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

211–220 of 225 posts

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#211

Post by lisabethc »

muriithi wrote: post #209
lisabethc wrote: post #208

Seems to be a lot of confusion here. If you fail to meet the requirements after two years - you don't get kicked out of the country. You just can't get a green card via this method and you will need a new visa. If your start-up is still viable you could try to get an H1-B etc through it, or go get yourself another job. All visa holders are used to this kind of precarious situation already - loose your job, drop/get k…

I doubt getting a H1B will be an option in this case. If companies could sponsor their co-owners for H1B I bet that is what everyone would be doing. IANAL so I could be wrong.

A co-owner can be sponsored for an H1-B. I have seen it done. But you have all the normal H1-B issues e.g., prevailing wage. Also the word from immigration lawyers is to expect it to be much harder for small startups to get H1-Bs for any of their employees this year ... very bad news.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#212

Post by lisabethc »

muriithi wrote: post #209
lisabethc wrote: post #208

Seems to be a lot of confusion here. If you fail to meet the requirements after two years - you don't get kicked out of the country. You just can't get a green card via this method and you will need a new visa. If your start-up is still viable you could try to get an H1-B etc through it, or go get yourself another job. All visa holders are used to this kind of precarious situation already - loose your job, drop/get k…

I doubt getting a H1B will be an option in this case. If companies could sponsor their co-owners for H1B I bet that is what everyone would be doing. IANAL so I could be wrong.

The O-1 class of visa is also an option, no prevailing wage requirement. So that is more attractive for a startup employee/founder. But you have to meet the "outstanding" requirement. H1B and O1 apps cost the company applying approx $5000.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#213

Post by briansmith »

davemc500hats wrote: post #174
briansmith wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it works. Whatever EB-5's don't get used eventually trickle down to EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3. They don't just go unused. If EB-6's start using them up, then there will be fewer EB-3's available every year.

i'm pretty sure that's incorrect, as the existing EB-5 visa allocations have a specific target of 10,000 visas (which are currently not even close to being used up, only ~1,000 are used every year). if anything, prioritization is likely to work the other way: EB-1s first, then EB-2s, EB-3s, etc. see language below for EB-1 priority visa workers (with "extraordinary abilities"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-1_visa…

You are correct about prioritization.

The question is what happens to those "extra" 9,000 visa numbers that are pre-reserved for EB-5. Everything I've been told says that whatever numbers aren't used by EB-5s gets "spilled over," starting at the top (EB-1), instead of going unused.

Also, I am not a lawyer either.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#214

Post by briansmith »

davemc500hats wrote: post #177
briansmith wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would reduce the number of EB-2 and EB-3 visas available per year. Unused EB-5 visas spill over to EB-1, EB-1 to EB-2, EB-2 to EB-3. You are proposing to take the EB-5 spillover and give it to a group of people hand-picked by investors. That means little to know spillover from EB-5 -> EB-3. EB-3 applications will wait longer, and fewer of them will get their green cards every year.

again, i don't believe you're correct. i'm not aware that existing surplus unused EB-5 visas are used to "help" fill the backlog of EB-2 and EB-3 visas. there appears to be some surplus calculations going on between EB-1, 2, & 3 visas based on EB-1 priorities. i could be wrong; again i'm not an immigration lawyer. that said, it could be argued there is some priority for immigrants who are helping to create jobs over…

I agree that some groups need to have higher prioritization. That is what EB-1 and EB-2 are for. I disagree that the "EB-6" people should be prioritized higher than the EB-3 people.

Also, I think you didn't consider the backlog problem with EB-6. If EB-6 was added, lots of people would immediately begin the process of becoming qualified investors, and lots of EB-3 workers would start the EB-6 process. Then the EB-6s would get exhausted very quickly and a backlog would start, even if they were given a queue separate from EB-3. That is exactly because EB-6 would be so much easier than EB-1, EB-2, and EB-5 to qualify for.

Even if my friend's EB-3 petition wasn't backlogged, I would still object to the idea that rich investors can hand-pick immigrants that they think will make them money, and practically just hand them permanent residency. If you were advocating a new temporary visa program for these people I'd be a lot more supportive of it. But, they don't deserve permanent residency more than the people already waiting in the various lines.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#215

Post by ig1 »

henrikschroder wrote: post #135
blackguardx wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I currently live in the US. Can I just move to Europe and get a job? Or, do I have to do some sort of paperwork first (like get a visa)?

