11 ms·
The Founder Visa (again)
- aditya 13y agoThey did make it easier to get an H1B visa as an entrepreneur: http://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/entrepreneur-visa-guide http://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/entrepreneur-visa-guide I'm not sure if anyone's ever successfully received one, however. More here: http://www.murthy.com/2012/12/17/entrepreneur-h1b-petitions-a-new-option-for-start-up-companies/ http://www.murthy.com/2012/12/17/entrepreneur-h1b-petitions-...
- tricolon 13y agoThat USCIS guide is strange... it lists H1B only under "Nonimmigrant Visas" even though the H1B is dual-intent.
- iambateman 13y agoIt's crazy to me that countries like Chile are courting (read: begging) entrepreneurial talent and the US acts like we can throw a wall up around the country and pretend like that's still a good thing. NOT allowing a few thousand talented, motivated, educated, english-speaking entrepreneurs seems foolish.
- stevewilhelm 13y agoMany of the millions of unemployed US citizens/voters would argue that there are a few thousand talented, motivated, educated, english-speaking entrepreneurs in their ranks from which YC can choose.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- iambateman 13y agoSure, I'd add that the experience of living in a place like Singapore or Accra changes the projects an entrepreneur attempts.
- stevewilhelm 13y agoI am sure that is true. I was just pointing out that the goals and priorities of the US federal government and YC aren't always perfectly aligned.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- danielharan 13y agoThis is a terrible idea. VCs have proposed the same solution in Canada; the government canned the old investor visa and allowed founders to get a startup when they receive investment from some of our VCs. (There were many more investor visa than VCs can even process. We'll end up with less total job creation. You have to be careful what you lobby for, and how it will be implemented!) What was once a process over which government had visibility is now in the hands of the private sector, with firms that have historically discriminated on age, ethnicity, gender, etc. I'm not saying I wouldn't trust Sam Altman. I just wouldn't trust most VCs with this task.
- danielharan 13y agoDown-voters: explain, please? You don't think the experience from this type of policy being tried somewhere else is relevant? That it won't backfire?
- ahomescu1 13y agoThe way you explained it, it seems you're blaming the VCs for something that was government's fault (it was the government's decision to cancel the old visas, instead of keeping them in parallel with the new one).
- nostrademons 13y ago"Blame" is the wrong way to think about any major policy decision. Instead, you want to think of the effects of the new policy - whether or not anyone intends to do harm (most people don't), will harm result? The grandparent poster's experience with a similar policy in Canada is very relevant there. I don't personally have a position about founder visas - I'm a U.S. citizen, so they don't affect me - but I do think that having all the arguments for and against, particularly concerning unintended consequences, is pretty important.
- ahomescu1 13y agoThe way I understood the poster, the harm came from the government canceling the old investor visas. That seems pretty easy to fix: just add new visas on top of the old ones. The consequences of the way it happened were pretty clear: a bunch of people who previously would use the old investor visas (where you could put up your own money, I imagine) now can't. The effects of this decision shouldn't have been surprising to anyone.
- mikegalarza 13y agoI recently wrote a piece about this issue: How I hacked my US startup visa http://qz.com/151333/how-i-hacked-my-us-startup-visa/ http://qz.com/151333/how-i-hacked-my-us-startup-visa/
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- johnrob 13y agoHere is a counter proposal: the government should approve this request, but stipulate that the immigrants relocate to somewhere other than silicon valley (so all of the created jobs don't end up in the once place where they aren't needed).
- danielharan 13y agoSo you get a visa, with fewer rights? How long would that restriction on their freedom of movement last?
- sanswork 13y agoIn Australia they have something similar for a few professions(teaching being a big one). Generally it's 1 year in somewhere really undesirable, then 2 more years in ok places then freedom. Though in those cases you're being sponsored by a government organisation that is generally also your employer. The only way I could see making it work in this case would be if it was specific cities doing the sponsoring and requiring the business to be run out of incubator type offices for X amount of time. So not very well at all.
- lotsofmangos 13y agoCentral planning worked so well for the Soviets. Does your rule still apply if one of them is called Musk?
- asperous 13y agoI disagree with this counter-proposal. It's arbitrary, counter to free market dynamics, against the constitution for citizens [1], pays specific privilege to one state/region. While they are at it while don't they just stipulate that approved applicants should pay johnrob's rent? (No offense, just trying to point out the arbitrariness of your counter-proposal) I appreciate that there are some depressing social forces in Silicon Valley, but this is extremely special interest in the greater scheme of things. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unite...
- 13y ago
- jw2013 13y agoSome points on my mind: a) Most adventurous student entrepreneurs don't really MUST need a founder visa, they can use OPT. I think founders of Stripe did that. b) Most non-immigrants already working (mostly with H1 visa) needs a founder visa. To work on a startup you founded in H1b visa is hard, consider H1b visa needs some funding/salary requirement on your startup, and that is hard to get by on the early stage of a startup. Giving these people the visa may be important to the U.S. economy consider that group of budding founders are with the most experiences. c) Maybe approval of founder visa won't be in the near future. Right now that is really tangled with other messes in the Immigration Act, which seems hopeless at the House in the stage. d) Really +1 for founder visa. Can't afford to lose foreign entrepreneurs to Canada.
