Such a good idea, and It's made an excellent start, it would be great if this got through. Although I can imagine that it would be difficult to keep it air-tight to its purpose (as you pointed out with immigration abuse)... but doesn't mean it shouldn't be in effect.
I hope it gets passed. I also hope they simplify the visa system. It's a friggin mess already. If you've ever seen the US visa page it's an alphabet soup of letters and numbers. Tourists need a D, I have a hard time distinguishing between an H1 and L1 visa. Performers need an O, family gets K, and students get a F/J/H?.
Instead of adding yet another Visa classification pair it down to 5 or 6, and make the terms reasonable. Currently, the easiest visas require you to be either really rich, or really poor and willing to do manual labor. The educated middle wants you to jump through ridiculous hoops (a lottery? really!)
This is part of the argument which states: "immigrant labor and skills are vital to new business development". That might be a fact, just as "pervasive outsourcing of U.S. jobs harms the U.S. economy". If legislation is to be meaningful, it should be more complete.
I'd be willing to support legislation such as that proposed, if it included dis-incentives (i.e. significant tariffs and fees) for companies who outsource. If it's really all about developing business and jobs _in_ America, then make it complete. I vote against half-measures and one-sided legislation, though.
I downvoted you, but I shouldn't have, I should have just responded with why I disagree. So I apologize for that. Here's my thoughts:
> I'd be willing to support legislation such as that proposed, if it included dis-incentives (i.e. significant tariffs and fees) for companies who outsource.
In the modern economy, setting tariffs is akin to declaring trade warfare. A few years ago, then-President Bush was advocating a tariff on steel to protect U.S. businesses, and the EU responded that they'd counteract with a broad set of tariffs on American exports. The plan fell through.
The only countries you can get away with placing tariffs on are countries you hurt tremendously by doing so. Things like the tariff on sugar which really hurts Caribbean countries while making American High Fructose Corn Syrup the #1 alternative. The Chinese and Indian markets are already and will continue to become more important to American companies. It might even be impossible to place a tariff/tax/penalty on companies who outsource due to Most Favored Nation terms in treaties, but even if it was - you really don't want to mess around with two countries that have a combined population over 2 billion, who are growing rapidly, and who are very important to the USA. Never mind the economics of how it'd change prices - setting a tariff creates a nasty domino effect of hostility in international relations and isn't really feasible in the modern world. So, count me firmly against that idea, but I do apologize for downvoting you. You expressed an idea you had that I disagree with, and I should've responded without voting.
The U.S. already has investor visas. The only difference between the investor visa and the start-up visa is that the latter dispenses with the capital requirement. I don't see what entrepreneurs are gaining by locating new businesses in the U.S.--people forget that the U.S. taxes the worldwide income of its residents. That's not the case with the U.K. or Canada. You can do all kinds of business without living in the U.S. and subjecting yourself and your company to U.S. laws. Where's the advantage?
