20 ms·

Trump administration has plan to scrap ‘startup visa’ rule

288 points by sloreti 9y ago

leggomylibro 9y ago
'Startup visa' is one term for it, 'buy-a-visa' is another. I'm not sure that it's necessarily a bad idea; someone with vision and money may be able to contribute a lot to the economy. But handing them a visa for cash and a couple of years of supplying jobs feels very transactional. It says, "you can come here as long as you earn lots of money," not, "you can come here as long as you contribute lots to the economy."
- dublinben 9y ago
  Aren't those two effectively the same thing? As long as the EB-5 visa exists, the immigration system will be explicitly transactional.
- emiliobumachar 9y ago
  A big part of the rationale for immigration restriction is that poor immigrants will strain the social services. Unfair as it may be, "you can come here as long as you earn lots of money" actually makes some sense.
- yladiz 9y ago
  There's a similar visa in South Korea, the D-8 visa, which requires you to invest 50M Won (roughly 50,000 USD), either in some business or to open another business, and some people have gotten frustrated that some have just invested for the visa and never done anything further as the government doesn't track beyond the initial investment. In this, and in the US case, the government should track to make sure it's not being abused by people who just have a lot of money and want to live in the country.
  - dakics 9y ago
    "people who just have a lot of money and want to live in the country" What exactly is big problem with this? Not speaking about becoming tax-resident of Monaco or similar, but your example or an EU country where you can open LLC and set up your own business and sort out residency paperwork in couple of years, for about that sum (5-figure USD/EUR) at the end benefits to the country budget and society. Speaking from personal experience, and let me tell you we make sure we perform 100% of what government expects from us and pay everything that's due. Also, in case of IT and startups, I feel it creates "cleaner" work environment and more positive and prospective work force than some other businesses (real-estate, natural resources, etc.)
  - leggomylibro 9y ago
    $50K? That's it? Could you then go on to actually run a small business, out of a garage/workshop somewhere less expensive/in danger of incineration than Seoul, like Busan or Jeonju or Gwangju? It's kind of expensive to live in the US, and they have all these regulations and crap around some useful chemicals like hypophosphorous acid.
soldierofhayley 9y ago
Earning a lot of money is a pretty damn good proxy for contributing to society. At the very least these people pay some taxes instead of being a drain on society.
- bobabooey02 9y ago
  What makes that idea difficult is the fact that profits have become decoupled from contribution to society. Anymore, most corporate gains aren't being passed along to the workers, just to the owners. Granted, the equation shifts with small businesses compared to large ones, but the idea that business = improvement is a bit simplistic.
  - news_to_me 9y ago
    > Anymore, most corporate gains aren't being passed along to the workers, just to the owners Was this ever the case? I mean, look at the Victorian era and what amounted to forced labor camps in the coal mines of West Virginia – seems like profits are almost always sucked up to the top.
  - arrty88 9y ago
    I'd rather have well off individuals entering this country with means to spend and support our middle class.
    - andrepd 9y ago
      Tricle-down economics doesn't work. The only people who get empowered to get richer when rich people get rich, are the rich people themselves.
      - stale2002 9y ago
        It is not trickle down economics. It is optimizing for the highest amount of tax dollars. If you have 2 people, one which will contribute >30K a year in taxes, and another that will contribute 10k a year in taxes, that is free money on the table that we are losing out on, if we don't accept person 1.
notadoc 9y ago
Are they going to scrap the EB-5 visa too? Doesn't it basically sell citizenship for real estate?
- largote 9y ago
  That'd go against Trump's business interests though. So I think it's highly unlikely.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- dmode 9y ago
  Jared Kushner sells EB-5 visas to Chinese investors. So basically this category will stick around.
- virtuabhi 9y ago
  "Invest $500,000 and immigrate to the United States." - Kushner Companies. [In a Beijing ballroom, Kushner family pushes $500,000 ‘investor visa’ to wealthy Chinese] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-a-beijing-ballroom-kushner-family-flogs-500000-investor-visa-to-wealthy-chinese/2017/05/06/cf711e53-eb49-4f9a-8dea-3cd836fcf287_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-a-beijing-ballroom-k...
  - azurezyq 9y ago
    Actually people with $500k are hardly considered wealthy in Beijing. A typical 100 m^2 flat within 4th ring road worth well over $1M. EB5 seems so easy here...
- jzwinck 9y ago
  "Investor" visas exist in many countries. Eliminating it in the US would result in US people being excluded in other countries. And if there is one thing rich people aren't going to vote/lobby for, it is curtailment of their ability to migrate.
bwang29 9y ago
I was invited last year in a round table discussion on this new rule. The original responses for the rule were mixed as there are plenty of nuances. Specifically, the main concern is the rule would lead to investors demanding founders to first acquire this type of status before they were able to get funded, causing a Chicken and Egg problem. The original proposal of the rule required 375k of funding from US only accredited investors, and there are also requirements for the startup founders to maintain a certain threshold of ownership while being able to hire a lot of American employees in short period of time. I don't remember the specific number requirement/head counts but it was definitely enough to pressurize the company to expand in size quickly, while many tech startups do not necessarily need to hire dozens of employees in a 1-3 year period, not to mention they all had to be US citizens. 1-3 years would also be a stretch for most startup to figure out a concrete plan of growth in order to quality for an extension. And what if the founders want to bootstrap themselves? Ultimately this rule still doesn't show any concrete pathway of residency or visa guarantees after 6 years. And because it is not a visa, it will take time to educate immigration officers and TSAs as well as creating a reasonable structure to allow founders to travel outside US legally as well. Historically there is a huge delay of understanding OPT, STEM and O1 visas in plenty of US embassies. To make things even more complicated, it is not USCIS's interest to be a judge to tell which company would qualify for this rule, and they would need to form a group of trusted committees to check case by case if a company and their founders/co-founders qualify for this rule. I also heard that founder's spouses would be able to travel to US too.
marcell 9y ago
From the article: "To qualify for the rule, entrepreneurs would have to meet high standards. A foreigner must demonstrate that he or she will contribute to economic growth or job creation and show that a reputable investor has put at least $250,000 into the company. Under this rule, they can stay in the U.S. for 30 months, with the possibility of a 30-month extension. They cannot apply for a green card during this period." This sounds like a pretty lame visa. How are you supposed to build a startup if you only have 30 months to do so? Why would investors risk $250k if the founder may be deported in 30 months? What happens after the extension period? I'm 100% in favor of increasing all immigration to the USA, but this visa doesn't sound like a good option at all. Is the USA really so appealing that talented entrepreneurs will jump through this many hoops to start their company here?
- justboxing 9y ago
