11 ms·

Senators Kerry & Lugar Introduce the Startup Visa Act

226 points by icey 17y ago

geebee 17y ago
Would John Kerry, a lawyer, introduce legislation that might make it easier for foreign lawyers to come into the United States to start new law firms? No way.
- coryl 17y ago
  US has a surplus of lawyers, and a shortage of good entrepreneurs.
rajat 17y ago
Why not just expand the number of qualified people to which we give green cards? Admit that if you qualify for a H1-B visa, you should be eligible for a green card. This eliminates H1-B visa abuses, protects the H1-B applicant from abuse, and most importantly, allows skilled people to come to this country. Some of them will undoubtedly start their own companies. We might have a serious illegal immigration problem in this country, but admitting skilled immigrants is certainly something we should want to encourage.
- davemc500hats 17y ago
  this is a reasonable suggestion, and it is currently being addressed by other proposed immigration legislation. however, our proposed legislation simply focuses on making visas available to people who can help 1) create jobs, 2) create innovation, and 3) create economic output. the two are not mutually exclusive, and are likely even complementary. however, this does not mean they have to be merged, and they can be worked on indepedently. (that said, it is likely all such legislation will be considered in a comprehensive immigration bill supported by the left & the right sometime this year... we hope :)
tptacek 17y ago
This is a bill that proposes to give US venture capitalists the overt ability to terminate the residency status of founders and their families. Not only do you have to get sponsored by an effectively arbitrary class of financiers (it is possible that Warren Buffet wouldn't qualify under these terms, depending on whether he has personally made 2 equity investments last year), but even if your company creates 10 US jobs and is cash-flow-positive, if you don't raise $1MM in capital or make $1MM in revenue, you're out.
- icey 17y ago
  By "overt ability to terminate the residency status..." you mean that they can opt to not further invest, right? I couldn't see anything that gave them the ability to otherwise control the status of the visa holders; but it's possible that I missed some nuance in the bill. I think the goal is to prevent abuse of loopholes as much as possible - stopping corporations from becoming "investors" in order to circumvent the H1-B hiring caps. I agree with you about the requirements for continuation being overly lofty though.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    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.
    - neurotech1 17y ago
      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 possible to start a company overseas, get far enough along to secure $250k in VC funding. Also, I would be surprised to find a successful startup that can't get $1m in revenue within 2 years. While a VC can control additional investments, they have less control over revenue than most founders. A successful start-up should not be dependent on VC funding after 2 years unless it grows exponentially and needs the funds for growth. Also the terms after 2 years are less than for an existing EB-5 visa.
philwelch 17y ago
I guess Boston has startups but I didn't think Indiana had a lot. This is going to help Silicon Valley more than Boston or Indy--where are Feinstein and Boxer?
- Towle_ 17y ago
  It's not about how many startups Indiana has. It's about Lugar.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    Aside from keeping him in the news, how does this help Lugar? More to the point, how does this help Lugar in Indiana?
    - mlinsey 17y ago
      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.
      - philwelch 17y ago
        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.
        mlinsey 17y ago
        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)
vaksel 17y ago
I don't think this is about startups...I think this is about bringing already semi-successful companies into US.
- fnid2 17y ago
  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 business or 10 years? Why not let those people in too? They create jobs. This bill is absurd. It's classist. It's contrary to the American dream where hard work and accomplishment is the ticket to wealth, not a check for $500,000. Why don't we just remove the veil and call it what it is, "The Rich Man's Visa".
  - icey 17y ago
    The EB-5 visa (the "investor's visa") has been in place since 1990. The article mentions that half of the available visas under EB-5 go unused, which is where this bill is suggesting additional visas be allocated. The bill that's just been introduced doesn't require the entrepreneur to do anything except start a business and be funded. After 2 years they either have to garner more funding or have over $1,000,000 in revenues. I'm more than a little confused as to how you see this as being "the rich man's visa", especially in light of the fact that the existing EB-5 program fits that nickname much more accurately.
    - seldo 17y ago
      Yes, this is just the "slightly poorer than the EB5 man's visa", with the added stipulation that they have to create jobs, which seems like a great side-effect. Fundamentally US immigration needs reform to a points-based system. But this is a relatively quick and simple tweak that would create a lot of jobs.
