Startup hopes to hack the immigration system with a floating incubator | Hacker News Reader

Startup hopes to hack the immigration system with a floating incubator

arstechnica.com

165 pointsllambda87 comments

Blueseed needs to tread carefully here. While 12 miles is generally safe for most activities, there's a 'contiguous zone' beyond 12 nautical miles extending up to 24 nautical miles where a coastal state may "exercise the control necessary to: (a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea."[1]

While 24 nautical miles is the upper boundary per international treaties, coastal states are free to adopt a contiguous zone less than 24 miles (such as to respect other coastal states' boundaries). In 1999, however, the United States announced that it was extending its contiguous zone to 24 nautical miles to protect against the infringements mentioned above.[2]

[1] http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/uncl... Sec. 4, Art. 33.

[2] http://clinton4.nara.gov/CEQ/990902a.html

I wonder if this idea could be mimicked on land, for Midwesterners who want to move close to Silicon Valley, but can't tackle the housing prices. I know of several - no, many - entrepreneurs who would love to move to SV, but the money's too good back home and the risk is too high simply because of the difference in cost of living.

Maybe you Californians can give me your opinion. Would it be possible to set up an incubator's Headquarters outside of Silicon Valley, in some cheaper area, and still get the benefits of the SV culture, by commuting periodically (much like the boaters would do)?

I see on Zillow [1] that the average home cost in San Jose metro is $552K, while it's only $130K in Modesto (90 miles away).

Or is there another cheap area a little closer? Pleasanton? Fremont? (any other suggestions?) Maybe the incubator could get a bunk room apartment in SV for overnights or when there's an early meeting or a late-evening event.

Would that make any sense? Or do they just need to bite the bullet and move to Santa Clara or Sunnyvale, and pay outrageous prices for housing?

And if it wouldn't make sense, what does that say about this floating incubator idea?

[1] http://www.zillow.com/local-info/CA-home-value/r_9/

Living in SF and paying the super high rent, I think it would make sense. If there was a nice bus with Wifi that allows for a good commute, that might be a good option. I would miss the SF lifestyle however, esp. in Modesto. A lot of the advantage of being here is that you meet a lot of people. However, you might meet a lot of people on the bus... I personally would want the incubator not to be located in Modesto however. Maybe there is some nice little town north along the 101?

There are cheap pockets in Bay Area, like Oakland for example. There is a reason why nobody who can afford to not live there doesn't live there. Such pockets would definitely benefit from influx of educated enterpreneurial people.

Yes, I think you're on to something. However, if you're an entrepreneur who doesn't mind just renting a room in a house or apartment, then the cost isn't so bad. You can rent a room for around $650/mo easily. Of course, you miss out on all the perks of having your own place, but how much time are you going to be spending there anyways if you're really so driven that you're willing to move across country?

My recommendation for an entrepreneur in the Midwest who wants to move, but is afraid of the costs of living: Consider radically downsizing and renting a single room.

Now for a lot of people this isn't an option (e.g. married with kids, mortgage, etc, etc). And that's exactly why VC's talk about a "drag coefficient."

Not only is Modesto 90 miles away which would be pretty damn awful as a daily commute, but it's also not the nicest spot to live in. If you're getting paid a Silicon Valley salary, you can easily afford Bay Area housing. You could find spots like Modesto, Fremont or Oakland that are much cheaper… but there's a reason they're cheaper. For the most part, they're pretty crappy places to live.

I say this having lived in Oakland for a year, and trust me when I say that it's a huge shithole. Insane crime, crappy acomodations, and a very depressing atmosphere. I got mugged at gunpoint there once, too.

fremont actually seems like a great place to live to me. it was pretty high on my list of fallbacks if i did not find a decent place in san francisco.

Just once? You got lucky.

You have to make a lot to 'EASILY' afford Bay Area housing... I currently live in Arizona and to live in an equivalent house like I live in here (nothing too special, just a 3 bed 1 story newer home) would be at least 2.5 to 3 times the cost (if living right in the hotspot areas of Silicon Valley. I'm honestly not even sure as it may be more, I pretty much gave up looking and resigned myself to living a bit further out because my salary wouldn't triple if I move there, as I'm sure it won't for most people.

