I am confused: Is there a reason why those _shouldn't_ be startups? If there is a reasonably baseline of jobs, $J being created in a certain reasonably timeframe, $T, with a certain amount of equity, $D being generated. Why should the U.S. government have an issue with how cool or fancy your startup is?

They should be. The problem is that there are very little barriers to entry to these start ups and as such, pretty much anyone can start one and have a visa.

The problem with setting benchmarks are where do you set them? There is already a program know as the EB-5 program that requires you to invest $1MM ($500k in economic development zones) and create 10 jobs and after 3-4 years you can get a green card.

I don't have a say in this matter but wouldn't this be a possible solution to the illegal immigrant issue? If they are in the process of creating jobs for U.S. citizens or allege that they can, give them a visa or "legalize them". If at any time they become a public charge or it turns out that they have not achieved their objectives within the reasonable time frame given, revoke the visa? Presumably this can be a one time thing only.

PG's post from a couple of months ago, titled "Startup = Growth", might be relevant: http://paulgraham.com/growth.html