- pc 13y ago> a) Most adventurous student entrepreneurs don't really MUST need a founder visa, they can use OPT. I think founders of Stripe did that. Founder of Stripe here. Not disagreeing with anything you've said, but I feel I should point out that OPT is far from ideal: it doesn't last very long, it requires the job is related to the field of study, full-time work is permitted only during vacations prior to completion of a degree, etc. Still, it can be a useful stopgap in some cases, as you point out.
- timtamboy63 13y agoIt's also a MASSIVE pain, and some schools (like mine) only allow OPT for internships (as opposed to CPT). As a result, I need to choose if I want to intern for my four years of college, or if I want to start a startup.
- jw2013 13y agoI agree with all of what you and Patrick said. Still most likely the student on OPT is in a much better position to start a startup than most people on H1b. Once you are hired by some company on H1b, you want to start your own startup? You need to prove your startup is viable (some funding constraint + providing prevailing wage for yourself I remember). But how you can have a viable startup that has not even been started? That kind of chicken-and-egg problem stuck tons of aspiring entrepreneurs on H1b. Will really appreciate anyone here that can give some solution under current circumstances.
- foobarqux 13y agoIf you want to write to policy makers in Washington then you should publish a well written Op-Ed in the WSJ, NYT or WaPo, not a blog post.
- foobarqux 13y agoWhat visas are being mainly used now?
- trayfare 13y agoWhat an entitled prick. "I have money, therefore give me control over government processes."
- nirvanatikku 13y ago"Maybe he was too ambitious in asking for 10,000 startup visas per year." hmm, lowering expectations a couple of orders of magnitude for a highly selective group? i'm a fan of YC and all, and agree that it'll probably end up being the cream of the crop thus a great likelihood to succeed, but i really do wish this issue was tackled properly - its so painful. I'd personally love to build something here (happily even with my own capital) but can't. I appreciate the call for action, though, but man - trying to immigrate here is rough.. when the conversation becomes 'let us just prove it with 100', while time keeps ticking on.. i wonder if anything will really happen.
- leccine 13y agoSam Altman's assumption is that the US government reasonable. :)
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- geebee 13y agoThe part of this that really worries me is that would-be founders, after making their pitch, are now waiting to find out if the investors have bestowed the right to live and work in the US upon them. I understand that it is complicated. The US only takes about 1.2 million immigrants legally into the country every year, and because of our emphasis on family reunification, this means that startup founders may not get one of the spots. If you make this about whether these folks should be allowed into the US, the answer (yes) is pretty simple, which is why some people think it is a simple question. If you make this about whether a wealthy investor is now not only empowered not only to decide who gets money, but also who gets citizenship, it isn't nearly as obvious an answer. I would hope that people find the idea unsettling, no matter how high their regard is for the investors asking for this new power.
- richardjordan 13y agoYeah, that's absolutely the concern with this kind of approach. While I am confident in the good intentions of YCombinator, you can't do a program just for one incubator, and then you have to select them, and some bad ones would get in who'd exploit the situation. We need startup visas, but it can't be at the behest of investors.
- teacup50 13y ago> While I am confident in the good intentions of YCombinator I'm not. YC is already operating in a club of privilege, surrounded by a bubble of questionable intentions and inflated valuations that externalize the costs onto the wider economy. Now we should grant YC (and maybe "other investment firms") a privilege that bootstrapped companies like our own can never get? We've lost the H1-B lottery multiple years running. I can guarantee that the high wages we pay for decades will go a lot farther than the flash-in-pan founder visas and the occasional success that puts more money in the pockets of a few. Sending YC more grist for their mill isn't to the benefit of the American people, just YC.
- richardjordan 13y agoOkay how about: ...while I see no benefit to my argument in needlessly being rude and questioning the intentions of YC on this topic in the comments section of their in house news organ... Clearer? I think you'll find I clearly state this is a bad idea, even if you grant best intentions to those proposing it specifically.
- huherto 13y agoSince everybody seems to be contributing ideas...I think immigration visas should be awarded on a point based system similar to what it is done in countries that are actively trying to attract immigrants. Education, Family ties, employment history, language, health, financial resources, etc. The current system looks at only one aspect exclusive of the rest.
- joesmo 13y agoWhat are the qualifications for such a visa? Would this be for founders who have already secured funding (and thus their own salary)?
- lachyg 13y agoThe qualification is acceptance into YC as a founder. > So here is a proposal for the US government: please let Y Combinator help allocate up to 100 visas to founders per year.
- TTPrograms 13y agoCould a weird sort of setup be created where YCombinator "hired" entrepreneurs and then gave them traditional work visas? I'm not really familiar with the specifics of how visas work, but I would think it would be possible to construct a situation such that the desired founders would be eligible.
