It shouldn't be the only way to get a (nonimmigrant in this proposal, incidentally) visa. But I really do believe it should be one way--it's hard to argue that more startups would hurt the economy.
I agree with you that there is a level of discomfort inherent in letting investors influence who gets visas, but honestly they know more about what startups have a chance at great success than government officers.
> it's hard to argue that more startups would hurt the economy.
It's not as clear that government subsidization of your position would benefit the economy in the long-term, especially after more closely examining the beneficiaries of the majority of wealth extracted by VC startups.
It frightens that you seem to honestly believe that you -- specifically and individually -- deserve special privileges that not only will the rest of us equally hard-working, economy-growing, business-founding citizens not get, but that will make it that much harder for us to compete with your already privileged position.
I don't see any claims of "government subsidization" or "special privileges". I think this kind of visa would allow people to move to the US to start a company, on equal footing with "equally hard-working, economy-growing, business-founding citizens".
It's right there in the article. He's requesting that the government grant to YC:
1) An allotment of visas.
2) Control over the allocation of those visas
... possibly to be extended to other venture capital firms (nobody else, of course, and certainly nobody self-funding a company with capital equivalent to that which YC provides). He's happy for YC to be the only beta tester for now, though.
As far as I know, to qualify for an EB-5 you need to invest at least US$1M and create 10 jobs within 2 years.
It might be a dumb idea, but could investors invest in an entity owned by a foreign founder, who would turn around and repatriate the investment in a US "new commercial entity", and qualify for an EB-5?
Capital means cash, equipment, inventory, other tangible property, cash equivalents and indebtedness secured by assets owned by the alien entrepreneur, provided that the alien entrepreneur is personally and primarily liable and that the assets of the new commercial enterprise upon which the petition is based are not used to secure any of the indebtedness.
For that to work, I think the VC would have to unconditionally give the founder the $1M which is obviously not going to happen.
Bradley nails it. I've looked into this in trying to implement startup visa since March 2011.
The EB-5 requires the capital to be personally owned, as it's intended for wealthy individuals to invest in a local business, usually a construction subcontractor or Vermont ski resort (EB-5 having been created by law sponsored by VT Senator Patrick Leahy back in 1990).
With a prepared lawyer, investors, and founding team, the legal paperwork CAN be set up to make use of an EB-5 (or E-2, at the $50k-150k level) on behalf of a founder, but most founders aren't aware of the hoops they need to jump through or preparation at an early enough stage. And once development has crossed various lines, to 'uncross' them to implement the correctly prepared setup raises other red flags within USCIS.
To me, a necessary (but not sufficient) condition would be a powerful "sunshine" clause. Companies and individuals who are empowered to bestow US residency can't operate in secret.
I agree with you that there is a level of discomfort inherent in letting investors influence who gets visas, but honestly they know more about what startups have a chance at great success than government officers.