31 ms·

Let's Give Visas to Startup Founders

36 points by pchristensen 17y ago

arh 17y ago
The idea is a good one, but I'm wrestling with the dollar amount that needs to be invested before the founder can get a visa. Specifically, how likely is it that a US venture capitalist will invest $250,000 or more in a startup that's not located in the US (or Silicon Valley for that matter) vs. another startup that is? Even if the non-US startup will move to the US once they receive funding, the largely intangible advantages bestowed on a startup in the Valley (which I've witnessed in the month that I've lived here) give it a better chance. To be successful in facilitating the immigration of founders to the US, the founders' Visa should be available to any startup that has received any funding from a "qualified US investor" over $15K, which would include non-US startups accepted into YC. And to avoid creating a huge immigration loophole (which seems to be the author's rationale for suggesting a "real money" cutoff), perhaps the Visa could have a clause that limits it to two years unless additional capital is secured and the startup is deemed to have "passed muster", at which point a permanent resident visa could be granted.
- alex_c 17y ago
  Specifically, how likely is it that a US venture capitalist will invest $250,000 or more in a startup that's not located in the US (or Silicon Valley for that matter) vs. another startup that is? It might be more likely than you think. If the startup and the founders are solid, and if there is a clear (and most importantly, fast) visa path like the one proposed, I don't think most investors would have a problem. If anything, $250,000 is way too low for a VC, so you might have to find an angel investor instead. Some countries would have an advantage over others, of course, but I don't think it's a showstopper - my first startup, based in Canada, received an offer for funding which would've put us over this threshold. Even if the non-US startup will move to the US once they receive funding, the largely intangible advantages bestowed on a startup in the Valley (which I've witnessed in the month that I've lived here) give it a better chance. Can you elaborate? What is the difference, once both startups are in the Valley, and assuming there are no language issues? So many startup founders are already originally from other states or even countries.
  - arh 17y ago
    It may be more likely than I think, but what matters is if it is so much more likely that P(Silicon Valley startup getting funding) < P(Canada/foreign startup getting funding), all other things being equal. Do you think that this is the case? I don't think that every startup needs to be in the Valley to get funding, but what I've witnessed here is a prime example of "it's not (only) what you know, it's who you know". If you have a viable startup, knowing people that have made names for themselves in the startup scene, many of which are based in Silicon Valley, can go a long way towards getting introduced to potential investors, whether they be angel investors or VCs.
    - alex_c 17y ago
      I don't think we're disagreeing on much. Yes, of course, a startup with better connections in the US has a better chance to get funding from US investors, and it's easier for an US startup to make these connections. My point is that P(Canada/foreign startup getting funding) is greater than zero even with today's visa situation, and is still large enough to make a visa program worthwhile, even if it is smaller than P(Silicon Valley startup getting funding).
ojbyrne 17y ago
So my question is - if the startup has $250k in funding, why can't they sponsor for an H1B for the founder(s)?
- rglullis 17y ago
  Yearly quota. Only 65k applications for H1B visas are accepted every year. To be able to sponsor someone out of the quota, the institution has to be either a non-profit or educational - universities and such.
  - ojbyrne 17y ago
    Good point.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
msort 17y ago
Current waiting time for China and India-born employment-based Green Card application is likely to be 4-5 years. Many of those applicants are potential startup founders. Sadly they cannot pursue their ambitions due to the long immigration process. Some of them will choose to leave US and found their startups in their home countries.
- dannyr 17y ago
  Speeding up the Green Card process is actually a better solution & also has the greater probability of happening vs granting a founders visa.
idlewords 17y ago
"The idea and the founder's résumé would then need to pass muster with a government or industry-appointed board of venture capitalists, financiers, or technology experts" This is the fatal flaw in the program. The whole reason startup culture exists is that we don't have a way of knowing in advance what ideas are really worth pursuing, short of giving them a try. But this program would create a board of experts whose job it would be to try to predict which ideas had a reasonable chance at success. The obvious outcome would be a huge distortion in the kinds of startups foreign nationals would found. The value of a green card is far higher than the expected value of a startup, so the process would turn into a bad example of grantsmanship - trying to tailor your proposal to what you think the committee wants to see, and then making sure your startup stays solvent long enough for the permanent residency to come through. Rather than taking real risks and trying to innovate, the role startups are supposed to take in our economy, we would be encouraging an extremely conservative startup culture, whose real purpose would be to secure green card status for the founders lucky enough to get in the program. How likely are you to bet the company if the consequence of failure is getting kicked out of the country?
- arohner 17y ago
  Another problem with the idea is that the investor approving your founder visa has additional leverage over you. This extra leverage will take the form of lower valuations, lower investments, and (even more) investor friendly terms. For proof, look to H1Bs. H1B employees are paid significantly less than non-H1B employees. Don't like it? STFU or go back to your home country.
  - aristus 17y ago
    The "visa discount" is a real phenomenon, but the alternative is not coming here at all. You don't have to like it (I don't), but that's how it goes.
    - arohner 17y ago
      > the alternative is not coming here at all That is one alternative. Another is coming up with a program that doesn't allow MegaCorp to abuse its H1B employees and depress market wages for US citizens at the same time.
arohner 17y ago
A better solution would be to just fix immigration. Adopt something similar to the Commonwealth point system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_Skilled_Migrant_Programme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_Skilled_Migrant_Programm..., where you get points for being young, educated, in a useful profession, etc. Get enough points and you're automatically allowed in. A system like this would reduce the distortion, and allow talented people into the country to bootstrap or e.g. work at Google.
- elai 17y ago
  Also removing worldwide taxation of non-resident income of non-resident citizens. (As in, if I make a million a year living in peru, I don't want to have to pay taxes for the income above $80'000 to the IRS that I made in Peru while I lived in Peru). The US is the only (or one of a very small number) of countries that do this. I do not want to become a US citizen expressively for that reason.
rnugent 17y ago
Why can't the venture capital go there. Every article on Venture these days says American VCs are looking overseas more than here. Surely they'll find the best and brightest with great ideas and can invest at a better exchange rate by keeping entrepreneurs local. We have more than enough innovation in this country. Our problem is once the idea is proven we can't make an industry out of it without being undercut.