- sprite 13y agoI really wish there was an easier way to be allowed to work and live in the US as an entrepreneur. I completed both my Bachelor and Master degrees in the US (both as valedictorian) and work as an independent app developer. I have a vacation home and cars in the US but would love to stay there full time. Right now my best bet is looking like EB-5 unless I can get in on either EB-1 or EB-2. I wish they had some sort of VISA that let you freelance in the US/stay self employed as long as you met some sort of income or minimum tax requirements (for example your minimum taxable income must be $150k+/year).
- lifeisstillgood 13y agoI know it's somehow all about meeting people in bars in Silicon Valley, but really, is it totally absolutely necessary to come and live in America to start a new world beating company? I work remotely, and do a fair job with my colleagues. Other more talented people work and produce entire operating systems while on different continents, and if you are working on something more worthwhile and less fad driven than Facebook for dogs the surely surely you do not need a visa or a relocation. And if it is better/faster/easier today, why can't that be a reality tomorrow?
- argonaut 13y agoThe post is addressed to the US government. The US government by definition has the interests of America first and foremost in mind, not the interests of other countries. It is in America's interest to have all the world beating companies started in America.
- pistle 13y agoI am pretty sure there are already mechanisms for the rich to buy US citizenship. EB-5. Secure funding for your start-up, boom you're a US citizen as soon as you invest in jobs, etc. in the US. The rich have their ways. What if YC selected ~100 projects per year, gave each their $500k so they could buy their way in...
- argonaut 13y agoI doubt that is financially sustainable in any sense for YC, though.
- wtpiu 13y agoThis is a JOKE. Let Y Combinator? Oh yeah, bro? Wow. If the US were to give ONE company this right, that would be complete bllsht. I like YC, but think before you speak.
- saltyknuckles 13y agoDefinitely agree
- midas007 13y agoDefinitely disagree. 'sama has clarified that he meant YC would volunteer to beta test it. Probably the fairest way would be for govt to take applications and select X at random.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- blizkreeg 13y agoWhy only YCombinator? You're not proposing a solution to the problem here. You're proposing what YCombinator wants. There are legitimate, promising founders and startups outside of YC too, you know. Sorry about the snark..it's just aggravating when piecemeal, self-serving solutions like this one are proposed.
- wtpiu 13y agoHey, sam, great idea... how about you ask the US to give these 100 visas to ANOTHER firm first, if you really believe it. Otherwise, you sound like a selfish douche.
- argonaut 13y agoFrom the HN guidelines: > Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
- wtpiu 13y agoSorry for saying "douche", but depending on the tone in which he presented this idea to me, I might honestly say that. It's one thing to ask for 100 visas for YC, it's another thing to ask for 10 VCs spread across 10 different firms, and suggesting hat YC would take most of the burden of setting it up / distributing resources.
- sama 13y agoI actually ran the idea by a few other firms and they didn't seem quite as interested in international founders as we are. We're willing to do the work on this. If others are, that'd be fine with us too. We just don't want to wait 5 more years for anything to happen.
- bertil 13y agoI have a counter-proposal: Paul Graham and others have described Y Combinator as large; many US-based entrepreneurs described San Francisco as far and a handful of comments here point out how concentration in one city is hurting everyone. Why not start a Y Combinator in Europe and in Asia? Yes, that would require flight tickets to visit from organisations, but that would also allow a better access to incredible initiatives (that keep yelling in unheard comments that Silicon Vally is neglecting them) such as London’s Start-up Roundabout, Paris’ The Family and certainly far more in Berlin, Copenhagen and Amsterdam. I can’t imagine Singapour, Beijing and Hong-Kong and GuandDong have any less merits, certainly with hardware, or less things to learn from Y Combinator. What both need is access to capital and access to expertise on how to make that kind of deals; what Y Combinator provides is a needed discipline about testing and scaling, and that. Both travel far better than the founders, who are best because of their network of skilled friends, understanding of local markets and more. Yes, it might require a standard contract to make European or Chinese company have a finance subsidiary in the US to reassure US investors… but dealing with that kind of complication is what YC is good at, much better than any local equivalent. I would hate to see YC come and unify how to make start-ups. Diversity is key, certainly in something as creative as making companies happen. I was kind of relieved when I noticed no one wrote that idea. But also disappointed: it would be in YC spectacular interest to try.
- rms 13y agoThe Obama administration has said that something like a founder visa will happen, but only as part of comprehensive immigration reform.
- bruceb 13y agoAnd this is why "comprehensive immigration reform" needs to be dumped. Visa and legalization are different issues and need to be considered on their own merits.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- acslater00 13y agoThis is a great idea, can I do this too?? The government can give me 100 visas to allocate, and I'll give them to international entrepreneurs whom I consider to be deserving and who incidentally and in a totally non quid-pro-quo fashion agree to sell me a 7% stake in their companies for a nominal fee. I'll also buy them pizza once a week, if that sweetens the pot.