I have lived in Oakland for 8 years, dont drive a car, take public transit, walk, shop, and work here. Never been mugged. Perhaps the problem was with you and not the city. Anyways, with that attitude Im glad to hear you left. Dont come back.

I don't live in Oakland, but glad there was someone with a dissenting opinion to counter this nasty diatribe.

I see this sentiment a lot, and I appreciate that your visceral reaction is because of the tone of the post you're replying to, so please don't take this too personally.

But, and I say this as a happy resident of the East Bay, you're simply sticking your head in the sand if you ignore the fact that Oakland and some of it's neighbors are very good places to become a victim: ranked fourth in the US, actually. 2010 FBI crime rate data; sort by "violent crime":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_r...

I love living over here, but this is a terrible statistic, and Oakland has more than earned it's reputation. Expending all your effort telling people they're wrong to be afraid feels like such a waste; there are so many more productive things that could be done with that energy that might actually address the problem.

True that. I didn't mean to insinuate that Oakland is the safest place to live. I simply found the comment calling it a "huge shithole" mildly offensive. It may be more dangerous than other cities but I do believe, going on years of personal experience as well as observing the experiences of others, that the danger can be mitigated by one's own attitude and actions. I expend much energy in my community and leaving even that aside I believe I make Oakland a better place to live for everyone by smiling and saying hello to my neighbors every day. Perhaps not, just my take.

Being from the Bay Area and planning to move back at some point, I can say that you don't have to go all the way to Modesto to get a lower cost, if you're going to build a community you could do it somewhere down south of San Jose, such as around Gilroy, maybe not as cheap as Modesto but closer and better natural surroundings IMO. You have to go over a hilly 'pass' to get to Modesto thats so windy they use the ara for windmill farms so its not the most pleasant drive. Also, I think the communities in the mountains (such as on the way to Santa Cruz) are cheaper than the valley and it'd be a lot cooler to live there than in Modesto

Thanks. I just picked Modesto because it appeared close on Google Maps and was on the Zillow list. I prefer not to live in a dump in a slum (as others seemed to suggest). I wasn't looking for cheap rent in a small dumpy place that was close. I was trying to emulate the boat proposal (far enough away that there's an advantage, but close enough that you can commute on occasion for meetings with Google, HP, Yahoo, Apple or whoever.)

In the Midwest, you can get a nice 3500 sq ft home for 250K. Owners of such homes are the type of people I would be trying to get. So a 300 sq foot room for $650/mo isn't going to cut it (as someone else suggested).

Looks like Gilroy might be a good answer. Over 100 properties on Realtor.com between $250 and 400K. 42 miles from Silicon Valley.

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Gilroy_CA/b...

> Looks like Gilroy might be a good answer.

Everything tastes of garlic in Gilroy.

yeah it does reek of it when you drive through

This will probably fail. But many if not most ambitious startups fail. However, it's something that must be tried at least for the sake of forcing a reconsideration of the US's draconian immigration restrictions on highly skilled workers.

There are a few criticisms that have popped up in regards to this project: 1) It will lead to the exploitation of workers. Nonsense. This only make economic sense of those non-US citizens who are skilled enough that it's worthwhile to be in proximity to SV. The "low-skilled" niche is already occupied by companies outsourcing to Bangalore et al. and entrepreneurs outsourcing to oDesk, eLance, etc.

2) Successful passage of the Startup Visa would undermine the business plan. Maybe, but once this gets underway, who knows what other opportunities could arise. The Startup Visa has some requirements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_Visa#Requirements It could be possible for this project to actually help non-US entrepreneurs get the needed funding to qualify for a Startup Visa.

Overall, I think it's worth trying, just not with my money. If they do succeed, my bet is that it won't be with the business model proposed in the article (charge for rent + some equity), it will be with something nobody is predicting right now.

