5 ms·

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 a

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...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- djb_hackernews 9y ago
  I think you and I have a different view of the type of entrepreneur this visa would apply to. I don't think a foreign startup with 1 or 2 employees is going to attract $250k investment from US investors. (source: I once started a tech company in south america, US investors rarely invested outside of the US in early stage businesses) I think this would just be too risky for the US investor. On the other hand if there was a startup that were within 2 years reach of $500k recurring revenue and 20% growth and were derisked to the point that US investors were interested in putting up real money then they are probably established enough that they wouldn't want to make the move for such a short time frame. I think when people first read about this visa rule they imagined it'd be more ycombinator hacker types ("infant startup company with maybe the founder and 1 or 2 other people") when in reality that wasn't the case.

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...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
djb_hackernews 9y ago
I think you and I have a different view of the type of entrepreneur this visa would apply to. I don't think a foreign startup with 1 or 2 employees is going to attract $250k investment from US investors. (source: I once started a tech company in south america, US investors rarely invested outside of the US in early stage businesses) I think this would just be too risky for the US investor. On the other hand if there was a startup that were within 2 years reach of $500k recurring revenue and 20% growth and were derisked to the point that US investors were interested in putting up real money then they are probably established enough that they wouldn't want to make the move for such a short time frame. I think when people first read about this visa rule they imagined it'd be more ycombinator hacker types ("infant startup company with maybe the founder and 1 or 2 other people") when in reality that wasn't the case.