
Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Leaving the U.S - DanielRibeiro
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/apr2011/sb20110427_111253.htm
======
abalashov
Perspective from a highly educated, legal immigrant family:

I came here with my parents, who emigrated from the former USSR via the
student visa route in 1992. This is one of the hardest paths to permanent
residency in the US because a great deal of student visas either explicitly
foresee a return of the student to their native country for some period of
time (owing to various reciprocal treaties to that effect), or are implicitly
structured to discourage permanent immigration per se.

Somehow, my parents defied the odds, frequently hopping between various F, J
and H-class visas, begging for employer sponsorship through these processes in
an already grossly unfavourable job market (humanities academia). In at least
one case, I remember that making changes to visa status before the existing
visa expired required short-circuiting the INS bureaucracy and going to the US
consulate in a Mexican border town to get the job done--ironically, much
faster.

It wasn't even until 2002--a decade later--that we had a greencard. Up until
that point, if my dad had been dismissed by any of his employers or lost his
student for any reason, we would have had to return to our country
immediately, from where trying to seek new opportunities along these lines--
especially in the 1990s--would have been impractically difficult. Worse yet, a
petition for a greencard from many classes of visa means that if for some
reason the petition is denied, you forfeit your existing visa and also must
leave. And of course, employer sponsorship was required.

We finally became naturalised US citizens in 2008, 16 years later, well after
I had spent close to 3/4ths of my life here. And many commentators who work
with people in our situation have remarked that this was brisk and efficient.

While I am definitely speaking from the vantage point of a particular visa
classification and method of entry, I don't gather that our situation is that
uncommon. The number one problem that I see with American immigration from an
economic perspective is that it's _simply too hard to immigrate here_
(legally)[1], and most especially as a highly educated or highly skilled
person. Marrying an American or obtaining a refugee status of some description
is a much more efficient path to permanent residency, for example. Meanwhile,
a person with an existing PhD like my dad had to essentially get another PhD
to become employable here[2], while persuading employers all throughout to
argue that there no equally suitable American candidate was found for his job,
etc, etc. I have not seen janitors face such hurdles.

I will freely grant that it's not nearly as hard to immigrate to the US
legally as it is to say, Western Europe, but it's also not as easy as Canada
or some other Western countries whose immigration systems admit an explicit
preference for high qualifications. And as the author points out, with
domestic economies becoming more and more attractive, it just isn't worth the
effort to fight with this immigration system like it used to be.

EDIT: To relate this back to Vivek Wadhwa's article: We come from Moscow. In
the early 1990s, following the dissolution of the USSR, Moscow was a pretty
miserable place to live. Coupled with the enthusiasm to leave the Soviet
context in general, the appeal of America was pretty clear. Nowadays, Moscow
is not a particularly miserable place (although the reasons for that, and the
question of whether they are good, sustainable reasons, are a separate
discussion entirely), and few people in Moscow, whether part of the noveau
elite or otherwise, are deluded with the idea that they can find a better life
in America--they already live in a gold-plated bubble rapidly coming to rival
Manhattan sensibilities. So for whom does the US remain an attractive
destination in Russia? Mostly provincial, less-educated people from poorer,
simpler places. I read Wadhwa's article to be saying that--extrapolating from
this more generally--this does not set up the incentives we really want.

[1] I found this chart from Reason Magazine to be a pretty accurate
illustration of the problem:
<http://reason.org/files/a87d1550853898a9b306ef458f116079.pdf>

[2] Yes, that's technically a separate issue from immigration policy and is
rather tied up in the specificity of his profession, but if you want to talk
about the amount of mountain-moving required to move to the US permanently, as
a whole, it deserves consideration.

~~~
tokenadult
_The number one problem that I see with American immigration from an economic
perspective is that it's simply too hard to immigrate here (legally), and most
especially as a highly educated or highly skilled person._

Is there somewhere else where immigration is much easier than the United
States? If so, where? Have you ever thought of living there?