Further counterpoints to the 2 points of criticism you raise. 1) Exploitation of immigrant workers (especially undocumented) is already common place within this country's borders, tho primarily for low-skilled jobs. I don't see any inherent economic incentive to worker exploitation on boat, above what unscrupulous employees already take advantage of on-shore. 2) Should legislation like the Startup Visa actually come to pass, the population on this boat could then simply move on-shore, and probably enjoy cheaper operating expenses. That population would already be rather unmoored, so to speak, so relocating shouldn't be too much of a hurdle.

Some questions:

While the floating incubator will be in international waters, it's still within the U.S.'s exclusive economic zone. Is there legal precedent that travelling to a floating platform in the U.S.'s EEZ count as an "exit" for visa purposes?

The map in the article suggests that the ferries will go to/from Half Moon Bay. But Half Moon Bay is not a Port of Entry. Is the expectation that the U.S. government will set up HMB as a Port of Entry? And if it doesn't, is this project still practical if the ferries are required to travel to San Francisco?

If the U.S. decides to bar someone on the platform from entry, doesn't that mean that person is stuck on the platform? How else would someone get from the platform to, say, the U.K., without going through a U.S. airport?

It's actually within the contiguous zone, which offers even more regulatory abilities by the coastal state. The ship could just sail outside of the contiguous zone, but would still be within the EEZ. In that case, the issue becomes more tricky.

Article 56 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS] provides states with sovereign rights to exploit the resources contained within the EEG. If Blueseed wants to connect to undersea cables (or provide another mainland direct link), the ships become artificial islands because of the connection to the seabed. Because the provisions of Art. 60 of UNCLOS apply mutatis mantandis to artificial islands, it might not matter whether the start-up is an Art. 56 installation or a ship exercising its "high seas" freedoms. This protection extends to up to 200 nautical miles from the coast, so to be "truly" free, you'd have to go past the EEZ and likely operate an offshore airport for ferrying your employees.

As for the point of entry issues, I'm afraid I don't know anything about that. They'd likely be rendered moot by the need for an airport, though.

Keep in mind that the United States, while observing UNCLOS in many of its particulars, has not ratified it.

That's an extremely good point that I really should have mentioned, since some of the United States' issues with it pertain to the exclusive economic zone. Although a non-issue when dealing with the contiguous zone, moving a ship/artificial island outside of the contiguous zone may implicate it. I'll have to look some more into the United States' stance on Articles 56 and 60, which deal with the EEZ and artificial islands, respectively.

Honestly, if you've got a good product and you have access to the Internet, does it really matter where you are physically located? I understand the energy that being physically present in a particular locality gives, but what confuses me is that this solution seems counterproductive. Look at Mojang and Minecraft; they're in Sweden of all places and they're not on some boat trying to crank a product out. If you want that kind of life, you should join the Navy.

It's a lot like moving to Hollywood waiting tables/washing cars. The immigration problems are easily solved once the MVP is out...

In programming, the simplest solutions are often the best. The more complicated they are, the less thought out they are.

This removes the workers from their local economy, drains the value they have to offer and plops them back where they came from with a meager wage to show for it.

Creating local jobs in an economy - even outsourced jobs - has a wide variety of ancillary benefits that this will lack.

As an immigrant to the USA (now citizen) I've had plenty of experience on a B-1 visa and I can assure you that life with a B-1 visa and an immigration official between you and the nearest terra firma will be miserable.

This removes the workers from their local economy, drains the value they have to offer and plops them back where they came from with a meager wage to show for it.

Allowing people to immigrate to the US has the same effect.

That doesn't strike me as a very credible statement. A significant proportion of FDI in emerging markets comes from migrants either returning home or investing through personal social networks.

This would be more or less exactly the same with migrants living and working on a ship.

The only point I'm making is that I can't see a substantive difference (for people in the home country) between migration to SanFran and migration to the USS SanFran.

Well, consider someone who immigrates and subsequently has a family. One doubts this ship would have appropriate medical, daycare, or school facilities. Sure, most startup minded are likely single and focused on business, but non work considerations are important to many people. Under current immigration law, family members of green card holders and naturalized US citizens get preference in visa allocations; whatever you think of this as policy, it's certainly a significant benefit for some people in the country of origin which wouldn't be available with the sea borne approach. Likewise potential business or investment partners in a non-US country would probably prefer to deal with someone who has a secure foothold in the US capital or retail market. Speaking as someone who has lived in several different countries, the difference between being a tourist and being properly plugged into the local and legal infrastructure you are working with is huge.

