priority is to preserve your way of live, your
country's culture, etc, then encouraging immigration as thus, can lead to many
problems, something a lot of countries can attest to.

Now, it's true that historically the US had been a "melting pot", which
cultures joining and contributing, etc, but this is a notion of the past in an
era with cheap travel, instant communications with the homeland etc. It's not
1890 anymore, when say immigrant workers had to more or less adapt to the
"american way of life", separated as they were from their home culture. With a
large enough immigrant population, as an immigrant you don't have to "melt" in
the pot at all, you don't even have to try to learn english. Especially if the
immigrant population, because it's unskilled, has no major aspirations besides
some low end job.

~~~
burgerbrain
_"If, on the other hand, your priority is to preserve your way of live, your
country's culture"_

This is all just xenophobic crap, and you should know that.

If all the people who don't want to work and don't want to fuck only want to
speak English, but all the people who _do_ want to work and fuck all speak
Portuguese, then so be it. Life isn't a game and people who look the same and
talk the same as you are not "your team". You don't "lose" if people dare have
different ways of doing things on the same continent as you.

This talk of _"the "american way of life""_ makes me think of today's XKCD...

Regardless: You asked for a citation that strict immigration policies are
hurting Japan, and I believe I have adequately provided them.

~~~
dextorious
"""This is all just xenophobic crap, and you should know that."""

That's an idiotic oversimplification, and you should know that.

"""Life isn't a game and people who look the same and talk the same as you are
not "your team"."""

Well, they are, and the team is called a "country" or a "nation". They don't
have to look the same or talk the same, but they _DO HAVE_ to share certain
beliefs and agree on certain procedures.

"""You don't "lose" if people dare have different ways of doing things on the
same continent as you."""

Actually, I _do_ lose the ability to live in a country that operates the way
_I_ like.

With your reasoning, you can just as well move to Saudi Arabia, and you be
fine with no free speech, women not voting/driving, religious hysteria etc.

I don't think that this is the case --you're just talking BS, secure in living
in the specific environment that you like and are used to. For all your
"diversity" talk, I don't think you could even make it for a week in rural
Montana, much less with actual people --including people who could give a
rat's arse about diversity.

~~~
burgerbrain
_"That's an idiotic oversimplification, and you should know that."_

It's really not... You are a xenophobe.

 _"team is called a "country" or a "nation"."_

1) That is an absurd concept.

2) No part of "political entity" implies "ethnicity/language/tradition"

 _"Actually, I do lose the ability to live in a country that operates the way
I like."_

1) Xenophobia, again.

2) It's still allegedly a democracy isn't it? That has to be worth as much as
it ever was.

 _"With your reasoning, you can just as well move to Saudi Arabia, and you be
fine with no free speech, women not voting/driving, religious hysteria etc."_

Strawman. How mature.

 _"all your "diversity" talk"_

Where?

 _"I don't think you could even make it for a week in rural Montana"_

You know precisely nothing about my personal life. Do not pretend that you do.

 _"Regardless: You asked for a citation that strict immigration policies are
hurting Japan, and I believe I have adequately provided them."_

This is still the case. Unless you wish to discuss that further, this
conversation is complete.

~~~
dextorious
"""It's really not... You are a xenophobe."""

Yes, thank you for your five-year-old "did too" reply.

"""1) That is an absurd concept. 2) No part of "political entity" implies
"ethnicity/language/tradition""""

In your part of the world, maybe --it was after all a mish-mash of people that
made it _from scratch_ , and had to account for that.

In my part, it's even in the constitution. And if you ever read history, you
would have found that the political entities called states were based on
ethnicity/language/tradition. Maybe the fact that we call them "nation states"
would have given you a clue.

"""1) Xenophobia, again."""

Knee jerk reaction, again.

"""It's still allegedly a democracy isn't it? That has to be worth as much as
it ever was."""

Actually it's not worth that much. Do you voted for Patriot Act or DMCA?

I find it ironic that Americans, which from what I read on the intertubes can
hardly tolerate the vast Bush-voting republican masses in between their two
coasts, think that a mass injection of islamic or whatever else immigrants in
a country will be even better. Because "there's always democracy".

