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

121–130 of 198 posts

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#121

Post by teacup50 »

ahomescu1 wrote: post #114
teacup50 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't see any claims of "government subsidization" or "special privileges". I think this kind of visa would allow people to move to the US to start a company, on equal footing with "equally hard-working, economy-growing, business-founding citizens".

It's right there in the article. He's requesting that the government grant to YC:

1) An allotment of visas.

2) Control over the allocation of those visas

... possibly to be extended to other venture capital firms (nobody else, of course, and certainly nobody self-funding a company with capital equivalent to that which YC provides). He's happy for YC to be the only beta tester for now, though.

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#122

Post by teacup50 »

HistoryInAction wrote: post #119
teacup50 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would people feel better about this if YC donated their 7% stake in those 50 companies to a charity? It would still be beneficial to YC directly and uniquely, and a special privilege, so no. On top of which, there are serious ethical concerns around a early-stage investors essentially controlling a founder's visa allocation and ongoing status.

And yes, there is also political opposition from the left centered around the extra control investors would have if they also determine the immigration status of a founder. I don't understand that opposition, but I've run into it a few times.

You don't understand the ethical concerns related to having a huge negotiating advantage granted and enforced by the US government?

You think that's a leftist issue?

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#123

Post by HistoryInAction »

SeoxyS wrote: post #104
auganov wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My key tips would be as follow, in order of importance: 1. Get a good lawyer who puts your interests first. (Not your investor's or your employer's.) 2. Make yourself as visible as your can, even if it's not necessarily your comfort zone. Get on conference panels. Get into print newspapers as much as possible. Aim for old-style print newspapers: WSJ, NYTimes, and other national papers are great. Get into the print ed…

Strong underline for the old-style print newspapers.

But look to Brian X. Chen at NYT, Evelyn Rusli at WSJ who cover tech, even if it's just online.

Keep in mind that the reviewing bureaucrats at USCIS have NEVER heard of TechCrunch, just like most of us have probably never heard of Politico (or read it often if you have).

Don't shoot yourself in the face by mocking the process in the process: To get the visa, Mr. Vine and his co-founders at Zirtual, a business that connects people with personal assistants through the Internet, invented the position of corporate wellness director, suited to Mr. Vine's bachelor's degree in kinesiology.

"My application for the H-1B is different from my actual role at the company," Mr. Vine said. "We've actually had to spin a tall tale because of the difficulty of applying."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020470710... (might be behind paywall but search "Startup Visas Get New Push" and the closing quote from Collin Vine of Zirtual)

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#124

Post by pm24601 »

Yet another go-nowhere idea. Paul, et. al. apparently still haven't learned politics.

The 'startup visa' will happen when Paul, et. al. :

1. realizes that access != power

2. demonstrate power by having a group of people who have immigration reform as their top voting issue.

3. stop thinking that sending mass emails is effective. Congress has good spam filters too.

4. they need to put serious money behind it and even more serious time.

5. they must make allies with the broader range of groups working to deal with the immigration issues.

6. Lastly, they need to realize that the immigration issue gets solved for everyone or it doesn't get solved for anyone.

Before anyone argues with me: google "illegal immigration families broken up". Those people fighting to get their brother and sister, mother and father back. Those people have the power in the immigration fight.

Paul sitting around and arguing about 100 visas from an ROI perspective just demonstrates utter cluelessness about politics.

Hell, its not even a good pitch!

I predict the Startup Visa is DOA (again).

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#125

Post by pm24601 »

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.

So in other words money gets to buy a shortcut in the immigration line.

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#126

Post by HistoryInAction »

teacup50 wrote: post #122
HistoryInAction wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yes, there is also political opposition from the left centered around the extra control investors would have if they also determine the immigration status of a founder. I don't understand that opposition, but I've run into it a few times.

You don't understand the ethical concerns related to having a huge negotiating advantage granted and enforced by the US government? You think that's a leftist issue?

Ah, sorry, I wasn't clear. I've only heard that concern from political professionals on the left, not that the concern itself was associated with one side of the aisle or another.

And correct, I've never thought about the ethical concerns, so I'd be interested in your explanation. Most of the investors I've worked with in this space have already committed to invest in the startups dealing with immigration problems, and so their interest is to salvage their investment and stop it from being destroyed by the immigration system rather than negotiating the investment in the first place.

In my defense, "certified VC/angel" sponsorship is a hypothetical proposal that has very, very little traction in Congress, and that I've opposed in favor of broad capital requirements (e.g. the Moran amendment, which I supported: http://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?Fil... and some efforts by the US Chamber of Commerce that never made it into legislative language)

Thanks!

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#127

Post by kashkhan »

nickonline wrote: post #81
acslater00 wrote: post #67

This is a great idea, can I do this too?? The government can give me 100 visas to allocate, and I'll give them to international entrepreneurs whom I consider to be deserving and who incidentally and in a totally non quid-pro-quo fashion agree to sell me a 7% stake in their companies for a nominal fee. I'll also buy them pizza once a week, if that sweetens the pot.

This is the core problem, who gets to allocate the visas? If we assume only YC & some of the other incubators it starts to drive more traffic to them and raises the barrier to entry for a new incubator as they probably won't be on this program (allocating visas).

Why not let the market decide?

why not just charge $10k or 10% additional tax and just let all the people that want to work come in. Then when the startup fails they can leave.

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#128

Post by ahomescu1 »

teacup50 wrote: post #121
ahomescu1 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see any claims of "government subsidization" or "special privileges". I think this kind of visa would allow people to move to the US to start a company, on equal footing with "equally hard-working, economy-growing, business-founding citizens".

It's right there in the article. He's requesting that the government grant to YC: 1) An allotment of visas. 2) Control over the allocation of those visas ... possibly to be extended to other venture capital firms (nobody else, of course, and certainly nobody self-funding a company with capital equivalent to that which YC provides). He's happy for YC to be the only beta tester for now, though.

How does this give special privileges to the recipients of those visas?

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#129

Post by rdl »

teacup50 wrote: post #115
rdl wrote: post #111

Would people feel better about this if YC donated their 7% stake in those 50 companies to a charity? That would more clearly separate out the "special privilege for a private company" part of this proposal from the "we're testing something of general applicability." A domestic tech-industry/entrepreneurship inclusiveness effort, like 0-18yo STEM education, would be a good choice.

> Would people feel better about this if YC donated their 7% stake in those 50 companies to a charity? It would still be beneficial to YC directly and uniquely, and a special privilege, so no. On top of which, there are serious ethical concerns around a early-stage investors essentially controlling a founder's visa allocation and ongoing status.

Are you a US voter?

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#130

Post by brayton »

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…

What about bringing them here and not taking equity? This could allow for less conflict of interest for your beta test.
Post reply on HN