Finally, a Startup Visa That Works | Hacker News Reader

Finally, a Startup Visa That Works

techcrunch.com

329 pointsjoshbert116 comments

I've been _soooo_ frustrated by this, running http://www.hackersandfounders.com . I can't tell you how many amazing entrepreneurs I've seen come into the area, and then have to leave because of visa issues. So, even though I'm way oversubscribed right, now, I'm burning a bit of bandwidth on the startup visa movement.

Votizen (I have no attachment other than knowing the founders) is coming up with a crazy cool platform to mobilize people about this issue.

Just text "startupvisa" to 894546. They've build a hella cool twilio app, that texts you back, verifies that you are a registered voter in the US. If you are, they_print_out_your_text_message and hand carry it to your senators and representative in congress.

It's friggin genius. Please, pass the word.

Hell. I'll start another thread specifically for this. If you are a voting US citizen: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2324232

If you are a foreign entrepreneur who wants to get a visa to the US, please help us promote this issue, so you can get a visa.

Craig Montuori set up a tumblr to tell stories of Entrepreneurs that haven't been able to start companies in the US because of visa issues. Contact him at http://startupvisa.tumblr.com/, or cmontuori@gmail.com .

How exactly does the message delivery work?

Back and forth between you and votizen, is text messages. They ask you for your name and zip code, and if you're a registered voter. They verify that with voter registraion databases.

Then, if you are a registered voter, they tell you who your representative and senators are, and then they hand carry a print out of your support to the physical offices of those senators and representatives.

The last mile of the message delivery is in meat space, foot work.

Having a brother who worked in constituent services: being lobbied is not a new experience for Congresscritters. If you really want to do something, send them an actual letter on paper. If you don't send a letter on paper, it is highly likely that your support will be discounted as someone who is weakly attached to the issue. This is because, if you don't care enough to send a letter on paper, you are weakly attached to the issue.

The very mild inconvenience relative to, e.g., "RT for great justice!!1" is used as a bozo filter. Startups aimed at reducing barriers to entry in petitioning Congresscritters should consider carefully whether removing a functional bozo filter is desirable to a group whose opinion of their products is super-critical.

As an example of a previous technological innovation: a few groups discovered years ago that you can hook up a CGI script to a fax machine and then get anybody who submits a web form to fax a form letter about e.g. abortion to their representative. Congressional staff thought that was a very interesting development... for about ten minutes. After that, they were "measured by weight."

Excellent points.

The details are proprietary, so I don't know them. Having used the system, you validate your identity through sending the Votizen system your last name, city, and zip, which also identifies your specific elected officials to contact.

Looks like a only 2 stories of entrepreneurs dealing with visa issues on that tumblr

I just launched it a few days ago, gimme some time :) also pass along stories please!

If entrepreneurs shunned from the US have started great companies elsewhere, there should be plenty of examples from the past.

Definitely in the works. Got a contact at Andreesen Horowitz who is picking the brains of some Barcelona startups along those lines. Nothing definite yet in that category there of "jobs lost to US through visa problems the Startup Visa would solve"

Thanks :)

All I can say is I find category 2 -

Workers on an H-1B visa, or graduates from U.S. universities in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or computer science—if they have an annual income of at least $30,000 or assets of at least $60,000 and have had a U.S. investor commit investment of at least $20,000 in their venture. Two years later, the startup must have created three new American jobs and either have raised over $100,000 in financing or be generating more than $100,000 in yearly revenue

on a strictly personal basis, umm, droolworthy.

Help us get this off the ground.

Droolworthy indeed! This point completely took me by surprise. For so many of us stuck in immigration limbo, this should make taking a leap well within reach.

I was always of the opinion that there are thousands of talented could-be-entrepreneurs (grad students et al) in our own backyard who have no way to start a company. There had to be a way to make it easy for them, without reliance on employer visas and green cards.

Maybe they should try to get rid of immigration limbo.