>This removes the workers from their local economy, drains the value they have to offer and plops them back where they came from with a meager wage to show for it.

This voluntary arrangement plops them back into their community... with new found wages to spend that otherwise would not have been acquired in such quantity, and/or at such a high relative cost to the laborer (availability, desirability of the work).

It is kind of sad in a way. News like that makes me think the days where one can expect a long career doing satisfying work, whilst having a normal life with family and your own roof over your head are slowly drawing to a close.

Now people are going to be crammed into cabins on a boat? Real nice.

I don't think "a long career doing satisfying work, whilst having a normal life with family and your own roof over your head" has been a realistic expectation for some time now. Outside of a handful of rich-world countries it's never been realistic.

Personally I think this is an exciting project, and it needn't be a miserable experience; if done right this little floating village could be the kind of high-tech melting pot that leads people to do great things.

Very true. When I was a kid, our family had a nanny from the Philippines. Never realized back then that she (rotated among several women over the years) probably had her own family back home. Now I look at the world and realize how many people, even in the first world, leave their families to go make money for their families.

I think "a long career doing satisfying work, whilst having a normal life with family and your own roof over your head" is possible only in academia if you can get faculty position quickly. Although, the probability of getting grants is so small that it hardly can be called "normal life".

It's just sad that you create new technologies for U.S. and getting cold shoulder from Uncle Sam.

I don't think it's uncommon in technology or engineering. There are tens (hundreds?) of thousands of "normal" engineering jobs at places like IBM and Lockheed that have fairly good job security, pay well, and don't involve insane working hours.

It's unlikely that the immigrants who will live on the boat could ever have expected a long career doing satisfying work while having what you consider to be a normal life (assuming you are American).

Today, those prospective immigrants are likely to have a career doing low level, boring, outsourced work with a standard of living that most Americans would consider dire poverty. Until recently, they couldn't even expect that much.

Easier option. Move to Ensenada Mexico. It takes 2 hrs to get to San Diego.

http://g.co/maps/35bqv

Reduce your expenses, Live in the beach, enjoy Mexican hospitality.

Are there any existing startup communities by the beach in Mexico? I can't think of a more ideal way to work for a few months (for those of us without families or who otherwise can't move around).

Not that I know. Most start ups in Mexico are in bigger cities, but in any case we still lack an entrepreneurial culture.

>>we still lack an entrepreneurial culture<<

Which Mexico are you talking about? The one with millions upon millions of independent taco stands, repair shops, tianguis, ciber cafes, roving traditional music bands, and drug cartels?

Sure, internet startup culture hasn't taken the place as far as Silicon Valley yet, but entrepreneurial culture isn't what's lacking.

I doubt it, but there are a lot of gated communities in Baja where Americans own homes and they have private security guards. I'm not sure of the safety record of these places, but I think there are some that are pretty secured, you just don't necessarily want to leave the complex and travel to these places can be a bit sketchy. I took a bus down to Rosarito once and not sure I'd want to go back there again.

Aren't the border areas extremely dangerous?

Ensenada is a small town. I don't think, it is specially violent.

You can compare homicide rates by country here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...

It varies. Tijuana is one of the more dangerous cities in Mexico with a murder rate of 107/100k from 2006-2010, but that's way behind Cd. Juarez with 485 over the same period. By comparison the national average was 30.8 and Mexico City was 7.36.

I couldn't find stats for Ensenada but Tijuana makes up over half of the population of the state of Baja California, which in 2010 had a murder rate of 28. I'd bet Ensenada is well below that. Baltimore by contrast was 34.8 and Oakland 22.

(FWIW the violence in TJ has abated considerably in 2011 as the Sinaloa cartel has effectively won the turf war that was raging.)

Have lived in Tijuana almost my whole life, In no way my life has been in danger at any point, even when i decided to go to the bad parts of town, and I dont know anyone that has been kidnapped or killed, its always been someone far from me. On the news theres always stories of people getting mugged or killed, but somehow I've managed to stay away from it all, its mostly fear now, but we go about our business as if nothing happened.

