Guess we've both been through the visa parade then, but come out with different theories. I sit on the venture side so perhaps a slightly different viewpoint. To go through the route you spelled out means that in order to start a company you need to a) get a job that gives work visa, b) work there long enough they let you apply for green card, c) quit while retaining right to stay in the country/ wait till you get the green card (which could be quite long - I know people who're still waiting after 5 years), and d) start a startup.

Usually that's not the way entrepreneurs would like to start something. They're not optimising for a route towards owning a company, but rather trying to get funding so they can solve a problem they find pressing. Making potential entrepreneurs jump through hoops is usually not a great way to get the best talent to come over.

Those aren't the only two choices. The third option is: You get an application for Startup A where Investor A has agreed to give funding. You look at Investor A and see they've funded 20 companies in the past, with all of them being sham startups, and deny the visa. Startup B who got an offer from Investor B applies for the visa. You see Investor B has also funded 20 companies in the past, of which 15 have gone on to get follow-on funding, with 2 that have already been acquired. It's not that difficult to sort this out. LP (Limited Partners who give money to funds) check these things out re GP (General Partners who actually run the fund) all the time, and on an ongoing basis.

It's highly questionable that the bureaucratic overhead for this would be higher in any way compared to any other type of visa. Question is why you would take the chance of the next great immigrant created startup not being in the US. Wouldn't you want to take the chance of the next Google, Amazon, SpaceX, Tesla, eBay or Apple being in the US?

It wasn't an assumption. From the original rule doc - "Such potential would be indicated by, among other things, the receipt of significant capital investment from U.S. investors with established records of successful investments, or obtaining significant awards or grants from certain Federal, State or local government entities. "

https://www.federalregister.go...

Out of curiosity, as you theorise from the armchair, did you speak with any of the foreigners who like this route and try it? Or did you dismiss it out of hand because you can't imagine a reality where this could be true?

As a non-American, if I were to do a startup, I'd want to do it here because of the large market and favourable funding environment. Permanent Residency isn't as attractive a carrot as you'd imagine.

Because sham startups won't get professional investors - definitely not well-known ones with some credibility.

Or as they say, it's the 66 billion glass ceiling :-)

Wow !! Did Bernie actually say he wanted to put "the 1%" in camps of some sort? How extraordinary!

Thanks .. That link is pretty interesting!

You forgot to add /sarcasm to that

From what I've seen, all of this has been said, repeatedly for a decade or so, and vociferously. Yet the Republicans seem pretty insistent on their theories that a) climate change is bogus, b) we don't need to change anything or focus on sustainable energy because of point a. While I fully support the point of sane argument, when someone refuses to listen to logic repeatedly I'd love to hear what other rhetorical tactics there exist to use.

Once again, not saying scaring the public is the answer, but it sure as hell isn't the logical argument you're laying out above. That's just a John Oliver type argument which isn't going to convince anyone who wasn't convinced already.

China has been leading the way in renewables spending, and not just in nuclear. Also, fwiw, the money isn't going into the World Bank, it's just countries agreeing to spend money on THEIR OWN industries.

Source 1: http://www.publicfinanceintern...
Source 2: http://uk.reuters.com/article/...

Or, you know, equally reveal misconduct from both sides. That would work too.

I'm confused by this. Everything Bill Gates does can of course be spun as a selfish tax dodge, but surely it's a good thing that he's given away $28Bn (so far) on education and health. I mean this is a guy who can buy himself a few countries if he wanted to, and instead he's working hard to try and make the world a better place for others. I just don't see what's this amazing selfish return he's getting that requires him to give away 28 BILLION dollars. It must be something pretty amazing ... Why should we care if he's only doing this as a tax dodge as long as good is being done? I don't care about his motives being pure as driven snow, he's not a saint and afaik doesn't claim to be one. Surely his actions give him enough air cover regarding the good he's doing.

Not that I disagree with the obvious problems with Elon's project, but a few words in defence of jumping in and trying stuff. It's extremely easy to start reading about the complexity inherent (social, political, technological) and therefore decide the way things are is the only real practical way things can ever be. Sometimes it's better to jump in, try something, and see if it works. Accepted wisdom is right far more often than wrong (hence accepted) but it's still not 100%, and we should try the corner cases where odds of success are 1% (ideally at least 1% of the time). So even as it's foolhardy I'd rather see more billionaires at least trying new ideas, if only because out of the randomness we'll learn something new rather than rely on accepted wisdom.

Ah the age old "everyone's bad so why complain" argument. First of all, there are shades of wrong - it's not a binary decision of whether something is good or bad, and you get to choose where you draw the line. Secondly, there are two ways to fix things - 1) Voice, where you voice your displeasure, and 2) Exit, where you choose to use another service. They're both valid options of complaining, and there's no reason to choose one over the other as if it's the only way to be.