Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

startupvisa.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 225 posts

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#71

Post by tptacek »

pg wrote: post #64
briansmith wrote: post #26

This would just allow the rich and connected to choose thousands of people to budge to the front of a 3-5 year long line that other green gard applicants (EB-3) are waiting in. If there are resources available to process more EB-5's and EB-6's, then put them to use accelerating the process for the people that have already waited years for their applications to be approved. Accelerate that process and you'll accelerat…

That's such a dishonest way of describing the situation that it's hard to believe it wasn't deliberate. You describe this bill as if it merely allowed powerful people to get their friends into the country, and it's not like that at all. Startup investors are not identical with the rich and connected. Angel investors are generally fairly rich, but not all VCs are. And they're not choosing people at random to bring int…

What does it matter if there are good, hardworking, "non-rich" VCs? There are also bad, lazy, well-connected VCs. You're evoking the intentions behind this bill as if they mattered.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#72

Post by neurotech1 »

andreyf wrote: post #49
neurotech1 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You did mis-interpret the gist of the bill. The VC funders have less significantly less control than a employer of a H-1B visa. Basically they are saying you have a 2 years (max 3 years) to meet the requirements (investment and jobs)of the visa, or go home. A EB-5 visa has a 2 year "conditional status" along similar lines. A H-1B visa, the employer can terminate your job, and you have 30 days to leave the country. A…

You're saying the same thing. To put it plainly, what I think tptacek is saying, is that after 3 years, investors have a strong upper hand in negotiating a round, knowing that "Homeland Security" has set an artificial bar for how much a company must raise if the founders are to stay in the country. Edit: he said it explicitly here - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1148789

My whole point is they don't "have the upper hand" if you've already made $1m in revenue.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#73

Post by tptacek »

neurotech1 wrote: post #69
tptacek wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

H1-Bs are also bad. And, H1-B's aside, I'm not sure you actually refuted my interpretation of the bill. I cited its plain text. My question is, is there some other law or propose legislation that mitigates the impact of this bill? If there is, I'll stand corrected.

The part that I'm refuting is that they HAVE to raise $1m from VCs. From the legislation you quoted; "‘‘(II) raise not less than $1,000,000 in capital investment in furtherance of a commercial entity based in the United States; or ‘‘(III) generate not less than $1,000,000 in revenue." Note that it says OR

I think we're clear that they don't have to raise $1MM from VCs. They can also raise it from customers.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#74

Post by pg »

tptacek wrote: post #71
pg wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's such a dishonest way of describing the situation that it's hard to believe it wasn't deliberate. You describe this bill as if it merely allowed powerful people to get their friends into the country, and it's not like that at all. Startup investors are not identical with the rich and connected. Angel investors are generally fairly rich, but not all VCs are. And they're not choosing people at random to bring int…

What does it matter if there are good, hardworking, "non-rich" VCs? There are also bad, lazy, well-connected VCs. You're evoking the intentions behind this bill as if they mattered.

In this particular case the reason it matters is that it makes briansmith's comment false.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#75

Post by [deleted] »

davidw wrote: post #47
tptacek wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing fnid, like me, wants those people in too. I'm not sure the candidate pool is the real objection here.

The objection seems to be that it's imperfect, which is almost certainly true. It would be good to push them to improve it, but when all is said and done, we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[deleted]

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#76

Post by ajju »

anamax wrote: post #63
fnid2 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's entrepreneurial servitude. You come in and build a business to our specifications, making a certain amount of money for the rich investors or you lose your rights to live here. When the entrepreneur is booted out because (s)he was unable to generate $1M in revenue a year after 2 years in business, what happens to the business? Do the investors retain ownership? What legal rights does the entrepreneur have over t…

> There are no laws in America protecting the rights of these entrepreneurs who are not citizens. They are here to build a business, hopefully, but if they miss the marks, they lose everything! Their home, their business, their employees, and potentially the rights to any revenues, IP, or equity in the company they founded. Where are you getting this from? Non-residents can own things that happen to be in the US. The…

This is true, but you are forfeiting any active management position, authority and likely control, which is basically the same as being fired as CEO. Not something you want to risk.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#77

Post by [deleted] »

pg wrote: post #74
tptacek wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it matter if there are good, hardworking, "non-rich" VCs? There are also bad, lazy, well-connected VCs. You're evoking the intentions behind this bill as if they mattered.

In this particular case the reason it matters is that it makes briansmith's comment false.

[deleted]

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#78

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #70
anamax wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are no laws in America protecting the rights of these entrepreneurs who are not citizens. They are here to build a business, hopefully, but if they miss the marks, they lose everything! Their home, their business, their employees, and potentially the rights to any revenues, IP, or equity in the company they founded. Where are you getting this from? Non-residents can own things that happen to be in the US. The…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#79

Post by netcan »

pg wrote: post #74
tptacek wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it matter if there are good, hardworking, "non-rich" VCs? There are also bad, lazy, well-connected VCs. You're evoking the intentions behind this bill as if they mattered.

In this particular case the reason it matters is that it makes briansmith's comment false.

I don't think so. He says "this would just allow." Maybe he didn't qualify it with "the unintended consequence of this bill" or similar but its pretty clear what he means.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#80

Post by neurotech1 »

tptacek wrote: post #68
ajju wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it true that it is $1MM in revenue within 2 years of getting a visa ? So you could apply when you had $500K in revenues. Also, I don't know for sure if the qualifying clauses for not being deported have an "and" relationship or an "or" relationship. Do I need to raise a million dollars AND generate a million in revenue AND generate 5 jobs? Or is one of these enough?

If you're at 500k already, you can probably pull off an EB-5. Regardless, I'm not all that concerned about the 500k entrepreneurs. I'm unclear on the "and" and "or" thing, too, but I think it's equally arbitrary to deport someone with 4 full-time employees for missing a $1MM mark, and I think 5 "full-time" employees is extremely gameable.

EB-5 says $1M investment NOT $1M revenue

My interpretation is that you have 2 years to preform, and if you don't by the 3rd year - then you are deported, and not for missing the 2yr marks. You have 12 months of latitude if your heading in the right direction with employment.

I do agree that there is going to be some gaming of the system.

Post reply on HN