The fit the narrative of 'immigrants are statistically hungrier for startup success,' specifically referencing this line in the article: "According to statistics from Partnership for a New American Economy, 40% of Fortune 500 companies were created by immigrants or their children."
From there, the author goes on to say that if the immigrants and their children are more likely to start companies, why are we preventing young adults from coming here to start companies, especially if they are validated by making something people want as demonstrated by either VC validation or pure revenue numbers? The third path of Startup Visa 2011 is for people valued enough to receive a US education or H1-B visa, as currently they are not valued enough to be allowed to start a company, with no visa existing for them to do so.
I find it a bit of a stretch, but not intellectually dishonest, though I do see why it's reasonable to think so.
I take the point on Baidu, but that's the sort of company I'm looking to promote as a counterpoint when we pitch our next follow-ups to ABC and NBC after Amit's story.
The main thing that seems like a huge stretch is that those are good examples for an idea of a "parental visa", giving visas to immigrants with children who you think are likely to be good parents, whose kids will then grow up in U.S. society and be highly successful. Not as good examples in support of the "entrepreneur visa" idea, which expects the people receiving the visa to themselves start a company in the short term, something that didn't actually happen in any of those examples.
I hear you, there are significant flaws in the examples she uses. I still think they're valid in demonstrating a different point than "entrepreneur visa." Her point is that there is an 'immigrant' demographic, and this demographic makes for good founders. Then, and only then, she makes the point that an entrepreneur visa for founders is a good idea.
The author uses immigrants' children/very young immigrants not immediately connected to the plan of starting a company to reference the entire immigrant demographic as a whole, since current US policies make it extremely improbable we can come up with good positive examples of a young immigrant starting a company, because US immigration rules prevent this situation from occurring.
Her logic is as follows:
-Fact: "According to statistics from Partnership for a New American Economy, 40% of Fortune 500 companies were created by immigrants or their children."
-Examples: Immigrants' children starting Fortune 500 companies
The logic here is using the immigrants' children to support the point that both immigrants and their children start companies, since the only direct immigrants who started the companies were either much older and already gone through the green card or broke the rules to start their company.
One of the major problems in our advocacy is that there is this big negative space that we /think/ can be filled. By definition, because it's a negative space, there are no positive examples to point to in making the argument. Positive examples strengthen any abstract argument, so they must be made. In this case, the author goes to young immigrants not immediately connected to startups to make the case that immigrants as a class make for good founders.
From there, the author makes one of her major points:
-Argument: US immigration prevents people from starting companies shortly after entering the country due to current visa rules
-Example: Amit Aharoni/ABC story
-Conclusion: Therefore we should change policy to allow more people like Amit in, hopefully creating more successes in this 'immigrant' demographic.
From there, the author goes on to say that if the immigrants and their children are more likely to start companies, why are we preventing young adults from coming here to start companies, especially if they are validated by making something people want as demonstrated by either VC validation or pure revenue numbers? The third path of Startup Visa 2011 is for people valued enough to receive a US education or H1-B visa, as currently they are not valued enough to be allowed to start a company, with no visa existing for them to do so.
I find it a bit of a stretch, but not intellectually dishonest, though I do see why it's reasonable to think so.
I take the point on Baidu, but that's the sort of company I'm looking to promote as a counterpoint when we pitch our next follow-ups to ABC and NBC after Amit's story.