Hacker News Reader

Comment by geebee | Hacker News Reader

The part of this that really worries me is that would-be founders, after making their pitch, are now waiting to find out if the investors have bestowed the right to live and work in the US upon them.

I understand that it is complicated. The US only takes about 1.2 million immigrants legally into the country every year, and because of our emphasis on family reunification, this means that startup founders may not get one of the spots.

If you make this about whether these folks should be allowed into the US, the answer (yes) is pretty simple, which is why some people think it is a simple question.

If you make this about whether a wealthy investor is now not only empowered not only to decide who gets money, but also who gets citizenship, it isn't nearly as obvious an answer. I would hope that people find the idea unsettling, no matter how high their regard is for the investors asking for this new power.

View on HN

It shouldn't be the only way to get a (nonimmigrant in this proposal, incidentally) visa. But I really do believe it should be one way--it's hard to argue that more startups would hurt the economy.

I agree with you that there is a level of discomfort inherent in letting investors influence who gets visas, but honestly they know more about what startups have a chance at great success than government officers.

Is there any way to use the existing EB-5 Immigrant Investor visa?

http://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent-workers...

As far as I know, to qualify for an EB-5 you need to invest at least US$1M and create 10 jobs within 2 years.

It might be a dumb idea, but could investors invest in an entity owned by a foreign founder, who would turn around and repatriate the investment in a US "new commercial entity", and qualify for an EB-5?

I don't think so. From 8 CFR 204.6

Capital means cash, equipment, inventory, other tangible property, cash equivalents and indebtedness secured by assets owned by the alien entrepreneur, provided that the alien entrepreneur is personally and primarily liable and that the assets of the new commercial enterprise upon which the petition is based are not used to secure any of the indebtedness.

For that to work, I think the VC would have to unconditionally give the founder the $1M which is obviously not going to happen.

Bradley nails it. I've looked into this in trying to implement startup visa since March 2011.

The EB-5 requires the capital to be personally owned, as it's intended for wealthy individuals to invest in a local business, usually a construction subcontractor or Vermont ski resort (EB-5 having been created by law sponsored by VT Senator Patrick Leahy back in 1990).

With a prepared lawyer, investors, and founding team, the legal paperwork CAN be set up to make use of an EB-5 (or E-2, at the $50k-150k level) on behalf of a founder, but most founders aren't aware of the hoops they need to jump through or preparation at an early enough stage. And once development has crossed various lines, to 'uncross' them to implement the correctly prepared setup raises other red flags within USCIS.

To me, a necessary (but not sufficient) condition would be a powerful "sunshine" clause. Companies and individuals who are empowered to bestow US residency can't operate in secret.

> it's hard to argue that more startups would hurt the economy.

It's not as clear that government subsidization of your position would benefit the economy in the long-term, especially after more closely examining the beneficiaries of the majority of wealth extracted by VC startups.

It frightens that you seem to honestly believe that you -- specifically and individually -- deserve special privileges that not only will the rest of us equally hard-working, economy-growing, business-founding citizens not get, but that will make it that much harder for us to compete with your already privileged position.

I don't see any claims of "government subsidization" or "special privileges". I think this kind of visa would allow people to move to the US to start a company, on equal footing with "equally hard-working, economy-growing, business-founding citizens".

It's right there in the article. He's requesting that the government grant to YC:

1) An allotment of visas.

2) Control over the allocation of those visas

... possibly to be extended to other venture capital firms (nobody else, of course, and certainly nobody self-funding a company with capital equivalent to that which YC provides). He's happy for YC to be the only beta tester for now, though.

How does this give special privileges to the recipients of those visas?

No, they're saying it gives special privilege to YC.

So in other words money gets to buy a shortcut in the immigration line.

Yeah, that's absolutely the concern with this kind of approach. While I am confident in the good intentions of YCombinator, you can't do a program just for one incubator, and then you have to select them, and some bad ones would get in who'd exploit the situation.

We need startup visas, but it can't be at the behest of investors.

> While I am confident in the good intentions of YCombinator

I'm not. YC is already operating in a club of privilege, surrounded by a bubble of questionable intentions and inflated valuations that externalize the costs onto the wider economy.

Now we should grant YC (and maybe "other investment firms") a privilege that bootstrapped companies like our own can never get? We've lost the H1-B lottery multiple years running.

I can guarantee that the high wages we pay for decades will go a lot farther than the flash-in-pan founder visas and the occasional success that puts more money in the pockets of a few.

Sending YC more grist for their mill isn't to the benefit of the American people, just YC.

Okay how about: ...while I see no benefit to my argument in needlessly being rude and questioning the intentions of YC on this topic in the comments section of their in house news organ... Clearer?

I think you'll find I clearly state this is a bad idea, even if you grant best intentions to those proposing it specifically.

> I see no benefit to my argument in needlessly being rude and questioning the intentions of YC on this topic in the comments section of their in house news organ

I'd say that actually justifies making the issue clear. Consider why YC hosts a "hacker news" (it's not a charitable effort), and why they'd request special privileges from the government (again, not charitable).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com