Bad Things Happen When Politicians Think They Understand Technology

from the not-so-good dept

With health care reform out of the way, lots of politicians are pushing out new legislative ideas, hoping that Congress can now focus on other issues -- so we're seeing lots of bad legislation proposed. Let's do a two for one post, highlighting two questionable bills that many of you have been submitting. The first, proposed by Senators Schumer and Graham, is technically about immigration reform, which is needed, but what's scary is that the plan includes yet another plan for a national ID card. Didn't we just go through this with Real ID, which was rejected by the states? Jim Harper, who follows this particular issue more than just about anyone, has an excellent breakdown of the proposal, questioning what good a national ID does, while also pointing to the potential harm of such a plan.

Then we have the big cybercrime bill put forth by Senators Hatch and Gillibrand Senators Rockefeller and Snowe (updated, since there are two separate cybersecurity bills, and its the Rockefeller/Snowe one that has people scared), that tries to deal with the "serious threat of cybercrime." But, of course, it already has tech companies worried about the unintended consequences, especially when it requires complying with gov't-issued security practices that likely won't keep up with what's actually needed:

"Despite all [the] best efforts, we do have concerns regarding whether government can rapidly recognize best practices without defaulting to a one-size-fits all approach," they wrote.

"The NIST-based requirements framework in the bill, coupled with government procurement requirements, if not clarified, could have the unintended effect of hindering the development and use of cutting-edge technologies, products, and services, even for those that would protect our critical information infrastructure."

They added the bill might impose a bureaucratic employee-certification program on companies or give the president the authority to mandate security practices.

This is one of those bills that sounds good for the headlines (cybercrime is bad, we need to stop it), but has the opposite effect in reality: setting up needless "standards" that actually prevent good security practices. It's bills like both of these that remind us that technologically illiterate politicians making technology policy will do funky things, assuming that technology works with some sort of magic.

Filed Under: cybersecurity, immigration, national id, politicians, technology

How Can The Startup Visa Be Improved Upon?

from the fixing-it-bit-by-bit dept

When the startup visa was first put forth by Paul Graham, I was a big supporter. When Brad Feld took the idea and got political support for it, I was still a big supporter. But when the bill was actually introduced, I expressed some serious worries about it -- specifically over the fact that it was entirely focused on enterpreneurs who could raise a certain amount of money. As I noted, there were some potentially serious unintended consequences of requiring enterpreneurs to raise a specific amount of money just to stay in the country. The leverage between enterpreneurs and VCs can be a delicate enough balance without adding in the fact that you might get deported if you don't take the deal being handed to you.

While many of the people I know and respect in the industry have been vocal champions of the current bill, it was good to see at least someone make a big deal of these serious deficiencies in the bill. Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry wrote up a post for Business Insider that basically reflects this same viewpoint. We both think that a startup/entrepreneur visa makes a ton of sense, and it's something the country needs, but we're a bit worried by the current bill, which seems entirely focused on venture capital, rather than actual entrepreneurship.

Some have responded and suggested that this is better than nothing, but I'm not entirely convinced of that. A bad bill with unintended consequences could create more harm than good and could derail future attempts to put forth more serious (and needed) reform.

In the end, I think (former VC) Jeff Nolan put it best: this is a "well-intentioned bad idea that shouldn't be stopped." The real thing is that it should be fixed. Now, some of the bill's supporters have suggested that the problems with this bill are necessary, in that it's the only way they'll get passed, but that seems like a defeatist attitude. We have an opportunity to actually get this right and to bring smart entrepreneurs who can create a lot of jobs and tremendous value to the US. We shouldn't rush it through in the easiest manner possible: we should focus on getting it right, even if it takes more effort.

Update: It looks like the folks at the Kaufman Foundation have had similar concerns as well, supporting the concept, but worried about tying it to funding. They suggest an alternative, focused on job creation:

Here's a way to improve on the Kerry-Lugar plan. Create a true "job creator's visa," one tied directly and only to job creation by new immigrant entrepreneurs. The visa could be a temporary one for immigrants already here on another visa who establish a business. It could then be extended if the firm hires at least one American non-family resident. The visa should become permanent once the enterprise crosses a certain job threshold (such as five or 10 workers). But it would not be tied to financing.

