"To qualify for the rule, entrepreneurs would have to meet high standards. A foreigner must demonstrate that he or she will contribute to economic growth or job creation and show that a reputable investor has put at least $250,000 into the company. Under this rule, they can stay in the U.S. for 30 months, with the possibility of a 30-month extension. They cannot apply for a green card during this period."
This sounds like a pretty lame visa. How are you supposed to build a startup if you only have 30 months to do so? Why would investors risk $250k if the founder may be deported in 30 months? What happens after the extension period?
I'm 100% in favor of increasing all immigration to the USA, but this visa doesn't sound like a good option at all. Is the USA really so appealing that talented entrepreneurs will jump through this many hoops to start their company here?
> They cannot apply for a green card during this period
This will be a deal-breaker for over 95% of the applicants. Even though the H1B Visa is a non-immigrant visa, there was no such clause attached to it like this one.
It's what enables 1000s of immigrants (like me) every year to first arrive on a non-immigrant visa and then get the employer to petition their green cards for permanent stay or eventually citizenship. I personally know many immigrants who didn't really want to become citizens and intended to go back to their home country in 5 to 10 years timeframe, but applied for and obtained permanent residency (green card) just so that this uncertainty of resident status is eliminated.
Take that (the green card) away, why would any entrepreneur be incentivized to apply for this Visa? Because 2 or 3 * years is a very short time frame to create and run a successful startup. Why would any entrepreneur risk coming here on a temporary stay only to be banished just as the startup takes off?
* 3 = Number of years Kevin O'Leary (Shark Tank) says you give your startup to turn profitable before taking it to the back of the Barn and shooting it.
I only wondered why US will not open up to the countries, that are known for being safe, with well educated and easy to integrate citizens. US is opening its borders to rich countries instead of opening to safe bets to grab some tech talent.
There are numerous countries that fit this profile. The majority of Central/Eastern Europe, few Asian and South American countries, even with Africa having some. Instead, they expect for people from developed countries go through the nightmare of getting a visa, being screened and then live in places like Cali where cost of living is ridiculous. US could easily give out 1 Mil easy-to-get visas with easy-to-get transition program to a green card that would bump their economy, instead, they are creating walls everywhere.
> Is the USA really so appealing that talented entrepreneurs will jump through this many hoops to start their company here?
As a French cofounder of a small startup: no. We are looking at making a structure in Canada in order to hunt US money. We assume that immigration in the US will be a nightmare and we have tons of other problems to solve. European funds and Chinese investors are also interested in our tech.
Actually, we should explore if US talents are not willing to move out, to France or Canada instead.
I am going to guess that there is some way to transition to an immigrant visa like an O-1 or H-1B. There are many Canadians in the US on a non-immigrant visa (TN1) then switching to an immigrant visa later on. This was my path to a green card.
> Why would investors risk $250k if the founder may be deported in 30 months?
Presumably, the investor has invested in a corporate entity organized in the United States and that the money has been used to pay employees such that there's some kind of structure that continues to exist in the U.S. with or without the founder. If you're the investor, and you're just writing a check to a guy who flew in with a startup visa and nothing else, then I, a U.S. Citizen, have quite a few startup ideas I'd like to discuss with you.
Donny boy should spend more time seeking advice from foreign leaders and less time pushing and arm-wrestling them, one them being French president, who apparently "gets it" when it comes to the role of government in technology and innovation. France's visa programmes for tech workers and startup founders were launched this year.
I'm a New Zealander and have been trying to relocate to the states for many years. It basically comes down to finding someone to marry me while I am there on my 3 month visiting visa.
Problem is, it's hard enough finding someone to hold my hand in NZ, let alone marriage in another country.
I had high hopes that Clinton would win and I'd have my dream realised. I guess, it was never meant to be.
I was invited last year in a round table discussion on this new rule. The original responses for the rule were mixed as there are plenty of nuances. Specifically, the main concern is the rule would lead to investors demanding founders to first acquire this type of status before they were able to get funded, causing a Chicken and Egg problem.
The original proposal of the rule required 375k of funding from US only accredited investors, and there are also requirements for the startup founders to maintain a certain threshold of ownership while being able to hire a lot of American employees in short period of time. I don't remember the specific number requirement/head counts but it was definitely enough to pressurize the company to expand in size quickly, while many tech startups do not necessarily need to hire dozens of employees in a 1-3 year period, not to mention they all had to be US citizens. 1-3 years would also be a stretch for most startup to figure out a concrete plan of growth in order to quality for an extension. And what if the founders want to bootstrap themselves?