~~~
abalashov
Well, back when I would have been in a position to consider living somewhere
else, I was a minor. And since I've been in the US from age six and am
functionally American for all practical purposes, obviously, like most people,
I am not possessed with the desire to uproot myself and relocate without a
compelling reason.

You seem to be clinging to relative arguments throughout the comments. I agree
that it's important to keep the overall merits of the US relative to many
alternatives in perspective, yes. But relative arguments only go so far. Yes,
I could be in a refugee camp in Darfur; doubtless, my situation--almost
anyone's situation--could be a lot worse than the espresso machine breaking
down or the laundromat being inconveniently far away. But it doesn't mean
people shouldn't be allowed to complain about absolute inadequacies of the
system, or advocate for its improvement.

~~~
tokenadult
I'm 100 percent for people from anywhere in the world, even people who have
never seen the United States, advocating for improvement of policies in the
United States. Policy improvement is a great idea, and I was happy to have it
happen in the United States even during the several years of my life when I
wasn't living here.

But I ask about the policies of other places, and what attractions those set
up for immigrants, for a policy-based reason. Most public policies cannot be
set to be ideal in the abstract. Indeed, there is not even enough agreement
among voters to be sure what the abstract ideal of perfect policy would look
like. Every country in every era, democracy or dictatorship, makes policy
trade-offs. I think the discussion of United States policy can be best
informed--and thus most helpful to the United States, the country I now live
in--if people like you with valuable international perspective are as specific
as possible in comparing United States policies to policies of other countries
you know about. As I wrote in the first reply I posted in this thread, there
ought to be official statistics on many of the issues mentioned in the article
that opened this thread, and those official statistics from various
governments may guide us better to understand what policy trade-offs make for
a thriving economy, well functioning democracy and rule of law, and an open
and vibrant society.

~~~
djjose
My worry with your argument (if I'm following correctly) is why should we
compare/base US immigration policy on the policy of other nations? If we
accept that US policy is more favorable than others, is it purely acceptable
to meet the lowest bar? I'd argue we should always, in all facets of policy
and life, be actively working to raise the bar.

------
tokenadult
Now how did I know that this was a Vivek Wadhwa article before I even followed
the link to read the article? Oh, yeah, because this is Vivek Wadhwa's pet
issue. As in his previous articles on this subject, he doesn't give any big-
picture official statistics (even though those should be available) about how
much demand there is under current rules for immigrant visas to the United
States by persons from China or India who have completed university
educations. Nor does he even relate his anecdotes to the (large) percentage of
graduate students in the United States from India or China who somehow manage
to stay and eventually settle in the United States under current rules. He
simply doesn't provide any thoughtful analytical context for the policy
position he supports.

I think it's wonderful for the United States to accept a lot of immigrants--my
wife is an immigrant from another country. But I will simply ask the policy
questions I generally ask when HN threads include discussion of immigration
policy:

1) What country offers BETTER general conditions for convenient immigration by
educated persons from China or from India than the United States? Where are
that country's immigration rules posted on the World Wide Web? Would you
rather live there than in the United States?

2) What countries offer easy and convenient immigration to an arbitrary person
from an arbitrary country, say an African person who would like to start a new
life by founding a business in some developed country? Where could that person
immigrate readily and legally?

3) What countries allow Americans readily to settle with permanent residence
status that could turn into citizenship after an application on the same terms
that Vivek Wadhwa advocates that the United States offer to citizens of other
countries? What countries are currently visible examples of the results of the
kind of policy he proposes? Would you rather live in one of those countries
than in the United States?

4) Is there any country on earth that has a NET inflow of immigrants from the
United States, compared to the number of its own citizens who emigrate to the
United States? What country is that? What are its immigration rules? Would you
like to start a start-up there?

After edit: If you are sure that there is another country that provides better
immigration rules for start-up entrepreneurs than the United States, could you
kindly link to some website hosted by that country explaining what the rules
are?

~~~
abalashov
Anecdotally speaking, "Canada" is a good answer to many of the questions that
you pose.

