4 ms·

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

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.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- davemc500hats 17y ago
  aditya: dude, if you can't create at least 5 jobs in 2 years with $250K in capital, you're a pretty pathetic excuse for an entrepreneur. this is not a handout, it's a hand up. we expect people to innovate, create jobs, and create positive economic results. we're trying to help those who are willing to help themselves. and yes, those entrepreneurs who are more capable -- that is, can run a business profitably at some scale, and can create a minimum # of jobs -- will have a better shot than others. there is nothing unfair or unethical about trying to help those entrepreneurs who are willing to do the work necessary to make it happen.
  - petercooper 17y ago
    dude, if you can't create at least 5 jobs in 2 years with $250K in capital, you're a pretty pathetic excuse for an entrepreneur. And a poor law player too ;-) With unemployment set to remain pretty high over the next several years, employing a few minimum wage "office managers" to make up the numbers (assuming you get the extra funding or do the >$1M revenue) isn't going to cost very much.
  - aditya 17y ago
    Hah. The question is what happens when you fail. Obviously, if you have 100-250k, you can hire 2 people. But then what happens if the biz fails? You created 2 (probably more jobs) and now you're going to get kicked back to your own country? Or am I mis-reading this, and as soon as you hire 2 people you get your green card?
    - davemc500hats 17y ago
      sorry, no free rides... if you fail, you have to start over again. (that is: you can always start another business, pitch new investors for funding, and re-qualify for the new business. there is no restriction on multiple attempts, however you will have to convince investors you're worth a 2nd chance... or 3rd... or 4th... etc)
BerislavLopac 17y ago
I certainly can't understand what is gained by bringing the entrepreneurs to a market already saturated with too many competitors? If you need more entrepreneurs from abroad, they can do as much from their own countries as from the US. And once their companies grow they could easily open an office in the States, allowing them to travel easily on a simple work visa. WHY should non-US entrepreneurs need to come to the States to start businesses? Just because the US VC's are too lazy to take their money overseas?
- alex_c 17y ago
  I certainly can't understand what is gained by bringing the entrepreneurs to a market already saturated with too many competitors? Well, that really depends on what market you enter, doesn't it? :) WHY should non-US entrepreneurs need to come to the States to start businesses? From the perspective of the US, that should be obvious: because the new jobs would be created in the US rather than the entrepreneur's home country. From the entrepreneur's perspective, that's a much better question, and the answer will vary from case to case.
briansmith 17y ago
This would reduce the number of EB-2 and EB-3 visas available per year. Unused EB-5 visas spill over to EB-1, EB-1 to EB-2, EB-2 to EB-3. You are proposing to take the EB-5 spillover and give it to a group of people hand-picked by investors. That means little to know spillover from EB-5 -> EB-3. EB-3 applications will wait longer, and fewer of them will get their green cards every year.
- davemc500hats 17y ago
  again, i don't believe you're correct. i'm not aware that existing surplus unused EB-5 visas are used to "help" fill the backlog of EB-2 and EB-3 visas. there appears to be some surplus calculations going on between EB-1, 2, & 3 visas based on EB-1 priorities. i could be wrong; again i'm not an immigration lawyer. that said, it could be argued there is some priority for immigrants who are helping to create jobs over those who are not. i'm not suggesting that position be used to set priorities in allocating visas, but it's not necessarily unfair that the backlog of some group visas has higher or lower priority than others. it seems that you have a particular issue with your friend's visa being in backlog and not being approved, and that this is coloring your perspective on all other types of visas. while i have sympathy for your situation, this is not a rational perspective from which to make an argument for prioritization of visas, imho.
  - briansmith 17y ago
    I agree that some groups need to have higher prioritization. That is what EB-1 and EB-2 are for. I disagree that the "EB-6" people should be prioritized higher than the EB-3 people. Also, I think you didn't consider the backlog problem with EB-6. If EB-6 was added, lots of people would immediately begin the process of becoming qualified investors, and lots of EB-3 workers would start the EB-6 process. Then the EB-6s would get exhausted very quickly and a backlog would start, even if they were given a queue separate from EB-3. That is exactly because EB-6 would be so much easier than EB-1, EB-2, and EB-5 to qualify for. Even if my friend's EB-3 petition wasn't backlogged, I would still object to the idea that rich investors can hand-pick immigrants that they think will make them money, and practically just hand them permanent residency. If you were advocating a new temporary visa program for these people I'd be a lot more supportive of it. But, they don't deserve permanent residency more than the people already waiting in the various lines.

