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

The Founder Visa (again)

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 198 posts

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#21

Post by asperous »

johnrob wrote: post #8

Here is a counter proposal: the government should approve this request, but stipulate that the immigrants relocate to somewhere other than silicon valley (so all of the created jobs don't end up in the once place where they aren't needed).

I disagree with this counter-proposal.

It's arbitrary, counter to free market dynamics, against the constitution for citizens [1], pays specific privilege to one state/region.

While they are at it while don't they just stipulate that approved applicants should pay johnrob's rent? (No offense, just trying to point out the arbitrariness of your counter-proposal)

I appreciate that there are some depressing social forces in Silicon Valley, but this is extremely special interest in the greater scheme of things.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unite...

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#22

Post by pc »

johnrob wrote: post #8

Here is a counter proposal: the government should approve this request, but stipulate that the immigrants relocate to somewhere other than silicon valley (so all of the created jobs don't end up in the once place where they aren't needed).

1) You can't just allocate the startups in arbitrary locations and get the same result -- being in SV changes the outcome. (I've tried to start companies elsewhere.)

2) People benefit from Google, Facebook, Airbnb, etc., even if they're not in SV. The immediate job creation is a tiny fraction of the wealth created by startups. It doesn't matter where Bell Labs was located; it just matters that they did what they did. Similarly, we should just focus on creating more Googles, not on which state's payroll taxes get the immediate boost.

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#24

Post by ahomescu1 »

danielharan wrote: post #11
danielharan wrote: post #5

This is a terrible idea. VCs have proposed the same solution in Canada; the government canned the old investor visa and allowed founders to get a startup when they receive investment from some of our VCs. (There were many more investor visa than VCs can even process. We'll end up with less total job creation. You have to be careful what you lobby for, and how it will be implemented!) What was once a process over whic…

Down-voters: explain, please? You don't think the experience from this type of policy being tried somewhere else is relevant? That it won't backfire?

The way you explained it, it seems you're blaming the VCs for something that was government's fault (it was the government's decision to cancel the old visas, instead of keeping them in parallel with the new one).

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#26

Post by tcwc »

johnrob wrote: post #8

Here is a counter proposal: the government should approve this request, but stipulate that the immigrants relocate to somewhere other than silicon valley (so all of the created jobs don't end up in the once place where they aren't needed).

The "Immigrant Investor" EB-5 visa already works a bit like this. "Targeted Employment Area" investments have half the normal capital requirement.

http://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent-workers...

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#27

Post by geebee »

The part of this that really worries me is that would-be founders, after making their pitch, are now waiting to find out if the investors have bestowed the right to live and work in the US upon them.

I understand that it is complicated. The US only takes about 1.2 million immigrants legally into the country every year, and because of our emphasis on family reunification, this means that startup founders may not get one of the spots.

If you make this about whether these folks should be allowed into the US, the answer (yes) is pretty simple, which is why some people think it is a simple question.

If you make this about whether a wealthy investor is now not only empowered not only to decide who gets money, but also who gets citizenship, it isn't nearly as obvious an answer. I would hope that people find the idea unsettling, no matter how high their regard is for the investors asking for this new power.

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#28

Post by ahomescu1 »

jw2013 wrote: post #9

Some points on my mind: a) Most adventurous student entrepreneurs don't really MUST need a founder visa, they can use OPT. I think founders of Stripe did that. b) Most non-immigrants already working (mostly with H1 visa) needs a founder visa. To work on a startup you founded in H1b visa is hard, consider H1b visa needs some funding/salary requirement on your startup, and that is hard to get by on the early stage of a…

> a) Most adventurous student entrepreneurs don't really MUST need a founder visa, they can use OPT. I think founders of Stripe did that.

OPT is an extension of the F1 student visa, and only lasts for 12 months (29 with the STEM extension). In addition, it's a "non-immigration visa", which means that you can't apply for a green card with it (in fact, the whole idea of the visa is that you go back to your own country after you're done).

Also, if you're on OPT and your F1 expires, you might not be able to get it renewed, because your studies have ended (from what I've read, but not sure; can anyone confirm this?), which means you're stuck in the US (if you leave, you're not getting back in).

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#29

Post by huherto »

Since everybody seems to be contributing ideas...I think immigration visas should be awarded on a point based system similar to what it is done in countries that are actively trying to attract immigrants. Education, Family ties, employment history, language, health, financial resources, etc. The current system looks at only one aspect exclusive of the rest.
Post reply on HN