3 ms·

Paul: you are absolutely right. I think it is hard to find a better way to differentiate the barbershops from the startups short of having smart folks in the go

by ajju 16y ago

Paul: you are absolutely right. I think it is hard to find a better way to differentiate the barbershops from the startups short of having smart folks in the government who subjectively examine each application - and we all know how likely that is. Also, if we go that route, the startup visa will take years just like the current green card application which IIRC requires an in person interview. Vivek does have a point as well though. Currently, employers who sponsor "green cards" have the power to get the sponsored employees and their families kicked out of the country simply by firing them. I don't think you'd want to replicate this with the startup visa. Using investors as an 'entrance requirement' may be o.k., but once someone qualifies for a startup visa, the path to a permanent residency should either be really short (months, not years) or independent of whether the investor continues to 'support' the entrepreneur. I am in favor of strong filtering up front, but anyone who qualifies should then be treated just like an American citizen or permanent resident.

kjhgtfbn 16y ago
The VC investor is, I think, to stop the property loophole that used to apply here. To get a visa you had to invest $1M in a business, so people registered a company, bought a $1M house, leased it to themselves, employed all their family and moved in.
- ajju 16y ago
  I assume you are referring to the way the government is constraining who they qualify as an 'investor' (someone who has made an investments of at least $50,000 every year for the past 3 years)? It does make sense to have some clause like that to avoid the loophole you mentioned. It is still orthogonal to what I am saying though, which is that once an entrepreneur has raised the money from a qualified investor for a legitimate startup, they should essentially get a permanent residency permit.
  - kjhgtfbn 16y ago
    Oh definitely agree - I would say that anybody graduating form a US uni with a science degree should get a green card. in my own field, we train physics and comp-sci PhDs then throw them out of the country like itinerant fruit pickers.
bluishgreen 16y ago
"Vivek does have a point as well though. Currently, employers who sponsor "green cards" have the power to get the sponsored employees and their families kicked out of the country simply by firing them." This is exactly right. While the PG does have a point, this is the most grave issue with the act. You will see the ugly when the bill passes and as more data gathers in subsequent years about how investors abuse it. Or you can just look at similar situations right now - how employees who are sponsored for green card are exploited by unscrupulous employers.

by ajju 16y ago

kjhgtfbn 16y ago

The VC investor is, I think, to stop the property loophole that used to apply here. To get a visa you had to invest $1M in a business, so people registered a company, bought a $1M house, leased it to themselves, employed all their family and moved in.

ajju 16y ago
I assume you are referring to the way the government is constraining who they qualify as an 'investor' (someone who has made an investments of at least $50,000 every year for the past 3 years)? It does make sense to have some clause like that to avoid the loophole you mentioned. It is still orthogonal to what I am saying though, which is that once an entrepreneur has raised the money from a qualified investor for a legitimate startup, they should essentially get a permanent residency permit.
- kjhgtfbn 16y ago
  Oh definitely agree - I would say that anybody graduating form a US uni with a science degree should get a green card. in my own field, we train physics and comp-sci PhDs then throw them out of the country like itinerant fruit pickers.

bluishgreen 16y ago

"Vivek does have a point as well though. Currently, employers who sponsor "green cards" have the power to get the sponsored employees and their families kicked out of the country simply by firing them." This is exactly right. While the PG does have a point, this is the most grave issue with the act. You will see the ugly when the bill passes and as more data gathers in subsequent years about how investors abuse it. Or you can just look at similar situations right now - how employees who are sponsored for green card are exploited by unscrupulous employers.