4 ms·

> 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 m

> 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 10 jobs, to obtain a green card. In areas where unemployment is high, foreign nationals only need to invest $500,000 to obtain residency. Though roughly 10,000 visas are annually allocated for the EB-5 category, less than half were used in FY 2009, so the addition of immigrant entrepreneurs should not present an unreasonable burden." Green card is permanent residency - once they've got it, they've got it. This looks pretty awesome. http://startupvisa.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dc-startup-visa-act-2-24-10.pdf http://startupvisa.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dc-startup-vi... It was a pdf and I coudln't figure out how to highlight so I retyped it myself - apologies if there's a minor grammar/spelling error.

tptacek 17y ago
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 super angel investor who sponsored the entrepreneur failed to meet the investment requirements under section 203(b)(6)(A)(i); or ‘‘(B) the entrepreneur failed to meet the job creation, capital investment, or revenue gen- eration requirements under section 203(b)(6)(A)(ii).’’; The job creation, capital investment, and revenue generation requirements (by the way, this language is ambiguous, with the "or" being more restrictive here and less restrictive earlier in the bill) are: ‘‘(I) create not fewer than 5 new full-time jobs in the United States employing people other than the im- migrant’s spouse, sons, or daughters; ‘‘(II) raise not less than $1,000,000 in capital investment in furtherance of a commercial entity based in the United States; or ‘‘(III) generate not less than $1,000,000 in revenue. You know more about immigration law than I do. All I can do is read. Tell me what I'm misinterpreting.
- neurotech1 17y ago
  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 VC can't do that unless the founders have given up their controlling interest.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    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.
    - neurotech1 17y ago
      The part that I'm refuting is that they HAVE to raise $1m from VCs. From the legislation you quoted; "‘‘(II) raise not less than $1,000,000 in capital investment in furtherance of a commercial entity based in the United States; or ‘‘(III) generate not less than $1,000,000 in revenue." Note that it says OR
      - tptacek 17y ago
        I think we're clear that they don't have to raise $1MM from VCs. They can also raise it from customers.
  - Confusion 17y ago
    You did mis-interpret the gist of the bill. The gist is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is what it actually says.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    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 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1148789

tptacek 17y ago

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 super angel investor who sponsored the entrepreneur failed to meet the investment requirements under section 203(b)(6)(A)(i); or ‘‘(B) the entrepreneur failed to meet the job creation, capital investment, or revenue gen- eration requirements under section 203(b)(6)(A)(ii).’’; The job creation, capital investment, and revenue generation requirements (by the way, this language is ambiguous, with the "or" being more restrictive here and less restrictive earlier in the bill) are: ‘‘(I) create not fewer than 5 new full-time jobs in the United States employing people other than the im- migrant’s spouse, sons, or daughters; ‘‘(II) raise not less than $1,000,000 in capital investment in furtherance of a commercial entity based in the United States; or ‘‘(III) generate not less than $1,000,000 in revenue. You know more about immigration law than I do. All I can do is read. Tell me what I'm misinterpreting.

neurotech1 17y ago
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 VC can't do that unless the founders have given up their controlling interest.
- tptacek 17y ago
  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.
  - neurotech1 17y ago
    The part that I'm refuting is that they HAVE to raise $1m from VCs. From the legislation you quoted; "‘‘(II) raise not less than $1,000,000 in capital investment in furtherance of a commercial entity based in the United States; or ‘‘(III) generate not less than $1,000,000 in revenue." Note that it says OR
    - tptacek 17y ago
      I think we're clear that they don't have to raise $1MM from VCs. They can also raise it from customers.
- Confusion 17y ago
  You did mis-interpret the gist of the bill. The gist is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is what it actually says.
- andreyf 17y ago
  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 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1148789