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.
> 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.
In Australia we have a temporary employer sponsored skilled visa (the 457 visa). Median processing times for this visa are 21 days. It is valid for 4 years, you can be sponsored for a permanent visa after 2 years.
Gulf Co-operation Council countries – Bahrain (my country), Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE.
They have separated citizenship from work visas. Anyone can come, they do not need to prove that they can do work that anyone else cannot do, and as long as their employer sponsor is happy with their work, they can stay and work. The governments compete on how quickly they approve the visas and how business-friendly they are in doing so.
The system works well enough that 60-80% of the people living in these countries are not from these countries. They work, study, bring up families and they go back home wealthier than when they left.
(I am missing out a lot of politics here, and there are plenty of things I would want to change, but the GCC does have the most open economy in the world, both for goods and for people.)
Disclaimer - I live in the UK, where my start-up is, because I grew up here as my father came to complete his studies and then became an academic here. I have lived and worked in the USA on H1-B visa and so know first-hand how bad that system is. UK has a similarly bad visa system, I am told, but I love the start-up ecosystem here.
I'm in quite a similar situation being in Switzerland, except I'm required to live (and work) here for 10 years before I can get the green card equivalent.
Getting the permit was the big problem, since not only does the company have to prove that domestic workers aren't suitable for the job, but also every worker in the EU. Thankfully, once you have it, it's very simple to renew.
If I'm not mistaken, the language exam only applies for naturalization, but even then you're still subject to an anonymous review by the people living near you as well as a "cultural exam" to see how well you've assimilated (among many other things, naturally).
The US system obviously has issues, but there is no other country in the world with the same level of demand as the US so emulating another country makes no sense.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
until recently, the uk got much of its tax base from the financial sector, much of which is run on the backs of immigrants (hedge funds and invesment banks), especially those from america
How many people are using those visas to enter those countries?
Meanwhile, how many people are emigrating from those countries to the United States, under the current United States system? (I know quite a few recent immigrants from the United Kingdom and from Ireland in my community.)
So the green card issue is that of "status transfer," where if you change jobs in the first step of the green card application, you have to start again, since your employer sponsorship status doesn't transfer, putting you at the back of a nearly decade-long line. Based on anec-data, we suspect a large number of immigrants want to start companies but can't until they get green cards, which is a big problem for an innovation-based economy.
For startup visa, the latest version has other paths, involving $100k in US revenue or simply being a H1-B/student visa holder with sufficient assets/income to not be a drain on US taxpayers: http://kerry.senate.gov/press/release/?id=4e6a51f6-fb2b-4212... Meaning, there's less pure reliance on VCs as the gatekeepers for visas and green card, a la the criticism of the 2010 Startup Visa by folks like Vivek Wadhwa.
Actually, as a non-EU national living in Norway but currently looking for (academic) jobs everywhere, continental European immigration policies are not that bad. I came to Norway as a highly skilled migrant, and the process was more or less painless; after three years, I got my permanent residence, also with very little ado. I did have to take a language test, but only for the permanent residence, whereas in the UK I have to demonstrate proficiency in English before I can apply for a temporary work permit, even under Tier 2 (skilled migration).
Europe does not have a great track for entrepreneurs (though hopefully that will change with the blue card program), but at least my experience with ordinary skilled migration is overwhelmingly positive. And anybody who thinks there is less bureaucracy in the developing world is highly likely to be living in a dream. At least in Russia the corruption comes on top of the ridiculous red tape.
Not that I have a solution to this problem, but who does the filtering once you remove the job offer as a prerequisite? I can't conceive of a situation where the people that get put in charge of that process are actually qualified.
In every other country there is a central government who have a department of immigration who accept applications from outsiders and judge them on their experience, qualifications, education etc.
You should try having a functional and effective national government - just a thought?
In every other country there is a central government who have a department of immigration who accept applications from outsiders and judge them on their experience, qualifications, education etc.
How many of those countries have a net INFLOW of immigrants from the United States? How many have a net outflow of immigrants to the United States, under the current United States system?
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.