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.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
davemc500hats 17y ago
aditya: dude, if you can't create at least 5 jobs in 2 years with $250K in capital, you're a pretty pathetic excuse for an entrepreneur. this is not a handout, it's a hand up. we expect people to innovate, create jobs, and create positive economic results. we're trying to help those who are willing to help themselves. and yes, those entrepreneurs who are more capable -- that is, can run a business profitably at some scale, and can create a minimum # of jobs -- will have a better shot than others. there is nothing unfair or unethical about trying to help those entrepreneurs who are willing to do the work necessary to make it happen.
- petercooper 17y ago
  dude, if you can't create at least 5 jobs in 2 years with $250K in capital, you're a pretty pathetic excuse for an entrepreneur. And a poor law player too ;-) With unemployment set to remain pretty high over the next several years, employing a few minimum wage "office managers" to make up the numbers (assuming you get the extra funding or do the >$1M revenue) isn't going to cost very much.
- aditya 17y ago
  Hah. The question is what happens when you fail. Obviously, if you have 100-250k, you can hire 2 people. But then what happens if the biz fails? You created 2 (probably more jobs) and now you're going to get kicked back to your own country? Or am I mis-reading this, and as soon as you hire 2 people you get your green card?
  - davemc500hats 17y ago
    sorry, no free rides... if you fail, you have to start over again. (that is: you can always start another business, pitch new investors for funding, and re-qualify for the new business. there is no restriction on multiple attempts, however you will have to convince investors you're worth a 2nd chance... or 3rd... or 4th... etc)

BerislavLopac 17y ago

I certainly can't understand what is gained by bringing the entrepreneurs to a market already saturated with too many competitors? If you need more entrepreneurs from abroad, they can do as much from their own countries as from the US. And once their companies grow they could easily open an office in the States, allowing them to travel easily on a simple work visa. WHY should non-US entrepreneurs need to come to the States to start businesses? Just because the US VC's are too lazy to take their money overseas?

alex_c 17y ago
I certainly can't understand what is gained by bringing the entrepreneurs to a market already saturated with too many competitors? Well, that really depends on what market you enter, doesn't it? :) WHY should non-US entrepreneurs need to come to the States to start businesses? From the perspective of the US, that should be obvious: because the new jobs would be created in the US rather than the entrepreneur's home country. From the entrepreneur's perspective, that's a much better question, and the answer will vary from case to case.

briansmith 17y ago

This would reduce the number of EB-2 and EB-3 visas available per year. Unused EB-5 visas spill over to EB-1, EB-1 to EB-2, EB-2 to EB-3. You are proposing to take the EB-5 spillover and give it to a group of people hand-picked by investors. That means little to know spillover from EB-5 -> EB-3. EB-3 applications will wait longer, and fewer of them will get their green cards every year.

davemc500hats 17y ago
again, i don't believe you're correct. i'm not aware that existing surplus unused EB-5 visas are used to "help" fill the backlog of EB-2 and EB-3 visas. there appears to be some surplus calculations going on between EB-1, 2, & 3 visas based on EB-1 priorities. i could be wrong; again i'm not an immigration lawyer. that said, it could be argued there is some priority for immigrants who are helping to create jobs over those who are not. i'm not suggesting that position be used to set priorities in allocating visas, but it's not necessarily unfair that the backlog of some group visas has higher or lower priority than others. it seems that you have a particular issue with your friend's visa being in backlog and not being approved, and that this is coloring your perspective on all other types of visas. while i have sympathy for your situation, this is not a rational perspective from which to make an argument for prioritization of visas, imho.
- briansmith 17y ago
  I agree that some groups need to have higher prioritization. That is what EB-1 and EB-2 are for. I disagree that the "EB-6" people should be prioritized higher than the EB-3 people. Also, I think you didn't consider the backlog problem with EB-6. If EB-6 was added, lots of people would immediately begin the process of becoming qualified investors, and lots of EB-3 workers would start the EB-6 process. Then the EB-6s would get exhausted very quickly and a backlog would start, even if they were given a queue separate from EB-3. That is exactly because EB-6 would be so much easier than EB-1, EB-2, and EB-5 to qualify for. Even if my friend's EB-3 petition wasn't backlogged, I would still object to the idea that rich investors can hand-pick immigrants that they think will make them money, and practically just hand them permanent residency. If you were advocating a new temporary visa program for these people I'd be a lot more supportive of it. But, they don't deserve permanent residency more than the people already waiting in the various lines.