  - davidw 17y ago
fnid2 17y ago
If anyone wants to buy a ticket to the U.S., I have lots of startups you can invest in! Just send me the money and we'll start the paperwork.
briansmith 17y ago
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 accelerate the creation of startups by our friends that are already here. Edit: Above I said "a 3-5 year line," which is inaccurate. The current line is 7-9 years long.
- pg 17y ago
  That's such a dishonest way of describing the situation that it's hard to believe it wasn't deliberate. You describe this bill as if it merely allowed powerful people to get their friends into the country, and it's not like that at all. Startup investors are not identical with the rich and connected. Angel investors are generally fairly rich, but not all VCs are. And they're not choosing people at random to bring into the country. They have to invest money in someone's startup to do that.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    What does it matter if there are good, hardworking, "non-rich" VCs? There are also bad, lazy, well-connected VCs. You're evoking the intentions behind this bill as if they mattered.
    - pg 17y ago
      In this particular case the reason it matters is that it makes briansmith's comment false.
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
      - netcan 17y ago
        I don't think so. He says "this would just allow." Maybe he didn't qualify it with "the unintended consequence of this bill" or similar but its pretty clear what he means.
maxklein 17y ago
That's pretty cool. So all I need to do is to get a friend of mine to register as an Angel, then give him 100k I've got my Visa. A lot of people can raise 100k - this seems like it would cause a lot of immigration to happen.
- icey 17y ago
  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.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    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.
    - icey 17y ago
      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.
      - tptacek 17y ago
        It wouldn't be fraud. Reread the bill.
      - davemc500hats 17y ago
        there are obvious rqmts to qualify that require time and effort in addition to capital, and a track record of investment over at least 3 years and 6 previous companies. there are obvious penalties which would be incurred if someone intentionally abused this system. legislation does not prevent all types of abuse, however we have attempted to reasonably make it unlikely that such abuse would not occur without great cost and risk to the perpetrators. we believe we have done a responsible job in drafting the legislation to avoid this. exact language will depend on how the bill gets negotiated before final vote.
freetard 17y ago
Let's hope it will get voted faster than health care...
djb_hackernews 17y ago
What if there are multiple founders? Do you need 1Mil per founder after 3 years? Can only one company be started per EB-6? I really really hope we get a profile of the people and companies that get started if this bill passes.
alex_c 17y ago
As someone who might be interested in this if it passes, I think it's a step in the right direction, and I don't really understand the objections. I think this is much better than an H1-B. In many ways, you have more control over your fate as an entrepreneur than as an employee - I've seen mentions of entrepreneurial servitude, but working for a company on a H1-B seems like a much more precarious position. In addition, with this proposed visa there are clear targets to hit - you know what you're getting into upfront. Talking about rich people bringing their friends into the country... as far as I understand it, it sounds like EB-5 is still much better suited for that. Pay $500,000 to start a business somewhere in rural America, and you're done - no strings attached, no work required (the business doesn't even have to be successful, unlike this proposal).
- kvs 17y ago
  It's true current H1-B is broken or favors the employer. I think a fairly easy fix to that is to not bind H1-B to an employer and let the employee move around within the scope of the visa. This can alleviate some employers who take advantage of H1-B holders.
davemc500hats 17y ago
sorry i'm just seeing this thread now; been working all morning / early afternoon keeping up with posts & info on Startup Visa Act. i'll do my best to comment where appropriate based on my understanding of the proposed legislation. 1) people who want to "buy a VISA" (aka have the money to invest in a new business already) wouldn't need any new legislation. the existing EB-5 handles this. 2) VCs have no specific control over entrepreneurs ability to qualify / remain in the US, however the entrepreneur is initially required to get at least one sponsoring US entity (VC or qualifying angel) to support the application and invest at least $100K. for renewal, they would have to qualify either by reaching profitability at a $1M revenue run rate, creating a minimum of 5 US jobs, or achieving a subsequent round of financing of at least $1M. True there are a few edge cases which might not qualify, however we're doing the best we can to draft legislation which is reasonable in most cases. (creating 5 US jobs in 2 years is a fairly low bar, which should be substantially easier than getting to break-even on at least $1M revenue, or raising subsequent capital). 3) it is not my understanding that creation of this new class will put substantial hardship on processing other types of visas, altho obviously the cost in time & resources is non-zero. that said, since most of the rqmts for the application process in this new visa class are market-based, not based on bureaucratic review, we expect to have a faster processing time than for other types of visas (and hopefully would not slow down existing visa processing much if at all). for more info, please see http://StartupVisa.com http://StartupVisa.com