36 points by pchristensen 17y ago

arh 17y ago

The idea is a good one, but I'm wrestling with the dollar amount that needs to be invested before the founder can get a visa. Specifically, how likely is it that a US venture capitalist will invest $250,000 or more in a startup that's not located in the US (or Silicon Valley for that matter) vs. another startup that is? Even if the non-US startup will move to the US once they receive funding, the largely intangible advantages bestowed on a startup in the Valley (which I've witnessed in the month that I've lived here) give it a better chance. To be successful in facilitating the immigration of founders to the US, the founders' Visa should be available to any startup that has received any funding from a "qualified US investor" over $15K, which would include non-US startups accepted into YC. And to avoid creating a huge immigration loophole (which seems to be the author's rationale for suggesting a "real money" cutoff), perhaps the Visa could have a clause that limits it to two years unless additional capital is secured and the startup is deemed to have "passed muster", at which point a permanent resident visa could be granted.

alex_c 17y ago
Specifically, how likely is it that a US venture capitalist will invest $250,000 or more in a startup that's not located in the US (or Silicon Valley for that matter) vs. another startup that is? It might be more likely than you think. If the startup and the founders are solid, and if there is a clear (and most importantly, fast) visa path like the one proposed, I don't think most investors would have a problem. If anything, $250,000 is way too low for a VC, so you might have to find an angel investor instead. Some countries would have an advantage over others, of course, but I don't think it's a showstopper - my first startup, based in Canada, received an offer for funding which would've put us over this threshold. Even if the non-US startup will move to the US once they receive funding, the largely intangible advantages bestowed on a startup in the Valley (which I've witnessed in the month that I've lived here) give it a better chance. Can you elaborate? What is the difference, once both startups are in the Valley, and assuming there are no language issues? So many startup founders are already originally from other states or even countries.
- arh 17y ago
  It may be more likely than I think, but what matters is if it is so much more likely that P(Silicon Valley startup getting funding) < P(Canada/foreign startup getting funding), all other things being equal. Do you think that this is the case? I don't think that every startup needs to be in the Valley to get funding, but what I've witnessed here is a prime example of "it's not (only) what you know, it's who you know". If you have a viable startup, knowing people that have made names for themselves in the startup scene, many of which are based in Silicon Valley, can go a long way towards getting introduced to potential investors, whether they be angel investors or VCs.
  - alex_c 17y ago
    I don't think we're disagreeing on much. Yes, of course, a startup with better connections in the US has a better chance to get funding from US investors, and it's easier for an US startup to make these connections. My point is that P(Canada/foreign startup getting funding) is greater than zero even with today's visa situation, and is still large enough to make a visa program worthwhile, even if it is smaller than P(Silicon Valley startup getting funding).