- pc 13y agoAirbnb and Dropbox will tell you that YC was instrumental in their success.* And, indeed, that the YC equity stake is worth it. So I think the thrust of your argument is off-base -- there's some plausible justification for it. But to your broader point -- conferring immigration status upon acceptance by an arbitrarily-designated institution makes me uncomfortable too. However, it's a ship that sailed a long time ago. (Colleges, for e.g.) Given that we effectively permit universities to pick hundreds of thousands of visa recipients every year, experimenting with 100 for entrepreneurship seems not insane. * (So will Stripe!)
- teacup50 13y agoSurvivor bias is the opposite of objectively rational and actionable data. [edit] The thrust of his argument is that YC is asking to be granted special privileges, in a circumstance in which they happen to directly benefit, in a way that only helps them unfairly cement their already privileged position. It'd be hard for me to look at this privilege being granted as anything other than evidence of corporate/investor oligarchical corruption -- an outlook that isn't improved by your referencing their importance to success.
- pc 13y agoWell, I think survivorship bias is separate (though, agreed, it is endemic in our industry) -- the logic wouldn't change in this argument even if YC had only funded Airbnb and Dropbox. It may be a case of misattribution by the founders concerned, but hey -- in the absence of RCTs, trusting them seems like the right default. > The thrust of his argument is that YC is asking to be granted special privileges, in a circumstance in which they happen to directly benefit, in a way that only helps them unfairly cement their already privileged position. I don't think Sam's argument is quite as self-serving, though I see how it could be interpreted this way. I think he'd agree that YC should not be a gatekeeper. (As in PG's original proposal.) But if the argument against the original proposal is that we somehow need more data before rolling it out everywhere, running a smaller experiment with YC would seem to be better than nothing at all. I completely agree with you that a steady-state world of privileged visa-granters is not what we should be trying to bring about.
- aganek 13y agoYC has proven that it is capable of returning results that beat the market. Few other incubators are able to replicate the success of YC. As an incubator, it is an outlier. Is an outlier a good "control" sample to prove that this reform works? Startup visa reform is a necessity, clearly. Founders have the opportunity to make a strong positive impact on jobs, etc. I'd love for YC to be able to work with additional talented founders. No question, I am all for giving YC access to founder visas. Question: Would a successful beta program at YC prove that the program works? Or would it prove that YC works? If the latter, is there an alternative "beta" program that would be more representative necessary for large scale reform?
- ryandrake 13y agoA little tongue-in-cheek, but to co-opt some general immigration/visa catch phrases: 1. Why do we need to bring in immigrants to found companies? Do we have a shortage of Americans already here who also want to start companies? 2. Or, is Start-up Founder one of those jobs, like picking cabbage, that Americans "just won't do"? 3. Or, is it that American founders are demanding too much compensation?
- kamaal 13y agoI haven't ever visited US. So I can't give a answer from your perspective. >>1. Why do we need to bring in immigrants to found companies? Do we have a shortage of Americans already here who also want to start companies? This is the equivalent of asking why large companies acquire start ups and don't in house innovate their way out to compete in the market. The answer is, the existing inertia is difficult to change in big companies/countries. Plus people don't realize the importance of the opportunity they have in hand. Imagine if people are that desperate to come to US to just start a company, its obvious the thing called 'citizenship of the US' is a very prized opportunity which most US citizens don't realize. >>2. Or, is Start-up Founder one of those jobs, like picking cabbage, that Americans "just won't do"? Starting up is difficult every where, but the US ecosystem is better in terms of the overall equation. First world country, VC's, Infrastructure etc etc
- lhc- 13y agoJust to play devil's advocate, I'm not sure your answer to number 2 is relevant. Sure, the US probably has the best ecosystem for starting a country, but why would that lead to the idea that the US should let anyone who wants come here to use it? Norway has a great health care system, but that doesn't mean that they should allow anyone to emigrate there who is looking for good medical coverage. Also, for number 1, I dont think thats a fair comparison. If anything, the recent startup culture in the US has proved that theres an enormous ability here for citizens to start their own companies and fight against large, slow moving corporations. Additionally, there is no shortage of US citizens trying to start companies, who are well aware of the advantages. It seems like your plea is more from the idea of "its not fair that the US is the best place for this, so they should allow everyone to try it", which just is not how US immigration policy works.
- SeoxyS 13y agoAs somebody who fought for a year to get an O1 visa (and an EB-1 green card, though that didn't quite work out), I can attest to the fact that the problem is not that it is an investor vs. a government official that is deciding whether one meets the criteria, but with the criteria themselves. I had a top-notch immigration attorney, and a solid case. I was the first employee of a company that now employs north of a hundred engineers and generates tens of millions in tax revenue. By any definition of the phrase "individuals with an extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business, or athletics," I am the kind of person that this visa was meant to attract: talent that results in a net gain for the country. The problem isn't with the government employees who review the cases; the problem is with the criteria for the visa. It's stuck in a world where 40-year old academics were the innovators. Where instead of showing product traction, revenue, and ability to create businesses, you're expected to show published papers, academic awards, or inclusion in conference panels. Sure, these are still very valid reasons to want somebody to enter the US; but they shouldn't be considered the only reasons. Quite a few very valuable companies were founded by mavericks, dropouts, or just people who stayed away from academia and instead worked on products. Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Zuck, the WhatsApp guys, the Airbnb guys. None of these guys were academics. Some dropped out of college. None received nobel prizes, but many had shown previous entrepreneurial success. The visa requirements give this no consideration. -- The full list of requirements, of which you have to demonstrably meet at least three: 1. Documentation of the individual's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 2. Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 3. Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about the individual, relating to the individual's work in the field for which classification is sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any necessary translation; 4. Evidence of the individual's participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which classification is sought; 5. Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field; 6. Evidence of the individual's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional journals, or other major media; 7. Evidence that the individual has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 8. Evidence that the individual has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence.