There are plenty of immigrants who might qualify: the one million skilled foreign workers now here on H1-B visas who otherwise must go home after six years, as well as the roughly 60,000 foreign students who earn degrees at American universities each year. These are far larger numbers than those who could qualify under the Kerry-Lugar proposal.

Filed Under: enterpreneurs, entrepreneur visa, immigration, startup visa, startups, venture capitalists, visas

Startup Visa Act Introduced In The Senate

from the great-news dept

Less than a year ago, Paul Graham wrote one of his fantastic essays suggesting that the world needs a startup founder's visa. The problem, of course, is that our immigration policies have made it quite difficult for immigrants to come to the US to start companies, even though many of the most innovative companies these days are founded by immigrants. Tragically, our immigration policy is often created under the belief that immigration and jobs are a zero sum game -- whereby more immigrants means fewer jobs. But if those immigrants are creating new companies that create new jobs, the opposite is true. Thus the impetus for a startup founder's visa that would allow immigrants to come to the US to build new companies here, creating jobs here, rather than creating those companies elsewhere.

In the fall, venture capitalist Brad Feld felt compelled to try to get actual political support for the idea (now called the "startup visa" rather than the "founder's visa") and in just a few months has succeeded in at least getting Senators Kerry and Lugar (bipartisan support, which is good) to introduce the Startup Visa Act in the Senate. You can read the text of the bill (pdf).

While I'm still a huge supporter of the concept of the startup visa, I'm still a bit concerned that the focus is only on supporting entrepreneurs who have taken a certain amount of venture capital money. There could be unintended consequences with that, in forcing immigrant entrepreneurs to take venture capital that they don't need just to secure their visas. The risk, then, is that immigrant entrepreneurs become way too dependent on their VCs. One of the great things about the startup world today is that capital requirements have changed for many types of startups, and the ability to bootstrap a startup has increased greatly -- but bootstrappers aren't welcome under the startup visa. I've been told that this was a political necessity, and including some sort of venture capital "sponsor" was the only way this bill would move forward -- so hopefully this passes, but further changes are made later to account for the fact that not all startups need venture money, and without forcing an entrepreneur into taking money from someone just to get his or her visa.

Filed Under: immigration, startup visa, visa

Sometimes Protecting Free Speech Means Protecting Speech You Don't Like

from the even-repugnant-speech dept

I'm a big fan of Vivek Wadhwa, who I think has done some excellent research showing the importance of skilled immigration and how it helps the US economy and helps expand jobs, rather than take them away. I've also been an outspoken supporter of encouraging greater skilled worker immigration into the US, as I believe it's much better to have those individuals working in the US, for US companies, rather than working at home against US companies. I've been regularly yelled at and attacked for these views, often by a group of folks who all are on a particular mailing list of anti-immigration supporters that often runs into extremely racist territory. The people on that list seem to be under the belief that the world owes them high paying jobs, and they do not need to keep up on new technologies nor compete in the global marketplace. Some of those folks have set up a series of rather horrific websites that are blatantly racist, economically illiterate and at times disturbing, in their attacks on skilled immigration, specifically from India.

However, last month, when some of those sites were taken down by a court order, we were among the first to suggest this was a major overstep by the court. The lawsuit was about these sites posting a work agreement from a company that employs many H-1B visa recipients, suggesting that the company abuses the visa system. I'm all for exposing abuses of the system, because I believe that a skilled immigration program works better without such abuses. Oddly, the company, Apex, accused the sites of both libel and copyright infringement over the posting of the documents. If it were libel, it would mean the postings were not accurate. If it were copyright infringement, then that means Apex is admitting the contents were covered by copyright (meaning, they were accurate).

But rather than just demand the takedown of the specific content in question, the judge ordered the sites taken down completely, and even a Facebook group closed. That's way over the line and goes well beyond what the lawsuit was about. It was great to see the EFF take up the case, but it's a shame to see others miss the bigger picture.Esahc writes in to point out that Vivek Wadhwa has penned a column for TechCrunch blasting the EFF for defending these sites. I can understand why Wadhwa is upset about the sites. The sites are undoubtedly racist and despicable. They are also ignorant and economically illiterate. Some of the posts are, clearly, hate speech, and inciting violence against certain individuals.

