Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

startupvisa.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 225 posts

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#41

Post by tptacek »

neurotech1 wrote: post #35
tptacek wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the text of the proposed bill: ‘‘(3) SPONSORED ENTREPRENEURS.—The Sec- retary of Homeland Security shall terminate the per- manent resident status of a sponsored entrepreneur and the alien spouse and children of such entre- preneur if the Secretary determines, not later than 3 years after the date on which such permanent resi- dent status was conferred, that— ‘‘(A) the qualified venture capitalist or qualified…

You did mis-interpret the gist of the bill. The VC funders have less significantly less control than a employer of a H-1B visa. Basically they are saying you have a 2 years (max 3 years) to meet the requirements (investment and jobs)of the visa, or go home. A EB-5 visa has a 2 year "conditional status" along similar lines. A H-1B visa, the employer can terminate your job, and you have 30 days to leave the country. A…

H1-Bs are also bad. And, H1-B's aside, I'm not sure you actually refuted my interpretation of the bill. I cited its plain text.

My question is, is there some other law or propose legislation that mitigates the impact of this bill? If there is, I'll stand corrected.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#42

Post by icey »

tptacek wrote: post #40
icey wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've proposed strict requirements as to who can perform these kinds of investments in order to prevent the kind of loophole you're describing.

Those requirements are, in their entirety: that you are an accredited investor, and that you've made 2 $50k equity investments within the last 3 years.

Ha, okay so "strict requirements" is not the right way to describe it.

To do what Max was talking about would only require $200K to get in the door, and the willingness of an accredited investor to commit fraud.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#43

Post by tptacek »

neurotech1 wrote: post #33
tptacek wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. If you start a company that employs 5 Americans and generates $900,000 in revenue, any VC you negotiate with gets to factor "deportation" into their terms.

From the senate statement; " a minimum of $250,000 -- into the immigrant's startup venture. If after two years the immigrant entrepreneur can show that he or she has generated at least 5 full-time jobs in the United States, attracted $1,000,000 in additional investment capital, or achieved $1,000,000 in revenue, then he or she would receive permanent legal resident status." My personal thoughts are that it should be…

Have you beat $1MM in revenue within 2 years of starting? We did.

(a) It wasn't easy.

(b) Before we beat that metric, we were still --- by virtually anyone on Hacker News' metrics --- a successful enterprise: growing, in control of our destiny, working on meaningful things, creating jobs.

The metrics in this bill are arbitrary (to put it charitably; there's an uncharitable interpretation too). A Thai entrepeneur who can create 5 viable US jobs should be granted a visa without an "angel investment". A Thai entrepreneur who can create viable jobs should be granted a visa without a postage stamp.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#44

Post by tptacek »

icey wrote: post #42
tptacek wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those requirements are, in their entirety: that you are an accredited investor, and that you've made 2 $50k equity investments within the last 3 years.

Ha, okay so "strict requirements" is not the right way to describe it. To do what Max was talking about would only require $200K to get in the door, and the willingness of an accredited investor to commit fraud.

It wouldn't be fraud. Reread the bill.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#45

Post by davidw »

fnid2 wrote: post #21
vaksel wrote: post #15

I don't think this is about startups...I think this is about bringing already semi-successful companies into US.

It's not about successful companies. You can have one of those without investing $500,000 into it. Make no mistake, this visa is about helping rich people make more money by enabling them to collaborate with other rich people around the world. If that is not true, then entrepreneurs should be allowed into the country whether or not they've invested $500k into a business. What if you've invested 3 years into a busines…

Anything that lets in more people who will make a positive contribution (as long as they aren't criminals) is fine by me.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#46

Post by tptacek »

davidw wrote: post #45
fnid2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about successful companies. You can have one of those without investing $500,000 into it. Make no mistake, this visa is about helping rich people make more money by enabling them to collaborate with other rich people around the world. If that is not true, then entrepreneurs should be allowed into the country whether or not they've invested $500k into a business. What if you've invested 3 years into a busines…

Anything that lets in more people who will make a positive contribution (as long as they aren't criminals) is fine by me.

I'm guessing fnid, like me, wants those people in too. I'm not sure the candidate pool is the real objection here.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#47

Post by davidw »

tptacek wrote: post #46
davidw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything that lets in more people who will make a positive contribution (as long as they aren't criminals) is fine by me.

I'm guessing fnid, like me, wants those people in too. I'm not sure the candidate pool is the real objection here.

The objection seems to be that it's imperfect, which is almost certainly true. It would be good to push them to improve it, but when all is said and done, we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#48

Post by Confusion »

neurotech1 wrote: post #35
tptacek wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the text of the proposed bill: ‘‘(3) SPONSORED ENTREPRENEURS.—The Sec- retary of Homeland Security shall terminate the per- manent resident status of a sponsored entrepreneur and the alien spouse and children of such entre- preneur if the Secretary determines, not later than 3 years after the date on which such permanent resi- dent status was conferred, that— ‘‘(A) the qualified venture capitalist or qualified…

You did mis-interpret the gist of the bill. The VC funders have less significantly less control than a employer of a H-1B visa. Basically they are saying you have a 2 years (max 3 years) to meet the requirements (investment and jobs)of the visa, or go home. A EB-5 visa has a 2 year "conditional status" along similar lines. A H-1B visa, the employer can terminate your job, and you have 30 days to leave the country. A…

You did mis-interpret the gist of the bill.

The gist is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is what it actually says.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#49

Post by andreyf »

neurotech1 wrote: post #35
tptacek wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the text of the proposed bill: ‘‘(3) SPONSORED ENTREPRENEURS.—The Sec- retary of Homeland Security shall terminate the per- manent resident status of a sponsored entrepreneur and the alien spouse and children of such entre- preneur if the Secretary determines, not later than 3 years after the date on which such permanent resi- dent status was conferred, that— ‘‘(A) the qualified venture capitalist or qualified…

You did mis-interpret the gist of the bill. The VC funders have less significantly less control than a employer of a H-1B visa. Basically they are saying you have a 2 years (max 3 years) to meet the requirements (investment and jobs)of the visa, or go home. A EB-5 visa has a 2 year "conditional status" along similar lines. A H-1B visa, the employer can terminate your job, and you have 30 days to leave the country. A…

You're saying the same thing. To put it plainly, what I think tptacek is saying, is that after 3 years, investors have a strong upper hand in negotiating a round, knowing that "Homeland Security" has set an artificial bar for how much a company must raise if the founders are to stay in the country.

Edit: he said it explicitly here - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1148789

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#50

Post by ericb »

briansmith wrote: post #26

This would just allow the rich and connected to choose thousands of people to budge to the front of a 3-5 year long line that other green gard applicants (EB-3) are waiting in. If there are resources available to process more EB-5's and EB-6's, then put them to use accelerating the process for the people that have already waited years for their applications to be approved. Accelerate that process and you'll accelerat…

Speaking from a country's self interest, don't rich people benefit the country more than poor? Isn't the US better off tax-wise, and wealthier, if it is able to tax a millionaire than a cab driver? Is there something morally objectionable about trying to attract "desirables" or is it just that we need to see the visa process in some way as "fair?"
Post reply on HN