The quota numbers are laughable and the rule that no country should get more than 7% per year is even worse. See Employment based section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_residence_(United_Sta...

Since pending immigrants can't vote, I guess no one cares.

I would imagine that the quotas are to make sure that no single secondary culture becomes dominant in the US and creates a split culture. It's harder to culturally assimilate many from one culture than a few from each of many cultures. Immigration without any limits could be very bad for the long term health and stability of the country.

I think they should tack on a points system like Canada's to help the most qualified get into the country. Letting grad students stay without hassle is, in my opinion, a no brainer. Universities are far better judges of merit than the INS.

Yes, of course. That is the root of the problem. This bill is a good effort to augment legal immigration reform.

Great way to unlock innovation. No more of spending your 20's trying to get a green card.

Why would an innovator spend their 20s trying to get a green card, instead of innovating elsewhere?

Innovators are no supermen. Like everyone else they need a conducive and encouraging environment to realize their full potential. In reality location, laws, business culture, family ties and other factors contribute how successful we are, how mobile we are and whether we will move halfway around the world to be in the global maximum of business opportunity. Case in point what happens if you are a bloke with solid ideas and a great work ethic but are responsible for supporting a relative who is ill ? Also the US has stupid laws which prevent spouses of visa holders from working. Getting a green card helps you overcome that.

My question is why this visa limiting to STEM majors only? What about business and finance majors? Aren't business students likely to start a company too?

2 reasons:

1) The goal of the bill is to hang on to entrepreneurs who will generate new value and create new jobs. To drive "real value" you have to improve business productivity, make information accessible that wasn't accessible before, automate things that were hard to automate previously, etc. These are almost always technical accomplishments first.

2) There is an oversupply of people on the business side and an undersupply of people on the engineering side. For the US to stay competitive it has to hang on to the technical talent.

I think one aspect of an answer to that is that they are less likely to have product-building skills, and also they are more likely to create or contribute to what you might call the shyster/shenanigans part of the economy (see Wall Street, the "Financial Crisis of 2008", etc.) rather than making real things people want in exchange for an honest price. Speaking in general terms, of course. Also, they are less likely to create some new innovation or breakthrough that gives the US a tech edge. Also, for a STEM person, it's generally easier for them to learn business and do the things truly needed in that area, than it is to go in the reverse direction. (Again, speaking in aggregate terms, and understanding there are always individual and exceptional cases in every direction.)

When asked six weeks ago whether the Yuri Milner / SV Angel offers would affect which startups YC accepts, pg said "No, of course not."

I would imagine that, if this legislation does pass, it might change his answer to that question, as all of a sudden that extra $150k becomes the difference between foreigners being able to get a Startup Visa to be accepted into YC or not.

If you read this Paul, care to share any updated thoughts on how this legislation and the $150k offer will/won't impact who you can accept to YC, and possibly who will apply to YC?

You don't need a work visa to get into to YC. They require you to move to the Bay Area for the duration of the scheduled YC programme, but don't have conditions on where the company operates from thereafter (I believe they prefer you to incorporate in the US, but I doubt that's a hard requirement).

YC lasts three months, which is a lot easier from an immigration standpoint than moving here to work long term.

It's still conceivable that YC might become more attractive to foreigners, because the $150k would allow them to apply for a Startup Visa. I doubt that would affect YC's application policies, however.

Or, if you have decent product, team, traction, pitch and social proof, you can apply to Angel List, and pick up the investment.

Come to the area on a tourist visa, hang out at local meetups like 106 miles or Hackers & Founders, and we'll try to get you guys plugged into the scene. Hopefully, you'll make enough connections that if and when you have to go back, you'll be able to have enough connections to raise an angel round, get a visa and move.

If only getting tourist visa was so easy for everyone =))

There's 36 countries on the Visa Waiver Program, see if you qualify:

http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html#...