  > They cannot apply for a green card during this period This will be a deal-breaker for over 95% of the applicants. Even though the H1B Visa is a non-immigrant visa, there was no such clause attached to it like this one. It's what enables 1000s of immigrants (like me) every year to first arrive on a non-immigrant visa and then get the employer to petition their green cards for permanent stay or eventually citizenship. I personally know many immigrants who didn't really want to become citizens and intended to go back to their home country in 5 to 10 years timeframe, but applied for and obtained permanent residency (green card) just so that this uncertainty of resident status is eliminated. Take that (the green card) away, why would any entrepreneur be incentivized to apply for this Visa? Because 2 or 3 * years is a very short time frame to create and run a successful startup. Why would any entrepreneur risk coming here on a temporary stay only to be banished just as the startup takes off? * 3 = Number of years Kevin O'Leary (Shark Tank) says you give your startup to turn profitable before taking it to the back of the Barn and shooting it.
  - xxSparkleSxx 9y ago
    Damn. We might actually have to start investing equally in US children of all socioeconomic classes to ensure we have enough entrepreneurs and bright minds to compete in the global economy. EDIT: WOW, didn't think such an obvious comment would be so controversial (points are swinging up and down cyclically). Do ya'll think we are extremely efficient at turning potential into value from all of our current citizens? Do you NOT want to do anything but fail if Trump severely fucks up immigration and our economy? Or does it hurt your feelings to think that everything you've achieved in life wasn't 100% through your own hard work? I'm confused.
suryacom 9y ago
Here is the detailed comment by "Immigration Voice" on why the rule is bad for everyone except special interest: "...The new immigrant entrepreneur parole program will create a yet another class of immigrants, albeit minority partners and working resources in the start-up entity, who will be beholden and entirely dependent on the hand-picked venture capital firms to maintain their status in United States in the parole period and beyond as immigrant entrepreneur will have no clear pathway to permanent residency. The proposed rule does not present a clear and fair system in which immigrants will have the same rights as U.S. workers or U.S. entrepreneurs in the marketplace. Therefore, the immigrant entrepreneur will have no leverage to negotiate the terms of the contract and relationship with and they will be susceptible to exploitation in a novel way as proposed in this regulation. Even if a path to U.S. permanent residency is proposed, it will in all likelihood, be at the expense of the current backlog of employment based immigrants in the permanent residency process. In essence, the new immigrant would pay (in the form of hefty investment in the firm) for his or her travels to the United States only to remain in bondage relationship to the hand-picked VC firm. If this is not a definition of indentured servitude, then what is? Worse yet, the paroled immigrant has no defined wage requirement as a worker in the firm and has very lenient “income threshold” (400 percent of Federal Poverty Level for family size - irrespective of the prevailing wages of the entrepreneur’s job functions) as outlined in the proposed rule. It is well known that such system only increases the demand for new immigrants because of their lower leverage and bargaining power in such relationships, while the American workers and entrepreneurs are discriminated against in the talent ecosystem. In justifying the rule, DHS presents “significant public benefit” such as entrepreneurship and job creation by immigrant founders. This reference to various studies is grossly misleading in that DHS uses contributions of immigrant founders without crediting the fact that most of these immigrant founders had gained sufficient certainty in their immigration process by obtaining a Green Card prior to making a significant investment in the companies they founded. The H-1B and L-1B programs were also created under the pretext of “job creation and innovation in the United States” and 25 years after the inception of these programs, the American high-skilled workforce consists of an estimated 1.5 million high-skilled law-abiding immigrants who are captive to their employers and cannot start their businesses and create jobs. This is clearly detrimental to the prospects of our fellow American workers who compete against the captive workforce of skilled immigrants who are favored by bad employers for their lack of job mobility. For the purpose of bringing in more immigrants from outside, DHS uses the disguise of “significant public benefit” only to pile up fresh immigrants in the Green Card backlogs in which the new immigrants have fewer rights (as will clearly be the case with the proposed class of Entrepreneur parolees). It is ironic that DHS did not use the same “significant public benefit” arguments for providing rights such as job mobility and ability to start their own companies by high skilled immigrants, who already have approved immigrant petitions (I-140), understand the business environment in US, have great ideas (and hold patents in many cases) and have investments to start their businesses. But somehow DHS and Administration is very selective in applying the same “significant public benefit” argument for NOT letting people with approved immigrant petitions to start their companies. This clearly raises doubts as to whether any economic argument by the DHS in the rule making process is trustworthy. The proposed regulation ensures that there will be absolutely zero “significant public benefit”. Instead, the proposed regulation is only designed for “significant benefit of hand-picked Venture Capitalists”...." Complete comment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bwdh5aYDQTwIbGVkR2Z6LV9FVTA/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bwdh5aYDQTwIbGVkR2Z6LV9FVTA...
paulsutter 9y ago
Vancouver, anyone? I live in Seattle and I'm about ready to drive two hours north for my next startup. To hire the Russian programmers I'm already working with, or the folks on Kaggle I'd love to hire. The US has a completely broken scheme for visas.
- drspacemonkey 9y ago
  That's just trading one problem for another. Vancouver has a very serious affordability problem. Not only are you going to be paying a lot more for office and living space, you're going to have far fewer opportunities for funding.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - startupdiscuss 9y ago
    I wonder if there is an arbitrage opportunity: invest in real estate and office space north of Seattle and south of Vancouver, just over the border. Those who can go back and forth and take meetings on both sides. People are within commuting distance of these large metro areas.
    - drspacemonkey 9y ago
      Real estate on the Washington side of the border is insanely cheaper. As soon as you cross the border, prices skyrocket and just keep going up until you hit downtown Vancouver. Seriously, our affordability problem is pretty much at crisis levels. People who argue that we should increase density aren't wrong, but we're already building towers as fast as we can. And the majority of those suffer from substandard, shoddy construction. We call it 'leaky condo syndrome'. And even those are selling for $750k+ for under 500sqft.
      - paulsutter 9y ago
        Vancouver is a wonderful city so I can really understand why you want to keep everyone from finding out :) But go see San Francisco if you want to understand an affordability crisis. Vancouver is reasonable in comparison.
justinzollars 9y ago
We should put boats off the coast of San Francisco like we talked about a few years ago.
- imaginenore 9y ago
  And what do you do when a storm comes? Another thing is, living on a boat, even if it's huge, is very boring.
- vinhboy 9y ago
  Mass + New York + Canada + Seattle + Oregon + Cali will form the nation of America 2.0. Open borders to all US citizens. The rest of the US can mine coal, frack, or whatever they want to do. They think that's where the jobs are. Doesn't matter to us. We'll just speed up the electric, self-driving, car revolution with China and continue working on climate change rules and a global economy with Europe.
  - sergiotapia 9y ago
    Who do you think actually puts the food you eat on the table? Will you eat your self-driving cars?
    - SamUK96 9y ago
