21–29 of 29 posts
Current waiting time for China and India-born employment-based Green Card application is likely to be 4-5 years. Many of those applicants are potential startup founders. Sadly they cannot pursue their ambitions due to the long immigration process. Some of them will choose to leave US and found their startups in their home countries.
"The idea and the founder's résumé would then need to pass muster with a government or industry-appointed board of venture capitalists, financiers, or technology experts" This is the fatal flaw in the program. The whole reason startup culture exists is that we don't have a way of knowing in advance what ideas are really worth pursuing, short of giving them a try. But this program would create a board of experts whose…
Another problem with the idea is that the investor approving your founder visa has additional leverage over you. This extra leverage will take the form of lower valuations, lower investments, and (even more) investor friendly terms. For proof, look to H1Bs. H1B employees are paid significantly less than non-H1B employees. Don't like it? STFU or go back to your home country.
Home country is not necessarily Bangladesh, it could be UK or Switzerland, in which case the H1B holder can and does negotiate for market rate salary or he will go to his home country where he is payed fairly and life is just as good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another problem with the idea is that the investor approving your founder visa has additional leverage over you. This extra leverage will take the form of lower valuations, lower investments, and (even more) investor friendly terms. For proof, look to H1Bs. H1B employees are paid significantly less than non-H1B employees. Don't like it? STFU or go back to your home country.
I think this may strongly depend on the home country (thus creating more distortion). Home country is not necessarily Bangladesh, it could be UK or Switzerland, in which case the H1B holder can and does negotiate for market rate salary or he will go to his home country where he is payed fairly and life is just as good.
The current advocates of the Startup Visa probably have honest intentions, but I guarantee that after 10 years, the startup visa will work similarly to the H1B program.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another problem with the idea is that the investor approving your founder visa has additional leverage over you. This extra leverage will take the form of lower valuations, lower investments, and (even more) investor friendly terms. For proof, look to H1Bs. H1B employees are paid significantly less than non-H1B employees. Don't like it? STFU or go back to your home country.
The "visa discount" is a real phenomenon, but the alternative is not coming here at all. You don't have to like it (I don't), but that's how it goes.
That is one alternative. Another is coming up with a program that doesn't allow MegaCorp to abuse its H1B employees and depress market wages for US citizens at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the problem area that bugs me about the founder visa concept. The concept is great. Embodying it into law requires it go through the sausage factory. I jokingly told a doctor last week I could write health care reform in 5 pages. I'm pretty sure I could. But it wouldn't get through congress in that form.
Well, there is potential for abuse: a startup founder gets an "investment" of $500k from an accredited angel and a permanent resident visa. A little while later, the startup takes an exit (e.g. dissolves the company and returns the assets to the investor), netting the founder a greencard in the process.
"The idea and the founder's résumé would then need to pass muster with a government or industry-appointed board of venture capitalists, financiers, or technology experts" This is the fatal flaw in the program. The whole reason startup culture exists is that we don't have a way of knowing in advance what ideas are really worth pursuing, short of giving them a try. But this program would create a board of experts whose…
To be fair, this was not at all part of the original proposal; it's one of those idiotic riders tacked on by politicians after they get their hands on something. The only "approval" required was in the form of investors stumping up cash. Any accreditation should be of the investors , not the the founders.
So my one data point says: a good US immigration lawyer and an accountant who understands how to value software companies does do the trick.
The E2 Treaty Investor:
Nationals of qualifying Treaty countries who have made a significant investment in the United States may qualify for E2 Treaty Investor status. Like the E1 visa, there is no set minimum level of investment which may qualify for E2 status, but the lower the investment the less likely one is to qualify. Again, the level of investment must be sufficient to justify the treaty national (or his/her employees) presence in the United States. The investment must be in an operating business – i.e. simply buying property or stocks and bonds does not qualify. Also, a substantial part of the investment must have been made before applying for E2 status.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, there is potential for abuse: a startup founder gets an "investment" of $500k from an accredited angel and a permanent resident visa. A little while later, the startup takes an exit (e.g. dissolves the company and returns the assets to the investor), netting the founder a greencard in the process.
If you've got somebody willing to wire you $500k, you can basically do that already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_visa
A better solution would be to just fix immigration. Adopt something similar to the Commonwealth point system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_Skilled_Migrant_Programm... , where you get points for being young, educated, in a useful profession, etc. Get enough points and you're automatically allowed in. A system like this would reduce the distortion, and allow talented people into the country to bootstrap or e.g. w…