"The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) enables nationals of 36 participating countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business (visitor [B] visa purposes only) for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. The program was established to eliminate unnecessary barriers to travel, stimulating the tourism industry, and permitting the Department of State to focus consular resources in other areas. "

While nice, it is not without its caveats, if CBP officer does not like you, you are gone.

"Travelers should be aware that by requesting admission under the Visa Waiver Program, they are generally waiving their right to review or appeal a CBP officer’s decision as to their application for admission at the port of entry. Likewise, if the traveler is later found to have violated the conditions of admission under the Visa Waiver Program, they do not have the right to contest a removal order (See the CBP website for additional details.) "

I am already in USA and I went through all possible options to get there. And no - I am not in Visa Waiver Program list. It's very hard for people from some countries to get into USA. (I am not talking about India, muslim countries etc.)

I am not speaking for PG, but as far as I understand it, foreigners can participate in YC and raise that $150K and go home if they want after the 3-month period.

There was never a pre-requisite that the founders had to be able to live/stay in the US.

Just that they have to be able to visit for at least 3 months.

So I don't see how that would affect it.

Foreign entrepreneurs whose business has generated at least $100,000 in sales from the U.S.

Now that's more like it! If US consumers are sending lots of dollars out of the country, it makes sense to bring those entrepreneurs into the country and keep the dollars at home. Not all of us need funding so this proviso could help us out without having to go looking for arbitrary angel cash.

Wouldn't it makes sense to get those who sell outside the US even more? that could potentially get the trade deficient back to zero, which this measure won't.

Most of the monetary requirements are to stop scams - ie where millionaire's kid bills family company abroad for $100K and gets to stay in the US running his company. It's also the reason for requiring qualified investors - to stop this just being family money recycled.

Although it is a bit silly that if you invented say a malaria vaccine and had a $Bn in foreign sales you would be deported!

IMHO, it is in the best interest of the US to let rich people in. They have a big potential to invest or consume.

Depends on what you mean by 'rich' - $1M, $10M, $1Bn ?

There have been classes of investment visa for people bringing $1M into the country. But then people simply used it to buy a house = $1M in some areas. So then there were requirements that it had to be invested in a business, so people formed a company, bought a house and leased it to themselves.

So the politicians upped the $$ requirement, but that leads to different problems. People with $100M in cash are often not very nice citizens - do you want to give Col Qaddafi, Kim Jung whoever, etc a US visa if they bring $100M of their people's money with them? How many of their family/ friends/ associates also get a visa?

People with $100mm could buy their visa by making a unprofitable business and come in on the immigrant investor visa anyway. Or get a US friend to create a company where they have veto powers and come over on an L-1A and get their green card in 2-3 years due to no labor certification or waiting list. And their spouse can work also on a L-2 visa when they apply with him. Someone who has made a $100million could also get an O visa. Your a pretty remarkable person if you've made $100 million.

Also if you have $100 million and don't setup your income to be indirect through companies and such, the USA taxes all international income, even if you've never lived or set foot in the US for years, and has an expat tax if you give up your green card or citizenship explicitly made for rich people. The usa is the only country in the world to do this and makes it unattractive to actually get a citizenship from them if your wealthy. You can still do business and profit from the country quite well without being a citizen and at that level you could do business in the country part time coming in on B-2 visas. The consulate would have no problem giving you a 10 year multiple entry B-2 visa since you have a very very very low illegal immigration risk.

The rich can already invest from outside the country-- capital flows freely across our borders.

I think it should be $10,000 in profit (to be comparable with $100k in investment).

It would be easy to fake (your mum buys a copy of your corporate edition product), but so is $100,000 in raw sales - just buy and sell lots of hardware for a tiny margin.

Unintended consequences ....

Still, at least it's low enough that many good startups won't have to fake it.

Is that $100,000 per year or $100,000 over the lifetime of the business?

I'm an Indian entrepreneur, and much as I'd love to see #3 see the light of day, I have this sinking feeling it's just way too ripe for exploitation.