- davemc500hats 17y ago
  (note: in #1 above, i have no opinion on whether people are "buying" visas... that's a subjective interpretation. what i meant to say is that the new legislation is specifically for people who DO NOT own the capital directly, but who raise it from other investors)
- aditya 17y ago
  Dave, I think the big issue most people on here are having, is the fact that if you fail to either create 5 jobs or revenue of $1MM or a larger VC round, you get kicked back to your own country despite having invested 2 years and all the effort that comes with planting your roots in a completely new country. It is hard to understand this if you've (and I'm not calling you out) never switched countries but the older you get the harder it becomes to simply pick up and move and since you are at the mercy of either the VCs in raising a new round or the market in creating a sustainable entity it becomes less attractive as an immigration option. What if you do create 5 jobs and then tank in a year? Even if you have a million users? An easier solution would be to give everyone with a successful track record of being an upstanding citizen (paid taxes, earned > $xxx amount, has a professional qualification) immediate permanent residency exactly like the UK and Canada and not tie it to metrics that are hard to measure and achieve in a short amount of time.
TheTarquin 17y ago
I'll preface my comments by saying that, as a libertarian, I'm a fan of pretty much anything that opens the US up to greater immigration. That being said, this reads to me more like a publicity stunt than an actual gateway to bringing successful entrepreneurs to the US. The effort required to hunt down qualifying talent overseas and to hook them up with VCs willing to make a (sizable) investment seems like it would make it significantly less attractive than finding a domestic startup in need of funds. If they want a way to really bring skilled people into the US, they could start by heavily revising or completely doing away with the execrable immigration quota system: http://www.immigralaw.com/english/immigrationquotas.html http://www.immigralaw.com/english/immigrationquotas.html
Aegean 17y ago
I don't see why it is so capital-oriented. It is certainly better than nothing, but a fairer scheme would also include skills assessment. Otherwise its against the nature of entrepreneurship - venture capital is not a prerequisite to a successful startup, its only one of the helpful ingredients. On such a thing like visa where it is a yes or no situation, it shouldn't just depend on availability of venture capital.
- davemc500hats 17y ago
  "skills assessment" is typically a more SUB-jective metric. subjective metrics are more easily misjudged, misinterpreted, and likely more time-intensive to audit (read: subject to abuse by bureaucracy & likely to increase processing times). raising capital, creating jobs, or making revenue are very OB-jective metrics, and are much less easily abused or compromised (read: determined easily by provable data, likely to not be interfered with or misinterpreted by bureaucrats, and likely to streamline / reduce processing times). in other words, market data & stats are provable & will likely speed up the process. there is nothing quite so unfair or undemocratic as an INS official who has had a bad day, is misinformed, or is behind on paperwork -- or heaven forbid all of the above. we hope to avoid this situation by making the Startup Visa rqmts very easily objective & provable based on verifiable data.
BerislavLopac 17y ago
I agree with the commenters saying that this is not the right way to solve things. If you want more entrepeneurial talents, get the money out of the States, not the people in.
DavidCh 17y ago
Canada has something similar. http://www.canadaimmigrationlaw.net/Immigration/investor.htm http://www.canadaimmigrationlaw.net/Immigration/investor.htm
vidli 17y ago
We posted a comical (and informative) post about this a few months ago. We're calling this Victory Update #1 (and it is, it really is). Who would have thought...John Kerry is the latest Wizard in the "Lord of the Visa." http://blog.vidli.com/startup-visa/ http://blog.vidli.com/startup-visa/
cuttinedg 17y ago
Every initiative can be used wisely or misused. Understanding atoms led to Hiroshima as well as clean fuel. I am a US resident based out of India and mentor a few students. I do talk a lot of PG and recently one of my students asked me as to why YCombinator would not come down to India to organize a camp and find worthy ideas deserving funding. These are students who, in the current scenario, need to first head over to US on a student or work visa, and then apply for YC funding. By the time they do that, most of them would have missed out a few precious years from the age PG writes about as the golden age for taking risks (and I agree). This visa opens up those doors. Yes, it can be misused, but if a little use comes out of it and benefit the world, that is good enough. US is losing out to India and China with respect to having a whole new generation being highly educated. This visa is a great measure to continue to attract talent from world over.
