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

51–60 of 225 posts

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#51

Post by chime »

ericb wrote: post #50
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?"

> don't rich people benefit the country more than poor?

Questions like that cannot be answered in any definite manner. If the rich use their capital to create wealth, then it benefits the country. If the rich use it to alter public policy to their advantage, then it harms the country. A new visa process should not enable the rich to game the system unfairly to their advantage at the expense of other prospective applicants.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#52

Post by phreanix »

tptacek wrote: post #8
lionhearted wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a bill that proposes to give US venture capitalists the overt ability to terminate the residency status of founders and their families. False. "To make visas available, we would amend immigration law to create a new EB-6 category for immigrant entrepreneurs. We would draw from existing visas under the EB-5 category. The EB-5 permits foreign nationals who invest at $1 million in the U.S., and thereby creates…

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…

Quick glance and please correct me if I got this wrong:

This only affects immigrants with permanent residency status who have been sponsored through this bill/law. You stated:

"This is a bill that proposes to give US venture capitalists the overt ability to terminate the residency status of founders and their families."

True in the sense that if the sponsored entrepreneur was unable to fulfill the job creation, capital investment, and revenue generation terms, then they technically were unable to create a successful enterprise. Any foreign 'entrepreneur' worth his salt should and must know of this requirement and in the awareness of it, must have prepared himself and his family for the consequences.

As for part (A) "...the qualified venture capitalist or qualified super angel investor who sponsored the entrepreneur failed to meet the investment requirements..."

I think this refers to the initial requirements that needed to have been met before the foreign entrepreneur is approved for residency. It could be that the VC committed to the investment (That IS a bitambiguous, but from experience, immigration officials will approve an application and give you a chance to fulfill a financial commitment some time after the sponsored entrepreneur has arrived, provided they are satisfied with whatever guarantee docs you've filed with them.) but was unable to fulfill it, so Homeland Security will start the process of terminating the permanent residency status of the sponsored entrepreneur.

Can this be twisted around by an 'evil' VC? I believe any system CAN be abused around given enough motivation. In this case, if I were an evil VC who convinced Mr. Chatroulette founder from Russia to come to America to blow his idea up 1000x through me, I'd bring him in, dupe him into signing his life away in a 'partnership', promise Homeland Security that I will fulfill my financial commitments, squeeze everything I can from this naive new sponsored entrepreneur in the 6mos-1yr that Homeland Security will take to enforce my commitment, then not pay up. Back to Russia goes 'sponsored entrepreneur' and his concept/resources stay here in the US.

Bottom line for all parties, due diligence. I believe the bill is being put forward in good faith. I believe that they believe it can create jobs. I believe that it is possible it can.

But all things considered, I'd rather concentrate resources on finding the cream of the crop in the US and helping THEM.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#53

Post by tptacek »

phreanix wrote: post #52
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…

Quick glance and please correct me if I got this wrong: This only affects immigrants with permanent residency status who have been sponsored through this bill/law. You stated: "This is a bill that proposes to give US venture capitalists the overt ability to terminate the residency status of founders and their families." True in the sense that if the sponsored entrepreneur was unable to fulfill the job creation, capit…

I believe this bill was conceived with the best of intentions. I believe everybody advocating it, including venture capitalists, are advocating with the best of intentions.

But their intentions don't matter at all. What matters is the law that the bill will create. And, as I read it, the law that this bill creates will have unintended negative consequences both for immigration and entrepreneurship.

Your last sentence? I absolutely, 100% agree.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#55

Post by ajju »

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…

I don't get it. The bill does not require the entrepreneur to have $500,000. It requires that the company raise a million dollars (and/or) earn a million dollars (and/or) create 5 jobs in 3 years AFTER the visa is issued.

Now I am not a lawyer, so I would really like to know if it is "and" or "or", but I don't see where it requires the entrepreneur to be rich.

Am I misunderstanding the text?

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#56

Post by fnid2 »

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…

It's entrepreneurial servitude. You come in and build a business to our specifications, making a certain amount of money for the rich investors or you lose your rights to live here.

When the entrepreneur is booted out because (s)he was unable to generate $1M in revenue a year after 2 years in business, what happens to the business? Do the investors retain ownership? What legal rights does the entrepreneur have over the business (s)he created?

There are no laws in America protecting the rights of these entrepreneurs who are not citizens. They are here to build a business, hopefully, but if they miss the marks, they lose everything! Their home, their business, their employees, and potentially the rights to any revenues, IP, or equity in the company they founded. Do you think some rich investors who have the ability to have our nation's laws changed to their favor are going to stop taking money out of a business because its entrepreneur isn't allowed to live in the U.S. anymore? It'll be business as usual for them, with or without the entrepreneur who created the business.

This bill is good for no one but rich investors. It's definitely not good for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship has absolutely nothing to do with venture capital or investors or people with at least $10M in the bank. It's about creating businesses with the sweat off your back. If we are going to reward something -- reward that -- no strings attached!

Especially not strings attached to the fingers of the same rich folks who have caused so many problems in our nation already!

This is so horrible. What is happening to our country??

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#57

Post by tptacek »

fnid2 wrote: post #56
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…

It's entrepreneurial servitude. You come in and build a business to our specifications, making a certain amount of money for the rich investors or you lose your rights to live here. When the entrepreneur is booted out because (s)he was unable to generate $1M in revenue a year after 2 years in business, what happens to the business? Do the investors retain ownership? What legal rights does the entrepreneur have over t…

That's a good question. What happens to the Americans working for the company when its founder is forced to leave the country?

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#58

Post by odeoncg »

tptacek wrote: post #43
neurotech1 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

True. Until that 1$ in revenue is reached, the company still makes revenue and ensures jobs for people, some might have even more than 5 employees.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#59

Post by jbooth »

tptacek wrote: post #36
jbooth wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I suppose I'm just massively misunderstanding your objection here. It seems that we share the goal of increased immigration of professionals and enabling them to succeed in america, shared prosperity and all of that.. This bill, to me, is incremental progress towards that goal but flawed on some specifics.. do you agree? Is your opposition a case of "not good enough and hold out for better"? The specifics about…

There are two specifics to this bill that I object to. The first is giving venture capitalists this role in public policy. The second is carving out visas for a form of entrepreneurship modeled on VC-funded tech startups. If a business creates jobs, I don't see how it's relevant to public policy that it hits a $1MM revenue threshold or (even more weirdly) a $1MM capital investment requirement.

Well, they need to have some sort of criteria to prevent gaming the system. I think we'd both agree that you can't open the floodgates by investing $1 each in 50 paper businesses in order to get 50 visas.

Re: Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

#60

Post by mlinsey »

philwelch wrote: post #32
mlinsey wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lugar is an institution of his own. He's been in the Senate for 33 years. When you reach that level of incumbency, you stop having to worry about how each bill of yours affects your re-election chances.

Perish the thought, but are you somehow implying a Senator is attempting to be a wise and responsible statesman? That kind of nonsense will never fly in this country.

You can do anything you want with decades long incumbency - be wise and reasonable, be corrupt, pursue eccentric but harmless pet projects, be lazy, be almost anything you want.

I have no idea what Lugar's motives are here, only that getting primaried out or losing to a Democrat in Indiana is not even on his radar screen. (yes, Evan Bayh is from Indiania, but there are no other popular former Democratic governors ready to come out of the woodwork to run against Lugar)

Post reply on HN