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

The Founder Visa

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 160 posts

Re: The Founder Visa

#61

Post by gills »

yan wrote: post #3

I'm thinking: how can this be exploited? Can someone just say they're building a new way to shorten urls and need two years in the country to build their business to fruition? And what defines success or progress?

Here's a random attack vector.

Step 1. Pay lobbyist to add the following clause to the rules: "Treasury will provide 20:1 non-recourse loans to participating investors" -- to attract the 'hot money' and foreign capital, of course. Just copy the clause right from PPIP, in case you think it's not possible.

Step 2. Wealthy foreign investor: send random minion on 2-year luxury vacation to the U.S. Invest in minion's "startup" through some convoluted channel (perhaps a Wall St. Bank's unofficial immigrant startup investment fund).

Step 3. Sell "consulting services" to minion's startup using your U.S. shell company.

Step 4. Free Money.

Obviously there are good and easy ways to prevent this absurd little tinfoil hat scenario I've constructed in the bat-filled cavern where my brain should be. But considering the recent track record of our government botching up finance-related issues, I wouldn't expect anything less...

Re: The Founder Visa

#62

Post by pg »

shiro wrote: post #57
pg wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why you use investors as the test. I don't think you need to define progress.

There are big companies hungry for H-1Bs; could they exploit this new visa by "investing" small amount of money and then outsourcing some of their work into this newly created "company"?

They wouldn't be certified as startup investors.

Re: The Founder Visa

#63

Post by abossy »

siegler wrote: post #41

I usually avoid politics, but since we now seem to have an administration that's open to suggestions, I'm going to risk making one If your goal is to persuade as many people as possible, insulting the previous administration and by extension those that voted for Bush is a bad start. I was already opposed to your idea before the second sentence, despite the fact that I'm an advocate of increased legal immigration.

I believe the reference is to all administrations prior to the current one. Transparency has been a hallmark of the current administration since day one.

Re: The Founder Visa

#64

Post by c3 »

tomsaffell wrote: post #16

Nice idea. Feels like a version of the E-2, brought in line with the new realities of the cost of starting a web based business - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E2_visa (government is always slow). Rather than requiring applicants to bring monetary capital into the country, they'd be required to bring start-up capital , as measured by those who will invest in it.

I actually am in the US on an E2 visa, and I founded and (still) run entp.com. In my mind, the investment requirement of the E2 merely is a way of your providing proof of your ability to achieve success.

Re: The Founder Visa

#65

Post by tokenadult »

tc wrote: post #10

This line made me smile: I think this would have such a visible effect on the economy that it would make the legislator who introduced the bill famous. It reminded me of "Law 13" of "The 48 Laws of Power": uncover something in your request... that will benefit him, and emphasize it out of all proportion. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=555691

A risk might be that if even one Al Qaeda terrorist gets in under this program, then the whole program will be shut down, and the sponsoring member of Congress's name will be infamous forever after.

Re: The Founder Visa

#66

Post by abii »

ozchrisb wrote: post #35

Just use an E-1 and educate US investors that if they invest in overseas company X then they can get E-1 status.

E-1 is restricted to nationals of a small set of countries. It needs to be more open.

Re: The Founder Visa

#67

Post by dfranke »

tptacek wrote: post #50
dfranke wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you are not likely to get funding until you move here I think it's likely that if this visa existed, VCs would adapt to it by becoming more open to funding people who haven't immigrated yet.

VC's barely (meaning, almost not at all) adapt to citizens who haven't yet moved to Boston or San Jose yet.

That's because US citizens seeking VC who haven't moved to Boston or San Jose usually have no good excuse not to; for VCs, it's an easy way to filter out undedicated founders. Foreigners who want to move there but can't get a visa have a much better excuse.

Re: The Founder Visa

#68

Post by IndianJazz »

I agree - Infact this is THE biggest reason , stopping me to break free and launch my ideas.

If "I" were to start a firm , all that matters is talent, I would cherish to work with fellow American workers. Remember in the modern age , the more varied my fellow workers are , the richer is my experience. Each one of us has an amazing story to tell, along with the rich experiences from our varied backgrounds.

I do understand the worries about the American workers right. Its genuine, and I respect it.

Re: The Founder Visa

#69

Post by IndianJazz »

Here is how the US can go about it,

1. All visa applications must have a "CERTIFIED" viable buisness plan.

2. Sensible cash amounts should be with the applicant along with the good credit standings - Its foolish to ask for 100K if you are starting a Web2.0 business.

3. Periodic progress reports to be submitted , certified by auditors.

4. Initially for 2 yr , and then renewable depending on numerous factors like success etc

Post reply on HN