      Not sure if the parent comment was being serious to be honest. If not, then, well, they are very tragic. A sizeable portion of HN users are technical middle class citizens and seem on the face of it often highly separated from the working class, who they mine the metals for their self-driving car batteries and fold their $12 burrito, and drive their Ubers (for now). Having said that a lot of HN is very modest and objective, so you bad sorts like parent comment and good sorts...like anywhere. /rant
    - ebola1717 9y ago
      California actually: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/07/california_grows_all_of_our_fruits_and_vegetables_what_would_we_eat_without.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2...
kefka 9y ago
Then lets be blatant and straightforward then. "If you're rich and willing to spend, we want you. If you're average or poor, fuck you."
- ktta 9y ago
  You saying that as if rest of the world isn't like that.
  - eropple 9y ago
    It's not. And, if it were, that has no bearing on whether we should.
    - ktta 9y ago
      I'm generalizing a bit, but if you think that the rest of the world isn't then you are very naive. You simply haven't seen the world through the glasses of being a poor and powerless person from a third world country. Sympathy is dead to governments and most businesses. Especially with the nationalist opinion gaining popularity recently, I would expect sympathy for the fellow human if they're from a different country to die down even more.
- ryanmarsh 9y ago
  Yes we want capital and brains to flow in but your comment isn't fair. The US has a history of settling refugees here. We also have a purposefully porous southern border and have normalized illegal immigrants.
  - ktta 9y ago
    The current government seems to vehemently oppose the idea of normalizing illegal immigrants.
    - rublev 9y ago
      illegal immigrants.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
al452 9y ago
You lost me at "Trump administration has plan".
Indolat 9y ago
Unfortunately, the immigration policies of most countries in the world are one huge stupid joke. Why so much obsession about the country where people were born into? It wasn't their choice at all. It just doesn't matter. The only questions you should be asking are "are they decent people? Are they willing to integrate? Will they contribute to our economy? Will they make us problems?" And none of these questions you can answer by reading the name of the country on their passport.
- SamUK96 9y ago
  This is essentially Australia's system, lauded for it's rather strict and rigorous "points"-based immigration system. If you don't meet enough "we want you as a citizen" points, you're simply denied. Contrast that to somewhere like the US where there are many very game-able methods of entry, like the utterly shambolic H1-B visa.
  - Indolat 9y ago
    Their point system is set really very, very high and costs much more money than most people can ever save (try saving 5-10 thousands when your monthly salary is some 200 US$ and you have to live off it). I'm pretty sure that some 95% of Australians would never pass it if they were born in a different country. (Long live the privilege of birth!)
    - nandemo 9y ago
      The high bar is there to ensure the system satisfies the "will they contribute to our economy" criterion. Sure, that results in immigrants being more qualified and having more earning potential than the average native citizen. Nothing wrong with that. On the contrary, it means each immigrant will in average increase the country's GDP/capita. It also means the working class will be less likely to oppose immigration. Where are you from? In middle-income developing countries (Brazil, India, China, Mexico, etc), educated, middle-class people typically earn well over $1000 per month. People who earn $200 per month usually don't fulfill the other requirements in the first place.
f4rker 9y ago
The USA is not a free for all that everyone has a "right" to live in.
pavlov 9y ago
I asked this very question on HN in November 2016: will the "startup visa" survive? Commenters thought that Trump wouldn't interfere with it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12931943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12931943 This is a solid reminder that the Trump administration is showing itself to be mostly concerned with undoing anything that Obama did, rather than working for anyone's benefit. You can't apply logic to predict the actions of these people.
- nnfy 9y ago
  Why do people seriously believe that presidential administrations are motivated by petty childishness? Do people really believe it to be possible that someone incompetent could make it as far as the presidency? There's far more going on that we are unaware of, be it malice or good intentions, thus it is absurd to believe that our leaders are man children. We are too far removed from primary sources to know the truth.
  - giarc 9y ago
    Trump handed Merkel a fake invoice for the amount of money Germany owed NATO. At what level of government is that a good idea?
    - Sgt_Apone 9y ago
      That actually didn't happen. http://globalnews.ca/news/3340159/donald-trump-angela-merkel-nato-bill-fake-news/ http://globalnews.ca/news/3340159/donald-trump-angela-merkel...
    - sumedh 9y ago
      Can you give a proper source for that allegation preferably from the BBC.
      - giarc 9y ago
        https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-dismisses-white-houses-intimidating-300bn-bill-for-defence-dl7dk629k https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-dismisses-white-h... The White House denies it, so who knows. Either way, there are many example's of him acting like a child. The inauguration debate for example.
sausman 9y ago
Who is supposed to benefit from this? I'm confused.
mrwnmonm 9y ago
Shit, I am locking myself in my room to study to get a job in silicon valley, what now?
Software_Sucks 9y ago
God forbid that Americans want to hire and grow American talent, right guys? I mean that's just awful.
- onion2k 9y ago
  I'm find it surprising that some Americans don't think their country is big enough or their economy is strong enough to support both local entrepreneurs and foreign entrepreneurs who want to build businesses in the USA. You don't have to choose - you can have both.
  - Software_Sucks 9y ago
    I don't think people have a problem with foreign entrepreneurs who want to build businesses here. They have a problem with them not hiring the people who actually live here.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
jordache 9y ago
oh sure get joe blow former coal digger to be a node developer
jackaroe78 9y ago
Why not Boise? We have population of refugees here looking for an opportunity.
nopinsight 9y ago
This is a wild speculation, but is it possible that the Trump administration believes startups to be bad for the Rust Belt working class and other similar demographic they say they represent? For example, greater efficiency and automation could reduce employment of semi skilled people. In the long run, this line of policies would of course lead to technological slow down and give a big opening for other countries to take the lead in a crucial determiner of economic successes. Other possible theses may be that they favor the 'native whites' to have control as Steve Bannon used to mention or try to undo the legacies of Obama.
zabana 9y ago
I'm surprised no other country has decided to go ahead and create an equally as open and safe environment for entrepreneurs to start companies. My understanding (which, I'll admit, is only based on my own observations) is that the vast majority of people outside the western sphere still regard the US through what's projected in hollywood movies and aren't really in touch with the reality of what life is in modern america (I'm a EU citizen myself but have quite a few US based/American friends). Essentially, the way I see it is : The US still has an edge in technology and are able to attract top talent from overseas because they still benefit from cultural hegemony and their image worldwide. What happens when the dream evaporates is still a mystery to me. For example, how will the situation evolve once chinese / russian / indian universities catch up with institutions like stanford / MIT etc and enough investors from these countries decide to pour money into local startups ?
- zeusdx 9y ago
