3 ms·

This is true, but you are forfeiting any active management position, authority and likely control, which is basically the same as being fired as CEO. Not someth

by ajju 17y ago

This is true, but you are forfeiting any active management position, authority and likely control, which is basically the same as being fired as CEO. Not something you want to risk.

anamax 17y ago
> This is true, but you are forfeiting any active management position, authority and likely control, which is basically the same as being fired as CEO. Again - no, being deported doesn't cause any of those things. The owners of the biz are the ones who make that decison. Since we're assuming that you're being deported because you're not satisfying the conditions of the startup visa, what are the odds that said owners would have kept you on anyway? Advocates of the startup visa said that they wanted to bring folks into the company to create biz. Fair enough, but what should we conclude when they complain about deporting folks who don't do what they wanted? And, what should we conclude when they make up stories about the consequences of deportation?
- ajju 17y ago
  You are using an unrelated but true argument to make your case by attacking my supposed criticism of the visa rules. I am not criticizing the rules, only pointing out that the deportation clause of the visa has consequences on control. Yes, there have to be measurable metrics to gauge traction. Yes, I agree that 2 (3?) years is an acceptable time to create 5 jobs OR earn a mil OR raise a mil. Yes, unless those who don't meet these rules are deported, the rules won't have teeth. But neither of those points has anything to do with the argument that deportation is synonymous with losing position, authority and likely control. Maintaining control of a startup that is funded is a challenging job even when you are in the country. It should be. In my opinion, it would take a genius to remotely manage a startup. Even if you continue to be a majority owner after an investment, it would be very tough at best and foolish at worst to try to manage it from another country. That is assuming that it's a decision you alone can make, and your investors have no actual say in the matter. The bottom line is that at the end of 2 (3?) years, if you don't meet these metrics, you will be in a different country than your company and very likely unable to control it without large scale changes in business model and/or structure.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > But neither of those points has anything to do with the argument that deportation is synonymous with losing position, authority and likely control. Deportation is not syonymous with any of those things. Those things are decided by the folks who control the biz. They're free to keep the person on after deportation. They're free to do those things even if the person isn't deported. Yes, deportation may be a good reason for them to make certain decisions, but since they're free to ignore that reason, it isn't synonymous. As to "nothing to do", the only reasons to discuss this are (1) if we let someone in on a startup visa, we shouldn't deport them if they fail, (2) folks who succeed on a startup visa might be deported, and (3) random cussedness. Regardless, it's simply not true that being deported necessarily has the effects claimed.

by ajju 17y ago

This is true, but you are forfeiting any active management position, authority and likely control, which is basically the same as being fired as CEO. Not something you want to risk.

anamax 17y ago

> This is true, but you are forfeiting any active management position, authority and likely control, which is basically the same as being fired as CEO. Again - no, being deported doesn't cause any of those things. The owners of the biz are the ones who make that decison. Since we're assuming that you're being deported because you're not satisfying the conditions of the startup visa, what are the odds that said owners would have kept you on anyway? Advocates of the startup visa said that they wanted to bring folks into the company to create biz. Fair enough, but what should we conclude when they complain about deporting folks who don't do what they wanted? And, what should we conclude when they make up stories about the consequences of deportation?

ajju 17y ago
You are using an unrelated but true argument to make your case by attacking my supposed criticism of the visa rules. I am not criticizing the rules, only pointing out that the deportation clause of the visa has consequences on control. Yes, there have to be measurable metrics to gauge traction. Yes, I agree that 2 (3?) years is an acceptable time to create 5 jobs OR earn a mil OR raise a mil. Yes, unless those who don't meet these rules are deported, the rules won't have teeth. But neither of those points has anything to do with the argument that deportation is synonymous with losing position, authority and likely control. Maintaining control of a startup that is funded is a challenging job even when you are in the country. It should be. In my opinion, it would take a genius to remotely manage a startup. Even if you continue to be a majority owner after an investment, it would be very tough at best and foolish at worst to try to manage it from another country. That is assuming that it's a decision you alone can make, and your investors have no actual say in the matter. The bottom line is that at the end of 2 (3?) years, if you don't meet these metrics, you will be in a different country than your company and very likely unable to control it without large scale changes in business model and/or structure.
- anamax 17y ago
  > But neither of those points has anything to do with the argument that deportation is synonymous with losing position, authority and likely control. Deportation is not syonymous with any of those things. Those things are decided by the folks who control the biz. They're free to keep the person on after deportation. They're free to do those things even if the person isn't deported. Yes, deportation may be a good reason for them to make certain decisions, but since they're free to ignore that reason, it isn't synonymous. As to "nothing to do", the only reasons to discuss this are (1) if we let someone in on a startup visa, we shouldn't deport them if they fail, (2) folks who succeed on a startup visa might be deported, and (3) random cussedness. Regardless, it's simply not true that being deported necessarily has the effects claimed.