You should join her and move back here to blighty. I can say that we've now got a pretty vibrant tech scene here in London and have sources of investment lined up and ready to go.
Hacker News is largely American because it's an outgrowth of YC, which is American Only.
I would hardly think having a website portray a particular provincial bias would be a reason to live somewhere.
Seriously, though, we Brits just hang out wherever the interesting conversations are. That's the beauty of teh interwebz: nobody knows you're not a Yank (until you go off and spell something with an s or an extra u or something silly).
We all know each other and mostly hang out on twitter to be honest. Try me (@kirkwy), @monkchips, @monadic, @cpswan, @codepope, @leastfixedpoint, ...
Seriously, though, I've not really noticed not being back in a local "tech cluster" on a day-to-day basis these days (except that when I meet people that aren't in the industry they have NO idea what I do; in the valley, everybody has some clue). Mostly we like to know who each other are so we can all drink together. Tech social functions, like ALL social functions here, involve much beer.
Right on. I consider myself a citizen of the United States of Internet. I'm in Britain but know barely the last thing about the "scene" here - it's all in the US and it's easy to access online (or on trips).
It's easy in the sense that it's more or less a sure thing. It's not easy in the sense that you still have to go through a lot of paperwork and bureaucracy, and even have to go in for a doctor to poke you and prod you to see if you're fit to live in the US. Nothing like being treated like livestock to make you feel welcome.
It was way easier for me to deal with the Italian bureaucracy once we were married than it would be for my wife to go to the US. And that's saying something: Italian bureaucracy is about as bad as the stereotypes make it out to be.
The Fed Govt. doesn't recognize same-sex spouses (e.g. if you're married in Canada, South Africa, etc.). This is due to DOMA. There is currently legislation under way to try change this (UAFA).
Many other countries do recognize foreign same-sex marriages for immigration purposes, even if they themselves don't recognize same-sex marriage.
Married spouses at least (other spouses aren't accepted) but you're assuming the parent had a visa himself (well assuming the parent is male as lesbian couples aren't recognised either) and that the particular visa he had was one of the visas that grant a spouse rights.
Yeah I think you're typically right. I guess I interchange partner with spouse in my mind because of the whole recognition of de facto couples here in Australia and the whole civil union bit.
My folks immigrated from Taiwan to Canada about 15 years ago using the skilled migrant program, when I was just a kid - and the process could not have been better (not to mention superior to the US). Apply, interview (with offices all around the world, you don't even have to travel to Canada), get your papers, fly over.
From day 1 we were treated as equals - and never as unwelcome disturbances (which is how I feel all the damned time here in the US). My folks were allowed to work for anyone and everyone - certainly no bullshit employer-chain like the H-1B visa. We were given the same universal health coverage, the same social benefits... we were equal to a citizen in every way except the vote.
If it's of anyone's interest, we looked at the USA before applying to Canada, but the system was too onerous and far too risky to be of serious consideration. For one thing, for someone who wanted to start a new life with his family in another country, being chained to an employer who would abuse you knowing you cannot quit simply wasn't an appeal. Nor was the incredibly long process to get the green card and finally citizenship (we had Canadian citizenship within 3 years of arrival).
IMHO the US lost out big time. My family earns several times the Canadian average income, and pays taxes on all of it. My mother is an entrepreneur who has supported her local economy - and their kids are all highly educated tax-paying individuals. We were a huge net-win for Canada, and if the US was somewhat less retarded in its immigration policies, we would've easily have been Americans.
> if the US was somewhat less retarded in its immigration policies, we would've easily have been Americans.
Serious question: Why?
If Canada is so great, why the preference for the US? I hear these sorts of things all the time, yet everyone still wants to come to the US. I feel like I am missing a piece of the puzzle.
Opportunity. Canadian universities, for example, do not hold a candle to the top-tier American schools. On average you guys are pretty, well, average in the realm of industrialized nations, but what the US is very good at is taking the high end of the bell curve and taking it even further.
This is exemplified in the way the US does everything. Even the mere existence of this site is a profoundly American thing. Canadian entrepreneurs rarely cash out to the tune that Valley companies receive. The richest of the rich in Canada are poor compared to the extreme rich in the US. The best schools in the US kicks the shit out of the best schools in most other places (with a few notable exceptions, of course)... etc etc. The US is a country of extremes, and for many immigrants this is very attractive.
This is particularly true for individuals who have already proven their ability to be better than the rest - America gives disproportionate rewards to the high end of the curve than more socialist countries (e.g. most of western Europe and Canada). At the risk of drawing in Randian thought (which really is the nouveau Godwin's Law), socialist countries restrict the rewards to the extremely talented, whereas America does no such thing (at a cost to the bottom half of its bell curve).
> socialist countries restrict the rewards to the extremely talented, whereas America does no such thing (at a cost to the bottom half of its bell curve).
This is just not the common case. Generally speaking, the US does give disproportionate rewards to the 'high-end' of the curve so to speak. However this often comes at a cost to everyone else(or the following generation) whether they realize it or not. It's simply harder to notice this happening when it's spread over a generation or two. Examples being health care, the economic pyramid schemes, 'education', care of veterans etc.
I believe the key phrase in this article is "entitled mediocrity". The author also spent at least 25 years as a scholar and then Professor at Yale and Columbia.
With all that being said, America is still a great place. It just might be better not to look for the rewards in all the popular places and using the popular methods.
I didn't disagree with you :) My point that the US disproportionately rewards the high end of a curve was an observation as opposed to a value judgment. This has caused many social problems, and IMHO is the wrong way to run things. Nonetheless, for people who feel that they can profit much more in this environment (i.e. top-end-of-the-curve types) it's very attractive.
