6 ms·

The rules of this startup visa never made any sense. They basically ensured that very few potential immigrant founders would qualify and the ones that did were

The rules of this startup visa never made any sense. They basically ensured that very few potential immigrant founders would qualify and the ones that did were in a place where they probably didn't see the value in that path as opposed to other business related visas.

deepGem 9y ago
Well yes and no. On one hand, if you secure a 250K funding this is a good option to get inside the US. On the other, if your startup fails for whatsoever reason, you have to head back, can't work anywhere else.
- pkaye 9y ago
  That is why it is called a startup visa. We expect them to have enough financial backing to start a business.
jasode 9y ago
>The rules of this startup visa never made any sense. Can you elaborate specifically on the rules of the USA startup visa that didn't make sense? For comparison and discussion, you can look at other countries' startup visa programs [1] like Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, etc. Basically, the idea is to craft the visa rules such that the barriers are high enough that it allows legitimate foreign entrepreneurs with real business prospects to filter through. On the other hand, if you make the criteria "too easy", it becomes a "back door visa" for non-productive foreigners to abuse. It's a balance between those two outcomes. Did any other country tune their visa policy correctly? If so, what did USA specifically get wrong and what did the other countries get right? [1] http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/visas-entrepreneurs-how-countries-are-seeking-out-immigrant-job-creators http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/visas-entrepreneurs-h...
- bargl 9y ago
  I wish I could remember where I saw the video (a guy with a bunch of gumballs representing population), but I remember he spoke about how the visa process is really beneficial for the USA but bad for other countries. The point being that we drain their talent pool while increasing our own. The argument being that as we skim the top people from the talent pool of other countries we reduce their capability to push innovation and ideas within their own infrastructure. Instead the USA benefits in that we don't have to have the smartest people just the most attractive place for them to come and help our country. So while I disagree with his message behind this move, I think he inadvertently helped the rest of the world...
  - Sir_Substance 9y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE That's only tangentially involved in this discussion though. That video is about whether opening immigration pathways to the USA can reduce world poverty. I never reviewed the rules that are being overturned here, so I can't say whether they made sense or not, but they were probably targeted at increasing US economic growth, not reducing world poverty.
  - bduerst 9y ago
    Pretty much. 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrant families. Likewise, 7 of the top 10 brands in the world were founded by U.S. immigrants or their children. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/#156be9a14a59 https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-pe...
    - wil421 9y ago
      Of course 40% of businesses were stared by immigrants. America is the land of immigrants. The articles states since 1850. Even the Trump families subsequent good fortunes were made possible by an immigrant. Most of my friends and extended families have a grand parent or two who were immigrants. If not grand parent then great grand parent.
- djb_hackernews 9y ago
  I'm not familiar with other countries entrepreneurship visas. This rule originally required $345,000 in investment from US based investors before the visa is awarded. The amount was then revised down to $250k after comments from the executive and investor community. It then required $500k in recurring revenue and 20% annualized revenue growth in order to extend the visa after 2 years. I'm not sure why a foreign startup founder with a product that raised $250k from US investors and can confidently say they will have $500k in revenue want to temporarily immigrate to the US? Nothing is stopping them from operating in the US and there are existing visas for business owners operating in the US they can use that don't have all of the related hoops. I think ultimately this would be underutilized at best and gamed much like the EB5 program at worst.
  - haydenlee 9y ago
    I believe it was an additional $500k of funding to renew, which is a notable difference.
  - jasode 9y ago
