Tag Archives: Startup Visa

India-US Relations Blog

India and America: common values, shared success

1 Comment

By Richard G. Lugar

As Secretary of State Clinton’s recent trip to India demonstrated, these are exciting times for India, and for the India-United States relationship. India has liberalized and opened its economy, unleashing the entrepreneurial talent of its people and using its strong technology base to establish leading positions in such fields as telecommunications, information technology and pharmaceuticals.

America and India, for too long estranged during the Cold War, have developed steadily closer ties built on a uniquely strong foundation: both countries are stable, multi-ethnic democracies with a deep tradition of religious tolerance.

With a well-educated middle class that is larger than the entire U.S. population, India can be an anchor of stability in Asia and a center of economic growth. It is already the world’s second-fastest growing major economy, and bilateral trade with the U.S. has more than tripled over the past 10 years. I have worked to build a strategic partnership between the United States and India that will benefit both sides as India plays an ever-larger role on the world stage.

I am also excited by a new opportunity to match India’s entrepreneurial zeal with America’s current need for investment and jobs through the Startup Visa Act, which I introduced earlier this year. The bill would allow an immigrant entrepreneur to receive a two-year visa if he or she can show that a qualified U.S. investor is willing to invest in the immigrant’s startup venture. Many of India’s smartest and most entrepreneurial individuals are already here studying at our universities, so helping them stay to invest in their ideas would create jobs and help all Americans.

The bill would also apply to those already in the U.S. on unexpired H-1B visas, and entrepreneurs living outside the United States who already have a market presence here. If this legislation is enacted, it will help more Indians take part in the great American tradition of immigrant business success.

Another concern of Indians abroad is Pakistan, a concern I share. I believe the U.S. should use its influence to promote stability in the region, which could lead to a Pakistan that is more likely to cooperate and trade with India. That’s one of the reasons I co-sponsored the 2009 Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act.

The bill emphasizes economic assistance over military aid, and contains incentives for Pakistan to stabilize its democracy. It requires the Secretary of State to certify every year that Pakistan is meeting specific benchmarks of conduct, namely, that it is cooperating to dismantle supplier networks of nuclear weapons-related material, that it is making “significant efforts” to combat terrorist and extremist groups and that such groups are not receiving support from Pakistan’s military or spy service, and that it is not letting terrorist groups use Pakistan’s territory to stage attacks on other countries.

On that score, the bill specifically mentions Pakistan-based terrorist groups that threaten India as well as the United States and Afghanistan, including al Qaeda, the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba, which conducted the 2008 Mumbai attack. The legislation aims to encourage Pakistan to re-orient its armed forces to a mission more focused on counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency than regional conflict, and calls for a cut-off of assistance if the security forces are deemed to be “subverting the political or judicial processes of Pakistan.” In short, India has much to gain from the success of this legislation.

All this is part of a larger strategic engagement between India and America, which took a major step forward three years ago with the passage of the US-India nuclear cooperation agreement, a step that I strongly supported. The legislation lifted a three-decade American moratorium on nuclear trade with India and opened the door for trade in a wide range of other high-technology items, such as supercomputers and fiber optics.

Some critics called the deal a set-back for U.S. non-proliferation efforts, since India remains outside the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). I argued, however, that it actually provides incentives for the United States and India to deepen their cooperation in stopping proliferation, and confers numerous other benefits outside the nuclear realm by paving the way for broader economic and strategic collaboration.

The remarkable deepening of US-India ties over the past decade is only a start, as the relationship has still not reached its full potential. If Indians and Indian-Americans continue to contribute their ideas, their energy and their commitment, I am sure that even more exciting days lie ahead.

(Senator Richard Lugar is the Republican leader of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.)

Immigration Blog

The beginning of Brain Drain 2.0?

Leave a comment

There has been a lot of sound and fury over the introduction, or rather the re-introduction of the proposed Startup Visa  by Sen. Kerry and Lugar in the Senate. Much of the commentary coming out of India (including mine) almost pre-supposes that the legislation will be passed shortly though this is not necessarily the case. In fact, the prior version of the Bill expired in Congress in 2010 since it couldn’t gain enough momentum. Even the most ardent supporters of the legislation only give it a 1% chance of success and predict it will go the way of the previous legislation unless sufficient political momentum is built up through lobbying and community mobilization.  Nonetheless, the introduction of the Bill provides an opportunity to discuss the basic premises underlying the Bill, and their possible impact.

That this Bill is being introduced in a country which has always been highly conflicted about migration and at a time when the economy is in the relative doldrums speaks volumes in itself. Senator  John Kerry, while talking up the Bill, described it as one that was meant to keep America’s leadership in the innovation sphere. In his words, “Global competition for talent and investment grows more intense daily and the United States must step up or be left behind.”  Other countries such as the United Kingdom are also coming out with versions of their own, indicating that these words go beyond mere hyperbole.  The emphasis of immigration policies seems to have shifted from attracting new talent to retaining the foreign talent trained in the United States that is already at hand. It is with this intent that H1B visa holders and foreign students have been included within the ambit of the Visa for the first time.

Going by the numbers, there will be many takers for this Visa if and when it comes into fruition. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Indians make up 46 per cent of all H1B visa holders, the numbers of which range between 650,000 to 1 million.  Similarly, there are over 100,000 Indian students in the United States. According to a Brookings Institution Study,  between 1994 and 2005, 10,836 doctorates or  11% of all Doctorates awarded in the Science and Engineering streams, went to students  from India.

Whatever discussion there is in India is around the impact of the proposed Bill on the nascent startup ecosystem in India which was gathering steam partly on the back of the reverse migration phenomenon. One blog post even goes as far as to use the title “Startup Visa And The Impact on Indian Startup Ecosystem [BrainDrain 2.0].” Another post wonders why the Indian government doesn’t come out with a Startup Visa of its own to attract Indian and other entrepreneurial talent to india.  However, the bottomline remains that none of this will help unless it becomes easier for businesses to set up shop in India.  Till then, any wannabe entrepreneur, given a chance, will wing his way to Silicon Valley, considering it better to be a participant in the brain drain than have his brain in the drain. If the competition for talent and skills gets any tougher, the Indian government could consider the easy way out and did what it once did in 1964 when it restricted the issuance of passports to medical personnel  “to check their exodus in the national interest.”