Hacker News Reader

Comment by noelsequeira | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com