Comment by DelaneyM | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DelaneyM | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

tl;dr: If you're a foreign-born entrepreneur, US immigration may be the kick in the pants you need to go global. If you're an American voter, you should stop kicking foreign-born entrepreneurs in the pants.

Personal anecdata:

I'm Canadian. I have two degrees from UWaterloo (CS & Math), have been on the founding team of three major exits (one "unicorn"), and have a Harvard MBA. I've lived in the US, mostly under TN status, for fifteen years. (Unlike H1-B, TN status is not dual-intent, and does not allow immigration.)

I'm starting a new company now in Canada. Labor-intensive, probably creating a few hundred good jobs in the first year. I'd prefer to start it in the US, preferably Nevada, but have no acceptable way to legally do so.

This was frustrating for a while, but I'm over it. Europe & Asia are operationally more complex to serve, but that's less overhead than immigration. And I've learned the rest of the world has just as much opportunity (and probably more available investment!) than the US.

I'm just one person, but I've seen this play out five or six times among my peer group alone. If you're a non-citizen entrepreneur with valley/NYC connections or US startup experience, I strongly recommend taking that knowledge and competing in the bigger global pool.

As the global economy flattens, the odds are growing every year that the next megacorp in the US market won't be American. The government should be fighting that trend, not doing everything in its power to accelerate it.

edit: "no legal way" => "no acceptable legal way". Anything is possible.

Wouldn't you have been a good (great!) candidate for an O-1A or EB-1?

Completely understand if you couldn't be bothered at this point though. What a loss for the US.

EB-1: You must have been employed outside the United States in the 3 years preceding the petition for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation and you must be seeking to enter the United States to continue service to that firm or organization.

O-1A: very hard to get in business without either a letter from a senator/governor or a long history of speaking gigs (according to my immigration lawyer).

If you've studied O-1 recipients in non-business's categories, I think founders have it hard. I certainly know of some recipients in other industries and honestly the burden of proof was just not as difficult.

I was recently approved for an O-1 and have a less prestigious, let's call it, career than you. My O-1 was based largely off of open source contributions (several startups have started based around one of my projects) and funding raised for my own startup. Perhaps you need to talk to another lawyer.

The biggest issue is publicity. You need to be able to demonstrate public/peer recognition of your achievements, and I don't have anything which qualifies. I haven't heard of OS contributions being sufficient, but I can certainly see the argument.

The other (and apparently more common) way business folks get O-1 approval is an endorsement from a high-level government official. My lawyer was reasonably confident that if I could secure financing and demonstrate potential this would be possible, however I'm not comfortable working that hard for that long only to be held up on the whims of a senator in an election year, particularly since I couldn't incorporate without having status.

It's frustrating but understandable. The UCIS has no way to evaluate "Extraordinary Ability", so they can only go off your perceived position relative to your peers.

Yeah the publicity requirement is tough. In my case it's been a couple of projects I've started (one before was a finalist in TechCrunch Disrupt) and my current startup that have gotten press, but never me as an individual. Fortunately I was able to get founders from about 4 companies (both in the US and international) to write letters vouching for me, as well as a couple investors which helped. I'm considering whether or not it's worth it to try to get an EB-1 now, since it is stricter than O-1 and I would need to do some speaking engagements and get press naming me personally.

I get the impression that a lot of people satisfy the requirements by buying publicity, either placement in trade journals or sponsoring conferences.

Both of those options were suggested by my lawyers, and once you realize it's possible and common one starts seeing it everywhere.

This guy is lying or has a terrible lawyer.

If was telling the truth that he has founded and exited several technology companies including one worth over a billion dollars, then there are any number of ways he could found a business in the US: E-2, EB-5, and yes the O-1A.

This girl is not lying, and has quite a good lawyer.

Being a founding engineer doesn't mean as much as you'd think to a non-technical audience, I have zero chance at an O1.

EB-5 requires me to be putting in 1MM$ of my own money. That's significant for me and more importantly not needed for the business.