  Incorrect. UK has Tier 1 - Entrepreneur Visa where you can remain and run a company for 5 years. After 5 years, you can apply for extension for another 5 years or apply for settlement.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    Yeah but the UK is not exactly an investment/entrepneur-friendly economy any more. Brexit, at the rate it's going, will be either a hard Brexit or a chaotic one, and without a soft Brexit (i.e. access to the European market) all a potential investor has is the British market. Also, UK does not have a constitution and civil rights (e.g. right to privacy, to unrestricted, unfiltered Internet access) are being torn down further each day... so if I were an investor, no way I'd set foot in this country, much less invest in it.
    - zeusdx 9y ago
      Even before, there was no digital single market for services. The previous single market was only for manufactured goods. So that didn't affect startups in UK to be successful. We can expect the same after Brexit. Right to Privacy is being eroded also in US with the new FTC rulings. So that is not a valid disadvantage. Considering the recent events, Brexit if it ever happens, will be a Soft Brexit as the UK Govt doesn't anymore have the required mandate or support for a Hard Brexit that wrecks the economy.
nopinsight 9y ago
A practical question: How easy or challenging is it to stay in Toronto or Vancouver and run a US-registered startup there, if you need to collaborate with others in either SF Bay area or Boston/NYC? (In-person meetings might not need to be frequent; geting together once a month could be sufficient.) I am an entrepreneur from Asia working to build a fundamental technology and was planning to set up a company and live in the Bay area. After studying diligently about various options, Canada could in fact be a better place to settle in with a proper startup visa and much fewer hoops to jump through, however the attraction of US tech ecosystem is powerful. (Note: I earned a Masters degree with a thesis on AI/ML from a major US research university and have traveled to, attended conferences, and lived in the Bay area for several months per year over the last three years.) The major reasons for SF Bay area dominance include: 1) access to top people, many if not most were/are foreign students, who attend UC Berkeley and Stanford, 2) ecosystems of global tech talents recruited by major tech powerhouses like Google, Facebook, Apple, etc., 3) deep expertise and risk-taking attitude of Bay area VCs and angel investors, and 4) ease of access to vast US consumer and enterprise markets. For 3) would major VCs or angel investors invest in a startup with offices about 1.5 to 2.5 hours away by plane? (The founders would need to travel to see them sometimes; but do they require in-person supervision/updates more than say once a month?) For 4) I assume if the company is US-registered, it shouldn't have a problem in principle, is that true?
zebraflask 9y ago
Huh, that might be one of the few things I agree with Trump about.
nopinsight 9y ago
A major reason for US prosperity and world-class science and technologies is the immigration of best minds from all over the world. Within 12-20 years, China's real GDP will overtake the US, assuming that China's GDP grows at an annual rate 2.5+% faster than the US for the period. This is quite plausible given that the current per capita income of China is only 1/7 of the US and its major focus on R&D. Even now, many of the best Chinese graduates from US universities are returning to China to pursue better opportunities there. China is spending $409 billion (PPP) on R&D, the second highest in the world after the US and ahead of the EU. This amounts to 2.1% of GDP and very high for their stage of economic development [1]. Their goal, from a variety of sources, is to overtake the US as world's no. 1 and reclaim their historical place. If you look at PISA, China and the rest of East Asia, together with Singapore, consistently perform at or near the top in math and science, and quite well at reading. Even the best performing US state, Massachusetts, is significantly below those in Math and Science [2]. Relatedly, China is catching up to the US in AI. [3] Most groundbreaking research is still conducted in the Western hemisphere, but East Asia is getting there despite much later starts. Also, many top researchers in Western labs are from East Asia, who may later decide to move back once the circumstances change. Given the above factors, and only one-fourth the population (330 vs 1390 million), if/when the US cannot take advantage of best minds from these and other countries, would it be able to maintain the technological lead for long? If the answer is no, how about the military and diplomatic dominance, which almost always follows economic and technological leads? A possibility: If a larger portion of the GOP wakes up to the above, possibly within the next 10 years, they will start to actively recruit high-skilled immigrants, perhaps with some sort of point-based system as in Canada and Australia. Whether it would be too late or not remains to be seen. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_St... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/technology/china-us-ai-artificial-intelligence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/technology/china-us-ai-ar...
zeusdx 9y ago
If US doesn't want startup entrepreneurs there are plenty of other countries that have specialized visas to promote entrepreneurs and talent. For example, UK has "Tier 1 - Entrepreneur Visa" where you can remain and run a company for 5 years. After 5 years, you can apply for extension for another 5 years or apply for settlement. There is also UK "Tier 1 - Exceptional Talent" visa where you can apply to remain and work in UK without requiring any sponsorship from companies unlike H1B visa in US which requires company sponsorship.
- kbart 9y ago
  UK is, arguably, even more immigrant unfriendly. One of the main reasons for Brexit was to limit immigration and immigrants' rights. And nobody knows where UK gonna be in few years time, after Brexit procedures are completed..
  - zeusdx 9y ago
    Untrue. People living in rural areas (outside major UK cities such as London) are against low-skilled immigrants coming from majorly east european countries (Poland and Romania). Do not confuse it with high-skilled immigration which the Tier 1 visas mentioned above are concerned. Immigrants are welcomed in major UK cities such as London where a vast majority voted to "Remain" in Brexit referendum.
mdekkers 9y ago
Awesome! They are welcome in the EU, and where the talent is, the investors will follow.
johnnydoebk 9y ago
Sorry for a stupid question but I have to ask. Why everyone is so desperate to start a company and locate it physically in the US? Is it just because of VC money? Wouldn't any safe place with good laws and easy immigration policy do? I don't take seriously Blockchain projects (and consider most of them blatant scam) and they are relatively small now. But longterm can this model solve the part about VC money?
- michaelscott 9y ago
  I'd wager it's the pre-existing culture of Silicon Valley that attracts startups. Kind of like a tech Mecca, it's got a magnetic pull based on "if you want to succeed you need to be based here". With VCs etc operating out of there it does actually become a self-fulfilling prophecy. As to the blockchain and ICO model, the problem is the current lack of regulation, leaving the burden of research to the buyer. I expect this will change relatively soon (places like New York, India and Singapore are already trying to introduce legislation regarding this) and then we might see more of an uptick, but you still need to get people out of the almost 40 year old mindset now that "Silicon Valley is where startups have to be to make it big". Not an easy task I'd say.
- calvinbhai 9y ago
  Risk appetite of investors and access to such investors matter a lot. And the US has a few cities with many such investors, which makes it easier to reach many in a short duration.
maze-le 9y ago
I think this might actually be a chance for the european tech industry. More people will stay here (in europe) + come here to pursue a career in the tech industry. What is needed additionally is a network of investors and vc-people to realize great ideas.
Alfredo123 9y ago
Good idea. A lot of corrupt Indian politicians have been sending their progeny to USA with this visa. It has nothing to do with startups but it is putting up visa for sale. There is nothing wrong in putting visa for sale, but please do not insult many of us who are giving prime of our careers to startups while jumping through complex maze of US visa system.

