"It would work in exactly the same way that the H1B visas work: Companies can vouch for a candidate to the government in an application, but ultimately it would be up to the government to decide."
I completely disagree with this characterization of the H1B visa. Clearly, the visa is controlled by the employer, not the employee. And while the government does have to "ok" the visa, the employee does not apply directly to the government. The employer has tremendous, overwhelming authority over who does and does not get to come into the country and get in the queue for a green card.
A "points system" like the one used in Australia (discussed in other posts here) would preserve the immigrant's freedom, but I would like to point out that an Oracle lobbyist argued fiercely against it when a congressman proposed this, saying it would be "communistic" to have the government, rather than corporate HR, decide who Oracle gets to hire.
Personally, I'm outright cynical at this point. At first, I thought this was a design flaw, but now I'm pretty convinced that the industry likes the indentured nature of the visa and the extraordinary power it gives them over their employees. Those pesky US citizens and permanent residents can demand raises, leave for other offers, even gasp! start companies that compete with Oracle! Well, we can't have that! But H1Bs need green cards, and transfering jobs is risky, so by and large, they'll accept their lot in life and stick around for 5 years under the conditions we dictate.
"VCs and investor would "gain control over the immigration system" with the founders visa no more than universities and tech companies have control over immigrants with H or F visas".
We have profoundly different perspectives on the degree of control tech companies have over their employees on H1B visas.
I completely disagree with this characterization of the H1B visa. Clearly, the visa is controlled by the employer, not the employee. And while the government does have to "ok" the visa, the employee does not apply directly to the government. The employer has tremendous, overwhelming authority over who does and does not get to come into the country and get in the queue for a green card.
A "points system" like the one used in Australia (discussed in other posts here) would preserve the immigrant's freedom, but I would like to point out that an Oracle lobbyist argued fiercely against it when a congressman proposed this, saying it would be "communistic" to have the government, rather than corporate HR, decide who Oracle gets to hire.
Personally, I'm outright cynical at this point. At first, I thought this was a design flaw, but now I'm pretty convinced that the industry likes the indentured nature of the visa and the extraordinary power it gives them over their employees. Those pesky US citizens and permanent residents can demand raises, leave for other offers, even gasp! start companies that compete with Oracle! Well, we can't have that! But H1Bs need green cards, and transfering jobs is risky, so by and large, they'll accept their lot in life and stick around for 5 years under the conditions we dictate.
"VCs and investor would "gain control over the immigration system" with the founders visa no more than universities and tech companies have control over immigrants with H or F visas".
We have profoundly different perspectives on the degree of control tech companies have over their employees on H1B visas.