[johnnybgoode]

This appears to have started with PG's Founder Visa essay. Be sure to read the original HN thread about that essay: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=556908

At the time, I thought PG's idea was so flawed that I nearly registered just to point out why. Fortunately, bokonist did a great job of explaining what was wrong with the idea in that thread.

[netsp]

Thanks for pointing to that thread. Bokonist makes a strong case against accreditation bodies in general, barriers to entry and the associated slippery slope.

While I am sympathetic to that idea, we have to remember that the Founder Visa is a type of liberalisation, not a type of barrier. The solution mightn't be perfect, but it could be better then no founder immigration. While accreditation is possibly bad in general, it may be worth it if it pokes a hole in the immigration barrier.

However, I think that there is a strong case against startup visas specifically. I think you would have to be willing to live with quite serious market distortions if you are prepared to support something like this.

I made this argument on a previous thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=823006

[socratees]

So if a VC firm overseas funds a startup, who gets the visa? Do you think the VC's overseas will be generous enough to let the founder get a US visa while they remain at their home country?

[netsp]

If a company is funded overseas, they probably want to stay where they are and the investor probably agrees.

A VC fund can probably pick up and move to the States if they wanted to anyway.