""""With your reasoning, you can just as well move to Saudi Arabia, and you be
fine with no free speech, women not voting/driving, religious hysteria etc."

Strawman. How mature."""

Strawman? Hardly. It's called a challenge. Can you walk the walk? Or do you
think all "diversity" is like your friendly Starbucks diversity?

"""all your "diversity" talk" - Where?"""

Gee, I don't know, maybe in all those places where your knee-jerk reaction is
to call out a "xenophobe".

"""I don't think you could even make it for a week in rural Montana" You know
precisely nothing about my personal life. Do not pretend that you do."""

I don't have to "know" anything. I can see what your writing reveals.

""""Regardless: You asked for a citation that strict immigration policies are
hurting Japan, and I believe I have adequately provided them." This is still
the case. Unless you wish to discuss that further, this conversation is
complete."""

Yes, let's backtrack when the conversation strays to somewhere we don't like.
Actually, no, you haven't provided anything.

For one, I already made the distinction between aging and immigration.

Second, I'm in one part of the world with the most immigration influx in the
last 10 years, and with the worst economic outcome for the same period. It's
not like Japan's case proves anything in general.

Third, "hurting Japan" economically? How about benefiting them other ways? Or
is all "economy"?

~~~
burgerbrain
_"For one, I already made the distinction between aging and immigration"_

I have already addressed this, and you refuse to acknowledge that.

It is clear that you are beyond hope, you will continue to be a xenophobe even
when your excuses for being so are addressed. Your comical attempts to profile
me really just highlight the quality of your mental processes.

------
king_magic
As an American, let me preface this by saying that I am in no way opposed to
immigration. I am in no way opposed to other cultures. Many of my good friends
are not Americans.

Here is my problem, though - I look around my floor in a NYC office (I'm a
software engineer) and I see very few people who are American citizens.

To me, that is very discouraging. It shows that me that Americans who live in
the US are becoming less competitive than people from other countries when it
comes to technical careers.

Again, let me strongly state that I'm have no problem with people from other
countries coming to work here - I'm just making an observation that it is
somewhat sad that American companies simply cannot find enough Americans to do
jobs in America.

So what happens if we make the immigration process far easier? I see a lot of
complaints in this thread about how difficult/how long of a process it is. But
what happens when people from other countries flood in? What happens to the
fewer competitive Americans here? Suddenly, it's more expensive to hire them.
More expensive to keep them on.

I think I have legitimate concerns. They make me less inclined to support
making the process easier. Maybe I'm wrong about what I suspect will happen if
we let people flood in - and if you think I'm wrong, I'm more than happy to
examine any resources that you feel might help me change my mind. However, I
don't think I'm wrong. I think it would be a disaster for American workers.

~~~
mvc
If you have capital, you are free to deploy it wherever you feel it can make
the highest return. Why should the same not be true of Labour? I'm an H1B from
the UK (admittedly Scotland rather than London) and my earning power is twice
what it is back home.

~~~
king_magic
What happens if the number of H1B's doubles? Suddenly availability of
candidates skyrockets. The number of job openings plummet. Perfect setup for
employers to get away with paying people much less, IMO.

~~~
mvc
...and wages around the world balance out giving everyone a fair crack of the
whip. Whenever someone suggests raising taxes on the rich, the answer is
always "we can't do that because they'll just take their money/jobs and
leave". Workers around the world will only get a fair deal when that is
possible for them too.

