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

91–100 of 198 posts

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#91

Post by pc »

acslater00 wrote: post #85
pc wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airbnb and Dropbox will tell you that YC was instrumental in their success.* And, indeed, that the YC equity stake is worth it. So I think the thrust of your argument is off-base -- there's some plausible justification for it. But to your broader point -- conferring immigration status upon acceptance by an arbitrarily-designated institution makes me uncomfortable too. However, it's a ship that sailed a long time ago.…

I completely respect that, and I'm certainly not about to argue with a YC alum about the value of YC on the YC community forum. But there is a world of difference between trading equity for mentorship vs trading equity for a visa [+ mentorship]. It will obviously never happen, but if it did the program would be unrecognizable.

Yeah, that dynamic would be concerning. Having only YC issue the visas would be much worse than having a broader entrepreneurship visa.

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#92

Post by auganov »

kenneth wrote: post #87
gamblor956 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to break it to you, but you clearly did not have a top-notch immigration attorney if they advised you that a O1 visa was the best visa for your circumstances. The O1 is intended for people who are the top of their fields; not just those that are good. It's for people like Yao Ming (sports) or Lupita_Nyong'o (arts) that we want to steal from other countries. There were other visas that were more appropriate for…

The EB visas are basically identical to the O visas, except for two differences: 1) the requirements are slightly more stringent, and 2) they are considered immigrant visas, as opposed to non-immigrant. ie., they are green cards. That said, I agree with you that the O1 was not a perfect fit for my situation, though I did end up receiving it, while being denied the EB-1. But I would challenge you to name another visa…

Could you share more? Basically what key tips would you give to a person trying to get it? Which 3/more of the 8 requirements did you base your application on?

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#93

Post by icambron »

danielharan wrote: post #48
icambron wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What was once a process over which government had visibility is now in the hands of the private sector, with firms that have historically discriminated on age, ethnicity, gender, etc. That logic would suggest companies shouldn't be allowed to hire non-immigrants without government approval either, since they've historically discriminated against people with non-immigrant hires too. But as far as I know, you're not…

If a company as large as IBM systematically discriminates, I sure hope they end up in legal trouble.

Me too. But that's the point - we let them hire people until someone shows they're discriminating.

Imagine a world where to get a job you had to ask the government for permission (which is precisely what immigrants have to do in our world). Then one day someone comes along and says, "why don't you just let the companies hire whomever they want?" And then do you really say, "whoa whoa, now that the employment process isn't under government supervision, now we can't tell if they're discriminating"?

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#95

Post by thatthatis »

sama wrote: post #83

People seem to be trying to deliberately misunderstand my point. 1) I don't think this should just be for YC. I'm just volunteering to beta test it. I think we are very likely to show success, which would hopefully open it much more broadly. But I'd be very happy to do it together with other investors from the beginning. I feel that in general investors (YC included) are not doing enough to push this issue. 2) I do t…

Deliberately? I generally ascribe to the camp that says: when the majority or a large portion of the audience misinterprets what is being said, the problem lies not with with readers but with the author. Perhaps it is you who mis-wrote not us who mis-read.

What you wrote came off as incredibly arrogant. Especially with your recent promotion.

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#96

Post by teacup50 »

sama wrote: post #83

People seem to be trying to deliberately misunderstand my point. 1) I don't think this should just be for YC. I'm just volunteering to beta test it. I think we are very likely to show success, which would hopefully open it much more broadly. But I'd be very happy to do it together with other investors from the beginning. I feel that in general investors (YC included) are not doing enough to push this issue. 2) I do t…

> 1) I don't think this should just be for YC. I'm just volunteering to beta test it.

This gives you a massive advantage compared to those of us who aren't VCs and can't beta test it -- or founders that want to launch a company here, but lack your blessing.

> But I'd be very happy to do it together with other investors from the beginning. I feel that in general investors (YC included) are not doing enough to push this issue.

And what about those of us who don't sit in your privileged position, can't secure H1B visas, and our companies suffer as a result?

> I do think that investors should get a say in who gets startup visas. This is no different than universities, big companies, or even the people who give out Oscars deciding who is qualified to get one.

In all of those cases, the type of visa is opened up to a class of person who must be sponsored by a class of organizations, not any one particular organization.

Additionally, the relationship between the visa sponsor and the applying individual in those circumstances is far, far, far less one-sided than it would be between potential founder and stake-holding VC.

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#98

Post by hibikir »

ahomescu1 wrote: post #28
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…

Normally you go from OPT to H1B, and from H1B to Green Card. How fast that process goes varies greatly

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#99

Post by teacup50 »

sama wrote: post #41
geebee wrote: post #27

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 o…

It shouldn't be the only way to get a (nonimmigrant in this proposal, incidentally) visa. But I really do believe it should be one way--it's hard to argue that more startups would hurt the economy. I agree with you that there is a level of discomfort inherent in letting investors influence who gets visas, but honestly they know more about what startups have a chance at great success than government officers.

> it's hard to argue that more startups would hurt the economy.

It's not as clear that government subsidization of your position would benefit the economy in the long-term, especially after more closely examining the beneficiaries of the majority of wealth extracted by VC startups.

It frightens that you seem to honestly believe that you -- specifically and individually -- deserve special privileges that not only will the rest of us equally hard-working, economy-growing, business-founding citizens not get, but that will make it that much harder for us to compete with your already privileged position.

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#100

Post by isalmon »

kenneth wrote: post #87
gamblor956 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to break it to you, but you clearly did not have a top-notch immigration attorney if they advised you that a O1 visa was the best visa for your circumstances. The O1 is intended for people who are the top of their fields; not just those that are good. It's for people like Yao Ming (sports) or Lupita_Nyong'o (arts) that we want to steal from other countries. There were other visas that were more appropriate for…

The EB visas are basically identical to the O visas, except for two differences: 1) the requirements are slightly more stringent, and 2) they are considered immigrant visas, as opposed to non-immigrant. ie., they are green cards. That said, I agree with you that the O1 was not a perfect fit for my situation, though I did end up receiving it, while being denied the EB-1. But I would challenge you to name another visa…

In some cases it might make sense to do H-1b -> EB2 to get things done faster. You don't even need a visa to get your employment based green card actually, so you can start both processes at the same time. Of course each case is unique, I hope your lawyer made the right choice given the circumstances.
Post reply on HN