ojbyrne 17y ago

So my question is - if the startup has $250k in funding, why can't they sponsor for an H1B for the founder(s)?

rglullis 17y ago
Yearly quota. Only 65k applications for H1B visas are accepted every year. To be able to sponsor someone out of the quota, the institution has to be either a non-profit or educational - universities and such.
- ojbyrne 17y ago
  Good point.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]

msort 17y ago

Current waiting time for China and India-born employment-based Green Card application is likely to be 4-5 years. Many of those applicants are potential startup founders. Sadly they cannot pursue their ambitions due to the long immigration process. Some of them will choose to leave US and found their startups in their home countries.

dannyr 17y ago
Speeding up the Green Card process is actually a better solution & also has the greater probability of happening vs granting a founders visa.

idlewords 17y ago

"The idea and the founder's résumé would then need to pass muster with a government or industry-appointed board of venture capitalists, financiers, or technology experts" This is the fatal flaw in the program. The whole reason startup culture exists is that we don't have a way of knowing in advance what ideas are really worth pursuing, short of giving them a try. But this program would create a board of experts whose job it would be to try to predict which ideas had a reasonable chance at success. The obvious outcome would be a huge distortion in the kinds of startups foreign nationals would found. The value of a green card is far higher than the expected value of a startup, so the process would turn into a bad example of grantsmanship - trying to tailor your proposal to what you think the committee wants to see, and then making sure your startup stays solvent long enough for the permanent residency to come through. Rather than taking real risks and trying to innovate, the role startups are supposed to take in our economy, we would be encouraging an extremely conservative startup culture, whose real purpose would be to secure green card status for the founders lucky enough to get in the program. How likely are you to bet the company if the consequence of failure is getting kicked out of the country?

arohner 17y ago
Another problem with the idea is that the investor approving your founder visa has additional leverage over you. This extra leverage will take the form of lower valuations, lower investments, and (even more) investor friendly terms. For proof, look to H1Bs. H1B employees are paid significantly less than non-H1B employees. Don't like it? STFU or go back to your home country.
- aristus 17y ago
  The "visa discount" is a real phenomenon, but the alternative is not coming here at all. You don't have to like it (I don't), but that's how it goes.
  - arohner 17y ago
    > the alternative is not coming here at all That is one alternative. Another is coming up with a program that doesn't allow MegaCorp to abuse its H1B employees and depress market wages for US citizens at the same time.

arohner 17y ago

A better solution would be to just fix immigration. Adopt something similar to the Commonwealth point system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_Skilled_Migrant_Programme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_Skilled_Migrant_Programm..., where you get points for being young, educated, in a useful profession, etc. Get enough points and you're automatically allowed in. A system like this would reduce the distortion, and allow talented people into the country to bootstrap or e.g. work at Google.

elai 17y ago
Also removing worldwide taxation of non-resident income of non-resident citizens. (As in, if I make a million a year living in peru, I don't want to have to pay taxes for the income above $80'000 to the IRS that I made in Peru while I lived in Peru). The US is the only (or one of a very small number) of countries that do this. I do not want to become a US citizen expressively for that reason.

rnugent 17y ago

Why can't the venture capital go there. Every article on Venture these days says American VCs are looking overseas more than here. Surely they'll find the best and brightest with great ideas and can invest at a better exchange rate by keeping entrepreneurs local. We have more than enough innovation in this country. Our problem is once the idea is proven we can't make an industry out of it without being undercut.