Why is anything I said false? Because I used the word "just"? Take out the word "just" and everything we both said is true: there are VC's that aren't rich, and rich people will be able to abuse this to get their friends green cards, while those without connections have to wait and work for 7-9 years to get their green cards.
Put the "EB-6" people in the same line as the EB-3 people and the proposed legislation becomes a lot more fair, but useless. Speed up the EB-3 process and lots of people stuck working under a H1-B would quit their jobs and start their own businesses. The could do so with the money they've saved, or negotiate fair deals with investors.
I'm sure they will. However, rich people are such a minority that in 90%+ of cases this law will be used for its intended purpose.
Rich people can also "abuse" speeding and parking ticket laws(you can speed and park anywhere if you can afford the tickets), tax laws, etc. Just the way of the world. I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it.
Ok, if what you meant to say was that the bill could be abused, let's examine that. What protections does it have against abuse, and why do you feel they're inadequate?
It effectively reduces the number of EB-2 and EB-3 visas available per year. That is my main objection to it. (I explained how in my two most recent posts in other threads of this discussion).
I recommend everybody to read the proposed change to the law. It is a very small "patch" that is easy to read and understand, especially once you've read the rest of the discussion on this topic.
There's hardly a regulation that's been passed in the past century that hasn't opened up opportunities for abuse. If the potential for abuse is enough to make a law a bad idea, then there would be precious few laws ever passed.
Which, I must confess, appeals to me personally, but if we concede that we need the ability to legislate, then the simple potential for abuse can't be showstopper for any individual piece of legislation.
Rates and/or severity of abuse maybe, but not the simple possibility of it.
Not every startup and entrepreneur out there is able to raise funding. Many are bootstrapped. Of those many, some will definitely go on to become businesses that raise money later, make money, and/or create jobs. EB6 rules out all such aspiring entrepreneurs.
obviously the issue of how fast the INS is able to process legitimate green card applications is an issue, however i don't feel that it's a legitimate reason to exclude this new proposed legislation.
we can attack the problem by focusing on improving INS processing times, rather than excluding other valid applicants (of any type). we are certainly not suggesting StartupVisa green card applicants "move to the front of the line" ahead of anyone else, simply that their application be considered fairly & reasonably along with others.
My friend's applied for her green card 1.5 years ago. The best estimate for her getting the green card is 2017--about 8.5 years from the start of processing. That is the typical EB-3 wait time.
Are you saying you'd have EB-6 applications also take 8.5 years?
She is trying to find a way to "upgrade" to EB-2 or to get a National Interest Waiver. Although she has a master's degree from a US university, her profession (high school foreign language teacher) doesn't usually get job postings requiring more than a BA. Also, at the college level, they generally make you wait a long time before they even start the green card process (or even H1-B).
However, besides her, I've met others in similar or worse situations, stuck in the EB-3 queue. Even if my friend got her green card under EB-2, I'd still be advocating for the EB-3 workers.
I don't think so. He says "this would just allow." Maybe he didn't qualify it with "the unintended consequence of this bill" or similar but its pretty clear what he means.