- tomasien 13y agoI fully appreciate the "reasonableness" of reducing the scope of what you're asking for, but (as I'm sure you're aware) the US Government is much more likely to grant 10,000 Startup Visas than to go through the process of granting 100 to 1 group. That's like, the opposite of how they work - it shows favoritism, it takes a lot of process for what seems like insignificant results (whether the USG produces significant results or not, their numbers are never in the hundreds of anything), etc. I suggest continuing to pool resources and lobby for 10,000 - that is much more likely to yield results.
- kijin 13y ago> Many will fail, of course, but one could be the next Google, Facebook, Airbnb, or Dropbox. What makes you think the United States cares about the next Airbnb or Dropbox? The policies of the Federal government are a (non-deterministic) function of a lot of powerful interests and opinions, and many of those interests are directly opposed to anything that threatens their outdated business models. As if today's founders need any more reason to avoid doing business in the United States. I would much rather prefer startup accelerators like YC to expand into other regions of the world. One season per year in the EU and another season in Southeast Asia would be fantastic. Granted, many of these regions don't have the advantage of the Bay Area's technical and human infrastructure, but is that really such an insurmountable problem? We're startups, goddammit, it's our job to do create things where none used to exist.
- sama 13y agoPeople seem to be trying to deliberately misunderstand my point. 1) I don't think this should just be for YC. I'm just volunteering to beta test it. I think we are very likely to show success, which would hopefully open it much more broadly. But I'd be very happy to do it together with other investors from the beginning. I feel that in general investors (YC included) are not doing enough to push this issue. 2) I do think that investors should get a say in who gets startup visas. This is no different than universities, big companies, or even the people who give out Oscars deciding who is qualified to get one.
- thatthatis 13y agoDeliberately? I generally ascribe to the camp that says: when the majority or a large portion of the audience misinterprets what is being said, the problem lies not with with readers but with the author. Perhaps it is you who mis-wrote not us who mis-read. What you wrote came off as incredibly arrogant. Especially with your recent promotion.
- cwilson 13y agoIncredibly arrogant? Really? Sorry, but you're definitely mis-reading that one and you've clearly never met Sam.
- teacup50 13y ago"I do think that investors should get a say in who gets startup visas. This is no different than universities, big companies, or even the people who give out Oscars ..." Shoe fits.
- thatthatis 13y ago~99% of the people reading this or the original article have never met Sam. Parts of the original article, as written and without knowing the author, came off as very arrogant. If the words require a personal relationship with the author to be interpreted correctly, then there's probably a more clear way to express them. I'm sure Sam is a great guy in person, and I've enjoyed all of his articles I've read to date. Parts of this one came off as arrogant -- which isnt me saying or thinking that it was intended to, or that Sam actually is.
- SaltySailor 13y agoOh no we aren't letting enough Indians into the country to take our jobs! This is the worst oppression in all of HN history!
- saltyknuckles 13y agoDid we really run out of Americans who are capable of being founders?
- ekm2 13y agoIs there such a thing as too much job creation?
- tarikjn 13y agoDo you live on this planet? It's about competitiveness. It's not just about being able to be a founder, if there is a foreigner doing the same product with more success, the American's startup will eventually die. So foreign countries can get all the best talent with their flexible visa systems, including Americans, while America only has access to local talent. That's not really pro-American...
- rdl 13y agoI wish government and big institutions in general were set up to allow testing of hypotheses like this. We'd all be better off, but I fear what would happen is one or two of those 100 visa people would do a company which fails (or succeeds somewhat), gets in some minor unrelated legal problem (bar fight, whatever), and then a politician uses it as an example of why immigration is bad to tar their opposition.
- HistoryInAction 13y agoOh, it's even worse than you think. The visa category (J-1) I investigated using for a similar proposal I pitched to 500 two years back is controlled by a small industry of academia-affiliated shops to place foreign students. DHS/USCIS farms out its selection process to these firms who have to sponsor applicants. Under the letter of the law, I proposed using J-1 visas (Specialist or Trainee as appropriate, http://j1visa.state.gov/programs http://j1visa.state.gov/programs) via 500 for at least for founders from countries exempt from the two-year mandatory return period. But the American Immigration Lawyers Association/American Immigration Council had a staffer who explained the way things really work to me in shooting down the proposal.
