Do founders need to move to the US to be efficient? Is it possible to incorporate in the US and run the company from their home country without any hassles?
Check out Stripe Atlas - they do what you're asking for
I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA
361–370 of 418 posts
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#362I’m a citizen of an EU country that meets the Visa Waiver criteria. I’m working for a startup based in the USA. I’m one of the earliest employees, hence a great asset to the company. I’m considering emigrating sometime in the future but I’m unsure what needs to happen to enable it. Is a company-sponsored visa the only option? How inclined are startup founders to sponsor work visas? I’m convinced this is not attainabl…
In my experience, because of the competition for talent, startups often are more open to employing foreign nationals than many large, established companies. The terms EB-1, EB-2, etc. refer to green card categories and the green card process takes a while so that's probably not the initial path toward working in the U.S. The likely visa options will be the L-1 (as a transferee) or an O-1 and oftentimes founding engin…
Understood, thank you!
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not clear to me that “jurisdiction” is being used in the same context in the 14th amendment as in Schooner Exchange. Regardless, I wouldn’t call an argument supported by clear dicta in one Supreme Court case and a solid dissent in another “frivolous.” But I’d put the odds of the Supreme Court ruling in Trump’s favor substantially below 10%. You lose 100% of the shots you don’t take, though.
I feel we could usefully keep in mind another observation of Marshall's quoted in Wong Kim Ark , seperate from his writings in Schooner Exchange mentioned above: "It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subs…
Sure, maybe the Slaughterhouse Cases dicta was just wrong. But maybe there is something in the historical use of “jurisdiction” that sheds more light on what “subject to the jurisdiction” means. I haven’t done the deep dive myself, I’m just unpersuaded by the common law argument in Wong Kim Ark unless that really is all the historical record leaves us to go on.
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Trump said that immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country. You’re substituting a different word here for the word Trump actually used, in an effort to deceive as to the meaning of what he actually said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKPFjAhd3KQ The meaning of what he said is clear in the phrase "poisoning the blood of our country".
No, because you’re pointing to a phrase with a verb and object but no subject. What’s the subject in the actual sentence he said? To whom is he referring?
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#365Are there opportunities for those of us in the USA to take in fiancés from other countries in the current climate? I'm currently in the dating circuit for women who have software engineering backgrounds and this situation has made me very nervous about how I'm going to actually bring a fiancé to the USA now.
Huh? You have multiple marriage worthy relationships ongoing in other countries? Or you’re adopting fiancés from a shelter?
I think the more reasonable interpretation is that OP is currently looking to date someone. They (as one generally does) hope it will go well, in which case they might want to cement their relationship through marriage. However, they are worried that if they do get married, they may not be able to move to the USA with their spouse.
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#366Peter, I'm a software engineer with a FAANG company, ~20 years experience and at the senior staff level. I lived in the US for a while with my family, and we all have green cards. Last year, we moved back to India (where we're from), with re-entry permits that are valid till July 2026. We'd like to continue living in India for a while (the next 8-10 years, till our kids finish school), but also keep our green cards so that we can move to the US afterwards without going through the Indian-citizen green card nightmare, especially for my kids. I go to the US every 3-4 months on work, my family less frequently. Been paying US taxes and no problems continuing to do so, but I don't own a house in the US. Is there a way I can keep my green card while living in India for 8-10 years? Or should I just give it up when my re-entry permit expires, and find a way to apply again?
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#367Hi Peter! Thanks for doing this! I've been watching this thread and reading for so many times but now I have a question. If I come from Australia with an E3 visa, what is the pathway for me to get a greencard? On the US Gov website, the E3 visa is a non-immigrant visa. does this mean that I can't convert to H1B or greencard if I came with E3 visa? Thankyou
There is nothing that says you can't, but you have to convince the consulate that you did not have intent to immigrate when you applied/interviewed for the E3 and entered the US. The restriction is similar for the J1.
You can't land and immediately start applying for a green card, but if say you worked a 2-3 year contract and decided you wanted to stay, you could pursue a green card that you're eligible for. Most immigration firms that specialize in green cards will give you free advice on what the best route is (based on your background).
For some discussion: https://www.lightmanimmigration.com/blog/e-3-visa-green-card...
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone can safely ignore all accusations of “virtue signaling” because it is 1) a manipulative play designed to make you feel like a schmuck for having principles and 2) it is hypocritical in that is does exactly what it suggests you are doing.
No, virtue signalling is a very real thing that's usually easy to see and define. Having principles isn't quite the same as smugly but cheaply signalling some moral stance. I have no idea what you mean with your second statement. Pointing out a case of virtue signalling isn't itself virtue signalling.
Interjecting in a conversation to say someone is virtue signaling and offering up little else is about as smug and cheap as it gets.
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not an immigration lawyer, but I am very interested in immigration law and the effort to overturn this precedent in particular, an interest whch goes back more than 15 years; so I have done a lot of reading on this argument. The whole phrase about 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' refers to the fact that foreign diplomats (and often, their families) are not subject to the jurisdiction of their countries of r…
The contrary view is based on dicta in the Slaughterhouse Cases, decided less than a decade after the 14th amendment: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/36/ > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." > The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest bo…
As has been noted in other responses to you: Dicta are just that, dicta. Moreover, the Reconstruction-era Slaughterhouse Cases arose in the context of the defeated South's often-violent, century-long attempts to preserve "states' rights" (read: white supremacy). Limiting the reach of the 14th Amendment was one facet of that project; Louisiana's lawyer in the case was a prominent opponent of Reconstruction. The Court's 5-4 judgment has long since been shitcanned [0]; in the modern era it's palpably frivolous to cite its dicta as support.
In any event: Longstanding actual practice has followed the conventional interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction"; see, e.g., former British prime minister Boris Johnson, who was born in NYC to British citizens and thus had to pay U.S.-citizen taxes until he renounced his citizenship. [1]
Finally, as has also been noted: No sane person would assert with a straight face that a suspected thief, murderer, or unsafe driver was immune from arrest and prosecution in the U.S., merely because s/he happened to be born in the U.S. to undocumented parents and therefore was supposedly not "subject to the jurisdiction."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases#Analysis
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/08/boris-johns...
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's not a lost battle. Unfortunately, their ESTA applications likely will be rejected outright because of their past B-1/B-2 visa application denials. But it's still possible that they could get B-1/B-2 visas. They should apply again but given their previous denials, they should consult an immigration attorney.
Just to make sure I understand the recommendation: US based immigration attorney for a tourist visa? (I don't want to sponsor them and they have no intention of moving here - they just want to visit and see us & the kids).
I would assume so, since a foreign attorney wouldn't be able to help with US immigration law.