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

221–225 of 225 posts

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#221

Post by tptacek »

davemc500hats wrote: post #218
tptacek wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you misinterpreted my "pants" comment. My point is, if you can create 5 jobs in the US, you shouldn't need anything, except perhaps a clean criminal record, to get a visa. You certainly shouldn't need the "sponsorship" of a "super angel investor".

Please stop taking this so personally. I'm not. How could I? I have no idea who you are.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#222

Post by anamax »

ajju wrote: post #205
anamax wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Again - no, being deported doesn't cause any of those things. The owners of the biz are the ones who make that decison. Since we're assuming that you're being deported because you're not satisfying the conditions of the startup visa, what are the odds that said owners…

You are using an unrelated but true argument to make your case by attacking my supposed criticism of the visa rules. I am not criticizing the rules, only pointing out that the deportation clause of the visa has consequences on control. Yes, there have to be measurable metrics to gauge traction. Yes, I agree that 2 (3?) years is an acceptable time to create 5 jobs OR earn a mil OR raise a mil. Yes, unless those who do…

> But neither of those points has anything to do with the argument that deportation is synonymous with losing position, authority and likely control.

Deportation is not syonymous with any of those things.

Those things are decided by the folks who control the biz. They're free to keep the person on after deportation. They're free to do those things even if the person isn't deported.

Yes, deportation may be a good reason for them to make certain decisions, but since they're free to ignore that reason, it isn't synonymous.

As to "nothing to do", the only reasons to discuss this are (1) if we let someone in on a startup visa, we shouldn't deport them if they fail, (2) folks who succeed on a startup visa might be deported, and (3) random cussedness.

Regardless, it's simply not true that being deported necessarily has the effects claimed.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#223

Post by davemc500hats »

tptacek wrote: post #221
davemc500hats wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you misinterpreted my "pants" comment. My point is, if you can create 5 jobs in the US, you shouldn't need anything , except perhaps a clean criminal record, to get a visa. You certainly shouldn't need the "sponsorship" of a "super angel investor". Please stop taking this so personally. I'm not. How could I? I have no idea who you are.

actually, i was trying to make a joke there... wasn't taking it personally at all. (srsly, i just have a terrible bedside manner).

that said, when you cast disparaging comments on the entire class of VCs not treating entrepreneurs well, it's hard not to take it a little personal (altho i've been on both sides).

when you're stereotyping, it does hit home a little harder.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#224

Post by davemc500hats »

briansmith wrote: post #214
davemc500hats wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

you may disagree whether EB-6's are higher priority than EB-3's, but it's not an irrational perspective... giving preference to people who create jobs is a reasonable point to argue.

you're in your rights to have a different opinion, but it's not an unreasonable position to argue. you act as if that's unethical, but it's more based on job creation in the US than for VCs to get rich. (there are plenty of other ways for VCs to get rich, and this isn't some nefarious angle we're pushing )

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#225

Post by patrickk »

By definition this bill would exclude YC type startups. The legislation doesn't reflect the downward cost of launching a startup because of things like open source software, falling rents due to economic climate, cheaper bandwidth, remote web hosting etc. Most legislation in most countries is reactionary and out of date by the time it's passed into law, and unfortunately this seems to be the case here too. Still, credit must go to those involved for the effort made, it a step in the right direction.
Post reply on HN