Support the Startup Founders Visa with a tweet | Hacker News Reader

Support the Startup Founders Visa with a tweet

startuplessonslearned.com

18 pointspeter12316 comments

The EB-5 visa is designed for foreign investors to get a green card if they are willing to bring capital to the US and create at least ten full-time jobs. Unfortunately, this program applies to the investor who holds the capital, and not the entrepreneur who discovers how to put that capital to use. A small change in the law could have a big impact on entrepreneurship in this country, and that's what [McClure] proposed

If all they did was extend that same provision to founders, it wouldn't do much good, because few early-stage startups create 10 full-time jobs out of the gate. Indeed, that would be an anti-pattern. However, these guys must know that.

we hope to lower both the capital rqmt from $1M to perhaps $250K, and the job creation rqmts from 10 jobs to perhaps 2-3.

currently, a modified form of the EB-5 in economically targeted areas requires only $500K, and an equivalently smaller # of jobs.

the goal would be to structure the EB-5 modification around the typical seed-round startup investment size & team.

Another distinction is that the EB-5 requires that the person desiring a visa personally invest $1M (not raise it from investors). Additionally, in areas where the limit is lowered to 500K, the person still needs to have a personal net worth of $1M.

Linking a founder visa to a personal net worth in high six digits will defeat the purpose of the visa.

One thing I didn't notice before is that the founders visa idea (however implemented) has the huge advantage of being testable. Startups whose founders got in on such visas would be easy to track. Any big successes that resulted would become prominently associated with the visa program. This would provide political cover against the sort of attacks that are perenially made against H1-Bs and so on. One new Google might even eliminate the controversy permanently. (Admittedly it would be hard to prove that the founders wouldn't have gotten in some other way. But I'm not sure that matters.)

To those who want to differentiate between the next Google and Joe's Lemonade, - At present the same wannabe entrepreneurs are waiting in other categories (EB2-EB3) for 5-7 years and paying the govt and the immigration attorneys over 10k in application and legal fees. The paperwork is extensive. - I believe the same individuals will be more then willing to submit the paperwork in support of their entrepreneurial efforts and be willing to pay for review of the application. The process does not have to be completed in a weeks time but 6 months is better then 6 years. - On the govt side if we already have a process in which we place our trust to ensure our safety (assuming the process works and does not let malicious individuals into the hallowed borders of the territorial united states) then we ought to place trust in the govt that it can put a process in place that distinguishes between a Joe's Lemonade and something that shows job creation/positive economic potential ... yes ?

How do we un-support the founders visa? Because I don't think VC's should have any say in who can immigrate to the US, and I don't think the government should be in the business of annointing VC's.

I think you are getting to caught up in the logistics of how the Visa administration will work. The actual delivery of it is going to obviously be more thought out than Brad Feld's blog post.

Any effort to address the problem is better than nothing.

I am having trouble thinking of a good way to implement this..

How will you differentiate between the next google and Joe with 2,000$ wanting to start up a lemonade stand?

Establish a cap on the number of visas issued, sell them at auction to anybody who passes a background check, and let the market worry about capital allocation between the next Google and Joe's Great Lemonade. The market works better if they are transferable or resalable, but that isn't required.

This would encourage establish a level playing field between startups and established companies for competing for foreign talent, get the US government out of the business of evaluating business plans, avoid anointing any particular VCs as the official Visa Cartel, and be easy to administer and transparent.

You don't have to restrict it to startups in any way, either. It would easily replace the H1B and most other work-related visas. (I can think of compelling reasons to issue, e.g,. spousal visas outside the market.)

Bingo. If the rationale for the program is to feed the market for technical and entrepreneurial talent, then the program should trust market mechanisms for the allocation of limited visas.

And each year, the cap can be reevaluated: would a larger number have generated more jobs (and auction revenue) without the social costs that usually feed anti-immigrant sentiment? If so, revise the cap upward.

"Sell them at auction"

In which case there are enough millionaires wanting US residency that these will all go to millionaires setting up boutique companies just to get residency. See the EB5 visa.

How do we un-support the founders visa? Because I don't think VC's should have any say in who can immigrate to the US

But as Immad pointed out, that's secondary. Are you saying you don't support the principle of visas for startup founders? That's what "founders visa" says and means.

I reread the original proposal to see if PG mentioned VCs. He didn't, only an accreditation body of "investors". But even that was an implementation suggestion, not the core idea.

Yes, as a startup founder, I also don't support the principle of special laws for "startup founders".

How about better regulations for international VC investments?

Or maybe, if you want to start with baby-steps, some pamphlets to VC guys telling them about the world outside california.

But my tweets are already busy supporting the Iranian revolution!

just support iranian startup entrepreneurs, and kill 2 tweets with 140 stones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com