If you are not a EU citizen you need a residence permit and a work permit. I don't know how different the rules are between the EU countries, but it's roughly the same everwhere. A work permit is typically tied to an employer, and a residence permit is typically tied to a work permit. Here's the different kinds for Sweden: http://www.migrationsverket.se/info/1074_en.html

In the UK almost all professional level visas (tier 1, old HSMP) are person based rather than employer based, so you're free to change jobs

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#216

Post by briansmith »

davemc500hats wrote: post #183
briansmith wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unused EB-5 visa numbers spill over to EB-1, and EB-1 to EB-2, and EB-2 to EB-3. This bill would eliminate the EB-5 -> EB-1 spillover, which has the effect of reducing the number of EB-2 and EB-3 green cards available per year.

please point out the information that supports your conclusion above. i'm not convinced unused EB-5s contribute to solving for other backlogs. regardless, it's also not the case that all other backlogged visas are of higher priority than new visas. if there is a zero-sum game to be played, priorities could well be reviewed for all types of visas. your argument for not approving this legislation seems to revolved sole…

Google for "EB-5 spillover", and/or have the lawyers that wrote the proposed legislation post their professional opinion.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#217

Post by eagleal »

davidw wrote: post #196
eagleal wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My fault, I don't know why I confused the permit to stay (expires every 2 years) with permanent residence . Well, in Italy you just need a home and revenue to obtain a permit to stay (work related). The permanent residence or permit to stay doesn't lock you to the first job it was issued for, though. However you can still (with the permit to stay) move between UE countries, just get back to Italy and declare revenue…

Whereabouts are you in Italy? You don't have any information in your profile. I'm in Padova.

Sorry for replying late, I just saw it. I'm in Perugia (Umbria, Central Italy).

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#218

Post by davemc500hats »

tptacek wrote: post #188
boucher wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

completely agree. moreover, even in this edge case, you're still pumping several hundred thousand dollars into the economy.

That's great. We should let anyone who can create 5 jobs into the country, regardless of whether a clique of financiers will "sponsor" them. We should let them in regardless of whether they wear pants.

well why not?

obviously we've let you into HN comments, & you're doing the equivalent of not wearing any intellectual pants... ;)

--

why are you quoting "sponsor"? why use "clique"? you're just trying to use specific questionable punctuation to indict a broad group of people w/o any real analysis of why their motives or ethics are in question.

job creation is likely to be a good thing. if you have specific solutions / suggestions on better ways to measure job creation effectiveness, please state them.

again, happy to argue about these topics rather than you simply ripping on the general proposal. at least we can get to constructive criticism, rather than whether you or anyone else aren't wearing pants.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#219

Post by davemc500hats »

tptacek wrote: post #189
davemc500hats wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

seriously dude, do you like to argue for no particular reason? yes, it's likely not all investors will qualify -- not perfect, but it's reasonable to require some domain experience that can be provably audited. and yes, the investors who do qualify will likely not be completely sketchy and/or likely to commit fraud. we picked a reasonable bar to get over that straddles both a rqmt of experience and some capital witho…

My perspective is that the "investor sponsorship" component of this bill is arbitrary, unfair, and will distort the market. I've been pretty consistent about this point throughout the whole "argument". If you don't want to continue arguing, stop arguing. I don't care what bar you picked for investors, except for the fact that it seems obvious that it's modelled on the tech investor clique. If you got the investor mod…

i'm conceding about as much as you are, except i'm arguing from specific economic goals & benefits. you're arguing about "distortions" that appear to be subjective analysis.

if you want to have a discussion where we have the chance to change each others' minds, then perhaps we should be talking about what parts of investor mentality are in question, and why that isn't better than doing nothing / status quo.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#220

Post by andreyf »

davemc500hats wrote: post #179
tptacek wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your idea isn't complementary to mine, and if it can't handle criticism on Hacker News, it certainly doesn't deserve to get a vote in the senate.

the criticism here is largely one-sided and poorly argued by a few such as yourself. if you must make it zero-sum, then i'm quite willing to face the music in the senate. so be it: have at thee, gauntlet thrown.

I think we're getting too personal. Both of you make a good point:

Thomas says that there certainly will be companies who will be forced to raise a arbitrary amounts of money at an arbitrary time (in both cases, I mean "arbitrary" in relation to their business), even when they're otherwise doing well. On top of that, the VCs negotiating that round will know that their investment is what determines the fate of the company.

Dave points out that this is the best solution which is politically viable.

Both seem true, in my opinion. Still, and with all due respect, Dave's bio does say he "invests in startups if they let him" (emphasis mine). This law will create a class of startups that are forced to look for investment at a stage that may have make business sense, with the only strategy at a "fair" valuation being to play off investors against each other. This is certainly in the interests of people who invest in startups.

I wonder if bundling the interests of "those who can afford to lobby" into laws is the only way to get laws passed in the US nowadays.

Post reply on HN