- rdl 13y agoWould people feel better about this if YC donated their 7% stake in those 50 companies to a charity? That would more clearly separate out the "special privilege for a private company" part of this proposal from the "we're testing something of general applicability." A domestic tech-industry/entrepreneurship inclusiveness effort, like 0-18yo STEM education, would be a good choice.
- teacup50 13y ago> Would people feel better about this if YC donated their 7% stake in those 50 companies to a charity? It would still be beneficial to YC directly and uniquely, and a special privilege, so no. On top of which, there are serious ethical concerns around a early-stage investors essentially controlling a founder's visa allocation and ongoing status.
- HistoryInAction 13y agoAnd yes, there is also political opposition from the left centered around the extra control investors would have if they also determine the immigration status of a founder. I don't understand that opposition, but I've run into it a few times.
- teacup50 13y agoYou don't understand the ethical concerns related to having a huge negotiating advantage granted and enforced by the US government? You think that's a leftist issue?
- HistoryInAction 13y agoAh, sorry, I wasn't clear. I've only heard that concern from political professionals on the left, not that the concern itself was associated with one side of the aisle or another. And correct, I've never thought about the ethical concerns, so I'd be interested in your explanation. Most of the investors I've worked with in this space have already committed to invest in the startups dealing with immigration problems, and so their interest is to salvage their investment and stop it from being destroyed by the immigration system rather than negotiating the investment in the first place. In my defense, "certified VC/angel" sponsorship is a hypothetical proposal that has very, very little traction in Congress, and that I've opposed in favor of broad capital requirements (e.g. the Moran amendment, which I supported: http://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=893ec36f-1426-4fcc-9bc1-cc452db54fa9 http://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?Fil... and some efforts by the US Chamber of Commerce that never made it into legislative language) Thanks!
- pm24601 13y agoYet another go-nowhere idea. Paul, et. al. apparently still haven't learned politics. The 'startup visa' will happen when Paul, et. al. : 1. realizes that access != power 2. demonstrate power by having a group of people who have immigration reform as their top voting issue. 3. stop thinking that sending mass emails is effective. Congress has good spam filters too. 4. they need to put serious money behind it and even more serious time. 5. they must make allies with the broader range of groups working to deal with the immigration issues. 6. Lastly, they need to realize that the immigration issue gets solved for everyone or it doesn't get solved for anyone. Before anyone argues with me: google "illegal immigration families broken up". Those people fighting to get their brother and sister, mother and father back. Those people have the power in the immigration fight. Paul sitting around and arguing about 100 visas from an ROI perspective just demonstrates utter cluelessness about politics. Hell, its not even a good pitch! I predict the Startup Visa is DOA (again).
- kamaal 13y agoAfter reading all this I guess for guys like me(Indian, staying in Bangalore) hopes of coming to US to do start up is impossible any way. The only real way is to build a start up(Which many of us already are working on) here, secure some millions of $'s in funding. But then if you have millions of $'s in a country like India, you are already a king. You can buy things and live a life no ordinary Indian can possibly imagine in their wildest dreams. 1 million dollars is 6,00,00,000 rupees- You can buy enough real estate to secure a rent income to never have you ever work again ever! What pains me most is majority of the Indians getting Visa's are really the manager's pets kind of guys who find their way to US through sycophancy, then go and do the same there. There is tons of talent here which can generate all the jobs and taxes US needs who will never ever get a Visa. Unfortunately those guys will never touch US shores. At least not with Visa's to start companies there. The Bangalore ecosystem is rich and overflowing with start up talent. A mixture of this and US start up ecosystem would just be unimaginable amazing.
- jackylee0424 13y agoAs an O1 status holder, this does make sense, especially for PhD founders (PhDs are supposed to be the top of their own field). O1 approval is fast (premium processing is about two weeks). In my experience, document preparation is depending on two major factors: 1. applicant's records such as media coverage, publications/citations, reference letters, and awards. I fortunately accumulated some evidences for each of these when doing my PhD. I only have less than half of reference letters compared to my friends who got their EB1, so I think media and awards could be equally important. 2. experienced attorney who can put together a 2-inch-thick document in a short time (of course, it depends on the applicant to gather the materials).
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- bradleyjg 13y agoThe system is so screwy. We have 50,000 visas a year given out in a lottery system to any high school graduate without a criminal record from any country except the 19 that send the most immigrants annually. 65,000 visas for brothers and sisters of US Citizens. No limit at all on spouse, minor children, and parents of US citizens 21 or older. But only 41,000 professionals holding advanced degrees with job offers and labor certifications, of which no more than 2900 can be from any one country. I'm all for more total immigration, but if we are going to have the status quo totals I'd much rather more EB-2s and fewer FB-4s, DVs, or even FB-IRs.
- dude_abides 13y agoI wonder how many of the negative commenters on this thread are either citizens or permanent residents. I don't see why a techie who is not yet a citizen or permanent resident of US, and wants to be one, would be so negative about this proposal. At worst this can lead to a few lucky immigrant founders who get free visas, but at best, this can do a lot of good to the country in terms of creating new jobs, and to the startup ecosystem (and to YC -- so what!).