Ultimately this rule still doesn't show any concrete pathway of residency or visa guarantees after 6 years. And because it is not a visa, it will take time to educate immigration officers and TSAs as well as creating a reasonable structure to allow founders to travel outside US legally as well. Historically there is a huge delay of understanding OPT, STEM and O1 visas in plenty of US embassies.
To make things even more complicated, it is not USCIS's interest to be a judge to tell which company would qualify for this rule, and they would need to form a group of trusted committees to check case by case if a company and their founders/co-founders qualify for this rule. I also heard that founder's spouses would be able to travel to US too.
This is a solid reminder that the Trump administration is showing itself to be mostly concerned with undoing anything that Obama did, rather than working for anyone's benefit. You can't apply logic to predict the actions of these people.
I live in Seattle and I'm about ready to drive two hours north for my next startup. To hire the Russian programmers I'm already working with, or the folks on Kaggle I'd love to hire. The US has a completely broken scheme for visas.
That's just trading one problem for another. Vancouver has a very serious affordability problem. Not only are you going to be paying a lot more for office and living space, you're going to have far fewer opportunities for funding.
Last time I checked, Canada is still much stricter when it comes to work visas than the US, though I suppose much less of their capacity is getting eaten up by Infosys-like operations.
If you're actually building a business (rather than a get-rich-quick startup) people will welcome you with open arms.
You'll find good QOL and great livability here. Though we are just starting to get traffic problems.
Unfortunately, the immigration policies of most countries in the world are one huge stupid joke. Why so much obsession about the country where people were born into? It wasn't their choice at all. It just doesn't matter.
The only questions you should be asking are "are they decent people? Are they willing to integrate? Will they contribute to our economy? Will they make us problems?"
And none of these questions you can answer by reading the name of the country on their passport.
"Investor" visas exist in many countries. Eliminating it in the US would result in US people being excluded in other countries. And if there is one thing rich people aren't going to vote/lobby for, it is curtailment of their ability to migrate.
This is a wild speculation, but is it possible that the Trump administration believes startups to be bad for the Rust Belt working class and other similar demographic they say they represent? For example, greater efficiency and automation could reduce employment of semi skilled people.
In the long run, this line of policies would of course lead to technological slow down and give a big opening for other countries to take the lead in a crucial determiner of economic successes.
Other possible theses may be that they favor the 'native whites' to have control as Steve Bannon used to mention or try to undo the legacies of Obama.
Yes we want capital and brains to flow in but your comment isn't fair. The US has a history of settling refugees here. We also have a purposefully porous southern border and have normalized illegal immigrants.
Sorry for a stupid question but I have to ask. Why everyone is so desperate to start a company and locate it physically in the US?
Is it just because of VC money? Wouldn't any safe place with good laws and easy immigration policy do? I don't take seriously Blockchain projects (and consider most of them blatant scam) and they are relatively small now. But longterm can this model solve the part about VC money?
I'd wager it's the pre-existing culture of Silicon Valley that attracts startups. Kind of like a tech Mecca, it's got a magnetic pull based on "if you want to succeed you need to be based here". With VCs etc operating out of there it does actually become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
As to the blockchain and ICO model, the problem is the current lack of regulation, leaving the burden of research to the buyer. I expect this will change relatively soon (places like New York, India and Singapore are already trying to introduce legislation regarding this) and then we might see more of an uptick, but you still need to get people out of the almost 40 year old mindset now that "Silicon Valley is where startups have to be to make it big".
How easy or challenging is it to stay in Toronto or Vancouver and run a US-registered startup there, if you need to collaborate with others in either SF Bay area or Boston/NYC? (In-person meetings might not need to be frequent; geting together once a month could be sufficient.)
I am an entrepreneur from Asia working to build a fundamental technology and was planning to set up a company and live in the Bay area. After studying diligently about various options, Canada could in fact be a better place to settle in with a proper startup visa and much fewer hoops to jump through, however the attraction of US tech ecosystem is powerful.
(Note: I earned a Masters degree with a thesis on AI/ML from a major US research university and have traveled to, attended conferences, and lived in the Bay area for several months per year over the last three years.)
The major reasons for SF Bay area dominance include:
1) access to top people, many if not most were/are foreign students, who attend UC Berkeley and Stanford,
2) ecosystems of global tech talents recruited by major tech powerhouses like Google, Facebook, Apple, etc.,
3) deep expertise and risk-taking attitude of Bay area VCs and angel investors, and
4) ease of access to vast US consumer and enterprise markets.