Foreign entrepreneurs whose business has generated at least $100,000 in sales from the U.S. Two years later, the startup must have created three new American jobs and either have raised over $100,000 in financing or be generating more than $100,000 in yearly revenue.

A ton of companies that aren't really startups could easily misuse this clause. And even if there's fine print to guard against the same, due diligence in each case will translate into a ton of paperwork and enormous bureaucratic delays, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid in the first place, right?

That said, no one hopes I'm wrong more than I do right now.

The company doesn't have to be be a quote-unquote "Startup" to be a viable business employing U.S citizens. If a mom-and-pop operation moves to the US and employs US citizens, does it really matter if it is going to grow fast?

I agree that it sounds too easy. My startup easily has $100K in accumulated sales from the US, so I would all of a sudden qualify for a visa. That's perplexing if you know how much trouble they made me go through to attend a US university (and send me packing right afterwards).

Then again, even with some abuse of the rules I think this would probably be a good deal for the US economy. Anyone who is able to "fake" $100K in revenues is not likely to go through the trouble to "take away" any blue color job there. You would just get a well educated tax payer for free.

I'm going to guess that means $100k in annual sales. Its not entirely clear on that point, but the mention of the same number required annually after being approved seems to suggest that. Your use of the work "accumulated" suggests you're talking about a period > 1 year.

Actually, I think you are right that they probably mean $100K a year, although the article doesn't say that. (My startup does >$100K annually too now, but I guess that would limit the potential candidates quite a bit)

What are some ways that this clause could be misused? I'll pass these examples along.

The answer depends largely on intent (is the bill meant to be exclusively for startups or are the terms more inclusive) and consequently, on how you define a 'startup'.

Let's assume a hypothetical company in operation for 15 years outside the US with > 100000$ in revenue from the US market. 3 American hires now effectively represent an immediate ticket to a Visa for the founders. If I might hazard a guess, there'll be thousands of companies clamoring for a piece of the pie.

If this is intended for, I stand corrected (and I must add I think the bill is revolutionary). But 'Startup' Visa might then be a bit of a misnomer.

If the founders are working in their own company, contributing to the local economy, is this really a problem for the U.S?

Agreed. But this then essentially translates into a "jobs for founder visas" scheme for relatively larger companies that can afford to immediately hire 3 American candidates.

This will, therefore, probably mean a deluge of applications from across the globe and the consequent generation of several more US jobs (which works out great for everyone).

Only I'm not too sure we should then call it a 'Startup' Visa.

Bingo. Theoretically, someone could even start an outsourcing firm not unlike Wipro, Infosys, etc, hire 3 employees in the US (a receptionist, etc) and the net impact would actually be a NET loss of many jobs.

I worked for a european company that had a US sales office. It employed a receptionist and a US sales guy. If we added a cleaner the owner of the company now gets a US passport - was that what was intended?

As it happens the owner currently spends the winter there (in Florida) on a three month tourist visa waiver - I suppose having a startup visa might make getting through immigration faster. He has a house, yacht and private plane parked there as well but ironically couldn't get a US cell phone because he didn't have a SSN

Hang on. No one is talking about automatic citizenship--and that is what a passport signifies. If the owner of your company had a permanent US residency visa, would the US be any the worse off?

No not in this case - but the visa is intended to start growth business, not just for people to hire a maid, pool boy and gardener and get a resident visa.

If you can generate $100k revenue from your maid/pool boy/gardener business, why not?

i don't see why founders of such business wouldn't be a welcomed addition to the US population?

But surely there'd be less of an incentive to move to the US if you're already successful? Surely the main reason to go to the States is to start and grow, not live there for already established business-people. I don't doubt that the US is a nice place to live, but is it really a dream to move there other than for monetary gain?

There are a few countries where those who are connected with the current government are doing rather well - certainly well enough to have $100K. Some of those governments might soon be suffering from an outbreak of democracy.

If you were living in one of those countries it might be worth putting $100K into a business (especially if it was just recycling money that you could get back) in order to have a free escape to America card.

