First I'm very sympathetic to Sharan's plight. This has to suck.
But it raises some real issues with the whole startup founder plan. Does a company with (what looks like) 4 people and a few seed investors count as a startup? This seems like a really low bar. I think pg's initial essay kind of glosses over the difficulty of defining a startup - or for that matter even a "startup investor".
I go both ways on this issue. I think letting smart, driven people into the US to work is awesome. But I'm not sold that being the founder of a "startup" is the right bar.
Right now, if I wanted to found a startup without taking some of the risks Sharan took (the LLC route), I'd have to get enough funding to pay myself ~70K/year as salary. Then, and if I had respectable funding, and some well known/ respectable people on the board, I can set up shop and have a US Citizen co-founder "hire" me as an H1B.
So the system as it stands forces immigrant founders to raise funding, even if you had a completely bootstrappable business plan. That's where the bar is set now, and it definitely dissuades people, and that's why I think many of us advocate lowering it. Substitute it with education, experience or endorsements maybe?
I realize I may be left with no options, but it's not as easy as just saying run the company from here. For one, I am not a Canadian citizen so I need to apply for all kinds of immigration permissions to move the company and work for it from here.
We have also been building momentum with filmmakers and festivals in the Bay Area and my team is based there. To not have access to any of that does create problems for a startup.
Indee.tv was incorporated in the bay area and has been operational for almost a year. He's being refused re-entry.
Like myself, Sharan's a first generation immigrant from India, and he doesn't actually have any connections/ roots in Vancouver. He just picked it because he was legally required to re-enter the country ("yes, to stay in the country, Alice, you must leave and re-enter" saith the INS), and Canada's a close "foreign" country.
Sharan's a friend, but it also touches a nerve because this could have very well have been me. While I think there's a lot of awareness about this topic, there isn't really enough about entrepreneurs who are living through this now (as opposed to people who have somehow successfully transitioned from immigrant to founder), mainly due to the scarcity of these stories.
Sometimes, stories like this remind me of that scene in pretty women where Edward says to Julia Roberts : "I never treated you like a prostitute.", and she replies "You just did."
[+] [-] mikeryan|16 years ago|reply
But it raises some real issues with the whole startup founder plan. Does a company with (what looks like) 4 people and a few seed investors count as a startup? This seems like a really low bar. I think pg's initial essay kind of glosses over the difficulty of defining a startup - or for that matter even a "startup investor".
I go both ways on this issue. I think letting smart, driven people into the US to work is awesome. But I'm not sold that being the founder of a "startup" is the right bar.
[+] [-] kingsley_20|16 years ago|reply
So the system as it stands forces immigrant founders to raise funding, even if you had a completely bootstrappable business plan. That's where the bar is set now, and it definitely dissuades people, and that's why I think many of us advocate lowering it. Substitute it with education, experience or endorsements maybe?
[+] [-] ujibuip|16 years ago|reply
Run the company from there - the city is crawling with tv/film/media people who cost half as much as the do in Ca.
[+] [-] sharan|16 years ago|reply
We have also been building momentum with filmmakers and festivals in the Bay Area and my team is based there. To not have access to any of that does create problems for a startup.
[+] [-] kingsley_20|16 years ago|reply
Like myself, Sharan's a first generation immigrant from India, and he doesn't actually have any connections/ roots in Vancouver. He just picked it because he was legally required to re-enter the country ("yes, to stay in the country, Alice, you must leave and re-enter" saith the INS), and Canada's a close "foreign" country.
[+] [-] ryanwaggoner|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kingsley_20|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kingsley_20|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxklein|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alanthonyc|16 years ago|reply
Good luck and let us know how it goes.