    >I'm not sure why a foreign startup founder [...] want to temporarily immigrate to the US? To make sure I'm not misinterpreting that, you're saying startup founders would rather run their startup company remotely thousands of miles away? E.g. the foreign startup founder stays in France which is 6+ time zones away while his company and employees are working in the USA? To be clear, we're not talking about the mother ship of a mature company opening a branch office in another country but instead, an infant startup company with maybe the founder and 1 or 2 other people. Even if the majority of startup founders wanted that arrangement, what VCs would invest in that type of working structure? >Nothing is stopping them from operating in the US and there are existing visas for business owners operating in the US they can use that don't have all of the related hoops. If you look at the other USA visa options[1], they are not exactly redundant with the proposed startup visa. (E.g. EB5 requires higher amount of $1 million from the immigrant which basically means the immigrant is already wealthy instead of starving entrepreneur with no money. The other visas are based on talent/skill such as advanced hard-to-find PhD or require employers to sponsor. The immigrant is his own employer.) [1] http://fundersandfounders.com/coming-to-america-for-entrepreneurs-infographic/ http://fundersandfounders.com/coming-to-america-for-entrepre...
- Spooky23 9y ago
  It's pretty obviously easy to game. Similar programs currently in place are basically funnels for rich foreigners from China and other countries to get green cards for doing marginally productive things like buying commercial property.
- vmarsy 9y ago
  > Can you elaborate specifically on the rules of the USA startup visa that didn't make sense? As someone pointed out a couple weeks ago [1]: > 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? So from your link, that startup rule got wrong the 'Defining Success: Criteria for Permanent Residence' which states: > Conditional entrepreneur visas can typically be renewed or converted to permanent residence after two to four years if the immigrant creates a successful business. (An exception is the Australian Venture Capital Entrepreneur program, which provides immediate permanent residence.) But here the rule is simply: 'They cannot apply for a green card during this period.'. So even if your startup is successful, you're kicked out after 2.5 or 5 years. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14606478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14606478
  - nojvek 9y ago
    This visa program deserves to be repealed. This is a big contrast to a couple of years ago when you could bring in 200k+ in to the country and start a business. Australia and Canada would grant a permanent residency. I know everyone likes blaming Trump for everything but i’m happy when they decide to reform immigration programs that don’t make sense.
natch 9y ago
Thinking back to my first startup job, the founder was exactly such a person who was in a place where according to you he probably wouldn't see the value in the startup path. Because he was eminently employable with the quality of his credentials and skills, so, why not just get a high paying job working for someone else? Why bother with all the work of a startup, right? And yet he did see the value in the startup path. Which led to him starting a company that grew to a decent size and got acquired and continued to provide innovations and value for the new parent company. And kept many people employed. All because of what this one founder started. So, from a jobs standpoint, and from an innovation and business expansion standpoint, I would say the visa made plenty of sense.
btilly 9y ago
I think that the rules of this startup visa made perfect sense for the venture capital people who were pushing it. The rules basically boil down to, If a VC thinks that so and so has a good enough shot at a business that we want to fund him, don't make immigration a barrier. It was never intended as a path for large numbers of good people to immigrate to the USA, and so makes no sense for that. It was just meant to get government out of the way of people who are likely to generate jobs here.
- backtoyoujim 9y ago
  > If a VC thinks ... Democracy in action.
  - btilly 9y ago
    The goal of good government should be to make decisions that make the people's lives better, and not to make all decisions feel wonderfully democratic. People with a likely decent track record are willing to put their money down on, "This person can create jobs." Would you prefer to have those jobs created or not? Saying yes to the option is very much not a zero-sum game.
  - thehardsphere 9y ago
    Yes, in a democracy, we allow people other than the government to make decisions, because we understand that the proper scope of what should be voted on is not "everything."
    - geebee 9y ago
      I don't think you're recognizing a critical distinction between the type of decision being made. The difference here is that a job offer or an investment is a decision made by an employer or an investor. US citizenship or work/residency, on the other hand, is a status not with an employer or an investor but with the US government and the citizens it represents.