288 points by sloreti 9y ago

'Startup visa' is one term for it, 'buy-a-visa' is another. I'm not sure that it's necessarily a bad idea; someone with vision and money may be able to contribute a lot to the economy. But handing them a visa for cash and a couple of years of supplying jobs feels very transactional. It says, "you can come here as long as you earn lots of money," not, "you can come here as long as you contribute lots to the economy."

dublinben 9y ago
Aren't those two effectively the same thing? As long as the EB-5 visa exists, the immigration system will be explicitly transactional.
emiliobumachar 9y ago
A big part of the rationale for immigration restriction is that poor immigrants will strain the social services. Unfair as it may be, "you can come here as long as you earn lots of money" actually makes some sense.
yladiz 9y ago
There's a similar visa in South Korea, the D-8 visa, which requires you to invest 50M Won (roughly 50,000 USD), either in some business or to open another business, and some people have gotten frustrated that some have just invested for the visa and never done anything further as the government doesn't track beyond the initial investment. In this, and in the US case, the government should track to make sure it's not being abused by people who just have a lot of money and want to live in the country.
- dakics 9y ago
  "people who just have a lot of money and want to live in the country" What exactly is big problem with this? Not speaking about becoming tax-resident of Monaco or similar, but your example or an EU country where you can open LLC and set up your own business and sort out residency paperwork in couple of years, for about that sum (5-figure USD/EUR) at the end benefits to the country budget and society. Speaking from personal experience, and let me tell you we make sure we perform 100% of what government expects from us and pay everything that's due. Also, in case of IT and startups, I feel it creates "cleaner" work environment and more positive and prospective work force than some other businesses (real-estate, natural resources, etc.)
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  $50K? That's it? Could you then go on to actually run a small business, out of a garage/workshop somewhere less expensive/in danger of incineration than Seoul, like Busan or Jeonju or Gwangju? It's kind of expensive to live in the US, and they have all these regulations and crap around some useful chemicals like hypophosphorous acid.

soldierofhayley 9y ago

Earning a lot of money is a pretty damn good proxy for contributing to society. At the very least these people pay some taxes instead of being a drain on society.

bobabooey02 9y ago
What makes that idea difficult is the fact that profits have become decoupled from contribution to society. Anymore, most corporate gains aren't being passed along to the workers, just to the owners. Granted, the equation shifts with small businesses compared to large ones, but the idea that business = improvement is a bit simplistic.
- news_to_me 9y ago
  > Anymore, most corporate gains aren't being passed along to the workers, just to the owners Was this ever the case? I mean, look at the Victorian era and what amounted to forced labor camps in the coal mines of West Virginia – seems like profits are almost always sucked up to the top.
- arrty88 9y ago
  I'd rather have well off individuals entering this country with means to spend and support our middle class.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    Tricle-down economics doesn't work. The only people who get empowered to get richer when rich people get rich, are the rich people themselves.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      It is not trickle down economics. It is optimizing for the highest amount of tax dollars. If you have 2 people, one which will contribute >30K a year in taxes, and another that will contribute 10k a year in taxes, that is free money on the table that we are losing out on, if we don't accept person 1.

notadoc 9y ago

Are they going to scrap the EB-5 visa too? Doesn't it basically sell citizenship for real estate?

largote 9y ago
That'd go against Trump's business interests though. So I think it's highly unlikely.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
dmode 9y ago
Jared Kushner sells EB-5 visas to Chinese investors. So basically this category will stick around.
virtuabhi 9y ago
"Invest $500,000 and immigrate to the United States." - Kushner Companies. [In a Beijing ballroom, Kushner family pushes $500,000 ‘investor visa’ to wealthy Chinese] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-a-beijing-ballroom-kushner-family-flogs-500000-investor-visa-to-wealthy-chinese/2017/05/06/cf711e53-eb49-4f9a-8dea-3cd836fcf287_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-a-beijing-ballroom-k...
- azurezyq 9y ago
  Actually people with $500k are hardly considered wealthy in Beijing. A typical 100 m^2 flat within 4th ring road worth well over $1M. EB5 seems so easy here...
jzwinck 9y ago
"Investor" visas exist in many countries. Eliminating it in the US would result in US people being excluded in other countries. And if there is one thing rich people aren't going to vote/lobby for, it is curtailment of their ability to migrate.

bwang29 9y ago

I was invited last year in a round table discussion on this new rule. The original responses for the rule were mixed as there are plenty of nuances. Specifically, the main concern is the rule would lead to investors demanding founders to first acquire this type of status before they were able to get funded, causing a Chicken and Egg problem. The original proposal of the rule required 375k of funding from US only accredited investors, and there are also requirements for the startup founders to maintain a certain threshold of ownership while being able to hire a lot of American employees in short period of time. I don't remember the specific number requirement/head counts but it was definitely enough to pressurize the company to expand in size quickly, while many tech startups do not necessarily need to hire dozens of employees in a 1-3 year period, not to mention they all had to be US citizens. 1-3 years would also be a stretch for most startup to figure out a concrete plan of growth in order to quality for an extension. And what if the founders want to bootstrap themselves? Ultimately this rule still doesn't show any concrete pathway of residency or visa guarantees after 6 years. And because it is not a visa, it will take time to educate immigration officers and TSAs as well as creating a reasonable structure to allow founders to travel outside US legally as well. Historically there is a huge delay of understanding OPT, STEM and O1 visas in plenty of US embassies. To make things even more complicated, it is not USCIS's interest to be a judge to tell which company would qualify for this rule, and they would need to form a group of trusted committees to check case by case if a company and their founders/co-founders qualify for this rule. I also heard that founder's spouses would be able to travel to US too.

marcell 9y ago

From the article: "To qualify for the rule, entrepreneurs would have to meet high standards. A foreigner must demonstrate that he or she will contribute to economic growth or job creation and show that a reputable investor has put at least $250,000 into the company. Under this rule, they can stay in the U.S. for 30 months, with the possibility of a 30-month extension. They cannot apply for a green card during this period." This sounds like a pretty lame visa. How are you supposed to build a startup if you only have 30 months to do so? Why would investors risk $250k if the founder may be deported in 30 months? What happens after the extension period? I'm 100% in favor of increasing all immigration to the USA, but this visa doesn't sound like a good option at all. Is the USA really so appealing that talented entrepreneurs will jump through this many hoops to start their company here?