> Baltimore by contrast was 34.8 and Oakland 22.

I don't know about Mexico, but city-wide US murder rates don't actually tell you much about individual risk. In other words, for some sub-populations, Oakland is a lot more dangerous than 22/100k would suggest while it's a lot safer for other subpopulations.

The reason is that US murders aren't random. (And yes, "competitors" know each other.) Even the "killed by accident" happen to folk who live in/visit the "wrong" neighborhoods.

Baltimore is scary. Almost all of it.

I've never been to mexico, but how about rosarito, or even tijuana?

I think he wanted to point out the ferry can land there, since Ensenada is a big Port, Tijuana and Rosarito dont have a docking port, but really I worked at a "startup" in San Diego for 4 years with a B1, living in Tijuana crossing the border, and as others can attest, it's miserable, every day you risk your B1

This might be a creative way to deal with immigration issues. But it's obviously wrong. Maybe it's not wrong as a business plan. Maybe it's not wrong with the legality of the venture. But it's wrong to have people resort to this. It's not really solving a problem, it's creating a new set of problems.

How long before foreign workers are kept on a similar boat outside of territorial waters? Imagine living on a vessel where you can't leave because you're not allowed onto the nearest land mass, you're forced to pay rent to live there, and quaint little things like labour and safety laws don't apply. Indentured servitude, slavery, fear, children born with no rights as citizens anywhere - welcome to (just outside of the) United States of America.

Think I'm being melodramatic? Who do you think is going to be serving meals, cooking and cleaning? Why bother with Americans when you can keep a Filipino locked in the bowels of the boat?

Dario Mutabdzija and Max Marty are obviously world class assholes.

Don't the same issues apply to the cruise ship industry?

Yes. Although they do hit a port now and then. So at least there's a chance to get off once in awhile. Also this reminds me of the cruise ships docked during the Vancouver Olympics. Many of the workers on the cruise ships were not allowed to touch land.

This actually doesn't solve the problem it think it does. If this is an 'incubator' like YC (i.e. only lasts 3 months) this doesn't make any sense, because I can get a visitor's visa (B-2 I believe) to go and participate in YC.

If this is a more long-term solution, and given that they are renting office space for $1300 - $3000/mo, you can actually get an E-2 Treaty Visa assuming that you can prove that your company will employ 10 people over 2 years and be setting up office locally, and investing a minimum of at least $200K I believe. This was even before relaxation of H1-B rules that allowed foreign workers to start their own companies.

So I am not sure how far this will go...they should re-examine what they are trying to do. It sounds like they are just trying to experiment with a Seasteading exercise and have it subsidized by funded tech startups.

If the real aim is to solve the immigration problem for startups, this particular solution might not be the best.

B-2 is for tourists. You're probably thinking of the B-1, but as I understand it that precludes "productive work" and only allows meetings.

The idea is to provide a platform for companies that aren't yet large enough to take advantage of visas that are available to larger firms. So startups that got traction would eventually transfer over to being normal SV companies.

> The idea is to provide a platform for companies that aren't yet large enough to take advantage of visas that are available to larger firms. So startups that got traction would eventually transfer over to being normal SV companies.

That would make sense, except their offering doesn't sound like that's what they are aiming at. For a company to reach the point where it is spending $3K/mo just to be within 12 miles off the shore of SV, with crappy satellite inet...they would have to already be at the point where they can transition into being a 'normal SV company'...thereby making this point moot.

A better option that is unlikely to sink: Vancouver, BC

It is a 2.5 hour drive. It might take the same amount of time to go from blueseed to a meeting (with a NEXUS card) as it would from vancouver to seattle.

2.5 hours plus border wait time, plus more time if you don't have a Canadian passport and need a visa to enter the US. On the other hand Vancouver has a startup community so you don't need to go to Seattle to find an incubator. Plus we have vastly more sane immigration laws in Canada

Border waiting times and visas will be similar or worse with this scheme too. At least with the car border crossing, you have the option of a NEXUS card and your not prone to the TSA style procedures due the xray scanner you driver through.

