Immigration for Startups
christophergolda.com
christophergolda.com
Do consult with a lawyer, whatever you do. The rules change constantly (eg the I-9 form, which must be filled out for every employee, is about to be replaced), and an oversight by either an immigrant or someone who employs one can result in all sorts of expensive and awkward problems down the line. Startups are likely too small to be randomly audited, but immigration compliance is a requirement for doing any contractual business with the US government.
Some immigration is in the collective interest but all isn't and suggesting otherwise is counterproductive.
What? You want to argue all? Okay - what's the collective benefit in importing folks convicted of genocide? There are lots of groups whose collective cost is higher than their collective benefit. (Yes, we grow some of the locally, but that's not a reason to increase the supply.)
The "let's import all the smart people" advocates have been played for saps by the open borders folk.
By 'reform' incidentally, I mean consistent facts-based legislation giving the existing system a complete overhaul. Regardless of what policy one supports, the patchwork of exceptions and contradictions in the current legislation leads to a great deal of inefficiency and confusion. Making it simpler and more consistent would make revised rules (whatever they turn out to be) easer and cheaper to administer.
Yes, the current system is a disaster. However, that doesn't imply that we can't end up with an even worse system.
That said, I'll stand by my statement that the folks who claim to be interested in importing "the best and the brightest" have chosen poor allies, namely the open borders folk.
You can stand by your statement all you want, because I am not going to get drawn into a policy debate with you. Your first remarks in the thread were arguing with a position I never expressed to begin with.
Let's review.
>>>By 'reform' incidentally, I mean consistent facts-based legislation giving the existing system a complete overhaul.
"Consistent facts-based" doesn't imply improvement, let alone good even if you throw in efficient and less red-tape.
For completeness, here are a class of Free Trade Agreement visas that are similar to the H1B:
- The E-3 visa for Australians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_visa
- The H1B1 visa for those from Chile or Singapore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1B_visa (search for 'Chile')
If you are from one of those countries and looking for employment, be sure to bring up those options. These visas are much more attractive to employers because they involve less paperwork/requirements and have priority over the regular H1B cap.
In general, for international students studying in the US who want to start companies or work at an early stage startup in the US, I would recommend reading up the CPT and OPT rules. Those can be very useful in the early days until you have sufficient funding to move to a visa category like H-1B that has a minimum salary requirement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_visa
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b...
http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/379/in-lieu-of-an-h-...
The E-2 visa is really a two-stage thing : The company needs approval, and then the individuals get their E-2s on the back of the company.
FWIW, I've done all the legal work for myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_analyst
Graphic designers and mathematicians (including statisticians.. think AI) on the other hand should be fine.
There seems to be debate on this point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa#No_labor_shortages
The bullet points to hit:
1) Employer, a well-regarded National company in the business of blah with Social Proof, Social Proof, and Social Proof, has been recently stymied by lack of Insert Statutory Language Here. This is materially impacting their financial performance and damaging the economy and national security of Nation. It has been particularly difficult to find someone capable of Insert Statutory Language Here because of the business necessity for Extraordinary Talent In Short Supply In Nation.
2) After a period of searching, Employer has identified Candidate. Candidate is the perfect fit for Employers needs, and as such hiring him is critical to the economy and national security of Nation. Additionally, Candidate alone possesses Critical Talent Identified Above.
3) Candidate will be employed as a Insert Statutory Language Here to do Insert Statutory Language Here and Insert Statutory Language Here, and such other tasks as may be required.
By the way, if you can't find a national security angle, you aren't thinking hard enough.
Well-run bureaucracies are simple state machines, with published transitions. You give them exactly the input they require to go to the desired end state and nothing else.
How are BackType and others doing this?
Essentially, it's up to the immigration offer to decide whether a certain level of equity disqualifies you from receiving TN status. Much more scrutiny is applied to the actual proposed employment, your responsibilities, whether these fit in the TN status categories, etc.
The TN is obviously not intended for self employment, but that becomes subjective once you've grown beyond a company of size one.
I've received different advice, mainly stemming from significant ownership (you presumably have significant ownership of BackType where as you wouldn't Google) and role as "founder" and that not being inline with non-immigration intent. You can to claim your work in US is temporary whereas the company presumably isn't.
But you have it, and that is what counts. Congrats.
Also,I've read that as long you don't own >51% of the company you can work for it under a visa,but I don't know how true this.