Hacker News Reader

Comment by icey | Hacker News Reader

By "overt ability to terminate the residency status..." you mean that they can opt to not further invest, right?

I couldn't see anything that gave them the ability to otherwise control the status of the visa holders; but it's possible that I missed some nuance in the bill.

I think the goal is to prevent abuse of loopholes as much as possible - stopping corporations from becoming "investors" in order to circumvent the H1-B hiring caps.

I agree with you about the requirements for continuation being overly lofty though.

View on HN

Yes. If you start a company that employs 5 Americans and generates $900,000 in revenue, any VC you negotiate with gets to factor "deportation" into their terms.

From the senate statement; " a minimum of $250,000 -- into the immigrant's startup venture. If after two years the immigrant entrepreneur can show that he or she has generated at least 5 full-time jobs in the United States, attracted $1,000,000 in additional investment capital, or achieved $1,000,000 in revenue, then he or she would receive permanent legal resident status."

My personal thoughts are that it should be possible to start a company overseas, get far enough along to secure $250k in VC funding. Also, I would be surprised to find a successful startup that can't get $1m in revenue within 2 years.

While a VC can control additional investments, they have less control over revenue than most founders. A successful start-up should not be dependent on VC funding after 2 years unless it grows exponentially and needs the funds for growth.

Also the terms after 2 years are less than for an existing EB-5 visa.

Have you beat $1MM in revenue within 2 years of starting? We did.

(a) It wasn't easy.

(b) Before we beat that metric, we were still --- by virtually anyone on Hacker News' metrics --- a successful enterprise: growing, in control of our destiny, working on meaningful things, creating jobs.

The metrics in this bill are arbitrary (to put it charitably; there's an uncharitable interpretation too). A Thai entrepeneur who can create 5 viable US jobs should be granted a visa without an "angel investment". A Thai entrepreneur who can create viable jobs should be granted a visa without a postage stamp.

True. Until that 1$ in revenue is reached, the company still makes revenue and ensures jobs for people, some might have even more than 5 employees.

5 American employees. Maybe they'll move to Singapore when the founder is forced to relocate the company?

please... your arguments are circular.

if the new visa class doesn't exist, these folks won't have jobs anyway. now you're claiming we should be worried their jobs might be taken away?

decide which part of the argument you wish to discuss.

Isn't it true that it is $1MM in revenue within 2 years of getting a visa?

So you could apply when you had $500K in revenues.

Also, I don't know for sure if the qualifying clauses for not being deported have an "and" relationship or an "or" relationship.

Do I need to raise a million dollars AND generate a million in revenue AND generate 5 jobs? Or is one of these enough?

If you're at 500k already, you can probably pull off an EB-5.

Regardless, I'm not all that concerned about the 500k entrepreneurs.

I'm unclear on the "and" and "or" thing, too, but I think it's equally arbitrary to deport someone with 4 full-time employees for missing a $1MM mark, and I think 5 "full-time" employees is extremely gameable.

EB-5 says $1M investment NOT $1M revenue

My interpretation is that you have 2 years to preform, and if you don't by the 3rd year - then you are deported, and not for missing the 2yr marks. You have 12 months of latitude if your heading in the right direction with employment.

I do agree that there is going to be some gaming of the system.

I read the EB-5 rules before I commented. I stand by my comment.

> I think 5 "full-time" employees is extremely gameable

That's what strikes me. What kind of employee do they need to be? If I employ 5 full time janitors on minimum wage do I get to stay?

no, you're absolutely incorrect.

if you create 5 US jobs, you get to stay.

if you don't create 5 US jobs, but can generate EITHER $1M in revenue (at break-even or better), OR raise $1M in additional capital from ANY qualifying investor (doesn't have to be the original one), you get to stay.

please read the language carefully -- it does cover the situation adequately.

we did take quite a bit of time to consider the exact language, and worked hard to get it to be functional.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com