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

101–110 of 225 posts

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#101

Post by [deleted] »

aditya wrote: post #95
davemc500hats wrote: post #91

sorry i'm just seeing this thread now; been working all morning / early afternoon keeping up with posts & info on Startup Visa Act. i'll do my best to comment where appropriate based on my understanding of the proposed legislation. 1) people who want to "buy a VISA" (aka have the money to invest in a new business already) wouldn't need any new legislation. the existing EB-5 handles this. 2) VCs have no specific contr…

Dave, I think the big issue most people on here are having, is the fact that if you fail to either create 5 jobs or revenue of $1MM or a larger VC round, you get kicked back to your own country despite having invested 2 years and all the effort that comes with planting your roots in a completely new country. It is hard to understand this if you've (and I'm not calling you out) never switched countries but the older y…

[deleted]

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#102

Post by davemc500hats »

rajat wrote: post #67

Why not just expand the number of qualified people to which we give green cards? Admit that if you qualify for a H1-B visa, you should be eligible for a green card. This eliminates H1-B visa abuses, protects the H1-B applicant from abuse, and most importantly, allows skilled people to come to this country. Some of them will undoubtedly start their own companies. We might have a serious illegal immigration problem in…

this is a reasonable suggestion, and it is currently being addressed by other proposed immigration legislation.

however, our proposed legislation simply focuses on making visas available to people who can help 1) create jobs, 2) create innovation, and 3) create economic output.

the two are not mutually exclusive, and are likely even complementary. however, this does not mean they have to be merged, and they can be worked on indepedently.

(that said, it is likely all such legislation will be considered in a comprehensive immigration bill supported by the left & the right sometime this year... we hope :)

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#103

Post by Aegean »

I don't see why it is so capital-oriented. It is certainly better than nothing, but a fairer scheme would also include skills assessment. Otherwise its against the nature of entrepreneurship - venture capital is not a prerequisite to a successful startup, its only one of the helpful ingredients. On such a thing like visa where it is a yes or no situation, it shouldn't just depend on availability of venture capital.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#104

Post by [deleted] »

pg wrote: post #89
briansmith wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is anything I said false? Because I used the word "just"? Take out the word "just" and everything we both said is true: there are VC's that aren't rich, and rich people will be able to abuse this to get their friends green cards, while those without connections have to wait and work for 7-9 years to get their green cards. Look at http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4659.htm... . It says that the U…

Ok, if what you meant to say was that the bill could be abused, let's examine that. What protections does it have against abuse, and why do you feel they're inadequate?

[deleted]

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#105

Post by davemc500hats »

tptacek wrote: post #8
lionhearted wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a bill that proposes to give US venture capitalists the overt ability to terminate the residency status of founders and their families. False. "To make visas available, we would amend immigration law to create a new EB-6 category for immigrant entrepreneurs. We would draw from existing visas under the EB-5 category. The EB-5 permits foreign nationals who invest at $1 million in the U.S., and thereby creates…

Here's the text of the proposed bill: ‘‘(3) SPONSORED ENTREPRENEURS.—The Sec- retary of Homeland Security shall terminate the per- manent resident status of a sponsored entrepreneur and the alien spouse and children of such entre- preneur if the Secretary determines, not later than 3 years after the date on which such permanent resi- dent status was conferred, that— ‘‘(A) the qualified venture capitalist or qualified…

it is likely the case that rqmt #1 -- that is, the creation of at least 5 full-time jobs in the US -- will easily be met by most entrepreneurs if they have any shred of competence and/or economic viability.

the rest of your argument is perhaps interesting from a theoretical standpoint, but not likely very relevant from a practical perspective.

it's very simple: create 5 full-time jobs in the US in 2 years time, and you get to stay. if you can't do that, at least get to break-even on $1M in revenue. if you can't do THAT, then find an investor willing to back you for another $1M every 2 years.

the rqmts are quite lenient and reasonable. the fate of the entrepreneur is very much in their own hands (& heads).