I think this visa is an excellent idea - much better than the current H1B crap. But it's going to get stopped if it ends up being a way for Egyptian dentists and Dubai real estate agents to escape the mob.

I just WISH we had such politicians in my country. It is just mind blowing to me that a politician actually took the time to read a TC article and modify a bill accordingly.

Hell, I'm American and its still mind-blowing to me that a politician actually took the time to read a TC article and modify a bill accordingly.

It's still mind-blowing to me that a politician could read!

Votizen has been doing a lot of the political push on the startup visa issue. And, there's a number of big super angel/VC names that are attached to the movement as well. A lot of those guys are pretty connected. I'm sure that helped.

Eh, this is 100% on Lugar's office and Kerry's office being awesome. "Pretty connected" in Silicon Valley means crap-all in the senate when you have 2 senators from Idaho.

Wow....there is a lot of hyperbole generated on Techcrunch but this post is spot-on.

If this bill had been passed while I was still in the US, it definitely would have convinced me to stay.

The truth is, that if it is passed, I just might be inclined to go back - under the third category.

We will see what materializes though.

This could be pretty interesting either way.

Agree! pretty interesting times are coming... I had to leave 7 months ago because I wanted to focus on my startup and I was not able to do it with my H1 job, the discussion ahead related to this topic is worth watching

It makes way too much sense.

Somebody is going to have to ruin some part of it for it to pass.

Yes I'm cynical. I've lived here too long.

I look forward to contributing to the American economy if this passes.

If only other countries would follow suit. Afew years ago I had a great plan in place for an internet cafe (and more) planned for a great location in Grenada, and was basically told that I needed close to $300k in assets and/or financing in order to qualify for residency and make it happen. The entire project could have gotten off the ground for less than $200k (for which I had good faith agreements), and my plan involved hiring at least 3 locals to start with, so why did I need the other $100k?

"Just because..." was pretty much the only answer that the immigration officials could give me.

Oh well, it was a great 9 month vacation while it lasted...

Anyone know whether the Startup Visa will allow dual intent - i.e. if you pass the "remain in the country" criteria can you apply for a green card?

Very exciting. However remember this is the an initial step in a long road of many steps -

See this info-graph for an articulation of the legislative steps needed to make law: http://www.mikewirthart.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/howla...

This is fantastic news. I'm here in San Francisco on a three year E-2 visa, and this should simplify things a ton when the time comes to renew it.

Doesn't this give investors a rather disproportionate amount of negotiating power, particularly for the 2nd round?

"Agree to our terms ... or lose your visa!"

Not really. Except for the first category, it's 100K in financing. Not penny change, but not a big amount either. Of course, you can also generate 100K in revenue (two years is plenty enough time to get there) and then financing isn't a requirement.

100K in financing that must come from a US-based VC/angel, no friends-and-family fundraising or personal savings allowed.

That 100K is going to be rather more costly to acquire than you think.

They already have almost the same leverage: "Agree to our terms ... or lose your business". Competition among investors would probably prevent this from becoming a big issue.

Why is that anything close to "the same"?

Example: a 3-person $400k-revenue business a year and a half old would normally be able negotiate with investors from a position of great strength, because they can painlessly walk away from a deal -- if they're talking to investors at all!

Same situation, only with founder(s) on a startup visa? They'll be going hat-in-hand for 6mo from VC to VC with no choice but to close a deal. The only competition will be between the VCs to find the one who screws them over the least.

Further: There's a great deal less "competition among investors" written into the bill. Foreign capital does not count, nor does friend/family money, nor do strategic partnerships that include capital investments -- the only investment that will keep you in the country is US VC investment.

Except they do have an alternative. Move the company outside the US.

On the hand one I love this. On the other hand, this means it's going to be harder for a startup scene to take off in any European city.

It's going to hit Vancouver - the place is currently full of startup people that couldn't get US visas

What notable startups have come out of this community in Vancouver?