justboxing 9y ago
> They cannot apply for a green card during this period This will be a deal-breaker for over 95% of the applicants. Even though the H1B Visa is a non-immigrant visa, there was no such clause attached to it like this one. It's what enables 1000s of immigrants (like me) every year to first arrive on a non-immigrant visa and then get the employer to petition their green cards for permanent stay or eventually citizenship. I personally know many immigrants who didn't really want to become citizens and intended to go back to their home country in 5 to 10 years timeframe, but applied for and obtained permanent residency (green card) just so that this uncertainty of resident status is eliminated. Take that (the green card) away, why would any entrepreneur be incentivized to apply for this Visa? Because 2 or 3 * years is a very short time frame to create and run a successful startup. Why would any entrepreneur risk coming here on a temporary stay only to be banished just as the startup takes off? * 3 = Number of years Kevin O'Leary (Shark Tank) says you give your startup to turn profitable before taking it to the back of the Barn and shooting it.
- xxSparkleSxx 9y ago
  Damn. We might actually have to start investing equally in US children of all socioeconomic classes to ensure we have enough entrepreneurs and bright minds to compete in the global economy. EDIT: WOW, didn't think such an obvious comment would be so controversial (points are swinging up and down cyclically). Do ya'll think we are extremely efficient at turning potential into value from all of our current citizens? Do you NOT want to do anything but fail if Trump severely fucks up immigration and our economy? Or does it hurt your feelings to think that everything you've achieved in life wasn't 100% through your own hard work? I'm confused.

suryacom 9y ago

Here is the detailed comment by "Immigration Voice" on why the rule is bad for everyone except special interest: "...The new immigrant entrepreneur parole program will create a yet another class of immigrants, albeit minority partners and working resources in the start-up entity, who will be beholden and entirely dependent on the hand-picked venture capital firms to maintain their status in United States in the parole period and beyond as immigrant entrepreneur will have no clear pathway to permanent residency. The proposed rule does not present a clear and fair system in which immigrants will have the same rights as U.S. workers or U.S. entrepreneurs in the marketplace. Therefore, the immigrant entrepreneur will have no leverage to negotiate the terms of the contract and relationship with and they will be susceptible to exploitation in a novel way as proposed in this regulation. Even if a path to U.S. permanent residency is proposed, it will in all likelihood, be at the expense of the current backlog of employment based immigrants in the permanent residency process. In essence, the new immigrant would pay (in the form of hefty investment in the firm) for his or her travels to the United States only to remain in bondage relationship to the hand-picked VC firm. If this is not a definition of indentured servitude, then what is? Worse yet, the paroled immigrant has no defined wage requirement as a worker in the firm and has very lenient “income threshold” (400 percent of Federal Poverty Level for family size - irrespective of the prevailing wages of the entrepreneur’s job functions) as outlined in the proposed rule. It is well known that such system only increases the demand for new immigrants because of their lower leverage and bargaining power in such relationships, while the American workers and entrepreneurs are discriminated against in the talent ecosystem. In justifying the rule, DHS presents “significant public benefit” such as entrepreneurship and job creation by immigrant founders. This reference to various studies is grossly misleading in that DHS uses contributions of immigrant founders without crediting the fact that most of these immigrant founders had gained sufficient certainty in their immigration process by obtaining a Green Card prior to making a significant investment in the companies they founded. The H-1B and L-1B programs were also created under the pretext of “job creation and innovation in the United States” and 25 years after the inception of these programs, the American high-skilled workforce consists of an estimated 1.5 million high-skilled law-abiding immigrants who are captive to their employers and cannot start their businesses and create jobs. This is clearly detrimental to the prospects of our fellow American workers who compete against the captive workforce of skilled immigrants who are favored by bad employers for their lack of job mobility. For the purpose of bringing in more immigrants from outside, DHS uses the disguise of “significant public benefit” only to pile up fresh immigrants in the Green Card backlogs in which the new immigrants have fewer rights (as will clearly be the case with the proposed class of Entrepreneur parolees). It is ironic that DHS did not use the same “significant public benefit” arguments for providing rights such as job mobility and ability to start their own companies by high skilled immigrants, who already have approved immigrant petitions (I-140), understand the business environment in US, have great ideas (and hold patents in many cases) and have investments to start their businesses. But somehow DHS and Administration is very selective in applying the same “significant public benefit” argument for NOT letting people with approved immigrant petitions to start their companies. This clearly raises doubts as to whether any economic argument by the DHS in the rule making process is trustworthy. The proposed regulation ensures that there will be absolutely zero “significant public benefit”. Instead, the proposed regulation is only designed for “significant benefit of hand-picked Venture Capitalists”...." Complete comment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bwdh5aYDQTwIbGVkR2Z6LV9FVTA/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bwdh5aYDQTwIbGVkR2Z6LV9FVTA...

paulsutter 9y ago

Vancouver, anyone? I live in Seattle and I'm about ready to drive two hours north for my next startup. To hire the Russian programmers I'm already working with, or the folks on Kaggle I'd love to hire. The US has a completely broken scheme for visas.

drspacemonkey 9y ago
That's just trading one problem for another. Vancouver has a very serious affordability problem. Not only are you going to be paying a lot more for office and living space, you're going to have far fewer opportunities for funding.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- startupdiscuss 9y ago
  I wonder if there is an arbitrage opportunity: invest in real estate and office space north of Seattle and south of Vancouver, just over the border. Those who can go back and forth and take meetings on both sides. People are within commuting distance of these large metro areas.
  - drspacemonkey 9y ago
    Real estate on the Washington side of the border is insanely cheaper. As soon as you cross the border, prices skyrocket and just keep going up until you hit downtown Vancouver. Seriously, our affordability problem is pretty much at crisis levels. People who argue that we should increase density aren't wrong, but we're already building towers as fast as we can. And the majority of those suffer from substandard, shoddy construction. We call it 'leaky condo syndrome'. And even those are selling for $750k+ for under 500sqft.
    - paulsutter 9y ago
      Vancouver is a wonderful city so I can really understand why you want to keep everyone from finding out :) But go see San Francisco if you want to understand an affordability crisis. Vancouver is reasonable in comparison.

justinzollars 9y ago

We should put boats off the coast of San Francisco like we talked about a few years ago.

imaginenore 9y ago
And what do you do when a storm comes? Another thing is, living on a boat, even if it's huge, is very boring.
vinhboy 9y ago
Mass + New York + Canada + Seattle + Oregon + Cali will form the nation of America 2.0. Open borders to all US citizens. The rest of the US can mine coal, frack, or whatever they want to do. They think that's where the jobs are. Doesn't matter to us. We'll just speed up the electric, self-driving, car revolution with China and continue working on climate change rules and a global economy with Europe.
- sergiotapia 9y ago
  Who do you think actually puts the food you eat on the table? Will you eat your self-driving cars?
  - SamUK96 9y ago
    Not sure if the parent comment was being serious to be honest. If not, then, well, they are very tragic. A sizeable portion of HN users are technical middle class citizens and seem on the face of it often highly separated from the working class, who they mine the metals for their self-driving car batteries and fold their $12 burrito, and drive their Ubers (for now). Having said that a lot of HN is very modest and objective, so you bad sorts like parent comment and good sorts...like anywhere. /rant
  - ebola1717 9y ago
    California actually: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/07/california_grows_all_of_our_fruits_and_vegetables_what_would_we_eat_without.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2...

