Why the U.S. needs a new visa for foreigners who want to start businesses here.

Hopefully that won't pass.

If you have to get 250k under that law (versus 500k-million under the already existing immigration law) then it isn't going to help startups at all, the only thing it is going to do is to prevent a real startup visa law from ever being passed.

A real startup law would not put capital requirements on the company but would require its founders to be able to live of the income and to either hire people or grow a certain amount each year, which some checks to prevent them from being consultants.

As for the small(er) business argument, there are a couple of factors:

1. This visa isn't meant to solve every problem. As soon as you try to solve every problem, you've just guaranteed you're not going to solve any problem; and

2. Arguably someone who is small isn't yet of interest to the American government in terms of being a taxpayer.

As for the successful investor example you've made, you've chosen a (quite deliberate, imho) strawman. The argument has several holes:

1. If you have $1m or more to invest in a business, there is an existing green card program for that;

2. I believe you know this, which is why you've said a couple of hundred thousand. The line has to be somewhere. 5-10 years ago, at least for tech companies, $1 million probably made sense. Does it make sense now? Maybe not. If not, address it by changing the requirements for that separate visa class; and

3. The American government has a vested interest in fostering businesses of American citizens and residents rather than those of foreign residents; and

4. If that person was going to seed invest (ie become an angel), a couple of hundred thousand isn't really enough to do that. Each "bet" they make, even if only $25,000 is simply too high a portion of their total investment pool.

As for the requirements being arbitrary, that's a double edged sword. Sure $1m is enough for an investment-based green card. Why not $950,000? Again, the line has to be drawn somewhere. After all, you're a minor up until you turn 18. Is someone 17 years and 11 months old so vastly different?

The positive side of arbitrary requirements is that they have certainty. Someone can look at those rules and clearly know what they mean and whether or not they qualify.

To give you a counterexample, in Australia the ATO (our equivalent of the IRS) has a discretionary test to decide whether you're "in business" to see if you can manage your tax deductions in a certain way. It's completely vague, sort of a "you'll know it when you see it" kind of test.

The problem of course is that there are still grey areas and humans need to make decisions about whether a given situation qualifies or doesn't.

At least arbitrary rules are clear.

I think you misunderstand current law.

Current law allows for investment-based immigration, meaning that if you have a certain amount of money to invest in a business you can be granted a conditional green card based on the idea that you'll be creating jobs.

The startup visa would allow foreign entrepreneurs to come to the US if they could secure funding from legitimate angels and VCs.

The first situation allows foreign nationals with foreign money to establish businesses (and residency) in the US. The second allows US residents to establish businesses with foreign entrepreneurs, which is almost the exact opposite of the first.

From what I've seen so far this year in bills pushed by the House and Senate that had provisions to assist small businesses and entrepreneurs that have C-corps were weak at best. The originally proposed health legislation pushed by Reid and many other Democrats would have hurt small businesses hard, so they had to tone it down. Finally, a good bit of what I saw in Democratic campaigning this Fall seemed nationalistic, complaining that Republicans were sending jobs overseas, and implying that these Democratic candidates valued Americans getting jobs over foreigners. So, someone try to change my mind and prove to me why Reid and Kerry would be for legislation that would make it easier for foreign entrepreneurs to be successful in the U.S.? Sure Dick Lugar is a Republican, but this post seems to push the idea (imo) that Democrats want to help foreigners make money and that they are pro-small business, neither of which I have seen much evidence of recently. I don't believe Republicans will be loads better, btw. Small businesses and entrepreneurs aren't the most influencial lobbyists in the world, and while angels and VCs have some pull, the only reason they are getting attention now is because supporting small business and entrepreneurs is a politically popular idea.

The current E2 visas don't include a hard-and-fast minimum investment. It has to be sufficient, though : and the interviewer in the Embassy will be the judge of that, ultimately.

For an Internet technology startup, $100k is enough (proven in 1999, and renewed ever since).