~~~
ojbyrne
And, from what I understand, Australia.

~~~
cema
It is much easier to move (and to immigrate) in Canada than Australia,
however. Entrepreneurial spirit may be similar, but immigration laws are very
different (and, although less critical, the distance from large markets).

~~~
ojbyrne
I was discussing (and with the proviso that my knowledge was superficial at
best) immigration policy - which seems comparable. Googling around shows me
that Australia has a large foreign born population (24%), and a points based
system similar to Canada's.

------
Cherian_Abraham
From the article: "Let's start by increasing the number of permanent resident
visas available for the 1 million engineers, scientists, doctors, and
researchers and their families who are in the U.S. legally but trapped in
immigration limbo."

Amen to that brother. But myself being someone in that limbo for the last
eight years, I dont have much hopes for it. And this is not a Silicon valley
story either. I have about 25,000 people ahead of me in the queue. And each
year the queue moves in a snails pace. In this pace, I should have it by the
time my two year old son graduates. And then I will create the next Google. (I
am kidding. Being an entrepreneur means overcoming these, and I am committed
to that)

And we are talking only about 750,000 visas currently in adjudication. Just
under a million green cards. And at the very least I believe, it can create
two million jobs.

Nothing is being done because "1 million engineers, scientists, doctors, and
researchers and their families" are not a lethal voting bloc. They lack a
voice.

I empathize with people like me. As I do with Americans who have lost their
jobs, and the families of illegal immigrants who live in the society's
shadows. If there were easy answers to this solution, we would have found it
by now. And politicians prefer solutions that are easy to explain to their
constituents. We are so used to soundbites now that anything more complex than
a monosyllable evokes a strong abhorrent response.

------
yummyfajitas
The problem with decoupling amnesty for illegals and high skilled immigration
is that the administration doesn't care about high skilled immigration.
Illegal immigrants, were they to become legal, will vote Dem. Thus Dems favor
it, Reps oppose it. High skilled immigrants don't show a large bias, neither
party gets a political advantage from high skilled immigration, so it goes
nowhere.

However, don't think that work authorization will stop innovation from fleeing
the country. I'm a US Citizen, and I'm leaving the US to start a business in
India in few weeks. My partners are both Indians with a green card.

It would be preferable for us to start our business in the US. We'd love to
hire unemployed low skill Americans to act as mechanical turks for us (we need
quite a bit of AAI). Their cultural knowledge would certainly be superior to
Indian college students (important, since the US is our target market). But
Americans are simply too expensive - the business wouldn't be feasible at US
minimum wage rates, let alone wages high enough to convince Americans to give
up unemployment benefits and come back to work.

~~~
theoj
Let me see if I have this right:

You complain about the US not allowing high skilled immigrants in the first
paragraph, but then you say you want to hire low skill mechanical turks at
below minimum wage in your last paragraph.

You are upset that workers in the US will not work for Indian wages when they
have US expenses. Furthermore, you imply that your wages are so low that
people prefer the small unemployment benefits instead of working for you.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I made no complaint, nor am I upset. I was merely giving objective reasons
why, no matter how many visas you give out, some businesses are simply not
going to be built in the US. I also explained why politicians focus on low
skill illegal immigrants rather than high skill legal immigrants.

Personally, I'm looking forward to moving to India. The food is tasty, the
women are beautiful, and it's time for me to do something different. I have no
complaints.

~~~
rumpelstiltskin
_Personally, I'm looking forward to moving to India. The food is tasty, the
women are beautiful._

...and the bureaucracy and corruption are out of this world. Good luck.

~~~
sigzero
Oh...and let's not forget all those they murder for not believing religiously
as they do. No thanks.

~~~
learner4life
rumpelstiltskin has a very valid point, but your's is unsubstantiated cant.
Where is the evidence that you get murdered for just not believing religiously
as they do?