What notable startups have come out of silicon valley in the last 10years? It's been a long time since HP, Apple, Sun appeared - a few people with a high traffic no income social web site doesn't make an industry however many $M/Bn it's notionally valued.

You made a claim that there were many startup people there, and I simply asked what notable startups have arised from that. It was a simple question, and the answer would have revealed concrete examples of which startups this country is missing out on because of a lack of a Startup Visa, and in this case, those would have been literally right across our borders! Your lack of examples would seem to indicate that the US wouldn't gain much from this purported community of startup types crossing the border.

Well, they'll just have to up their game. And hopefully, they will.

Yeah, because we're all panting to be poked and groped like cattle by perverts at US airports.

If anyone needs advice on getting a long-term US visa without getting funding, feel free to email me (it's in my profile). It's currently an incredibly difficult process, but do-able.

It seems somewhat strange if a degree is required for the startup visa - is that the case?

The press release can be found here: http://kerry.senate.gov/press/release/?id=4e6a51f6-fb2b-4212...

Does anyone know how long will it take to find out if the bill passes or not?

    def pass_bill
      while bill_passed.eql?(false) && bill_dead.eql?(false)
        Get involved, drum up some buzz on its behalf
        Watch the news and immigration lawyer blogs
      end
    end

Check out the Votizen page to send your support to Congress: https://www.votizen.com/issues/startupvisa/

Help me understand this?

Is there a shortage of startups in the USA?

Can startups (that in reality have an online-only product) not occur outside the USA?

These are honest questions, I'm trying not to be biased, why come here?

There doesn't have to be a shortage of startups, nor does it need to be impossible for startups to exist outside the country, for it to be in America's best interest to help bring more startups in.

People who go into America on this visa won't be a burden on American tax payers, and if they fail to succeed then their visa will expire. If, on the other hand, they succeed, whether in making a profitable five-person company, or in creating the next Facebook-sized success, then their being in America is a good thing for the country's economy.

Basically it's a no-lose possible-win situation.

Easier to obtain capital, easier to obtain additional talent, easier to obtain tools/tech/expertise. The market a startup wants to enter here may not even exist in their country. Also, depending on where you are from, taxes may be less harsh, laws more understandable, our market is large (300 million), etc; the outlook is just brighter.

I really fail to understand this line of thinking.

>Is there a shortage of startups in the USA?

What harm will an additional 1000 startups do, even if they fail? Fill the Whitepages and Yellowpages and make it heavy when you have to carry it inside your home? Look at the upside. Even a few successful ones(esp. big ones) can more than make up for the failures.

>Can startups (that in reality have an online-only product) not occur outside the USA?

Things are more conducive in the USA. So the same people may not be able to start and succeed elsewhere.

Online only etc. doesn't matter. There will be too many obstacles like tax laws, payment methods and what not.

To clarify, I am not anti-immigrant in the slightest. If anything I think we should give more people the chance for freedom here who are pursued politically in other countries. But I just cannot imagine anyone wanting to come to the USA if they can afford to be elsewhere.

For one example, you best not need medical care while you are here because you certainly will not be able to afford it and it will ruin your credit for life (one trip to the hospital with nothing actually done will cost several thousands of dollars). Secondly, if you wander outside of the more diverse college-towns and metro areas, it's rednecks everywhere (look up "redstate" on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Governors_ma... ).

My logic is if you are intelligent enough to start your own business that can take in money virtually, you are already way ahead of a vast majority of our own population and can have the best of both worlds - take our money and avoid our problems.

There are many that say that our taxes are too high, our regulations are too burdensome, and that in general the climate for business here is abysmal and is driving business away. This position was taken by many politicians who won overwhelmingly last November.

This is really a good thing. Especially for Europeans like me who are seeking for Silicon Valley investment the limited H-1B visa and the high demands for initial funding have been kind of a barrier hardly to be overcome. The ranges now really encourage also foreign entrepreneurs to work on their ideas and that should add some value to both parties, the entrepreneur and the US.