I was going on travel times alone comparing the two, treating the border wait times as identical in both schemes. I've lived with ferries, the trip from the cruise boat to the shore will be 1 hour typically plus an extra 30 minutes for boarding/disboarding procedures and then another 45 minutes driving minimum to get from half moon bay to palo alto. So you'll be half an hour faster on average compared to vancouver-seattle. A helicopter taxi would be faster, but they typically cost $100 per one way trip.

I have a relating question, for anyone law-inclined:

What's stopping someone from setting up a "consulting" company in various countries to act as a shell? If a company wants to hire an immigrant, that immigrant could grab a B-1 visa (or whatever else is applicable). The company would then in turn pay the shell company, which would operate at a $1 profit, and pay the salary to the worker.

Am I missing something entirely?

sounds like you have never been to the interview in the American Consulate abroad. If the company isn't well known, the amount of paparework you'd need to bring will be impressive, like tax, balance sheets, etc... reports for a nice number or previous quarters/years. And they seem to employ, at least in the Consulates in Russia, pretty smart nice people who like to ask very specific and targetted questions.

So while it isn't impossible and there are various arrangements out there along these lines, it isn't an easy exploitable scheme and once this particular worker is "caught" in such a scheme, his future visas/immigration chances become much more slimmer - this is even if the scheme is setup and operated by somebody else. As a result for hi-tech people the "white" ways like H1/L1 are much more preferrable. The H1 numbers for the last years even wasn't exhausted for example.

Vlad, good points.

Just a minor correction, the H-1B cap has been filled every years since 2003, at least.

http://redbus2us.com/h1b-visa-cap-reach-dates-for-fy-2004-20...

(which needs an update for FY2012 - the cap was reached last week)

Anything that helps attack the immigration problem is a good thing. Even if it's far-fetched hacks like this, hopefully it will give people some inspiration on how to solve the problem without waiting for the slow, slow process of the government changing immigration law.

When I saw the link title I thought the boat was going to be for expecting mothers from other countries to live on and then deliver their babies in US waters (making them US citizens). Needless to say, I was quite confused for the first couple paragraphs...

Not a lawyer, but when I am immigration is the area I plan to practice in. This is a terrible idea; even if the floating platform is conjured into a fully operation existence tomorrow, anyone who goes to work there will more likely be effectively barred from future entry to the US by the rather draconian criteria that currently govern the immigration system. This would be viewed as something akin to economic piracy and the list of legal things that could go wrong is growing exponentially the longer I think about it.

I know this is a pretty broad-brush criticism, but where I think the architects of this project are going wrong is in their mechanistic/formalist assessment of immigration and admiralty (maritime) law. You can look at things in the US code and say a particular legal approach should work, but in doing so you're assuming a purely neutral implementation and arbitration process. In reality, immigration is highly politicized for a variety of reasons. Most obviously, there's the general spirit of labor protectionism and xenophobia that reflects popular nationalistic and economic anxiety. Then there's the fact that immigration is one area where Congress exercises plenary power, and uses it to effectively exempt some immigration rules from judicial or executive review. On the administrative side, you have an executive that has repeatedly set records in enforcement (highs for deportation, lows for unauthorized entry) and has set out a fairly clear policy of prioritizing enforcement activities against violent criminals rather than undocumented economic migrants who are otherwise law-abiding; but the union that represents immigration enforcement officers is diametrically opposed to these goals, takes the position that 'the administration refuses to enforce the law', and its spokesperson has consistently aligned the union with the most hardline conservative stance imaginable on this issue. I don't know whether this is because the union leadership considers more aggressive enforcement to be economically beneficial to its membership or because the persons involved simply hold reactionary political views, but it's no exaggeration to say that there is open bureaucratic warfare between the uniformed and legal staff within ICE.