winter_blue 17y ago
I'm really impressed at how quickly the US government responds to the demands of its citizens. (in this instance, a demand for a startup visa.) US is an example of true democracy. In countries like India, it can take several years to get simple demands of the people into law. Most politicians there are incredibly self-interested and care little about the people. (I'm not saying US politicians are not self-interested, but at least they listen to their people. If only the governments of India and other countries in similar situations began listening to their people's demands.. then these countries would be so much better off.
- alex_c 17y ago
  I'm very happy about this proposal, and I certainly hope it passes, but the cynical part of me has to note a few things: 1) This hasn't passed yet. Let's see what happens, the US government is a bit deadlocked right now. 2) I'm not convinced this happens very often. Maybe I'm wrong. 3) I can't help but notice that the demand comes from VCs and investors - people who control large sums of money - rather than "citizens" or "people" in the broader sense.
  - davemc500hats 17y ago
    re: 1&2 -- yep, it hasn't passed yet... which is why we're still working on getting support & attention, and why a group of us is going to DC next month to discuss the issue with elected representatives. re: 3 -- um, "investors are people too". actually, what you should notice is that the "demand" came from people who were concerned enough to take action, and try and get something to happen. i can't disagree that it helps to have people on your side who can help with dollars and connections, but the more important point is that people cared enough to spend time & energy to make change. with a little luck, we might get it all the way across the finish line.
    - alex_c 17y ago
      My point was that if, say, a group of unknown entrepreneurs was pushing for it instead of a high profile portion of the investment community, I am skeptical that anything would get done so quickly. It's not a value judgement, it's an observation - that's what influence is! Don't get me wrong - I definitely appreciate what you guys are doing. I'll probably be first in line to apply if this passes, so thank you, and best of luck!
rms 17y ago
PG, did you do any lobbying or anything beyond writing an essay on the startup visa? How do you think Kerry heard about it? Edit: I answered my own question, startupvisa.com is the group that did the lobbying. http://startupvisa.com/about/ http://startupvisa.com/about/
ojbyrne 17y ago
As someone who's been in the US for 3 years now (not consecutive) on various work visas, and have been involved in startups, my opinion is - This thing sucks less than the current situation. It's just not possible for the US government to fix things in a revolutionary fashion, but every little (very little) step forward is still a good thing.
known 17y ago
http://www.canadavisa.com/alberta-provincial-nominee-program.html http://www.canadavisa.com/alberta-provincial-nominee-program... is also good
lisabethc 17y ago
Seems to be a lot of confusion here. If you fail to meet the requirements after two years - you don't get kicked out of the country. You just can't get a green card via this method and you will need a new visa. If your start-up is still viable you could try to get an H1-B etc through it, or go get yourself another job. All visa holders are used to this kind of precarious situation already - loose your job, drop/get kicked out of school etc and it does not matter how long you have lived here, how much property you own, how many US degrees you have, you are on a ticking clock. Startup visa is a move in the right direction - it adds another viable path to permanent residency. A path other than joining a big company and relying on them for example.
- muriithi 17y ago
  I doubt getting a H1B will be an option in this case. If companies could sponsor their co-owners for H1B I bet that is what everyone would be doing. IANAL so I could be wrong.
  - lisabethc 17y ago
    A co-owner can be sponsored for an H1-B. I have seen it done. But you have all the normal H1-B issues e.g., prevailing wage. Also the word from immigration lawyers is to expect it to be much harder for small startups to get H1-Bs for any of their employees this year ... very bad news.
  - lisabethc 17y ago
    The O-1 class of visa is also an option, no prevailing wage requirement. So that is more attractive for a startup employee/founder. But you have to meet the "outstanding" requirement. H1B and O1 apps cost the company applying approx $5000.
patrickk 17y ago
By definition this bill would exclude YC type startups. The legislation doesn't reflect the downward cost of launching a startup because of things like open source software, falling rents due to economic climate, cheaper bandwidth, remote web hosting etc. Most legislation in most countries is reactionary and out of date by the time it's passed into law, and unfortunately this seems to be the case here too. Still, credit must go to those involved for the effort made, it a step in the right direction.

