>“When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think...” Bannon said. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-disgusted-a...

Keeping out foreign talent doesn't make your own people any smarter.

Nobody rational would dare to upset the entrepreneurship in US, so I kinda want this to happen, just to see how this will play out.

Granted, I'm not planning to move to US really soon, so I might be biased, but I've really wanted for Brexit to happen and I'm EU.

That is turning out as a disaster, just like rational people suggested. Trump has yet to truly permanently fuckup something so I started to wonder if I was wrong. I see that we're keeping our options open.

There is plenty of meaningful change in the last 6 months, it's just not positive change. But it definitely is meaningful. It will take a decade or more (probably more) to repair the harm done to the USA both at home and abroad.

Millions of Americans have access to health care today that they simply did not have before the Affordable Care Act was passed. That is not unproductive, that is profoundly beneficial for real people.

Throwing up your hands because "politicians" does nothing to fix the problems with a party completely unwilling to govern in a role of governance. Demanding that your Congressperson and Senators fight for meaningful change for Americans will make a real difference. Start there.

And there are plenty of promises that Trump isn't keeping.

What does "is" mean there, when what is apparent is based on lies? Frankly I'm disappointed that you identify a failure of Clinton as not having lied enough. That is not the foundation of a government I want to survive.

All of what evidence?

And, for that matter, what "hoi polloi?" Surely you're not implying that every wealthy person in the US is fully aware of every US government secret and classified operation.

As for the evidence, one thing is that there have never really been any leaks about game-changing secrets. The closest thing to that, at least in recent memory, is the Snowden revelations. They fall more in the category of confirming one's worst fears than being shocking. (Also, they are a bit of an odd example in this context because they are about things the US government is itself doing, not things about the world that US intelligence has discovered. Admittedly, if there had been equally shocking secrets of the latter variety they would have been less likely to have been leaked by an American because while surely the public has a right to know about and have a chance to approve of or not secret programs of the government (and this right has been and continues to be violated), it is much less clear when a secret known to the US government (perhaps discovered by one of its intelligence programs) must be disclosed to the public. (If the government is negotiating with aliens, I guess the public has a right to know about it before it goes on too long, but if it has a superspy in Russia or China that is providing shockingly detailed intelligence, not so much.)

Presidents' behavior does change versus what they probably honestly expected it would be, but the major changes seem to me to be reactions to public, not secret, information. For instance, Bush's plan for the presidency was radically reshaped by 9/11. And his invasion of Iraq was sold partly on the basis of their being intelligence about WMD, but this is sort of an anti-example since there wasn't any compelling intelligence (and moreover, in my view, it was pretty clear at the time based on public information that whether or not Saddam had a few chemical weapons squirreled away, he didn't have a hugely threatening WMD program, certainly not in comparison to North Korea or even Iran). Also, presidents probably often misjudge what they can politically do (e.g., Clinton promised to end the ban on gays in the military but ended up being forced into don't ask don't tell, or Obama promised to close Guantanamo failed because of bipartisan opposition and perhaps a failure of nerve or unwillingness to "expend political capital").

Making petty promises is.

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/02/535240706/study-no-one-issue-c...

I think he's not doing A/B testing, he's just random…

> From the article:

> "To qualify for the rule, entrepreneurs would have to meet high standards. A foreigner must demonstrate that he or she will contribute to economic growth or job creation and show that a reputable investor has put at least $250,000 into the company. Under this rule, they can stay in the U.S. for 30 months, with the possibility of a 30-month extension. They cannot apply for a green card during this period."

> This sounds like a pretty lame visa. How are you supposed to build a startup if you only have 30 months to do so? Why would investors risk $250k if the founder may be deported in 30 months? What happens after the extension period?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14606478

Trump does not want to implement it.

So it changes absolutely nothing except a counterfactual future in which it helps create more jobs.

I don't think it's a good idea to not implement it - it would allow an additional 2,940 entrepreneurs into the US each year - but important to note it changes no existing policy.

I imagine it's a boon for those developing countries. Instead a natural brain-drain, the country doing the draining is stopping it. I'd love to hear some stories about entrepreneurs who wanted to come to the US, but had to go elsewhere and ended up building large businesses. I do see a lot of cool startups coming out of India (that we use for our startup, like Chargebee and VWO) - I wonder if they would have been tempted to start them here in the US if it were trivial for entrepreneurs to enter.

Perhaps a rare case of the road to heaven being paved with bad intentions.

I doubt they're going back to China or India. Far more likely is that they're coming to Canada or going to Australia or Europe.

We have tons and tons of Chinese people coming to Canada to go to school. It's not a stretch to see them setting up shop here after they graduate. Wealthy Chinese families recognize how safe they are in the West. They don't mind paying high taxes to get away from the CCP.

In any case, it's not just having talent go to developing countries that I see as a positive, but also seeing other countries' increasing tech scenes. I think having geographical diversification in the tech world is healthy. For starters, if one country ever elects a leader that wants to attack tech and automation as aggressively as the US leadership is attacking immigrants, then human technological progress will be less affected.

[1]https://corpocrat.com/2015/10/20/25-immigrant-investor-citiz...