Does it matter if a company that was founded in the U.S. and that does employ mostly Americans was founded by an American or by a non-American??

I can understand the argument against visas for foreign engineers... but I don't see any trouble with a founder visa.

Your point is well taken. However, we do have lots of talent already here (many are ones already here on various student and work visas). YC is limited to a narrow set of people that can "afford" the process. I do not buy the argument that this implies we need to increase the pool of eligible applicants with a special visa. Perhaps YC will simply reach its limits. Thats ok, there is no reason that something has to keep growing in size to continue to be a success; it could just reach a natural equilibrium.

Is there any evidence that the U.S. does not already have the talent? Or is it only that there is not enough talent that can afford to work at such low entry rates? Please keep in mind that our visa programs that already exist are to fill positions where there is proven lack of skills. They do not exist so the investor or business owners can find cheaper labor.

I think the U.S. should try to keep the best and brightest at all costs. HN is too focused on programming, but I am thinking of electronics, photonics, semiconductor, nanotech, biotech people, etc. It takes so long to train experts on these fields, and since many of them were funded via NSF as graduate students, it would be wise to create incentives for them to stay in the U.S. and be productive.

Does that mean that a founder visa is necessary? Unfortunately I don't have the data to be able to offer any insightful comment on that...

Your right, we do need to figure this out. I never have understood why we make it so hard for someone to stay after they've completed an education here.