For 3) would major VCs or angel investors invest in a startup with offices about 1.5 to 2.5 hours away by plane? (The founders would need to travel to see them sometimes; but do they require in-person supervision/updates more than say once a month?)
For 4) I assume if the company is US-registered, it shouldn't have a problem in principle, is that true?
I'm surprised no other country has decided to go ahead and create an equally as open and safe environment for entrepreneurs to start companies. My understanding (which, I'll admit, is only based on my own observations) is that the vast majority of people outside the western sphere still regard the US through what's projected in hollywood movies and aren't really in touch with the reality of what life is in modern america (I'm a EU citizen myself but have quite a few US based/American friends).
Essentially, the way I see it is : The US still has an edge in technology and are able to attract top talent from overseas because they still benefit from cultural hegemony and their image worldwide. What happens when the dream evaporates is still a mystery to me. For example, how will the situation evolve once chinese / russian / indian universities catch up with institutions like stanford / MIT etc and enough investors from these countries decide to pour money into local startups ?
Incorrect. UK has Tier 1 - Entrepreneur Visa where you can remain and run a company for 5 years. After 5 years, you can apply for extension for another 5 years or apply for settlement.
Mass + New York + Canada + Seattle + Oregon + Cali will form the nation of America 2.0. Open borders to all US citizens.
The rest of the US can mine coal, frack, or whatever they want to do. They think that's where the jobs are.
Doesn't matter to us. We'll just speed up the electric, self-driving, car revolution with China and continue working on climate change rules and a global economy with Europe.
'Startup visa' is one term for it, 'buy-a-visa' is another.
I'm not sure that it's necessarily a bad idea; someone with vision and money may be able to contribute a lot to the economy. But handing them a visa for cash and a couple of years of supplying jobs feels very transactional. It says, "you can come here as long as you earn lots of money," not, "you can come here as long as you contribute lots to the economy."
A big part of the rationale for immigration restriction is that poor immigrants will strain the social services. Unfair as it may be, "you can come here as long as you earn lots of money" actually makes some sense.
There's a similar visa in South Korea, the D-8 visa, which requires you to invest 50M Won (roughly 50,000 USD), either in some business or to open another business, and some people have gotten frustrated that some have just invested for the visa and never done anything further as the government doesn't track beyond the initial investment. In this, and in the US case, the government should track to make sure it's not being abused by people who just have a lot of money and want to live in the country.
If US doesn't want startup entrepreneurs there are plenty of other countries that have specialized visas to promote entrepreneurs and talent.
For example, UK has "Tier 1 - Entrepreneur Visa" where you can remain and run a company for 5 years. After 5 years, you can apply for extension for another 5 years or apply for settlement.
There is also UK "Tier 1 - Exceptional Talent" visa where you can apply to remain and work in UK without requiring any sponsorship from companies unlike H1B visa in US which requires company sponsorship.
UK is, arguably, even more immigrant unfriendly. One of the main reasons for Brexit was to limit immigration and immigrants' rights. And nobody knows where UK gonna be in few years time, after Brexit procedures are completed..
I think this might actually be a chance for the european tech industry. More people will stay here (in europe) + come here to pursue a career in the tech industry. What is needed additionally is a network of investors and vc-people to realize great ideas.
Good idea. A lot of corrupt Indian politicians have been sending their progeny to USA with this visa. It has nothing to do with startups but it is putting up visa for sale.
There is nothing wrong in putting visa for sale, but please do not insult many of us who are giving prime of our careers to startups while jumping through complex maze of US visa system.
[+] [-] marcell|8 years ago|reply
"To qualify for the rule, entrepreneurs would have to meet high standards. A foreigner must demonstrate that he or she will contribute to economic growth or job creation and show that a reputable investor has put at least $250,000 into the company. Under this rule, they can stay in the U.S. for 30 months, with the possibility of a 30-month extension. They cannot apply for a green card during this period."
This sounds like a pretty lame visa. How are you supposed to build a startup if you only have 30 months to do so? Why would investors risk $250k if the founder may be deported in 30 months? What happens after the extension period?
I'm 100% in favor of increasing all immigration to the USA, but this visa doesn't sound like a good option at all. Is the USA really so appealing that talented entrepreneurs will jump through this many hoops to start their company here?
[+] [-] justboxing|8 years ago|reply
This will be a deal-breaker for over 95% of the applicants. Even though the H1B Visa is a non-immigrant visa, there was no such clause attached to it like this one.