Under these circumstances, and bearing in mind that in immigration matters, the burden of proof rests with the non-citizen rather than the government (in contrast to criminal procedure), how long will a daily offshore ferry service on the doorstep of Silicon Valley be allowed to operate before being shut down as a 'suspected people smuggling operation' or similar? Aside from the obvious risk of maritime accidents when you have daily 'ferry' journeys going 12-24 miles into oceanic waters, visitors from an offshore labor platform are going to have about the least user-friendly experience it is possible to have when they come in contact with the coastal ICE agents. As in, being taken into custody and deported to their country, not their point, of origin. We're talking about an agency that has an occasional habit of deporting US citizens by accident, for example: http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/immigration-law/blogs/ou...

So, A+ for good intentions and drawing further attention to the economically self-defeating nature of current US policy, but F- for real world practicality.

To add to the excellent summary by anigbrowl about the power of existing interests to make the immigrant ship into a disaster, let's consider the competition.

Vancouver and La Paz (or possibly Ensenada or Los Cabos) offer urban amenities, affordable living, first world infrastructure and quality of life, plenty of space, and -- most importantly -- easy work visas. They're all within two to three hours of SJC and SFO airports in Silicon Valley, probably about as close in total travel time as the offshore ship.

If you really need to import a complete team from Durka-durkastan and can't get all the H1B's you want, just stick 'em in La Paz and spend a day taking in the Baja ocean breezes any time you need to see them in person. Any team the boat would work for, Mexico would work better.

(note: Mexican immigration law is much harsher on the undocumented than US law, but much easier on legal immigrants so get your papers in order when you try this; it's pretty easy.)

Thanks for your kind words!

(note: Mexican immigration law is much harsher on the undocumented than US law, but much easier on legal immigrants so get your papers in order when you try this; it's pretty easy.)

Actually, Mexico reformed its immigration regime a few years ago, such that it is now decriminalized and involves only a nominal fine. Not that you'd know it from reading US media, which doesn't cover Mexican politics very well.

http://www.cronica.com.mx/nota.php?id_nota=562826 or http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/02/28/176511/mexico-i... for a quick overview.

This is a great idea. It doesn't need to be the answer to everything for everyone. It just needs to work for some folks.

Immigration is just one aspect to this. I hope that blueseed is not just looking at this as a tech incubator, as I believe there are a number of complementary markets they could go after.

I could imagine a lot of high net-worth families in Asia being interested in this, if it's marketed properly (and the proper package of services is put together etc).

Another regulatory area that could be arbitraged nicely is the inefficient and irrational processes in the FDA approval programs. Take a little trip to Blueseed to get your stem cell injection (etc.).

You know what first came into my mind when I heard about this? Pirate Radio. :)

That and "I'm on a boat" from Lonely Island ;)

the fact that there's American people trying to get Immigrants into the country playing in grey areas of the law ( or "hacking" if you want to call it that ) should be enough for US Lawmakers to fix what they currently have, theres a big opportunity for the US to exploit its tech culture converting it to a big incubator, instead they want us to bring money from abroad to get a "Startup Visa" or they want us paying taxes landing already hired with H1's or TN's. I dont know much about law and immigration, but in my experience (having a TN for a year moving to the US only to have it denied after the 1st year and having to come back to Mexico) the system is really broken, and since no one from the US has to go through it, it will remain so, until they review and test it.

This is a terrible, stupid, idea and will never work. Ever.

In addition to the myriad other problems, the logistics alone of keeping that ship at sea, and keeping everyone fed, healthy, and sane for months if not years on end will doom this to failure.

This would be a medical nightmare. People from all over the world commingling their exotic (relative to their shipmates' immune systems) diseases, infections, virii, etc., is a recipe for huge, huge medical issues.

There's a development company based out of Cleveland that already has a boat. All they need to do is make it sea worthy...

http://leandog.com/

Their boat seems more lake worthy than sea worthy. I couldn't really picture it out in international waters.

This is also interesting from a libertarian perspective. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading

I guess I'm too isolated from business jargon, but it took me half this article to realize they weren't talking about a _medical_ incubator.

> 200-300 crew members in total

That doesn't sound much like a startup to me.

I don't think this hacks the immigration problem.

It just puts people on a boat which happens to be close to Silicon Valley, so I suppose it's comfortable for VCs to come onboard and see the action?

certainly very creative way of dealing with the imigration problems. But what if the Startup Visa gets support and will pass? Then surely this project is doomed to fail and therefore hard to get an investment.