- falsestprophet 13y agoMercifully, foreigners don't elect our legislators.
- pm24601 13y agoThanks to Citizen United that allows corporations ( "corporations are people, too, my friend" - Mitt Romney) Yes foreigners can influence our politics
- rachellaw 13y agoI'm an international student on OPT doing startup, but the proposal still makes me uneasy. There's already too much of business interests lobbying in politics and I've seen that happen in my home country -- what starts off as a seemingly good idea, becomes legalized corruption.
- cenhyperion 13y ago>If founders from elsewhere want to pay taxes and create jobs in the US, we should let them. Spot on. >This is just a start. We are also in need of broad-based immigration reform, and I believe more immigrants will help our country. This is really what needs to happen. Shameless plug, I'm on the code squad at http://fwd.us http://fwd.us and this is what we're trying to do. I think Sam is doing great work advocating to bring more founders here to the U.S.
- bsder 13y agoNo. No visas. If we want these people, give them a green card. I'm tired of watching the games around immigrant visas.
- azifali 13y agoI am not sure why YC should get the opportunity to get 100 entrepreneurs get startup visas. Why not open the level playing field and allow ANY entrepreneur to get such a visa? There are plenty of Dropbox / Airbnb companies that are getting built, going public or getting sold outside of YC.
- NextUserName 13y agoVisas? you are talking about bringing in people from other countries to start companies here right? Is this because there is not enough founders born in the US? Wow, I go to a coffee shop in bay area and everyone there assumes that I am some kind of startup founder. Everyone is talking about their company they started and asks their neighbors what they are founding. IT is really quite annoying. We really need more of this? I guess the more that is thrown against the wall, the more has a chance of sticking huh? What about those imports who make it, thwarting the native born competitor's company by a small margin? Now you have hurt the native for a ever so slightly better product or perhaps one that just made it to market slightly earlier. 10,000 more startups a year than now? Really? This can't be good.
- trustfundbaby 13y agoHow about just giving them a visa if they can secure VC funding in the United States enough to support them in their efforts for a year or two. Also reforming the h1b visa might help, since most immigrants are highly motivated to start their own businesses ... allowing h1bs more easily start businesses (currently you have to have someone, an American citizen, have some sort of controlling interest in your business for it to be a viable means of employment), have time after losing a job to find another one (currently you have to leave immediately after you're fired/laid off).
- iagooar 13y agoConquer a new land, send thousands of people, nearly exterminate the native population, put up walls so nobody else can get in. Sounds legit.
- keerthiko 13y agoMy proposal would instead be a pair of visas: A proper "Entrepreneur Visa," that is similar to the existing EB-category ones that require your company to have received a certain threshold of funding. However, I think this funding should be tuned by industry, and typically, any level of funding is good, so this should be low. If necessary, a clause stipulating maximum percentage of non-US hires (or additional taxes/fees if otherwise) should be ok. More importantly, an "Entrepreneur Trial" visa should be in place. This should be a 1-year visa, which should just require a few letters of recommendation, qualification in the field (academic degree or equivalent work experience from any country), and function like an OPT. The earlier mentioned visa (the Entrepreneur visa) should be made trivially obtainable (quick filing of paperwork) by an applicant who is on the Trial visa if he fulfills the minimum funding requirement. Preferably the trial visa has a system to petition for an extension of 6-12 months. This is still very much limiting the options for an immigrant founder, but of course, we can't assume they will ever have as much freedom as a US person when trying to bend the rules of life. It would still be nice to have some options that don't involve trying to bend over backwards and lick someone else's rearside to be allowed to contribute to the economy.
- gambiting 13y ago"Startups are what the US is the best in the world at. We figure out new businesses faster than anyone else. It would be disastrous if that stopped being the case." "Exploiting cheap labour is what <insert 3rd world country of choice here> is the best in the world at. We figure out how to exploit our economy and people faster than anyone else. It would be disastrous if that stopped being the case" Maybe US is best about startups - but I believe that in the long run its toxic to everyone, including people involved in the process. Just because something seems like a disaster doesn't mean that it has to be one.
- hbharadwaj 13y agoA founder's visa should be opened up to a class of people. In this beta testing case, it would be open to a class of people who get selected with YC or are interested in YC. That's a very limited view from a governance perspective. The only ones who should have such power are USCIS and Consulate Officers. USCIS should work with incubators for the judging criteria. There should be another criteria for start ups who want to go without a sponsoring incubator as well. In addition, not sure what the visa status will be during the three month funding cycles. That alone limits a lot of options. A F-1 student or a H1B employee cannot create a start up and apply to YC even though they are in US because they can't leave their status for 3 months.
- jedanbik 13y agoWhy would Y-Combinator deserve this special treatment by the US government? Since when does money == oversight?
