The immigration problems for entrepreneurs is shared by practically every nation I've looked into. It is a local industry with local advantages and global consequences. The only place I found that seemed somewhat better was my home country of Canada, which I strongly considered but ultimately declined to operate in. There's a greater pool of technical talent living in the USA than anywhere, (except perhaps the EU, which is nearly impossible to get into as an entrepreneur who's a non-citizen), there's easier access to funding -- and in particular smart money (which if you listen well is a lot more valuable than dumb money), world-class universities, and better weather than Canada. I could go on.

So it makes sense to improve immigration from an entrepreneurs standpoint.

And there's a good argument it makes sense to improve it from the government's standpoint.

And there's a good argument that it makes sense from the VC's standpoint.

The only good arguments against the startup visa that I've heard are that in its current incarnation it displaces the H1B queue, which is way too long already. Furthermore, it isn't the overarching immigration reform that the country will eventually need. I don't know what the best approach would be to put large scale immigration reform in, but I really doubt that a recession is the time...

One of the common exceptions to "nearly nothing" is establishing a legal business quickly and cheaply.

How about the need for cheap and reliable electricity? In plenty of places you have to budget for a serious UPS plus generator setup.

Rule of law, in a reasonable time frame?

Heck, until very recently it was impractical for a foreign VC firm to invest in Canada.

Anyway, the existence of Silicon Valley, it's much smaller brother in the Boston area, and the pale shadows of those two in the rest of the country suggests that while one "can do" a startup elsewhere there seem to be location specific competitive advances.

Those are solvable problems, and it's not like you can never be in SF just because you're based elsewhere in the world ... it's only a plane or two when you're physically needed there.

There are negatives to being in SF or the states as well ... you can hire a team in some parts of the world for less than you'll rent space in SF.

What are the things you and your startup needs on a daily basis that you can only get in SF / the USA?

"it's only a plane or two when you're physically needed there"

That's assuming you're from a visa waiver country. If you're from anywhere outside Western Europe, Japan or Australia/NZ, getting into the US is a hassle.

That's true and it's a valid point, but when you're from a non-waiver country the US embassies look for reasons you'll leave the states and your business is going to contribute to the list of reasons you'll come back. Certainly there's no guarantee though that some people will ever get into the US.

My point really is what on-going reasons are there to be based in the states or specifically SF ... most of the time you're not going to be meeting with investors or other entrepreneurs or hiring, you're just going to be working and that part can be done anywhere.

Mostly I meant that the friction of obtaining a visa makes it inconvenient to make any trip on short notice, whether to meet investors, attend a conference, or meet with potential partners.

The inconvenience is mostly for the investors, who would then have to travel to other countries. So, does that mean that the US is about to set legislation based on the inconvenience for a bunch of VCs? :-o