It's what enables 1000s of immigrants (like me) every year to first arrive on a non-immigrant visa and then get the employer to petition their green cards for permanent stay or eventually citizenship. I personally know many immigrants who didn't really want to become citizens and intended to go back to their home country in 5 to 10 years timeframe, but applied for and obtained permanent residency (green card) just so that this uncertainty of resident status is eliminated.
Take that (the green card) away, why would any entrepreneur be incentivized to apply for this Visa? Because 2 or 3 * years is a very short time frame to create and run a successful startup. Why would any entrepreneur risk coming here on a temporary stay only to be banished just as the startup takes off?
* 3 = Number of years Kevin O'Leary (Shark Tank) says you give your startup to turn profitable before taking it to the back of the Barn and shooting it.
[+] [-] Warvick|8 years ago|reply
There are numerous countries that fit this profile. The majority of Central/Eastern Europe, few Asian and South American countries, even with Africa having some. Instead, they expect for people from developed countries go through the nightmare of getting a visa, being screened and then live in places like Cali where cost of living is ridiculous. US could easily give out 1 Mil easy-to-get visas with easy-to-get transition program to a green card that would bump their economy, instead, they are creating walls everywhere.
[+] [-] Iv|8 years ago|reply
As a French cofounder of a small startup: no. We are looking at making a structure in Canada in order to hunt US money. We assume that immigration in the US will be a nightmare and we have tons of other problems to solve. European funds and Chinese investors are also interested in our tech.
Actually, we should explore if US talents are not willing to move out, to France or Canada instead.
[+] [-] muninn_|8 years ago|reply
Why? What's wrong with the current level?
[+] [-] ojbyrne|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] delinka|8 years ago|reply
Presumably, the investor has invested in a corporate entity organized in the United States and that the money has been used to pay employees such that there's some kind of structure that continues to exist in the U.S. with or without the founder. If you're the investor, and you're just writing a check to a guy who flew in with a startup visa and nothing else, then I, a U.S. Citizen, have quite a few startup ideas I'd like to discuss with you.
[+] [-] bitL|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmagin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] escapetech|8 years ago|reply
http://visa.lafrenchtech.com/
[+] [-] angryteabag|8 years ago|reply
Problem is, it's hard enough finding someone to hold my hand in NZ, let alone marriage in another country.
I had high hopes that Clinton would win and I'd have my dream realised. I guess, it was never meant to be.
[+] [-] bwang29|8 years ago|reply
The original proposal of the rule required 375k of funding from US only accredited investors, and there are also requirements for the startup founders to maintain a certain threshold of ownership while being able to hire a lot of American employees in short period of time. I don't remember the specific number requirement/head counts but it was definitely enough to pressurize the company to expand in size quickly, while many tech startups do not necessarily need to hire dozens of employees in a 1-3 year period, not to mention they all had to be US citizens. 1-3 years would also be a stretch for most startup to figure out a concrete plan of growth in order to quality for an extension. And what if the founders want to bootstrap themselves?
Ultimately this rule still doesn't show any concrete pathway of residency or visa guarantees after 6 years. And because it is not a visa, it will take time to educate immigration officers and TSAs as well as creating a reasonable structure to allow founders to travel outside US legally as well. Historically there is a huge delay of understanding OPT, STEM and O1 visas in plenty of US embassies.
To make things even more complicated, it is not USCIS's interest to be a judge to tell which company would qualify for this rule, and they would need to form a group of trusted committees to check case by case if a company and their founders/co-founders qualify for this rule. I also heard that founder's spouses would be able to travel to US too.
[+] [-] pavlov|8 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12931943
This is a solid reminder that the Trump administration is showing itself to be mostly concerned with undoing anything that Obama did, rather than working for anyone's benefit. You can't apply logic to predict the actions of these people.
[+] [-] paulsutter|8 years ago|reply
I live in Seattle and I'm about ready to drive two hours north for my next startup. To hire the Russian programmers I'm already working with, or the folks on Kaggle I'd love to hire. The US has a completely broken scheme for visas.
[+] [-] drspacemonkey|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johncolanduoni|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spitfire|8 years ago|reply
If you're actually building a business (rather than a get-rich-quick startup) people will welcome you with open arms. You'll find good QOL and great livability here. Though we are just starting to get traffic problems.
[+] [-] 4msonny|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Indolat|8 years ago|reply
The only questions you should be asking are "are they decent people? Are they willing to integrate? Will they contribute to our economy? Will they make us problems?" And none of these questions you can answer by reading the name of the country on their passport.
