"PG said: 10,000 people is a drop in the bucket by immigration standards"
Yes, in terms of people. But you fail to understand that it's an entire new process and system that would have to be invented and executed.
You just don't think like a con-man. Universities have quite a bit on the line, such as accreditation. A private company has next to nothing on the line. Anyway, here's how I'd do it:
1. First off, I'd need to know somebody in the US who has a viable business and would vouch for me. Because immigrant communities support business focused on their interests, this wouldn't be very difficult. Of course they'd agree, because of the benefits for the home country (sending money home, etc.).
2. Have them offer fake investments to me and a pool of founders. Get approved by INS/State.
3. Once in the US, work as I please. Funnel this money back into the "startup" as profits. Plenty of startups can't even turn a profit, so financials wouldn't have to be impressive.
4. Rinse, repeat. The same business would only get approved so many times, but there are tons of businesses here.
Now, for the unscrupulous way (since there's nothing particularly immoral about the previous scenario). Note that I'm for the legalization of drugs, but that's not the point: The US gov't is sure as hell against that.
1. Have associate(s) in the US prop up a shell of a business that appears to be legitimate. Have them offer a huge investment for what appears to be a startup's credible business plan.
2. Move in under an alias with fake documents.
3. Funnel drug money through the "startup," which would be an ideal money laundering node. Because the plan is intended to produce successful businesses, nobody would blink an eye at the eye-popping profits. Just bullshit as much as necessary...if YouTube cooked the books, they could convince people that they were turning $150M profit annually easily. Show your cards as you please, since you're holding the deck.
4. If things get even remotely hot, leave the country. So much money's been successfully processed at this point that it's undoubtedly a net win. Hell, say you're flying to Lima to make a commencement speech on business. Nobody would stop you. The associates could claim ignorance obviously, as you were just some entrepreneur they put their hopes and dollars in. Even if the startup were irrevocably linked to money laundering, you're back home and extradition isn't happening, since you used a false identity.
5. Rinse, repeat with other associates.
"Give one shred of evidence aside from senseless pontification and I might consider it."
Evidence on a virgin immigration plan? I'm sure there's plenty out there!
Let's flip this: Tell me how you prevent either of the two previous scenarious, short of having the gov't handle the entire recommendation/approval process, which would pretty much defeat the purpose.
I think pg's point of investors accreditation system is that it's not the government you have to cheat, but the group of pre-selected investors. (I'd imagine something similar to professional guilds... you have to be recognized by peers to be in part of the investor group of deciding who can get invested with this visa, for example).
The obstacle I see is that the stake of having authority to say who can get visas for work is very high these days (not like student visas); lots of people are seeking ways to get working visas desperately. So there would be lots of political frictions to introduce investor's accreditation system.
But yet, if politicians are convinced that this is crucial to revitalize the economy (which is probably one of the highest priority items), much of such muddling of power games may be avoided.
"Of course they'd agree, because of the benefits for the home country (sending money home, etc.)."
Sounds a bit like your first thought was along the line of "visa == immigrant == [name your third world country]". There are (still) many people in old Europe or Japan who think that US is a hotter place than home for a startup... and I'm part of them.
It's slowly changing though, I feel it around me : patents and costs of litigation, Sarbanes Oxley (IPO exit... gone ?), visa problems (the lottery thing with H1-B visa). It did hit quite a lot the American dream.
Specially when it comes to opening a branch in the US for small businesses : insurance costs literally explodes, it's harder to send employees to the newly created branch (H1-B is not the only solution, but it was the one that scaled the best), so it's harder to control it.
I used to work in New York City, with an H1-B. When I decided to create a startup I eventually trashed my H1-B and went back home. I didn't want to, but between keeping a day job and doing a startup part-time in the US, or doing a startup full time home, I choosed the latter.
I still think that US would have been much better, and I liked the life there quite a lot too (much more than horrid Paris), but well, my cofounder was in France and could not come... had there been a startup Visa, he/we would have applied, and we would have moved to SF.
Incidentally my former NY employer opened a branch in Switzerland, which is slowly becoming the main office... one of the reasons is the visa issue : it's much easier to move a US citizen to Geneva, than a European citizen to US... So in the end there might be just one marketer remaining in NYC, while it was supposed to be the opposite at first !
(For people wondering my first startup attempt did fail quite miserably... second attempt is faring pretty well so far)
Yes, in terms of people. But you fail to understand that it's an entire new process and system that would have to be invented and executed.
You just don't think like a con-man. Universities have quite a bit on the line, such as accreditation. A private company has next to nothing on the line. Anyway, here's how I'd do it:
1. First off, I'd need to know somebody in the US who has a viable business and would vouch for me. Because immigrant communities support business focused on their interests, this wouldn't be very difficult. Of course they'd agree, because of the benefits for the home country (sending money home, etc.).
2. Have them offer fake investments to me and a pool of founders. Get approved by INS/State.
3. Once in the US, work as I please. Funnel this money back into the "startup" as profits. Plenty of startups can't even turn a profit, so financials wouldn't have to be impressive.
4. Rinse, repeat. The same business would only get approved so many times, but there are tons of businesses here.
Now, for the unscrupulous way (since there's nothing particularly immoral about the previous scenario). Note that I'm for the legalization of drugs, but that's not the point: The US gov't is sure as hell against that.
1. Have associate(s) in the US prop up a shell of a business that appears to be legitimate. Have them offer a huge investment for what appears to be a startup's credible business plan.
2. Move in under an alias with fake documents.
3. Funnel drug money through the "startup," which would be an ideal money laundering node. Because the plan is intended to produce successful businesses, nobody would blink an eye at the eye-popping profits. Just bullshit as much as necessary...if YouTube cooked the books, they could convince people that they were turning $150M profit annually easily. Show your cards as you please, since you're holding the deck.
4. If things get even remotely hot, leave the country. So much money's been successfully processed at this point that it's undoubtedly a net win. Hell, say you're flying to Lima to make a commencement speech on business. Nobody would stop you. The associates could claim ignorance obviously, as you were just some entrepreneur they put their hopes and dollars in. Even if the startup were irrevocably linked to money laundering, you're back home and extradition isn't happening, since you used a false identity.
5. Rinse, repeat with other associates.
"Give one shred of evidence aside from senseless pontification and I might consider it."
Evidence on a virgin immigration plan? I'm sure there's plenty out there!
Let's flip this: Tell me how you prevent either of the two previous scenarious, short of having the gov't handle the entire recommendation/approval process, which would pretty much defeat the purpose.
Sigh ... people are so naive.