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#106

Post by ajju »

briansmith wrote: post #82
pg wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why is anything I said false? Because I used the word "just"? Take out the word "just" and everything we both said is true: there are VC's that aren't rich, and rich people will be able to abuse this to get their friends green cards, while those without connections have to wait and work for 7-9 years to get their green cards. Look at http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4659.htm... . It says that the U…

Speed up the EB-3 process and lots of people stuck working under a H1-B would quit their jobs and start their own businesses.

Why can't H1-B's do that right now? AFAIK there is nothing stopping them from moving to an EB6. I would.

I don't think that is an argument against speeding up EB-3. I think that should happen as well, but is obviously much harder politically.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#107

Post by fnid2 »

ajju wrote: post #55
fnid2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about successful companies. You can have one of those without investing $500,000 into it. Make no mistake, this visa is about helping rich people make more money by enabling them to collaborate with other rich people around the world. If that is not true, then entrepreneurs should be allowed into the country whether or not they've invested $500k into a business. What if you've invested 3 years into a busines…

I don't get it. The bill does not require the entrepreneur to have $500,000. It requires that the company raise a million dollars (and/or) earn a million dollars (and/or) create 5 jobs in 3 years AFTER the visa is issued. Now I am not a lawyer, so I would really like to know if it is "and" or "or", but I don't see where it requires the entrepreneur to be rich. Am I misunderstanding the text?

I might not have been clear on the numbers, but I believe any such restrictions on entry are not good. I don't believe any of them should be requirements.

If someone wants to come to the U.S. and try to create a business and has it all lined out -- let them come! Don't make them get approval from someone with lots of money.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#108

Post by adw »

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…

To be fair, you can turn that round; my reading of what Brian said was that he thought this bill was open to abuse, which could make your reading seem disingenuous.

Neither interpretation's fair to either of you, though.

(I have no horse in this race; living in Europe, the idea of a visa seems a bit anachronistic, really.)

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#109

Post by ericb »

potatolicious wrote: post #61
ericb wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking from a country's self interest, don't rich people benefit the country more than poor? Isn't the US better off tax-wise, and wealthier, if it is able to tax a millionaire than a cab driver? Is there something morally objectionable about trying to attract "desirables" or is it just that we need to see the visa process in some way as "fair?"

Speaking as a Canadian who immigrated from Asia, and know a large number of rich Asians who have also followed the same path, the situation is really not as simple as you put it. The rich are in no way obligated to share their wealth with you - as the Canadian government has unfortunately learned. Our immigration programs have three paths: skilled labour, investment, and entrepreneurial. Skilled labour is simply lett…

Are they bringing the money in suitcases for the purpose of spending it? Wouldn't that be taxed in the recipient of the spending's income?

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#110

Post by ajju »

fnid2 wrote: post #107
ajju wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it. The bill does not require the entrepreneur to have $500,000. It requires that the company raise a million dollars (and/or) earn a million dollars (and/or) create 5 jobs in 3 years AFTER the visa is issued. Now I am not a lawyer, so I would really like to know if it is "and" or "or", but I don't see where it requires the entrepreneur to be rich. Am I misunderstanding the text?

I might not have been clear on the numbers, but I believe any such restrictions on entry are not good. I don't believe any of them should be requirements. If someone wants to come to the U.S. and try to create a business and has it all lined out -- let them come! Don't make them get approval from someone with lots of money.

If someone wants to come to the U.S. and try to create a business and has it all lined out -- let them come!

Has, what all lined out? There in lies the rub. If you let anyone who declares he is an entrepreneur in, the law will be a joke. Naturally, you have to have some firm qualifiers. As long as it is 5 jobs OR a million dollars in revenue OR investment and you have 2 (or 3) years to do it, I don't understand why that is unfair. 2 years is a lot of time to create 5 jobs. It's not an easy goal, but it's doable.

I say this as someone who intends to go the EB6 route if this passes.

Post reply on HN