deepGem 9y ago

Well yes and no. On one hand, if you secure a 250K funding this is a good option to get inside the US. On the other, if your startup fails for whatsoever reason, you have to head back, can't work anywhere else.

pkaye 9y ago
That is why it is called a startup visa. We expect them to have enough financial backing to start a business.

jasode 9y ago

>The rules of this startup visa never made any sense. Can you elaborate specifically on the rules of the USA startup visa that didn't make sense? For comparison and discussion, you can look at other countries' startup visa programs [1] like Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, etc. Basically, the idea is to craft the visa rules such that the barriers are high enough that it allows legitimate foreign entrepreneurs with real business prospects to filter through. On the other hand, if you make the criteria "too easy", it becomes a "back door visa" for non-productive foreigners to abuse. It's a balance between those two outcomes. Did any other country tune their visa policy correctly? If so, what did USA specifically get wrong and what did the other countries get right? [1] http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/visas-entrepreneurs-how-countries-are-seeking-out-immigrant-job-creators http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/visas-entrepreneurs-h...

bargl 9y ago
I wish I could remember where I saw the video (a guy with a bunch of gumballs representing population), but I remember he spoke about how the visa process is really beneficial for the USA but bad for other countries. The point being that we drain their talent pool while increasing our own. The argument being that as we skim the top people from the talent pool of other countries we reduce their capability to push innovation and ideas within their own infrastructure. Instead the USA benefits in that we don't have to have the smartest people just the most attractive place for them to come and help our country. So while I disagree with his message behind this move, I think he inadvertently helped the rest of the world...
- Sir_Substance 9y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE That's only tangentially involved in this discussion though. That video is about whether opening immigration pathways to the USA can reduce world poverty. I never reviewed the rules that are being overturned here, so I can't say whether they made sense or not, but they were probably targeted at increasing US economic growth, not reducing world poverty.
- bduerst 9y ago
  Pretty much. 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrant families. Likewise, 7 of the top 10 brands in the world were founded by U.S. immigrants or their children. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/#156be9a14a59 https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-pe...
  - wil421 9y ago
    Of course 40% of businesses were stared by immigrants. America is the land of immigrants. The articles states since 1850. Even the Trump families subsequent good fortunes were made possible by an immigrant. Most of my friends and extended families have a grand parent or two who were immigrants. If not grand parent then great grand parent.
djb_hackernews 9y ago
I'm not familiar with other countries entrepreneurship visas. This rule originally required $345,000 in investment from US based investors before the visa is awarded. The amount was then revised down to $250k after comments from the executive and investor community. It then required $500k in recurring revenue and 20% annualized revenue growth in order to extend the visa after 2 years. I'm not sure why a foreign startup founder with a product that raised $250k from US investors and can confidently say they will have $500k in revenue want to temporarily immigrate to the US? Nothing is stopping them from operating in the US and there are existing visas for business owners operating in the US they can use that don't have all of the related hoops. I think ultimately this would be underutilized at best and gamed much like the EB5 program at worst.
- haydenlee 9y ago
  I believe it was an additional $500k of funding to renew, which is a notable difference.
- jasode 9y ago
  >I'm not sure why a foreign startup founder [...] want to temporarily immigrate to the US? To make sure I'm not misinterpreting that, you're saying startup founders would rather run their startup company remotely thousands of miles away? E.g. the foreign startup founder stays in France which is 6+ time zones away while his company and employees are working in the USA? To be clear, we're not talking about the mother ship of a mature company opening a branch office in another country but instead, an infant startup company with maybe the founder and 1 or 2 other people. Even if the majority of startup founders wanted that arrangement, what VCs would invest in that type of working structure? >Nothing is stopping them from operating in the US and there are existing visas for business owners operating in the US they can use that don't have all of the related hoops. If you look at the other USA visa options[1], they are not exactly redundant with the proposed startup visa. (E.g. EB5 requires higher amount of $1 million from the immigrant which basically means the immigrant is already wealthy instead of starving entrepreneur with no money. The other visas are based on talent/skill such as advanced hard-to-find PhD or require employers to sponsor. The immigrant is his own employer.) [1] http://fundersandfounders.com/coming-to-america-for-entrepreneurs-infographic/ http://fundersandfounders.com/coming-to-america-for-entrepre...
Spooky23 9y ago
It's pretty obviously easy to game. Similar programs currently in place are basically funnels for rich foreigners from China and other countries to get green cards for doing marginally productive things like buying commercial property.
vmarsy 9y ago
> Can you elaborate specifically on the rules of the USA startup visa that didn't make sense? As someone pointed out a couple weeks ago [1]: > 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? So from your link, that startup rule got wrong the 'Defining Success: Criteria for Permanent Residence' which states: > Conditional entrepreneur visas can typically be renewed or converted to permanent residence after two to four years if the immigrant creates a successful business. (An exception is the Australian Venture Capital Entrepreneur program, which provides immediate permanent residence.) But here the rule is simply: 'They cannot apply for a green card during this period.'. So even if your startup is successful, you're kicked out after 2.5 or 5 years. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14606478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14606478
- nojvek 9y ago
  This visa program deserves to be repealed. This is a big contrast to a couple of years ago when you could bring in 200k+ in to the country and start a business. Australia and Canada would grant a permanent residency. I know everyone likes blaming Trump for everything but i’m happy when they decide to reform immigration programs that don’t make sense.

natch 9y ago

Thinking back to my first startup job, the founder was exactly such a person who was in a place where according to you he probably wouldn't see the value in the startup path. Because he was eminently employable with the quality of his credentials and skills, so, why not just get a high paying job working for someone else? Why bother with all the work of a startup, right? And yet he did see the value in the startup path. Which led to him starting a company that grew to a decent size and got acquired and continued to provide innovations and value for the new parent company. And kept many people employed. All because of what this one founder started. So, from a jobs standpoint, and from an innovation and business expansion standpoint, I would say the visa made plenty of sense.

btilly 9y ago

I think that the rules of this startup visa made perfect sense for the venture capital people who were pushing it. The rules basically boil down to, If a VC thinks that so and so has a good enough shot at a business that we want to fund him, don't make immigration a barrier. It was never intended as a path for large numbers of good people to immigrate to the USA, and so makes no sense for that. It was just meant to get government out of the way of people who are likely to generate jobs here.

backtoyoujim 9y ago
> If a VC thinks ... Democracy in action.
- btilly 9y ago
  The goal of good government should be to make decisions that make the people's lives better, and not to make all decisions feel wonderfully democratic. People with a likely decent track record are willing to put their money down on, "This person can create jobs." Would you prefer to have those jobs created or not? Saying yes to the option is very much not a zero-sum game.
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  Yes, in a democracy, we allow people other than the government to make decisions, because we understand that the proper scope of what should be voted on is not "everything."
  - geebee 9y ago
    I don't think you're recognizing a critical distinction between the type of decision being made. The difference here is that a job offer or an investment is a decision made by an employer or an investor. US citizenship or work/residency, on the other hand, is a status not with an employer or an investor but with the US government and the citizens it represents.