The idea is a good one, but I'm wrestling with the dollar amount that needs to be invested before the founder can get a visa. Specifically, how likely is it that a US venture capitalist will invest $250,000 or more in a startup that's not located in the US (or Silicon Valley for that matter) vs. another startup that is?
Even if the non-US startup will move to the US once they receive funding, the largely intangible advantages bestowed on a startup in the Valley (which I've witnessed in the month that I've lived here) give it a better chance.
To be successful in facilitating the immigration of founders to the US, the founders' Visa should be available to any startup that has received any funding from a "qualified US investor" over $15K, which would include non-US startups accepted into YC.
And to avoid creating a huge immigration loophole (which seems to be the author's rationale for suggesting a "real money" cutoff), perhaps the Visa could have a clause that limits it to two years unless additional capital is secured and the startup is deemed to have "passed muster", at which point a permanent resident visa could be granted.
Specifically, how likely is it that a US venture capitalist will invest $250,000 or more in a startup that's not located in the US (or Silicon Valley for that matter) vs. another startup that is?
It might be more likely than you think. If the startup and the founders are solid, and if there is a clear (and most importantly, fast) visa path like the one proposed, I don't think most investors would have a problem. If anything, $250,000 is way too low for a VC, so you might have to find an angel investor instead. Some countries would have an advantage over others, of course, but I don't think it's a showstopper - my first startup, based in Canada, received an offer for funding which would've put us over this threshold.
Even if the non-US startup will move to the US once they receive funding, the largely intangible advantages bestowed on a startup in the Valley (which I've witnessed in the month that I've lived here) give it a better chance.
Can you elaborate? What is the difference, once both startups are in the Valley, and assuming there are no language issues? So many startup founders are already originally from other states or even countries.
It may be more likely than I think, but what matters is if it is so much more likely that P(Silicon Valley startup getting funding) < P(Canada/foreign startup getting funding), all other things being equal. Do you think that this is the case?
I don't think that every startup needs to be in the Valley to get funding, but what I've witnessed here is a prime example of "it's not (only) what you know, it's who you know". If you have a viable startup, knowing people that have made names for themselves in the startup scene, many of which are based in Silicon Valley, can go a long way towards getting introduced to potential investors, whether they be angel investors or VCs.
I don't think we're disagreeing on much. Yes, of course, a startup with better connections in the US has a better chance to get funding from US investors, and it's easier for an US startup to make these connections.
My point is that P(Canada/foreign startup getting funding) is greater than zero even with today's visa situation, and is still large enough to make a visa program worthwhile, even if it is smaller than P(Silicon Valley startup getting funding).
It seems to me that honest advice about what actually works in dating usually offends people.
Go pick up virtually any book by and for pickup artists. (Or start with a website like http://www.seductiontuition.com/.) You will find it full of incredibly crass generalizations about women that are guaranteed to offend. But it works! Pickup artists aren't worried about being politically correct, they are interested in getting attractive women in bed. And they have found strategies with a high success rate.
For the converse go pick up dating advice aimed at women like The Rules. (You can find much of it summarized at http://www.topdatingtips.com/dating-rules-for-women.htm.) It is full of nasty stereotypes about how to treat men that I find horrible and awful. But it works! The advice is popular because it has helped many women land relationships they are happy with. No matter how much I wouldn't like being treated that way, it clearly works on a lot of guys.
Now let me be clear. I don't like either of those sets of advice any better than you appear to. Nor is either relevant to my life - I was lucky enough to fall in love young, and have now been married close to 20 years. However I accept that there is empirical evidence supporting those theories. And the lesson I take from that is that many people don't work like I'd like them to.
I think it may have more to do with the latter. A quick Google Scholar query of "why is computer programming dominated by males" provides some interesting results, including an abstract with the key finding that "men had more confidence in using computers than did women even when statistically controlling quantitative ability. In fact, female CS majors had less computer confidence than did male non-majors." (Beyer et al., 2003)