I think the proposal is an interesting one. This really is one good step in cleaning up the issues with visas in this country. People that want to come here, start companies, and build the economy should be encouraged. Those that come for school, get an advanced degree and want to start something should be allowed to as well.

What isn't clear to me would be a scenario, say, where two foreign nationals want to work together to start something under this proposed program, would they need 2x the numbers? Also, "three new American jobs", are those visa eligible or not?

The second area I would like to see addressed is the whole of the H1-B process, specifically for "filling jobs where there is a shortage of talent". The economy is in the shitter and there are people qualified that are having a hard time finding things -- maybe due to age, location, or possibly needing to brush up on skill sets. I don't know what the right approach here is, but it really needs to be cleaned up to encourage training and hiring of those not needing a visa. I've worked with many of the job-shops (Wipro, GlobalLogic, etc) where the amount being paid for "talent" often was much higher than what hiring locally would cost with similar or worse quality.

Balance is needed. This proposal is a great start and maybe adopting something like the Canadian point system would be an interesting follow up for the non-entrepeneurial crowd.

Did the bill pass already? The article is not clear atleast to me, since it mentions "draft of the bill".

No, the bill was introduced last year and failed to have any action taken on it. This is the reintroduction, basically the very first step of a many-step process to become law.

What about J1 visa holders? A number of people come in to universities and national labs from abroad on these...It's already a great step--if J1 holders were added, it would be even better.

A senator takes blogger's opinion into account and revises the legislation? That's how a democracy should work.

I'm really impressed (and the revised conditions seem very reasonable, too).

Bob Litan of Kauffman has been pushing hard for the changes, and Kauffman has the connections to affect the policy. I imagine that had a lot to do with it, too.

The only problem with this is the requirement that it has to generate jobs - there are so many ways this can cause a small business to fail that are outside the control of those who are running it. That is in addition to all the ways a business can fail without employees.

All it really takes is that you overlook a little provision or somebody gets mad and sue because you didn't hire them and they turned out to be some minority that was protected. Even if you win the suit most likely your business is already done for and you lose everything.

The fact that legislation like this is cause for celebration is the measurement of how far the US has fallen.

It's an OR requirement within the bill. Jobs is one way to convert the visa into a green card within 2 years, but it's not the only way.

EDIT: Corin_ is right, and I was working off of the old bill, which had jobs as an OR. Interesting that this change was made, probably to sell it more effectively on the Hill.

Actually, according to TC's summary (I haven't read the exact proposal yet), the OR requirements are all regarding "raised new financing OR bringing in a certain amount of revenue". Creating jobs is an AND requirement in each of the three options.

Edit: Have now bothered to read the actual press release, TC's list of the three options was almost exactly copied word for word. So yeah, job creation within two years is a must, not an option.

I assume the idea is to create American jobs. So, couldn't you just require the company to have so many US citizens on their payroll at a certain minimum salary.

This is way too sensible to become true in the U.S. Next.

This is so crucially important. Even for an avid follower of politics, it's astounding how something like this can get bogged down in partisan politics.

If you have met the employment/revenue standards after 2 years, do you qualify for a startup visa renewal or a green card?

I am rooting for this legislation to get approved. It would be a very big boost to many would-be entrepreneurs

And just six days before YC S 2011 application deadline. Will probably encourage many people to apply.

Finally ... hopefully it will work .. will certainly be a breather for many of us outside the US ....

Definitely looking forward to this one too, for personal reasons. Especially the second category.

Awesomesauce.... This makes it much more likely that I will take the plunge...

Well, there were naysayers saying Vivek was just saying this to keep himself in the news and what he writes is useless, he keeps repeating the same thing etc. etc. and got some nice upvoting on here too. Interesting what their take on this would be.

See these two threads.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2294552

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2294385

I hope inviting immigrants/investors will neutralize outsourcing

Reply on news.ycombinator.com