226 points by icey 17y ago

Would John Kerry, a lawyer, introduce legislation that might make it easier for foreign lawyers to come into the United States to start new law firms? No way.

coryl 17y ago
US has a surplus of lawyers, and a shortage of good entrepreneurs.

rajat 17y ago

Why not just expand the number of qualified people to which we give green cards? Admit that if you qualify for a H1-B visa, you should be eligible for a green card. This eliminates H1-B visa abuses, protects the H1-B applicant from abuse, and most importantly, allows skilled people to come to this country. Some of them will undoubtedly start their own companies. We might have a serious illegal immigration problem in this country, but admitting skilled immigrants is certainly something we should want to encourage.

davemc500hats 17y ago
this is a reasonable suggestion, and it is currently being addressed by other proposed immigration legislation. however, our proposed legislation simply focuses on making visas available to people who can help 1) create jobs, 2) create innovation, and 3) create economic output. the two are not mutually exclusive, and are likely even complementary. however, this does not mean they have to be merged, and they can be worked on indepedently. (that said, it is likely all such legislation will be considered in a comprehensive immigration bill supported by the left & the right sometime this year... we hope :)

tptacek 17y ago

This is a bill that proposes to give US venture capitalists the overt ability to terminate the residency status of founders and their families. Not only do you have to get sponsored by an effectively arbitrary class of financiers (it is possible that Warren Buffet wouldn't qualify under these terms, depending on whether he has personally made 2 equity investments last year), but even if your company creates 10 US jobs and is cash-flow-positive, if you don't raise $1MM in capital or make $1MM in revenue, you're out.

icey 17y ago
By "overt ability to terminate the residency status..." you mean that they can opt to not further invest, right? I couldn't see anything that gave them the ability to otherwise control the status of the visa holders; but it's possible that I missed some nuance in the bill. I think the goal is to prevent abuse of loopholes as much as possible - stopping corporations from becoming "investors" in order to circumvent the H1-B hiring caps. I agree with you about the requirements for continuation being overly lofty though.
- tptacek 17y ago
  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.
  - neurotech1 17y ago
    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 possible to start a company overseas, get far enough along to secure $250k in VC funding. Also, I would be surprised to find a successful startup that can't get $1m in revenue within 2 years. While a VC can control additional investments, they have less control over revenue than most founders. A successful start-up should not be dependent on VC funding after 2 years unless it grows exponentially and needs the funds for growth. Also the terms after 2 years are less than for an existing EB-5 visa.

philwelch 17y ago

I guess Boston has startups but I didn't think Indiana had a lot. This is going to help Silicon Valley more than Boston or Indy--where are Feinstein and Boxer?

Towle_ 17y ago
It's not about how many startups Indiana has. It's about Lugar.
- philwelch 17y ago
  Aside from keeping him in the news, how does this help Lugar? More to the point, how does this help Lugar in Indiana?
  - mlinsey 17y ago
    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.
    - philwelch 17y ago
      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.
      - mlinsey 17y ago
        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)

vaksel 17y ago

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

fnid2 17y ago
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 business or 10 years? Why not let those people in too? They create jobs. This bill is absurd. It's classist. It's contrary to the American dream where hard work and accomplishment is the ticket to wealth, not a check for $500,000. Why don't we just remove the veil and call it what it is, "The Rich Man's Visa".
- icey 17y ago
  The EB-5 visa (the "investor's visa") has been in place since 1990. The article mentions that half of the available visas under EB-5 go unused, which is where this bill is suggesting additional visas be allocated. The bill that's just been introduced doesn't require the entrepreneur to do anything except start a business and be funded. After 2 years they either have to garner more funding or have over $1,000,000 in revenues. I'm more than a little confused as to how you see this as being "the rich man's visa", especially in light of the fact that the existing EB-5 program fits that nickname much more accurately.
  - seldo 17y ago
    Yes, this is just the "slightly poorer than the EB5 man's visa", with the added stipulation that they have to create jobs, which seems like a great side-effect. Fundamentally US immigration needs reform to a points-based system. But this is a relatively quick and simple tweak that would create a lot of jobs.
- davidw 17y ago

fnid2 17y ago

If anyone wants to buy a ticket to the U.S., I have lots of startups you can invest in! Just send me the money and we'll start the paperwork.

