There's lots of space here. If letting lots of entrepreneurs in is likely to grow the economy/grow federal revenues/create jobs, what are the arguments for having more restrictive regulations?
Other countries won't reciprocate. Unless an American can freely go to India or China and start a business with no strings or interference, the opposite should not be allowed.
Further, anybody who wants in to the US will simply call themselves and 'entrepreneur' regardless of their skill, experience, and capital necessary to start a successful business. For instance if someone is dying because of substandard medical care in their own country and only wants treatment in a US emergency room they would just declare themselves an 'entrepreneur'.
I agree with your thoughts on reciprocal agreements, although UK -> US is not the same as the other way around, it is MUCH MUCH easier for a US citizen with skills to move here than a UK citizen to go to US. I looked into this a few years back and I would have to go H1B route which makes it almost impossible since I would have to find a job from the UK.
but agree with your sentiments that that's how it should work in an ideal and fair world.
Not sure if I was dying then I would want to rake up such a HUGE bill and move to US for medical treatment, unless I was super rich in which case this would never be an issue...
If you have a universe with two countries, A and B. A says it will take anyone from B provided they're in the top 10% of the population on some arbitrary metric. B says nobody can come because it's pissed off and feels Soviet. Over time the expected state is that A will accumulate more individuals ranking high on our arbitrary metric than B.
If our arbitrary metric is economic productivity, we can see that having a large population of Sergey Brins, Vinod Khoslas, etc. is beneficial to US citizens even if Americans may not have a tea party resettling in Russia or India.
The us already has such metrics. What the anonymous economist author is advocating is reducing these criteria at which point many people can simply buy their way into the country under the guise of being an entrepreneur.
Why should America wait for other countries to reciprocate? If other countries don't accept American entrepreneurs and America accepts their entrepreneurs, most entrepreneurs will come to America to do business, and only a few will take business elsewhere. Wouldn't that give America an economic advantage?
Because America is a country that should support its own citizens. Suppose some other country becomes the hotspot for start-ups in five years and locating a business there becomes necessary to succeed. Without requiring reciprocation, American policy will have severely damaged American entrepreneurs ability to compete with foreign entrepreneurs who can start a business both in their home country and in the US. American policy should not support foreign entrepreneurs substantially more than its US citizen entrepreneurs.
EDIT: if you think that the US government should support foreign entrepreneurs over US citizens you need to explain why instead of downvoting.
Supporting foreign entrepreneurs IS supporting US citizens. It's 100x easier to find a job as a foreigner (and ostensibly take a job away from an American) than it is to start a company in the US and EMPLOY Americans.
It the US wants to support US citizens, it would let more people start businesses. More businesses = more jobs.