If the lawsuit filed by Apex was about that, then he might have a point. But it was not. The lawsuit targeted a specific piece of information on three sites, and because of that, the court shut down all three sites, and related Facebook pages. It's an overreach. Yes, the sites are dreadful, but the EFF is absolutely right to try to prevent such a judicial overreach. One of the reasons so many immigrants want to come to the US and want to work here is because of our respect for free speech principles and not condoning overly broad censorship, even of speech that we find repugnant. In the past, I've stepped forward and supported the free speech rights of even those who have attacked me the most on certain topics, when they were also attacked. I think that Wadhwa is going too far in attacking the EFF in this case. I certainly don't agree with the EFF on everything it does -- but in this case, it has made the right decision. The anti-immigration websites are disgusting, vile, racist and ridiculous -- but that doesn't mean we should allow a court to shut them down completely over a single complaint over some specific information.

Filed Under: free speech, immigration, takedowns
Companies: apex

US Visa Process Making It Even More Difficult For Foreign Musicians To Tour Here

from the that-can't-be-good dept

A couple of years ago, we noted that US Immigration was making life difficult for touring musicians by changing the way they enforced the visas commonly used by musicians. Specifically, the usual visa required proof of popularity -- but had no systems in place to account for popularity via the internet. This resulted in various well known musicians (including, by the way, our friend Lily Allen) being barred from making expected appearances in the US. It appears this sort of thing is happening again. The law still hasn't changed, but US Immigration has again increased the strictness in how it interprets the existing laws for foreign musicians, leading some top acts to be barred from entering the country -- or just increasing the bureaucracy they need to go through. For many foreign acts, touring the US is quite important in attracting more attention.

The article discusses how this is harming some acts that have built a lot of buzz or won awards... but then have had trouble capitalizing on that with a US tour. It's kind of amusing that just as we hear from politicians talking about the importance of helping musicians with more and more draconian copyright laws, they're making it that much more difficult for them to tour, build their reputation and earn a living. The next time an American politician discusses the need for more draconian copyright laws to help musicians, perhaps a reporter can ask them about this particular issue as well.

Filed Under: immigration, musicians, touring, us, visas

Entrepreneur Stuck In Canada Highlights The Need For A Startup Visa Now

from the this-shouldn't-wait dept

I've publicly thrown my support behind the idea of a startup founders' visa that makes it much easier for foreign skilled workers who want to come to the US to start companies and create jobs to do so. Right now, our immigration policies do not favor entrepreneurs at all. The good news is that this very grassroots movement has actually picked up some steam, with a ton of support from the startup ecosystem around the country. Whether or not that translates to enough political momentum remains to be seen.

To understand just how important this is, here's one story of an entrepreneur who's been working hard to help build a startup in Silicon Valley who, only just this week, has found himself stuck in Canada unable to get back to the US, despite believing he had the proper visa (in this case, an H-1b). The story is depressing, and reminds you of all the ridiculous bureaucracy that people are forced to go through for something that makes no sense:

Just as everything seemed to be going so well, I came up to Vancouver on September 24th to renew my H1b visa and it turns out the approval I got last year is not worth it's weight in paper. Upon appearing for my interview, my previous approval notice was held by the consulate till I furnished a ton of extra documentation from our tax filings last year, to a full report of all employees, all of my bank statements right down to the photographs of our work area (as alien founders we cannot have startups in garages and our apartments, it has to be in real offices).

I worked through the rest of Thursday and all through the night gathering all this evidence.... So after working through the night to get the evidence to the officers the very next day by 11:30 am, I was told that my application would take a week to be reviewed.

My biggest concern is that an LLC due to it's structure doesn't pay a salary to it's members but a guaranteed payment. My attorney has already warned me that this is a slippery slope to start explaining to consular officers when the time comes.

Now leaving aside the exorbitant costs of living in a city like Vancouver for a week, I don't have to talk about what an entire week means in startup terms. This particular week in question, since we're in fundraising mode, I have had to cancel a meeting with Comcast Capital and cannot present at the Plug and Play Expo on Thursday Oct 1st - they were nice enough and believed in our product to pretty much waive the $1500 participation fee, only to realize I can't make it.

It makes no sense that someone like this should be going through this sort of ridiculous bureaucratic process, held back by bureaucrats who don't understand how startups work.

Brad Feld, the venture capitalist who deserves all the credit in the world for taking this concept -- originally proposed by startup investor/mentor Paul Graham -- and actually getting some political interest in it, has a post discussing the momentum and some open questions.