briansmith 17y ago

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 accelerate the creation of startups by our friends that are already here. Edit: Above I said "a 3-5 year line," which is inaccurate. The current line is 7-9 years long.

pg 17y ago
That's such a dishonest way of describing the situation that it's hard to believe it wasn't deliberate. You describe this bill as if it merely allowed powerful people to get their friends into the country, and it's not like that at all. Startup investors are not identical with the rich and connected. Angel investors are generally fairly rich, but not all VCs are. And they're not choosing people at random to bring into the country. They have to invest money in someone's startup to do that.
- tptacek 17y ago
  What does it matter if there are good, hardworking, "non-rich" VCs? There are also bad, lazy, well-connected VCs. You're evoking the intentions behind this bill as if they mattered.
  - pg 17y ago
    In this particular case the reason it matters is that it makes briansmith's comment false.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - netcan 17y ago
      I don't think so. He says "this would just allow." Maybe he didn't qualify it with "the unintended consequence of this bill" or similar but its pretty clear what he means.

maxklein 17y ago

That's pretty cool. So all I need to do is to get a friend of mine to register as an Angel, then give him 100k I've got my Visa. A lot of people can raise 100k - this seems like it would cause a lot of immigration to happen.

icey 17y ago
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.
- tptacek 17y ago
  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.
  - icey 17y ago
    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.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      It wouldn't be fraud. Reread the bill.
    - davemc500hats 17y ago
      there are obvious rqmts to qualify that require time and effort in addition to capital, and a track record of investment over at least 3 years and 6 previous companies. there are obvious penalties which would be incurred if someone intentionally abused this system. legislation does not prevent all types of abuse, however we have attempted to reasonably make it unlikely that such abuse would not occur without great cost and risk to the perpetrators. we believe we have done a responsible job in drafting the legislation to avoid this. exact language will depend on how the bill gets negotiated before final vote.

freetard 17y ago

Let's hope it will get voted faster than health care...

djb_hackernews 17y ago

What if there are multiple founders? Do you need 1Mil per founder after 3 years? Can only one company be started per EB-6? I really really hope we get a profile of the people and companies that get started if this bill passes.

alex_c 17y ago

As someone who might be interested in this if it passes, I think it's a step in the right direction, and I don't really understand the objections. I think this is much better than an H1-B. In many ways, you have more control over your fate as an entrepreneur than as an employee - I've seen mentions of entrepreneurial servitude, but working for a company on a H1-B seems like a much more precarious position. In addition, with this proposed visa there are clear targets to hit - you know what you're getting into upfront. Talking about rich people bringing their friends into the country... as far as I understand it, it sounds like EB-5 is still much better suited for that. Pay $500,000 to start a business somewhere in rural America, and you're done - no strings attached, no work required (the business doesn't even have to be successful, unlike this proposal).

kvs 17y ago
It's true current H1-B is broken or favors the employer. I think a fairly easy fix to that is to not bind H1-B to an employer and let the employee move around within the scope of the visa. This can alleviate some employers who take advantage of H1-B holders.

davemc500hats 17y ago

sorry i'm just seeing this thread now; been working all morning / early afternoon keeping up with posts & info on Startup Visa Act. i'll do my best to comment where appropriate based on my understanding of the proposed legislation. 1) people who want to "buy a VISA" (aka have the money to invest in a new business already) wouldn't need any new legislation. the existing EB-5 handles this. 2) VCs have no specific control over entrepreneurs ability to qualify / remain in the US, however the entrepreneur is initially required to get at least one sponsoring US entity (VC or qualifying angel) to support the application and invest at least $100K. for renewal, they would have to qualify either by reaching profitability at a $1M revenue run rate, creating a minimum of 5 US jobs, or achieving a subsequent round of financing of at least $1M. True there are a few edge cases which might not qualify, however we're doing the best we can to draft legislation which is reasonable in most cases. (creating 5 US jobs in 2 years is a fairly low bar, which should be substantially easier than getting to break-even on at least $1M revenue, or raising subsequent capital). 3) it is not my understanding that creation of this new class will put substantial hardship on processing other types of visas, altho obviously the cost in time & resources is non-zero. that said, since most of the rqmts for the application process in this new visa class are market-based, not based on bureaucratic review, we expect to have a faster processing time than for other types of visas (and hopefully would not slow down existing visa processing much if at all). for more info, please see http://StartupVisa.com http://StartupVisa.com