You're right that in the short-run, US workers will suffer but in the long
run, everyone wins because it means that when setting policy, governments
would have to consider the possibility that workers (as well as employers)
might be able to find a better deal elsewhere. That's what I like about the US
federal system. This would just be rolling it out across the whole world.

~~~
king_magic
You do realize that US workers' wages dropping would pump more money into the
rich corporations that they work for, right? Those corporations are going to
go right on exploiting people - the only difference is that it would now be
easier to exploit US workers in addition to workers in other countries.

It's not just US workers that would suffer. Workers in other countries would
suffer when US workers stop spending ask much money on more expensive things,
like, say, imports from other countries.

Sure, wages will balance out. But if everyone gets screwed by that, do you
really think you've given workers a fair deal?

Finally, you say: _governments would have to consider the possibility that
workers (as well as employers) might be able to find a better deal elsewhere_.

Disregarding the fact that it is prohibitively expensive for most people to
just pick up and move to another country, wouldn't governments just end up
saying "well damn, our workers are getting screwed - let's erect some barriers
to foreign workers to fix it", thus bringing everyone back to the same place
eventually?

I just don't think it makes sense to open the floodgates to foreign workers. I
think a better answer would be US foreign policy that encourages other
countries to invest/nurture their high tech sectors.

------
yanilkr
From an individual perspective, if you were to put a price on all the
uncertainty involved and dealing with things out of your control 100k seems to
be a reasonable price to pay. If you are an entrepreneur, this helps you to
get over a big mental block, not worry about wrong things and focus on
important things like building great products or keep trying. This seems to be
a sensible option for all those h1b employees in their initial steps to be
startup founders.

------
rudiger
Michael Bloomberg has advocated passing a law letting immigrants get a green
card as long as they buy a house and live in it for five or ten years. That
would probably work a lot better than paying a fee to the federal government,
would fix the housing crisis and the economy, and get a lot of rich foreigners
to come live in the United States.

------
iscrewyou
What I learned from the article: Let them in. Let them pay for our debt. Tell
them we can kick them out anytime. That's it.

------
fosk
Every time I read or listen to this kind of proposals, I always think that we,
as foreign entrepreneurs, can't wait for slow bureaucratic law proposals on
immigration and green card.

Unfortunately it is today that we face a big handicap. We need a better
immigration law now: seriously, now.

Without a long visa or green card we can't do long-term plans. It's harder to
hire people, if we have to leave the day after tomorrow to our country to
get/update/renew our visas. We can't take a long leasing for an office or an
house. The real problem is that we can't live in a long-term mindset, and this
makes an already difficult game (start a company, grow, hire people, create
new jobs) harder to play.

We're are here, in a foreign country, hardly trying to make the difference,
and start our businesses, realize our ideas, invest a part of our life here,
in this country. And we need more help.

------
coopersloan
If say 100,000 people got in for $100,000 in the first year, thats $10 billion
in revenue... we accrue around $4 billion in new debt an average day. Doesn't
seem significant to me?

~~~
Aloisius
Well I would assume these same people (someone who can just sign a check for
$100k) would have significant income which would now be subject to US income
tax. Plus, they might start companies, employ people and contribute even more.

~~~
mittermayr
might. that's the whole point of criticism I believe. this option does not
auto-filter the successful folks and invite them, it invites anyone with cash.
my chinese friend would be laughing his ass off reading this - he always said,
as soon as they make it a cash option, everyone from china and their mother
will come. there is money. and it doesn't mean a person is a smart, successful
tax-payer just because they have money. things are very different outside of
the US, regarding that.

------
mathattack
Our system is messed up. I would let anyone in with a degree from one of the
top 25 or so schools abroad. IIT, Tokyo, Cambridge, etc. Also anyone with a 2
year grad degree in the top 20 in their field in the US can stay. Only lastly
would I add buying your way in, though 100k seems low. I would think 200k,
with an alternative of making a 500k investment instead of retiring the debt.

~~~
riordan
The surprising thing is we already have this very program:

Under the EB-5 program for investors, by investing $500k in a targeted high
unemployment area in a capital intensive project that creates jobs, an
investor can get a green card.

I had no idea this program existed until this NYTimes program on ski resort
Jay Peak, which raised $250m through the program.
[[http://travel.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/travel/with-
renovations...](http://travel.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/travel/with-renovations-
jay-peak-in-vermont-grows-up.html?pagewanted=all)]

Now if we'd only apply to entrepreneurs what we're already doing for
investors...

------
teyc
10B is nothing in terms of public debt.

Every policy must be driven by policy objectives.