- lancewiggs 13y agoI'd flip it. Rather than ask for 100 visas, ask for 100,000, then focus on the benefits. That's going to attract a lot more attention. 100,000 visas will be at least 200 Dropboxes. 100,000 visas will be at least 1 million jobs. 100,000 visa will be at least $500 billion in value. (figures completely made up, but the power of a big number is that statistics are on your side, and these can be estimated from past performance of immigrants. Bias will be there yes, but which way?) Get a couple of tech entrepreneurs to 'guarantee' the 100,000 will deliver the goods with a $1 billion bet that at least five of that crowd will be part of a $1 billion company within 10 years. And as others say - a visa is not enough, you need residency rights. Perhaps let the visa automatically flip to a green card after 2 years if the company that they found reached certain hurdles (value, revenue or vanity metrics). But if you can't work or get residence in the USA, then come to New Zealand. We have a visa points system, have huge demand for ICT people and have great founder communities and companies. It's an incredible place to live, and when you cash out there are no capital gains taxes here.
- ballard 13y agoBtw if anyone needs complex (and which isn't) representation, Rajat Kuver is a super cool dude with offices in Palo Alto and Cupertino. Also a law prof. (Super cool, like it says on the tin.) http://www.advancedimmigrationsolutions.com/ourservices.php http://www.advancedimmigrationsolutions.com/ourservices.php
- tarunkotia 13y agoSince August 2011 "Entrepreneurs H1B" is available. I had posted this commented just last week and I am adding this comment again. Here is my story: I've started on this path just recently and believe me I am facing difficulties at every step, even the the ones I thought were most obvious. But again who said life was easy. In case you are interested there are ways you can do business in the US on H-1B visa. Is it easy? Hell no! But in case you are still interested keep reading, feel free to reach out to me as I am going through this process right now. Articles about Entrepreneur H1B: - http://www.murthy.com/2012/12/17/entrepreneur-h1b-petitions-a-new-option-for-start-up-companies/ http://www.murthy.com/2012/12/17/entrepreneur-h1b-petitions-... - http://www.uscis.gov/news/public-releases-topic/business-immigration/questions-answers-uscis-issues-guidance-memorandum-establishing-employee-employer-relationship-h-1b-petitions http://www.uscis.gov/news/public-releases-topic/business-imm... -http://blog.uscis.gov/2011/08/encouraging-entrepreneurs-and-high.html http://blog.uscis.gov/2011/08/encouraging-entrepreneurs-and-... - http://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/entrepreneur-visa-guide http://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/entrepreneur-visa-guide Further reading: - http://blog.fosterquan.com/2012/12/09/the-sweet-smell-of-success-h-1b-visas-for-entrepreneurs/ http://blog.fosterquan.com/2012/12/09/the-sweet-smell-of-suc... Success story of Vishal Shah from Traffio: - http://www.nextbigwhat.com/how-to-startup-in-silicon-valley-297/ http://www.nextbigwhat.com/how-to-startup-in-silicon-valley-... Business Entity: - http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x12qxuo_how-to-open-a-business-in-us-types-of-business-entities_travel http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x12qxuo_how-to-open-a-busin...
- zxcvvcxz 13y agoI think this is a good idea for investor and tech entrepreneurs (building a business in US opens a ton of capital opportunities), but I think it's fundamentally at odds with immigration and popular opinion, and thus the effect on policy, in the United States. Here's the argument: The US is tough on immigration because supposedly immigrants will take American jobs. American people - which we'll broadly define as the "middle class" who statistically speaking don't have these tech skills - don't want this. Why would they want foreigners taking their jobs? It makes no sense. Thus they will vote, or have political influence, tending to enact policy that is tough on immigration. Founder visas for tech companies with the intention of creating jobs does not change this, because it creates tech jobs. Middle class America can't fulfill this in meaningful-enough numbers for there to be any positive political influence. "Let us show you what we can do with 100 visas. This will be measurable, and in 5 years, we can tell you exactly how many jobs get created." This won't matter much until jobs get created in large enough numbers for the middle class. What's important though will be (and it's hard to tell if this is the case) a "trickle-down" effect, where these relatively small number of tech jobs created lead to the creation of other jobs that have a meaningful impact. EDIT - an example that comes to mind is Homejoy, which creates more maid jobs... but boy oh boy can this sort of thing sound like inequality ("let foreign founders come in to make web services turning Americans into maids!"). Think about it - even if a new Google pops up in the next 5 years - that's 25K jobs. Drop in the ocean. 2.2M jobs were created in 2012; let's say in 5 years 10M jobs are created. 25K new tech jobs for a new Google represents a difference of 0.25%. I guess that's something - but how many of those 25K jobs will be filled by American citizens? In short - there's absolutely no reason not to have a founder visa like proposed. That would be sweet. But from the policy makers' perspectives, it doesn't look like there's a compelling enough reason to change the status quo. If anything it's just easy to paint as "let rich investors bring in foreign engineers to build new websites and apps". Doesn't really resonate. Feel free to point out flaws in this argument, it would probably help the OP's cause. I made my post purposely cynical, because these are the sort of opinions and spins that will need to be addressed.