I can't say I'm tremendously enthusiastic about this visa. My objection to it is the same as my objection to almost all specialized, employer sponsored visas - I don't think employers, universities, or investors should be empowered to decide who is allowed to live in the US. If you grant them this power, they
will abuse it.
Think about it this way - you're a startup founder with US citizenship. You go to an investor who offers you 100K in seed funding in exchange for X% of your business. You say no deal. Ok, says the employer, but that does mean I won't give you my money.
Now imagine you don't have citizenship. Same scenario. Ok, says the employer, but that does mean I won't give you the right to live in the United States.
One point I've emphasized over and over here on HN is that you can be very pro-immigration and still be very opposed to programs that put private citizens (employers, investors) or corporations in a position of government sanctioned power over would-be immigrants. I think employers and investors should be allowed to decide who gets a job or money, but the power ends there. They absolutely should not be empowered to run the US immigration system for their personal benefit.
These visas are often described as "allows foreign engineers/entrepreneurs/etc to live in the US." That's misleading. It should be described as "allows corporations and investors to decide who is and isn't allowed to live in the US."
So, the tech industry is in favor of a regulatory regime that allows tech corporations to be gatekeepers for who is and isn't allowed to immigrate? What a surprise.
Think of it this way - I can accept that google is allowed to no-hire someone who contributed to open source but can't reverse a binary tree on the spot at a whiteboard. Google's call.
But should google be making decisions about who is allowed to live in the US based on these interviews? That changes the question dramatically for me.
Think about it this way - you're a startup founder with US citizenship. You go to an investor who offers you 100K in seed funding in exchange for X% of your business. You say no deal. Ok, says the employer, but that does mean I won't give you my money.
Now imagine you don't have citizenship. Same scenario. Ok, says the employer, but that does mean I won't give you the right to live in the United States.
One point I've emphasized over and over here on HN is that you can be very pro-immigration and still be very opposed to programs that put private citizens (employers, investors) or corporations in a position of government sanctioned power over would-be immigrants. I think employers and investors should be allowed to decide who gets a job or money, but the power ends there. They absolutely should not be empowered to run the US immigration system for their personal benefit.
These visas are often described as "allows foreign engineers/entrepreneurs/etc to live in the US." That's misleading. It should be described as "allows corporations and investors to decide who is and isn't allowed to live in the US."
So, the tech industry is in favor of a regulatory regime that allows tech corporations to be gatekeepers for who is and isn't allowed to immigrate? What a surprise.
Think of it this way - I can accept that google is allowed to no-hire someone who contributed to open source but can't reverse a binary tree on the spot at a whiteboard. Google's call.
But should google be making decisions about who is allowed to live in the US based on these interviews? That changes the question dramatically for me.