"Top tier American schools are highly-overrated and highly overpriced these days."
Perception, in this case, trumps reality. The reality is that a MIT degree is worth a hell of a lot more in salary than a random eastern European university. Whether or not the education truly is better is moot - people want in on the USA because it generally will lead to a better life than they've got now - assuming "now" is an underdeveloped country.
Finding out specific information about immigration, school system, job opportunities, or unemployment rate of a certain city in different country is very difficult.
The land of opportunities image (plus global brand of top universities) have served the US well in bringing in immigrants, skilled or not. This kind of marketing gives partial and imperfect information but better than none.
When I was 14, had I knew that Swedish universities do not charge tuition or Canada offers universal healthcare, my college choices would have been different.
The US has has a lot of world-leading companies and enormous global mindshare as the default place to go and make a new life.
So why worry? The fact that US culture has soured on immigration is starting to sink in, and other countries like Canada spotted the advantages of welcoming immigrants, which increases the chance that the next Google will be founded outside the US.
Three cheers to Kirk for pointing out the particularly demeaning way in which gay people are treated for the purposes of immigration. Everybody knows that marriage is viewed as the "easier" way of getting into the US: find somebody who likes you enough to marry you for two years, then you can divorce and you can keep the green card. But if you're gay? Get to the back of the line.
The U.S. immigration is definitely insane. I know people that have been waiting for ten or more years. It almost doesn't matter what qualifications you have.
I'm currently working in the US on a TN visa. I like it here, and if given the chance I'd probably stay. But the odds of me being able to do that, without jumping through large number of inhumane hoops like a circus animal, are low.
Odds are I will be moving back to ole Canada at some point. The US is so busy being afraid of everyone else that they're very, very quickly driving themselves into irrelevance.
Canada is a great country too. I'm sure that if you asked many people who have jumped through all the hoops like a circus animal to stay in the US that a significant percentage of them would tell you that it just wasn't worth it in the end.
I'm not even sure why qualifications are the benchmark for some of these visas. As it stands you need either a bachelor's degree or 10 years working experience to justify as qualified for most visas I've seen.
Better option would simply be the "write us a big fat check" visa. Presumably, the only people who would be willing to pay, say, $50,000 over the course of five years would be those who can make enough to make it worthwhile. It would also get rid of the perverse incentives related to having to stay with the employer you got the H1-B from.
Don't underestimate the willingness of third world families to send their children to the US under this "fat check visa" scheme, regardless of whether they would have any source of guaranteed income.
Currently Africans are commonly paying over 10,000 euros for an illegal trip to an undetermined European country. The families raise the money for young men even though there's no guarantee whether the kid will end up in Norway or Italy (and often no further than Morocco). Compared to this, a five-year US visa for $50k would be an extremely attractive option. I doubt that desperate young men whose families are hopelessly in debt are the kind of immigrants that the US would want to specifically attract.
This is a terrible idea. We already have people borrowing money in huge sums to get themselves smuggled into first-world countries, then becoming indentured slaves in perpetuity to pay it off.
No one should ever be able to buy their way into a country with raw cash. Skilled immigration policies that aren't stupid (i.e. H-1B is the dumbest "immigration" policy I've ever seen) are a much better idea.
I do support reform - but I may be convinced that $1M can buy immigration. The main thing I objected to in OP's idea was the extreme possibility (nay, certainty) that a low-amount ($200K and less I say) would result in legitimized human trafficking - people who "immigrate" and then are practically owned by those who paid for their way in. You raise this bar high enough and the possibility disappears.
That being said, the whole idea still sounds sort of sketchy to me. The US (like all industrialized nations) doesn't really need capital - not $1M at a time anyways. What it needs is skilled labour - things that will help the country compete internationally. IMHO skilled labour really ought to be the only form of immigration.
The modern form of indentured servitude seems to be mostly involving illegal immigrants or guest worker type programs that tie a worker to a specific employer. I could be wrong, I'd appreciate any references for a legal immigration system along the lines I suggested that has caused problems (I may be asking in vain -- it may never have been tried).
The tax structure in the US is progressive. If we accepted unlimited immigrants we would end up with many low skilled workers coming here. Regardless of whether this is desirable (I think there's moral arguments to be made in its favor), it's politically impossible.
Placing a bar that involves a fix fee per year, if the issues related to being enslaved could be avoid, would attract exactly who we want -- those who would do so much better in a developed country that it's worth while.
I see it as if you were born in the US, you were freely given this thing, the right to live in the US, that is very valuable on a world market. Why not allow others to buy that same thing?
Canada has an entrepreneur and investor visa classes, where you basically start/buy a business for $x for y amount of time, or invest x amount of dollars (a house purchase, whatever) and get a permanent residency after a few years, which then leads to a citizenship. You don't really see problems from that.
FWIW, this isn't an EU thing, it's a national thing. Immigration from outside the EU is 100% left to the member states, and it's why I can't work in the rest of the EU until I get off my arse and apply for my British citizenship: member states have complete control over their visas and citizenship. It's just that once you have citizenship in any EU state, you're allowed to live and work in any other without any discrimination based on your nationality (assuming you're not from one of the New States of course).
I love that the UK has same-sex immigration rights, and had them before much of the rest of the EU. Now they're common-place, but when the UK did it, it was pretty new and special.
What I meant was, within EU the notion of having two weeks to pack your bags is already absurd. This, I think, is what should be fought against, not specific immigration rights. What is needed now is to enlarge this space with countries like US, Japan or Australia, and slowly with the whole world.