[+] [-] notadoc|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] virtuabhi|8 years ago|reply
[In a Beijing ballroom, Kushner family pushes $500,000 ‘investor visa’ to wealthy Chinese] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-a-beijing-ballroom-k...
[+] [-] dmode|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] largote|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jzwinck|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nopinsight|8 years ago|reply
In the long run, this line of policies would of course lead to technological slow down and give a big opening for other countries to take the lead in a crucial determiner of economic successes.
Other possible theses may be that they favor the 'native whites' to have control as Steve Bannon used to mention or try to undo the legacies of Obama.
[+] [-] kefka|8 years ago|reply
"If you're rich and willing to spend, we want you. If you're average or poor, fuck you."
[+] [-] ktta|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanmarsh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnnydoebk|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelscott|8 years ago|reply
As to the blockchain and ICO model, the problem is the current lack of regulation, leaving the burden of research to the buyer. I expect this will change relatively soon (places like New York, India and Singapore are already trying to introduce legislation regarding this) and then we might see more of an uptick, but you still need to get people out of the almost 40 year old mindset now that "Silicon Valley is where startups have to be to make it big".
Not an easy task I'd say.
[+] [-] calvinbhai|8 years ago|reply
And the US has a few cities with many such investors, which makes it easier to reach many in a short duration.
[+] [-] nopinsight|8 years ago|reply
How easy or challenging is it to stay in Toronto or Vancouver and run a US-registered startup there, if you need to collaborate with others in either SF Bay area or Boston/NYC? (In-person meetings might not need to be frequent; geting together once a month could be sufficient.)
I am an entrepreneur from Asia working to build a fundamental technology and was planning to set up a company and live in the Bay area. After studying diligently about various options, Canada could in fact be a better place to settle in with a proper startup visa and much fewer hoops to jump through, however the attraction of US tech ecosystem is powerful.
(Note: I earned a Masters degree with a thesis on AI/ML from a major US research university and have traveled to, attended conferences, and lived in the Bay area for several months per year over the last three years.)
The major reasons for SF Bay area dominance include:
1) access to top people, many if not most were/are foreign students, who attend UC Berkeley and Stanford,
2) ecosystems of global tech talents recruited by major tech powerhouses like Google, Facebook, Apple, etc.,
3) deep expertise and risk-taking attitude of Bay area VCs and angel investors, and
4) ease of access to vast US consumer and enterprise markets.
For 3) would major VCs or angel investors invest in a startup with offices about 1.5 to 2.5 hours away by plane? (The founders would need to travel to see them sometimes; but do they require in-person supervision/updates more than say once a month?)
For 4) I assume if the company is US-registered, it shouldn't have a problem in principle, is that true?
[+] [-] zabana|8 years ago|reply
Essentially, the way I see it is : The US still has an edge in technology and are able to attract top talent from overseas because they still benefit from cultural hegemony and their image worldwide. What happens when the dream evaporates is still a mystery to me. For example, how will the situation evolve once chinese / russian / indian universities catch up with institutions like stanford / MIT etc and enough investors from these countries decide to pour money into local startups ?
[+] [-] lopezyignacio|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeusdx|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justinzollars|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vinhboy|8 years ago|reply
The rest of the US can mine coal, frack, or whatever they want to do. They think that's where the jobs are.
Doesn't matter to us. We'll just speed up the electric, self-driving, car revolution with China and continue working on climate change rules and a global economy with Europe.
[+] [-] imaginenore|8 years ago|reply
Another thing is, living on a boat, even if it's huge, is very boring.
[+] [-] leggomylibro|8 years ago|reply
I'm not sure that it's necessarily a bad idea; someone with vision and money may be able to contribute a lot to the economy. But handing them a visa for cash and a couple of years of supplying jobs feels very transactional. It says, "you can come here as long as you earn lots of money," not, "you can come here as long as you contribute lots to the economy."
[+] [-] emiliobumachar|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yladiz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dublinben|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeusdx|8 years ago|reply
For example, UK has "Tier 1 - Entrepreneur Visa" where you can remain and run a company for 5 years. After 5 years, you can apply for extension for another 5 years or apply for settlement.
There is also UK "Tier 1 - Exceptional Talent" visa where you can apply to remain and work in UK without requiring any sponsorship from companies unlike H1B visa in US which requires company sponsorship.
[+] [-] kbart|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maze-le|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdekkers|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Alfredo123|8 years ago|reply
There is nothing wrong in putting visa for sale, but please do not insult many of us who are giving prime of our careers to startups while jumping through complex maze of US visa system.
[+] [-] mrwnmonm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jackaroe78|8 years ago|reply