------
philiphodgen
For a perspective on why H1-B people might want to flee the United States
because of execrable tax policy, you can check out this post and comments on
my blog:

<http://hodgen.com/hb-person-need-of-fbar-assistance/>

tl;dr - if you have more than $10K in a foreign bank account you have to file
a tax form. If you don't file such a form, horrific penalties ensue. H1-B
workers frequently have accounts in their home countries with more than $10K.
They come here to work, become residents for US tax purposes, and are liable
for the penalties.

I have talked to more than one such person who finds it expedient to quit
their US job and leave in order to eliminate the US tax risk.

EDIT: In case the connection is not obvious, the same logic would apply to
immigrant entrepreneurs. If you have some capital outside the USA and you get
a green card, you can stay (and risk six-figure tax penalties) or you can give
up the green card and eliminate your tax risk. I have a booming business in
"give up green card" work at the moment.

------
geebee
"Let's start by increasing the number of permanent resident visas available
for the 1 million engineers, scientists, doctors, and researchers and their
families who are in the U.S. legally but trapped in immigration limbo."

My problem with this is that a recent RAND study found that Americans are
avoiding careers in science and engineering because these fields have become
uncompetitive with the professions (law, mba, md, dds, etc) in terms of
salary, job stability, and career prospects. In other words, a "shortage", to
the extent that it exists, may be a rational response by americans to poor
career prospects. It might not make sense to use the immigration system to
increase the pool of PhD level scientists and engineers when the most
objective research available is concluding that these careers have lost their
luster. At the very least, we should recognize that this would probably
provide even greater deterrence for people in the US who do have the right to
choose their career path.

I tend to favor a points-based system in the US, something more similar to
Canada or Australia. I've read about these systems, and while they certainly
give credit to scientists and engineers, they appear to be very broad-based
(plumbers, lawyers, and electricians get more points than programmers in
Australia, last time I looked).

One thing I do agree with - the current system is horrible, the worst of all
worlds. We bring in lots of "guest workers", targeting fields that probably
aren't experiencing any shortage, and we create an indentured system that in
my opinion pretty much violates the concept of personal freedom. It's a crappy
system for immigrant and american scientists and engineers, but it does serve
a few interests very well.

I pretty much say this every time: take a large but not unlimited number of
immigrants, value education and skills in the abstract but avoid focusing too
narrowly on any particular trade, profession, or skill set, and give
immigrants full freedom to determine their own course in life (ie., no
geographical or career restrictions).

------
olalonde
Some interesting thoughts on immigration from economist Milton Friedman
(<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE>):

I’ve always been amused by a kind of a paradox. Suppose you go around and ask
people: ‘The United States before 1914, as you know, had completely free
immigration. Anybody could get in a boat and come to these shores and if
landed at Ellis Island he was an immigrant. Was that a good thing or a bad
thing?

You will find that hardly a soul who will say that it was a bad thing. Almost
everybody will say it was a good thing. ‘But what about today? Do you think we
should have free immigration?’ ‘Oh, no,’ they’ll say, ‘We couldn’t possibly
have free immigration today. Why, that would flood us with immigrants from
India, and God knows where. We’d be driven down to a bare subsistence level.’

What’s the difference? How can people be so inconsistent? Why is it that free
immigration was a good thing before 1914 and free immigration is a bad thing
today? Well, there is a sense in which that answer is right. There’s a sense
in which free immigration, in the same sense as we had it before 1914 is not
possible today. Why not?

Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing
to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a
welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a
certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless
of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an
impossible thing.

------
dkasper
The market in many countries seems relatively untapped compared to the US. You
can't fix that problem with a law.

------
democracy
Vivek, please use this energy to create more opportunities and better
conditions for US students, that's the only long-term solution.

You can't easily grab international (Asian) brains as you did 50 years ago.
Things changed.

------
known
Clueless US Administration is destroying the $15 trillion domestic economy to
dilute $3 trillion Chinese foreign exchange reserves by devaluing/printing
dollars.

------
GoldenMonkey
So, the factor for leaving the US is better opportunities at home. But the
solution is to fix immigration?