The main open question he brings up is about how investors can "sponsor" an entrepreneur. Basically any qualified venture capitalist or "super angel" who is investing at least $100,000 in a round of at least $500,000 could sponsor a founder. I have to be honest that I'm not sure I agree with this. Why should the visa be dependent on financing? These days, we're hearing about more and more startups that are bootstrapping their way to success, or getting by on much smaller amounts of money. If a founder can build a successful company without raising $500k, should they not be allowed to take advantage of the startup founder's visa as well?

The proposal goes on to have renewal rules, as well, that also are dependent on job creation and raising more money. The job creation bit I can understand, but again I am troubled by the "raising money" bit. Why should the investors be the gatekeepers in determining who gets to be an entrepreneur?

Filed Under: entrepreneurs, immigration, startup founders visa, startup visa, startups

Supporting A Movement Towards A Founder's Visa

from the this-would-be-good dept

Back in April, we wrote about Paul Graham's excellent idea to create a special startup founder's visa to help allow the founders of startups the ability to come to the US and build their companies here. This is important as studies have shown how skilled foreign entrepreneurs have been vital in building up our tech industry and creating new jobs. A recent study showed that 25% of all tech startups in the US and over 50% of those in Silicon Valley are founded by immigrants. There's simply no reason not to help more immigrants start companies in the US, but our current immigration setup is a mess, and it's quite difficult. I've seen companies fail (and, even was working closely with one many years ago) when a founder had to leave the country due to visa issues. However, after Paul Graham's suggestion, not much has been mentioned.

However, VC Brad Feld says that he's heard from a Congressional Rep who's actually interested in the idea, and he's trying to build up more support behind the idea -- and he's looking for feedback on the concept itself and how to make it a reality. I can't think of a single good reason for us not to encourage more skilled immigration -- especially if it's for the purpose of starting a company. Hopefully, this actually gets some traction.

Filed Under: founders, immigration, visa

Fewer Foreigners Coming To US Grad Schools: This Is A Problem

from the not-good-for-anyone dept

I still cannot understand the antagonism that many seem to feel towards skill foreigners getting jobs in the US. The job market is not a zero-sum game, and there are two important things to understand when it comes to these foreigners:

1. Studies have shown, repeatedly, that bringing in such skilled foreigners helps create new jobs by expanding the economy. In fact, 25% of all tech startups these days are done by foreign-born workers, and in Silicon Valley that number is over 50%.
2. The even bigger point: it's not as if these skilled workers suddenly disappear if they're not in the US. Instead, they remain in their home countries (or other countries) where they're still just as skilled and now more likely to be competing with US companies, who were hindered in hiring the best employees. Getting beat in the market by a foreign competitor isn't good for US jobs. It's terrible for US jobs.

And yet, thanks to the economy and our own immigration policies, guess what's happening? Not only is it incredibly difficult for skilled foreign workers to get jobs, many foreigners aren't even trying to go to US grad schools any more, knowing how difficult it is to get visas and jobs in the US. As many are noticing, this is undeniably bad for Silicon Valley and bad for innovation. Can someone please explain why it's somehow better to let those people compete with US companies, rather than work with US companies to grow them?

Filed Under: immigration, innovation, silicon valley, skilled labor

Supreme Court Tells Gov't It Can't Use ID Fraud Laws Against Illegal Immigrants

from the stretching-the-law dept

Apparently, the Federal Gov't has been using an ID fraud law that was passed a few years ago not to go after just those copying the identity of others for the sake of fraud, but illegal immigrants using fake IDs. The two scenarios are entirely different, but the Feds were quick to use the law against the illegal immigrants, as it was an easier tool to use than to go through the standard process of dealing with illegal immigrants. Now, no matter what you think of illegal immigrants and how they should be dealt with, we should all be concerned when the government is stretching the intention of a law beyond its clearly stated purpose... and the Supreme Court seems to agree. It's now told the government that it clearly went beyond the boundaries of the law in using it against immigrants. The court points out that the law is pretty clear that the person charged under the law must knowingly take the identity of someone else, but totally made up IDs don't appear covered by the law at all, because the law isn't intended for fake IDs... it's intended to deal with those defrauding others by taking their identity.

Filed Under: id fraud, immigration, supreme court