[joe_the_user]

Uh, while some folks may bring up racist or otherwise ridiculous objection to this idea, sachinag, bokonist and others have brought up well thought-out objections that I haven't seen answered with much thought (the claim that tourist visas are the only thing subject to abuse seems hardly creditable but I'll argue more if someone fleshes out this one existing counter-argument).

It seems like the founder's visa already has a lot of emotional traction with people but immigration isn't something should be decided by emotional resonance but by well thought-out arguments - if you take the discussion to the emotional level, things won't go well for those favoring immigration.

[miloshh]

The thoughtful objections have not been against the idea as such, but mostly against the proposal that a board of investors or government officials would decide who is good enough. That would indeed a problem - startups that VCs or government approve would likely be the ones immitating the previous big thing, rather than building the next big thing. But I think a board is not necessary. In my opinion, all that's needed is that the founders

1. have bachelor's degrees, 2. register a corporation, 3. start with at least $X in the company account.

The value of X is up to debate, but it should not matter which investors they received the money from. Details can be worked out.

[joe_the_user]

Many well-informed criticism of state actions aren't against the goals of the intervention as such but merely against all the possible implementation those goals.

[nopassrecover]

Well as it stands you can get a visa based on simply having a sponsoring employer. This just moves from sponsoring employer to sponsoring VC.

[gruseom]

the claim that tourist visas are the only thing subject to abuse

I didn't say that or anything like it, and I don't see how the point I was making could have been any clearer.