E2 is the best bet, and I discussed this at length with counsel. The non-dual intent (same as TN) nature of the status though will put me in exactly the same situation in a few years. Expecting me to invest in the country, while not allowing me to put down roots, is ridiculous and not fair to my family.

Also, I do realize that it's technically possible to apply for citizenship while on TN/E2, but that prevents international travel. I need to be in Canada regularly to care for my parents.

edit: modifying original post to weaken "no legal way" to "no acceptable legal way". Anything is possible.

EB-5 you can do for $500k plus transactional costs and probably shouldn't go into the business anyway.

E2 absolutely agree it just feels like deferring the problem to a later date. A lot of exposure for not as much in return.

I think the bottom line is you don't need to be in the US as much as you needed to before, given your track record. Here the US should need/want you more than the other way round.

L-1A is probably quite doable though and it's dual intent. You need to wait a year, but that may have passed already anyway.

To get an EB-5 for 500K$ (which is more plausible) the jobs created and place of business must be in a “targeted employment area.” (high unemployment or rural).

An L-1A is an option a year from now (I've only recently incorporated), but it's hard to build a sufficiently large company to satisfy the requirements to sponsor without putting down enough roots that it's no longer worthwhile moving.

I think you've nailed it though with:

> I think the bottom line is you don't need to be in the US as much as you needed to before, given your track record. Here the US should need/want you more than the other way round.

It's just not worth it to go through the contortions and hassle required to stay and start a company in the US. In a connected economy I can get the full value of the education & networks I've picked up in the states from any first-world country, and create value there.

From personal experience I can say there are incorrect assumptions on both the EB-5 and L-1. Happy to share my experience - let me know how to PM you.

Though this ship has sailed (and I'm actually pretty happy to have been pushed into launching globally), I'm definitely curious. My linkedin id is on my HN page.

From my understanding with EB-5 $500k is only for regional centers, other businesses require $1mm.

Question: why does every entrepreneur think she/he is "creating" jobs, and not just transferring them from one industry/workplace to another?

That is an awesome question!

I think in an immigration context it's not so much about "creating jobs", but "transferring labour to new jobs in this country (and not another)". Another perspective is that the economy is changing anyways, so having the agents of that change locally will keep better (value-creation) jobs, and profits generated by innovation, at home; and lesser (value-extraction) jobs abroad.

However, in a more macro-economic sense, jobs are created all the time through innovation and new business. Wealth (and, by extension, employment) is demonstrably not zero-sum. Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society". When we take ore from the earth or create new products there is more in our economy than there was before. More workers earn more in the production of that value and purchase more with those earnings.

More empirically, the population of the world has been growing at a tremendous clip, yet there isn't mass unemployment. In the US, population has been more steady, but employment has ebbed and flowed. In a global context employment rates seem to be roughly in sync, expanding and contracting without homeostasis, so something is clearly happening.

There are never absolutes; many entrepreneurs do deliver investor value by a net sacrifice of jobs. Smarter people than I have determined that of all avenues to job creation, entrepreneurs are the most effective. ( http://ftp.iza.org/dp3014.pdf ).

I'm not sure if that's helpful, but I used to have similar questions until being walked through the math by a particularly inspiring economics prof. I'm rambling here more because I think it's a fascinating (and thoroughly non-obvious) question than because i have any real answers.

> many entrepreneurs do deliver investor value by a net sacrifice of jobs

Right, but nobody chooses to say "we're in this business to deliver investor value by a net sacrifice in jobs".

That's the real answer: one lets you sound like a captain of industry, the other a scrupulous robber baron.

I'm not sure it's always possible to tell into which group your venture falls.

Once it might have been safe to assume that Uber was only going to destroy the taxi industry and transfer those jobs to uninsured/underpaid freelancers. Instead, it's resulted in fewer people driving, and taxi jobs seem to be minimally affected (so far...).

Ultimately, entrepreneurship is widely recognized as the most effective net job creation engine, so it's probably safe to say that one is creating jobs when one starts a small business in the absence of a good argument to the contrary.

Hey Delaney, I thought the US allowed companies to be founded with foreign ownership?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com