For instance, if you want a risk-free way to create jobs in the short term for
existing residents in US, a startup visa is a long bet. (There may be other
policy objectives that could be achieved with startup visa, for instance
acquisition of talent etc, but none of these do much for US's immediate needs)

------
known
Unlike Capitalism, Globalization is Zero Sum. 100K green card cannot fix this
fundamental problem.

------
sgt
A very good idea, in my opinion, but I think $100k is too steep. Make it $50k
and I would support this. I see that there are lot of negative commenters on
techcrunch, particularly from non-americans. That's also interesting.

------
dotBen
I would write the check right now if this was passed into law. Plus I already
paid the US the _tax_ on earning the $100k net (ie more like $150k)

Also, this is what it costs just to get an E2 visa right now.

------
phil
Brilliant. I wasn't sure if he was serious, or if this was a satirical comment
on the immigration system.

Then I looked at the title of the post (it's been wrongly condensed here on
HN).

------
chubs
What if it was a 100k bond, refunded after 5 years of proven good behaviour?
(good behaviour = 5 years continuous employment, clear crime record, etc)

~~~
Eurofooty
This is more reasonable than simply taking peoples hard earned.

------
goodweeds
America: Land of the rich, home of the greenback. Of course Scott is a
pornographer, so $100k seems like nothing to him.

------
tete
I had to smirk when I read the following part:

 _Permanent residence in the USA is a valuable asset_

It really depends on where you live. :)

------
Eurofooty
I would do it but if there were a health care guarantee for my family.

It has to go both ways.

------
hendrix
A modest proposal = satire <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal>.

~~~
matthewowen
you assume that the author hasn't mindlessly used the title. this is
techcrunch. i'm unconvinced.

~~~
buu700
You, sir, have never clearly not mastered the art of literary analysis.

------
shareme
the implied premise is wrong..

Startups do not produce jobs..especially web 2.0 statups

What produces jobs is middle-income Americans who have disposable income to
buy products..ie product demand.

in fact we should reverse the 30 year trend of tax breaks for the 1% and
transfer those tax breaks to middle-income Americans

------
wazoox
Really a wonderful idea to make USA the safe haven of all criminals around the
world. This is the most brain-dead, totally crazy, utterly stupid political
proposal I've read in a long time.

This sort of thinking (money can buy everything), by the way, makes me sick.
This is wrong on so many levels. What floors me even more is to see all HN
comments pretending that this is a good idea. At least the techcrunch comments
seem to get it.

~~~
techsupporter
Money can already buy you a green card and an even faster path to US
citizenship. This article proposes a massive discount on that fee and a
streamlined process to boot. Nothing here proposes to get rid of the current
system, a system which very much needs to be streamlined. Then again, how
exactly should we streamline it? Lots of people hold up Canada and its points-
based system as a prime example. Those same people leave out that Canada, in
2010, chopped huge swaths of categories _out_ of that system because they had
too many applicants. Whether that same problem would happen in the United
States or not is a good question; we have a much larger population/society and
much more livable land area.

Yes, it's expensive, and unfair, and even biased. It smacks of pay-to-play and
partially dims the spotlight on the US' other immigration problems. Does this
mean it shouldn't happen until we can get our politicos to get their heads on
straight? No.

(My better half is a green card holder from a not-rate-limited country. We've
had more than a few interactions with USCIS.)

------
sriram_sun
$100K might seem too little for people already in the US looking for a green
card and it probably is. However, for people outside the US, it is still a
significant sum of money. If they are motivated enough to find it, they'll
probably be working hard enough to pay it back (ie. don't worry about that
person hogging welfare). What I like about this proposal is that it makes it
possible for the "right kind of immigrant" to apply as opposed to the $1M that
is the current threshold. If you've $1M to spare, the GC is just an expensive
membership card to a club and will be treated as such. With no regard to being
a citizen, the person will look at it as a pure business transaction. On the
other hand, the person scraping together 100K is pretty much betting on their
future and making this (the US) their home for multiple generations. These are
the kind of immigrants that are desirable.