kefka 9y ago

Then lets be blatant and straightforward then. "If you're rich and willing to spend, we want you. If you're average or poor, fuck you."

ktta 9y ago
You saying that as if rest of the world isn't like that.
- eropple 9y ago
  It's not. And, if it were, that has no bearing on whether we should.
  - ktta 9y ago
    I'm generalizing a bit, but if you think that the rest of the world isn't then you are very naive. You simply haven't seen the world through the glasses of being a poor and powerless person from a third world country. Sympathy is dead to governments and most businesses. Especially with the nationalist opinion gaining popularity recently, I would expect sympathy for the fellow human if they're from a different country to die down even more.
ryanmarsh 9y ago
Yes we want capital and brains to flow in but your comment isn't fair. The US has a history of settling refugees here. We also have a purposefully porous southern border and have normalized illegal immigrants.
- ktta 9y ago
  The current government seems to vehemently oppose the idea of normalizing illegal immigrants.
  - rublev 9y ago
    illegal immigrants.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

al452 9y ago

You lost me at "Trump administration has plan".

Indolat 9y ago

Unfortunately, the immigration policies of most countries in the world are one huge stupid joke. Why so much obsession about the country where people were born into? It wasn't their choice at all. It just doesn't matter. The only questions you should be asking are "are they decent people? Are they willing to integrate? Will they contribute to our economy? Will they make us problems?" And none of these questions you can answer by reading the name of the country on their passport.

SamUK96 9y ago
This is essentially Australia's system, lauded for it's rather strict and rigorous "points"-based immigration system. If you don't meet enough "we want you as a citizen" points, you're simply denied. Contrast that to somewhere like the US where there are many very game-able methods of entry, like the utterly shambolic H1-B visa.
- Indolat 9y ago
  Their point system is set really very, very high and costs much more money than most people can ever save (try saving 5-10 thousands when your monthly salary is some 200 US$ and you have to live off it). I'm pretty sure that some 95% of Australians would never pass it if they were born in a different country. (Long live the privilege of birth!)
  - nandemo 9y ago
    The high bar is there to ensure the system satisfies the "will they contribute to our economy" criterion. Sure, that results in immigrants being more qualified and having more earning potential than the average native citizen. Nothing wrong with that. On the contrary, it means each immigrant will in average increase the country's GDP/capita. It also means the working class will be less likely to oppose immigration. Where are you from? In middle-income developing countries (Brazil, India, China, Mexico, etc), educated, middle-class people typically earn well over $1000 per month. People who earn $200 per month usually don't fulfill the other requirements in the first place.

f4rker 9y ago

The USA is not a free for all that everyone has a "right" to live in.

pavlov 9y ago

I asked this very question on HN in November 2016: will the "startup visa" survive? Commenters thought that Trump wouldn't interfere with it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12931943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12931943 This is a solid reminder that the Trump administration is showing itself to be mostly concerned with undoing anything that Obama did, rather than working for anyone's benefit. You can't apply logic to predict the actions of these people.

nnfy 9y ago
Why do people seriously believe that presidential administrations are motivated by petty childishness? Do people really believe it to be possible that someone incompetent could make it as far as the presidency? There's far more going on that we are unaware of, be it malice or good intentions, thus it is absurd to believe that our leaders are man children. We are too far removed from primary sources to know the truth.
- giarc 9y ago
  Trump handed Merkel a fake invoice for the amount of money Germany owed NATO. At what level of government is that a good idea?
  - Sgt_Apone 9y ago
    That actually didn't happen. http://globalnews.ca/news/3340159/donald-trump-angela-merkel-nato-bill-fake-news/ http://globalnews.ca/news/3340159/donald-trump-angela-merkel...
  - sumedh 9y ago
    Can you give a proper source for that allegation preferably from the BBC.
    - giarc 9y ago
      https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-dismisses-white-houses-intimidating-300bn-bill-for-defence-dl7dk629k https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-dismisses-white-h... The White House denies it, so who knows. Either way, there are many example's of him acting like a child. The inauguration debate for example.

sausman 9y ago

Who is supposed to benefit from this? I'm confused.

mrwnmonm 9y ago

Shit, I am locking myself in my room to study to get a job in silicon valley, what now?

Software_Sucks 9y ago

God forbid that Americans want to hire and grow American talent, right guys? I mean that's just awful.

onion2k 9y ago
I'm find it surprising that some Americans don't think their country is big enough or their economy is strong enough to support both local entrepreneurs and foreign entrepreneurs who want to build businesses in the USA. You don't have to choose - you can have both.
- Software_Sucks 9y ago
  I don't think people have a problem with foreign entrepreneurs who want to build businesses here. They have a problem with them not hiring the people who actually live here.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

jordache 9y ago

oh sure get joe blow former coal digger to be a node developer

jackaroe78 9y ago

Why not Boise? We have population of refugees here looking for an opportunity.

nopinsight 9y ago

This is a wild speculation, but is it possible that the Trump administration believes startups to be bad for the Rust Belt working class and other similar demographic they say they represent? For example, greater efficiency and automation could reduce employment of semi skilled people. In the long run, this line of policies would of course lead to technological slow down and give a big opening for other countries to take the lead in a crucial determiner of economic successes. Other possible theses may be that they favor the 'native whites' to have control as Steve Bannon used to mention or try to undo the legacies of Obama.

zabana 9y ago

I'm surprised no other country has decided to go ahead and create an equally as open and safe environment for entrepreneurs to start companies. My understanding (which, I'll admit, is only based on my own observations) is that the vast majority of people outside the western sphere still regard the US through what's projected in hollywood movies and aren't really in touch with the reality of what life is in modern america (I'm a EU citizen myself but have quite a few US based/American friends). Essentially, the way I see it is : The US still has an edge in technology and are able to attract top talent from overseas because they still benefit from cultural hegemony and their image worldwide. What happens when the dream evaporates is still a mystery to me. For example, how will the situation evolve once chinese / russian / indian universities catch up with institutions like stanford / MIT etc and enough investors from these countries decide to pour money into local startups ?