We are thinking of moving to US with our startup (well, more like a business already with 10 employees and profitable) but I would rather wait for the laws to change before deciding to live on the boat for extended period of time.

12miles off shore is not terribly far. Telecommute would be quite possible, assuming this ship would have fast wireless Internet service via some terrestrial band. (100Mbps+ is quite possible with off-the-shelf unlicensed equipment in the 5.8GHz band over that distance, faster for licensed.)

I wonder if employees fortunate enough to be granted a visa could then move to the SF area an then actually commute via high-speed shuttle boat. Telecommute would suggest that such employees' actual commute need not be daily.

To begin with, the Startup Visa Act has seen no movement in Congress since its introduction in Congress on March 14. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-565. COICA and SOPA have received much more attention.

According to the proposed bill, S.565, to obtain and keep a startup visa (valid for 2 years), an entrepreneur must:

a) obtain $100k from a qualified investor, and during the following 2 years, must create 5 or more new full-time jobs in the United States for people other than his immediate family, raise $500k or more in capital, and generate $500k or more in revenue, OR

b) have an unexpired H1-B visa -- this already excludes foreign startups, OR

c) have a controlling interest in a foreign company that generated $100k or more in revenue from sales in the US, and create in the next 2 years 3 or more full-time jobs in the US for people other than their immediate family, raise $100k or more in capital, and generate $100k or more in revenue.

There are further restrictions on qualified investors: a) qualified super angel investors must be US citizens b) qualified venture capitalists must be based in the US and have more than $10M in capital

Blueseed makes it significantly easier for foreign-based startups to work in close proximity to Silicon Valley by not placing restrictions on the source of their funds, the revenue they must generate, or the number of jobs they must create.

Startups out there might not want to take the risk that Startup Visa won’t pass, or that it will pass in a form that’s inadequate for their needs (e.g. a permanent requirement for more than X employees would force a startup out of the country if they temporarily are force to lay off people and now only have X-1 employees; similarly, a permanent requirement for a certain level of funding could also hurt a startup).

Secondly, according to the Startup Visa bill proposal press release (http://www.webcitation.org/627BU0HxF), to accommodate this new type of visa, adjustments would be made to the existing EB-5 visa, which grants visas to foreign nationals who invest $1 million towards the creation of 10 jobs:

  Under a new EB-6 category, a visa would be granted to the innovative entrepreneur
  with intellectual capital, instead of a wealthy foreign investor who is in a
  position to buy a visa. The legislation [S.565] transfers an allotment of the
  yearly 9,940 EB-5 visas, of which only 4,191 visas were used in FY 2009, to be
  granted under the new EB-6 category.
  *The creation of new visas is not authorized in this bill.* [emphasis in original]

So any unused EB-5 visas could be transformed into startup friendly visas. In other words, the startup visas would compete with the investor visas for a limited pool of visas.

Also, given the government inertia typical of these matters (e.g. the Comprehensive Immigration Reform has been stalling since 2006), by the time (if) immigration regulations become lax enough, we will have franchised away from the "foreign nationals" business models.

Finally, we’re creating a space so compelling that even if you’re a company without any visa issues, you still want to be onboard Blueseed because it’s going to be the most awesome space in Silicon Valley. The #1 most common country that startups who've filled out Survey of Interest are from is the US.

I hope this answers your question.

Hey, what ever happened to Sealand anyway?

Ooh neat - when the bubble pops, this could be a fun thing to remember the stupidity of the bubble by. Kind of like pets.com of the first one.

Indeed -- I remember multiple firms trying to do the exact same thing on mothballed cruise ships during the height of the dotcom bubble (v1).

This is a rather old problem isn't it? As in early 1990's.

The fact that it has come to this leads me to believe things have not improved.

Seems to me that either you find a way to get these skilled workers into the US or they will just form pure plays and compete with American companies from abroad. Is that true?

software startups on land: piracy is annoying or irrelevent

software startups at sea: piracy is deadly or worse

Reply on news.ycombinator.com