davemc500hats 17y ago
(note: in #1 above, i have no opinion on whether people are "buying" visas... that's a subjective interpretation. what i meant to say is that the new legislation is specifically for people who DO NOT own the capital directly, but who raise it from other investors)
aditya 17y ago
Dave, I think the big issue most people on here are having, is the fact that if you fail to either create 5 jobs or revenue of $1MM or a larger VC round, you get kicked back to your own country despite having invested 2 years and all the effort that comes with planting your roots in a completely new country. It is hard to understand this if you've (and I'm not calling you out) never switched countries but the older you get the harder it becomes to simply pick up and move and since you are at the mercy of either the VCs in raising a new round or the market in creating a sustainable entity it becomes less attractive as an immigration option. What if you do create 5 jobs and then tank in a year? Even if you have a million users? An easier solution would be to give everyone with a successful track record of being an upstanding citizen (paid taxes, earned > $xxx amount, has a professional qualification) immediate permanent residency exactly like the UK and Canada and not tie it to metrics that are hard to measure and achieve in a short amount of time.

TheTarquin 17y ago

I'll preface my comments by saying that, as a libertarian, I'm a fan of pretty much anything that opens the US up to greater immigration. That being said, this reads to me more like a publicity stunt than an actual gateway to bringing successful entrepreneurs to the US. The effort required to hunt down qualifying talent overseas and to hook them up with VCs willing to make a (sizable) investment seems like it would make it significantly less attractive than finding a domestic startup in need of funds. If they want a way to really bring skilled people into the US, they could start by heavily revising or completely doing away with the execrable immigration quota system: http://www.immigralaw.com/english/immigrationquotas.html http://www.immigralaw.com/english/immigrationquotas.html

Aegean 17y ago

I don't see why it is so capital-oriented. It is certainly better than nothing, but a fairer scheme would also include skills assessment. Otherwise its against the nature of entrepreneurship - venture capital is not a prerequisite to a successful startup, its only one of the helpful ingredients. On such a thing like visa where it is a yes or no situation, it shouldn't just depend on availability of venture capital.

davemc500hats 17y ago
"skills assessment" is typically a more SUB-jective metric. subjective metrics are more easily misjudged, misinterpreted, and likely more time-intensive to audit (read: subject to abuse by bureaucracy & likely to increase processing times). raising capital, creating jobs, or making revenue are very OB-jective metrics, and are much less easily abused or compromised (read: determined easily by provable data, likely to not be interfered with or misinterpreted by bureaucrats, and likely to streamline / reduce processing times). in other words, market data & stats are provable & will likely speed up the process. there is nothing quite so unfair or undemocratic as an INS official who has had a bad day, is misinformed, or is behind on paperwork -- or heaven forbid all of the above. we hope to avoid this situation by making the Startup Visa rqmts very easily objective & provable based on verifiable data.

BerislavLopac 17y ago

I agree with the commenters saying that this is not the right way to solve things. If you want more entrepeneurial talents, get the money out of the States, not the people in.

DavidCh 17y ago

Canada has something similar. http://www.canadaimmigrationlaw.net/Immigration/investor.htm http://www.canadaimmigrationlaw.net/Immigration/investor.htm

vidli 17y ago

We posted a comical (and informative) post about this a few months ago. We're calling this Victory Update #1 (and it is, it really is). Who would have thought...John Kerry is the latest Wizard in the "Lord of the Visa." http://blog.vidli.com/startup-visa/ http://blog.vidli.com/startup-visa/

cuttinedg 17y ago

Every initiative can be used wisely or misused. Understanding atoms led to Hiroshima as well as clean fuel. I am a US resident based out of India and mentor a few students. I do talk a lot of PG and recently one of my students asked me as to why YCombinator would not come down to India to organize a camp and find worthy ideas deserving funding. These are students who, in the current scenario, need to first head over to US on a student or work visa, and then apply for YC funding. By the time they do that, most of them would have missed out a few precious years from the age PG writes about as the golden age for taking risks (and I agree). This visa opens up those doors. Yes, it can be misused, but if a little use comes out of it and benefit the world, that is good enough. US is losing out to India and China with respect to having a whole new generation being highly educated. This visa is a great measure to continue to attract talent from world over.