zeusdx 9y ago
Incorrect. UK has Tier 1 - Entrepreneur Visa where you can remain and run a company for 5 years. After 5 years, you can apply for extension for another 5 years or apply for settlement.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  Yeah but the UK is not exactly an investment/entrepneur-friendly economy any more. Brexit, at the rate it's going, will be either a hard Brexit or a chaotic one, and without a soft Brexit (i.e. access to the European market) all a potential investor has is the British market. Also, UK does not have a constitution and civil rights (e.g. right to privacy, to unrestricted, unfiltered Internet access) are being torn down further each day... so if I were an investor, no way I'd set foot in this country, much less invest in it.
  - zeusdx 9y ago
    Even before, there was no digital single market for services. The previous single market was only for manufactured goods. So that didn't affect startups in UK to be successful. We can expect the same after Brexit. Right to Privacy is being eroded also in US with the new FTC rulings. So that is not a valid disadvantage. Considering the recent events, Brexit if it ever happens, will be a Soft Brexit as the UK Govt doesn't anymore have the required mandate or support for a Hard Brexit that wrecks the economy.

nopinsight 9y ago

A practical question: How easy or challenging is it to stay in Toronto or Vancouver and run a US-registered startup there, if you need to collaborate with others in either SF Bay area or Boston/NYC? (In-person meetings might not need to be frequent; geting together once a month could be sufficient.) I am an entrepreneur from Asia working to build a fundamental technology and was planning to set up a company and live in the Bay area. After studying diligently about various options, Canada could in fact be a better place to settle in with a proper startup visa and much fewer hoops to jump through, however the attraction of US tech ecosystem is powerful. (Note: I earned a Masters degree with a thesis on AI/ML from a major US research university and have traveled to, attended conferences, and lived in the Bay area for several months per year over the last three years.) The major reasons for SF Bay area dominance include: 1) access to top people, many if not most were/are foreign students, who attend UC Berkeley and Stanford, 2) ecosystems of global tech talents recruited by major tech powerhouses like Google, Facebook, Apple, etc., 3) deep expertise and risk-taking attitude of Bay area VCs and angel investors, and 4) ease of access to vast US consumer and enterprise markets. For 3) would major VCs or angel investors invest in a startup with offices about 1.5 to 2.5 hours away by plane? (The founders would need to travel to see them sometimes; but do they require in-person supervision/updates more than say once a month?) For 4) I assume if the company is US-registered, it shouldn't have a problem in principle, is that true?

zebraflask 9y ago

Huh, that might be one of the few things I agree with Trump about.

nopinsight 9y ago

A major reason for US prosperity and world-class science and technologies is the immigration of best minds from all over the world. Within 12-20 years, China's real GDP will overtake the US, assuming that China's GDP grows at an annual rate 2.5+% faster than the US for the period. This is quite plausible given that the current per capita income of China is only 1/7 of the US and its major focus on R&D. Even now, many of the best Chinese graduates from US universities are returning to China to pursue better opportunities there. China is spending $409 billion (PPP) on R&D, the second highest in the world after the US and ahead of the EU. This amounts to 2.1% of GDP and very high for their stage of economic development [1]. Their goal, from a variety of sources, is to overtake the US as world's no. 1 and reclaim their historical place. If you look at PISA, China and the rest of East Asia, together with Singapore, consistently perform at or near the top in math and science, and quite well at reading. Even the best performing US state, Massachusetts, is significantly below those in Math and Science [2]. Relatedly, China is catching up to the US in AI. [3] Most groundbreaking research is still conducted in the Western hemisphere, but East Asia is getting there despite much later starts. Also, many top researchers in Western labs are from East Asia, who may later decide to move back once the circumstances change. Given the above factors, and only one-fourth the population (330 vs 1390 million), if/when the US cannot take advantage of best minds from these and other countries, would it be able to maintain the technological lead for long? If the answer is no, how about the military and diplomatic dominance, which almost always follows economic and technological leads? A possibility: If a larger portion of the GOP wakes up to the above, possibly within the next 10 years, they will start to actively recruit high-skilled immigrants, perhaps with some sort of point-based system as in Canada and Australia. Whether it would be too late or not remains to be seen. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_St... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/technology/china-us-ai-artificial-intelligence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/technology/china-us-ai-ar...

zeusdx 9y ago

If US doesn't want startup entrepreneurs there are plenty of other countries that have specialized visas to promote entrepreneurs and talent. For example, UK has "Tier 1 - Entrepreneur Visa" where you can remain and run a company for 5 years. After 5 years, you can apply for extension for another 5 years or apply for settlement. There is also UK "Tier 1 - Exceptional Talent" visa where you can apply to remain and work in UK without requiring any sponsorship from companies unlike H1B visa in US which requires company sponsorship.

kbart 9y ago
UK is, arguably, even more immigrant unfriendly. One of the main reasons for Brexit was to limit immigration and immigrants' rights. And nobody knows where UK gonna be in few years time, after Brexit procedures are completed..
- zeusdx 9y ago
  Untrue. People living in rural areas (outside major UK cities such as London) are against low-skilled immigrants coming from majorly east european countries (Poland and Romania). Do not confuse it with high-skilled immigration which the Tier 1 visas mentioned above are concerned. Immigrants are welcomed in major UK cities such as London where a vast majority voted to "Remain" in Brexit referendum.

mdekkers 9y ago

Awesome! They are welcome in the EU, and where the talent is, the investors will follow.

johnnydoebk 9y ago

Sorry for a stupid question but I have to ask. Why everyone is so desperate to start a company and locate it physically in the US? Is it just because of VC money? Wouldn't any safe place with good laws and easy immigration policy do? I don't take seriously Blockchain projects (and consider most of them blatant scam) and they are relatively small now. But longterm can this model solve the part about VC money?

michaelscott 9y ago
I'd wager it's the pre-existing culture of Silicon Valley that attracts startups. Kind of like a tech Mecca, it's got a magnetic pull based on "if you want to succeed you need to be based here". With VCs etc operating out of there it does actually become a self-fulfilling prophecy. As to the blockchain and ICO model, the problem is the current lack of regulation, leaving the burden of research to the buyer. I expect this will change relatively soon (places like New York, India and Singapore are already trying to introduce legislation regarding this) and then we might see more of an uptick, but you still need to get people out of the almost 40 year old mindset now that "Silicon Valley is where startups have to be to make it big". Not an easy task I'd say.
calvinbhai 9y ago
Risk appetite of investors and access to such investors matter a lot. And the US has a few cities with many such investors, which makes it easier to reach many in a short duration.

maze-le 9y ago

I think this might actually be a chance for the european tech industry. More people will stay here (in europe) + come here to pursue a career in the tech industry. What is needed additionally is a network of investors and vc-people to realize great ideas.

Alfredo123 9y ago

Good idea. A lot of corrupt Indian politicians have been sending their progeny to USA with this visa. It has nothing to do with startups but it is putting up visa for sale. There is nothing wrong in putting visa for sale, but please do not insult many of us who are giving prime of our careers to startups while jumping through complex maze of US visa system.