Comment by fnid2 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by fnid2 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's entrepreneurial servitude. You come in and build a business to our specifications, making a certain amount of money for the rich investors or you lose your rights to live here.

When the entrepreneur is booted out because (s)he was unable to generate $1M in revenue a year after 2 years in business, what happens to the business? Do the investors retain ownership? What legal rights does the entrepreneur have over the business (s)he created?

There are no laws in America protecting the rights of these entrepreneurs who are not citizens. They are here to build a business, hopefully, but if they miss the marks, they lose everything! Their home, their business, their employees, and potentially the rights to any revenues, IP, or equity in the company they founded. Do you think some rich investors who have the ability to have our nation's laws changed to their favor are going to stop taking money out of a business because its entrepreneur isn't allowed to live in the U.S. anymore? It'll be business as usual for them, with or without the entrepreneur who created the business.

This bill is good for no one but rich investors. It's definitely not good for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship has absolutely nothing to do with venture capital or investors or people with at least $10M in the bank. It's about creating businesses with the sweat off your back. If we are going to reward something -- reward that -- no strings attached!

Especially not strings attached to the fingers of the same rich folks who have caused so many problems in our nation already!

This is so horrible. What is happening to our country??

> There are no laws in America protecting the rights of these entrepreneurs who are not citizens. They are here to build a business, hopefully, but if they miss the marks, they lose everything! Their home, their business, their employees, and potentially the rights to any revenues, IP, or equity in the company they founded.

Where are you getting this from?

Non-residents can own things that happen to be in the US. They can sell them. They can even buy them.

Even if you're deported, there's no forfeiture.

This is true, but you are forfeiting any active management position, authority and likely control, which is basically the same as being fired as CEO. Not something you want to risk.

> This is true, but you are forfeiting any active management position, authority and likely control, which is basically the same as being fired as CEO.

Again - no, being deported doesn't cause any of those things. The owners of the biz are the ones who make that decison.

Since we're assuming that you're being deported because you're not satisfying the conditions of the startup visa, what are the odds that said owners would have kept you on anyway?

Advocates of the startup visa said that they wanted to bring folks into the company to create biz. Fair enough, but what should we conclude when they complain about deporting folks who don't do what they wanted?

And, what should we conclude when they make up stories about the consequences of deportation?

You are using an unrelated but true argument to make your case by attacking my supposed criticism of the visa rules. I am not criticizing the rules, only pointing out that the deportation clause of the visa has consequences on control.

Yes, there have to be measurable metrics to gauge traction. Yes, I agree that 2 (3?) years is an acceptable time to create 5 jobs OR earn a mil OR raise a mil. Yes, unless those who don't meet these rules are deported, the rules won't have teeth.

But neither of those points has anything to do with the argument that deportation is synonymous with losing position, authority and likely control.

Maintaining control of a startup that is funded is a challenging job even when you are in the country. It should be. In my opinion, it would take a genius to remotely manage a startup. Even if you continue to be a majority owner after an investment, it would be very tough at best and foolish at worst to try to manage it from another country. That is assuming that it's a decision you alone can make, and your investors have no actual say in the matter.

The bottom line is that at the end of 2 (3?) years, if you don't meet these metrics, you will be in a different country than your company and very likely unable to control it without large scale changes in business model and/or structure.

> But neither of those points has anything to do with the argument that deportation is synonymous with losing position, authority and likely control.

Deportation is not syonymous with any of those things.

Those things are decided by the folks who control the biz. They're free to keep the person on after deportation. They're free to do those things even if the person isn't deported.

Yes, deportation may be a good reason for them to make certain decisions, but since they're free to ignore that reason, it isn't synonymous.

As to "nothing to do", the only reasons to discuss this are (1) if we let someone in on a startup visa, we shouldn't deport them if they fail, (2) folks who succeed on a startup visa might be deported, and (3) random cussedness.

Regardless, it's simply not true that being deported necessarily has the effects claimed.

That's a good question. What happens to the Americans working for the company when its founder is forced to leave the country?

They take all the intellectual property to the investors' other, wholly-owned company.

entrepreneurs are no stranger to risk. yes, there is a risk they do not meet the basic qualification to remain in the country. however, they are fairly basic: can you create a minimum of 5 jobs in the US within 2 years? (or reach break-even on $1M in revenue, or raise subsequent financing of $1M or more).

entrepreneurs who fail to meet the bar are not being unfairly punished by investors, rich or otherwise.

these rqmts are simply the proposed bar for qualification. meet them, and you can stay. nothing more, nothing less.

this is a considerably better situation than what we have currently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com