4 ms·

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 abi

by 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.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    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.
    - ajju 17y ago
      Isn't it true that it is $1MM in revenue within 2 years of getting a visa? So you could apply when you had $500K in revenues. Also, I don't know for sure if the qualifying clauses for not being deported have an "and" relationship or an "or" relationship. Do I need to raise a million dollars AND generate a million in revenue AND generate 5 jobs? Or is one of these enough?
      - tptacek 17y ago
        If you're at 500k already, you can probably pull off an EB-5. Regardless, I'm not all that concerned about the 500k entrepreneurs. I'm unclear on the "and" and "or" thing, too, but I think it's equally arbitrary to deport someone with 4 full-time employees for missing a $1MM mark, and I think 5 "full-time" employees is extremely gameable.
        neurotech1 17y ago
        EB-5 says $1M investment NOT $1M revenue My interpretation is that you have 2 years to preform, and if you don't by the 3rd year - then you are deported, and not for missing the 2yr marks. You have 12 months of latitude if your heading in the right direction with employment. I do agree that there is going to be some gaming of the system.
        tptacek 17y ago
        I read the EB-5 rules before I commented. I stand by my comment.
        zmmmmm 17y ago
        > I think 5 "full-time" employees is extremely gameable That's what strikes me. What kind of employee do they need to be? If I employ 5 full time janitors on minimum wage do I get to stay?
    - odeoncg 17y ago
      True. Until that 1$ in revenue is reached, the company still makes revenue and ensures jobs for people, some might have even more than 5 employees.
- davemc500hats 17y ago
  no, you're absolutely incorrect. if you create 5 US jobs, you get to stay. if you don't create 5 US jobs, but can generate EITHER $1M in revenue (at break-even or better), OR raise $1M in additional capital from ANY qualifying investor (doesn't have to be the original one), you get to stay. please read the language carefully -- it does cover the situation adequately. we did take quite a bit of time to consider the exact language, and worked hard to get it to be functional.

by icey 17y ago

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.
- tptacek 17y ago
  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.
  - ajju 17y ago
    Isn't it true that it is $1MM in revenue within 2 years of getting a visa? So you could apply when you had $500K in revenues. Also, I don't know for sure if the qualifying clauses for not being deported have an "and" relationship or an "or" relationship. Do I need to raise a million dollars AND generate a million in revenue AND generate 5 jobs? Or is one of these enough?
    - tptacek 17y ago
      If you're at 500k already, you can probably pull off an EB-5. Regardless, I'm not all that concerned about the 500k entrepreneurs. I'm unclear on the "and" and "or" thing, too, but I think it's equally arbitrary to deport someone with 4 full-time employees for missing a $1MM mark, and I think 5 "full-time" employees is extremely gameable.
      - neurotech1 17y ago
        EB-5 says $1M investment NOT $1M revenue My interpretation is that you have 2 years to preform, and if you don't by the 3rd year - then you are deported, and not for missing the 2yr marks. You have 12 months of latitude if your heading in the right direction with employment. I do agree that there is going to be some gaming of the system.
        tptacek 17y ago
        I read the EB-5 rules before I commented. I stand by my comment.
      - zmmmmm 17y ago
        > I think 5 "full-time" employees is extremely gameable That's what strikes me. What kind of employee do they need to be? If I employ 5 full time janitors on minimum wage do I get to stay?
  - odeoncg 17y ago
    True. Until that 1$ in revenue is reached, the company still makes revenue and ensures jobs for people, some might have even more than 5 employees.
davemc500hats 17y ago
no, you're absolutely incorrect. if you create 5 US jobs, you get to stay. if you don't create 5 US jobs, but can generate EITHER $1M in revenue (at break-even or better), OR raise $1M in additional capital from ANY qualifying investor (doesn't have to be the original one), you get to stay. please read the language carefully -- it does cover the situation adequately. we did take quite a bit of time to consider the exact language, and worked hard to get it to be functional.