winter_blue 17y ago

I'm really impressed at how quickly the US government responds to the demands of its citizens. (in this instance, a demand for a startup visa.) US is an example of true democracy. In countries like India, it can take several years to get simple demands of the people into law. Most politicians there are incredibly self-interested and care little about the people. (I'm not saying US politicians are not self-interested, but at least they listen to their people. If only the governments of India and other countries in similar situations began listening to their people's demands.. then these countries would be so much better off.

alex_c 17y ago
I'm very happy about this proposal, and I certainly hope it passes, but the cynical part of me has to note a few things: 1) This hasn't passed yet. Let's see what happens, the US government is a bit deadlocked right now. 2) I'm not convinced this happens very often. Maybe I'm wrong. 3) I can't help but notice that the demand comes from VCs and investors - people who control large sums of money - rather than "citizens" or "people" in the broader sense.
- davemc500hats 17y ago
  re: 1&2 -- yep, it hasn't passed yet... which is why we're still working on getting support & attention, and why a group of us is going to DC next month to discuss the issue with elected representatives. re: 3 -- um, "investors are people too". actually, what you should notice is that the "demand" came from people who were concerned enough to take action, and try and get something to happen. i can't disagree that it helps to have people on your side who can help with dollars and connections, but the more important point is that people cared enough to spend time & energy to make change. with a little luck, we might get it all the way across the finish line.
  - alex_c 17y ago
    My point was that if, say, a group of unknown entrepreneurs was pushing for it instead of a high profile portion of the investment community, I am skeptical that anything would get done so quickly. It's not a value judgement, it's an observation - that's what influence is! Don't get me wrong - I definitely appreciate what you guys are doing. I'll probably be first in line to apply if this passes, so thank you, and best of luck!

rms 17y ago

PG, did you do any lobbying or anything beyond writing an essay on the startup visa? How do you think Kerry heard about it? Edit: I answered my own question, startupvisa.com is the group that did the lobbying. http://startupvisa.com/about/ http://startupvisa.com/about/

ojbyrne 17y ago

As someone who's been in the US for 3 years now (not consecutive) on various work visas, and have been involved in startups, my opinion is - This thing sucks less than the current situation. It's just not possible for the US government to fix things in a revolutionary fashion, but every little (very little) step forward is still a good thing.

known 17y ago

http://www.canadavisa.com/alberta-provincial-nominee-program.html http://www.canadavisa.com/alberta-provincial-nominee-program... is also good

lisabethc 17y ago

Seems to be a lot of confusion here. If you fail to meet the requirements after two years - you don't get kicked out of the country. You just can't get a green card via this method and you will need a new visa. If your start-up is still viable you could try to get an H1-B etc through it, or go get yourself another job. All visa holders are used to this kind of precarious situation already - loose your job, drop/get kicked out of school etc and it does not matter how long you have lived here, how much property you own, how many US degrees you have, you are on a ticking clock. Startup visa is a move in the right direction - it adds another viable path to permanent residency. A path other than joining a big company and relying on them for example.

muriithi 17y ago
I doubt getting a H1B will be an option in this case. If companies could sponsor their co-owners for H1B I bet that is what everyone would be doing. IANAL so I could be wrong.
- lisabethc 17y ago
  A co-owner can be sponsored for an H1-B. I have seen it done. But you have all the normal H1-B issues e.g., prevailing wage. Also the word from immigration lawyers is to expect it to be much harder for small startups to get H1-Bs for any of their employees this year ... very bad news.
- lisabethc 17y ago
  The O-1 class of visa is also an option, no prevailing wage requirement. So that is more attractive for a startup employee/founder. But you have to meet the "outstanding" requirement. H1B and O1 apps cost the company applying approx $5000.

patrickk 17y ago

By definition this bill would exclude YC type startups. The legislation doesn't reflect the downward cost of launching a startup because of things like open source software, falling rents due to economic climate, cheaper bandwidth, remote web hosting etc. Most legislation in most countries is reactionary and out of date by the time it's passed into law, and unfortunately this seems to be the case here too. Still, credit must go to those involved for the effort made, it a step in the right direction.