The H1B is a nonimmigrant visa. All dual intent means is that it doesn't violate the terms of entry if you also intend to pursue permanent residence at the same time -- but the H1B itself does not lead to permanent residence.
It's crazy to me that countries like Chile are courting (read: begging) entrepreneurial talent and the US acts like we can throw a wall up around the country and pretend like that's still a good thing.
NOT allowing a few thousand talented, motivated, educated, english-speaking entrepreneurs seems foolish.
Many of the millions of unemployed US citizens/voters would argue that there are a few thousand talented, motivated, educated, english-speaking entrepreneurs in their ranks from which YC can choose.
VCs have proposed the same solution in Canada; the government canned the old investor visa and allowed founders to get a startup when they receive investment from some of our VCs. (There were many more investor visa than VCs can even process. We'll end up with less total job creation. You have to be careful what you lobby for, and how it will be implemented!)
What was once a process over which government had visibility is now in the hands of the private sector, with firms that have historically discriminated on age, ethnicity, gender, etc.
I'm not saying I wouldn't trust Sam Altman. I just wouldn't trust most VCs with this task.
The way you explained it, it seems you're blaming the VCs for something that was government's fault (it was the government's decision to cancel the old visas, instead of keeping them in parallel with the new one).
"Blame" is the wrong way to think about any major policy decision. Instead, you want to think of the effects of the new policy - whether or not anyone intends to do harm (most people don't), will harm result? The grandparent poster's experience with a similar policy in Canada is very relevant there. I don't personally have a position about founder visas - I'm a U.S. citizen, so they don't affect me - but I do think that having all the arguments for and against, particularly concerning unintended consequences, is pretty important.
The way I understood the poster, the harm came from the government canceling the old investor visas. That seems pretty easy to fix: just add new visas on top of the old ones. The consequences of the way it happened were pretty clear: a bunch of people who previously would use the old investor visas (where you could put up your own money, I imagine) now can't. The effects of this decision shouldn't have been surprising to anyone.
The problem is that you and I don't control what the government does. Government stupidity is a reality that has to be factored into decision-making. And maybe there's a way around it in this case - perhaps whoever drafts & sponsors the Founder Visa law just needs to be aware of the potential pitfall and make everyone else involved aware of why there need to be separate founder & investor visas, most of the time stupid decisions are made because reasonable people don't have all the information necessary - but it's still really important to be aware of it so you don't create unintended consequences. Saying "Well, I had the right idea, it just turned out to be a disaster because of other people" doesn't stop it from being a disaster.
Nobody's proposing to eliminate existing visa categories. Indeed, existing visas such as E-2 or EB-5 are good for allowing immigrants to start self-funded businesses. Sam's proposing a new category, for entrepreneurs that aren't bringing their own money.
Yeah, but did you read what people were doing with it. You can hire someone to buy a corner store/franchise and "run" it for a year and then just sell it to someone else coming it. I bet it brought very few jobs to the country.
> What was once a process over which government had visibility is now in the hands of the private sector, with firms that have historically discriminated on age, ethnicity, gender, etc.
That logic would suggest companies shouldn't be allowed to hire non-immigrants without government approval either, since they've historically discriminated against people with non-immigrant hires too. But as far as I know, you're not suggesting you should have to apply to the government to get a job at your local IBM office, because that would be weird. We just make discrimination illegal and hope for the best. Why wouldn't the same logic apply to VCs funding foreigners?
Another problem there is the "we don't have oversight into how fair this will be, so now no one gets it!" which helps no one, including all those people you're trying to protect from discrimination.
Me too. But that's the point - we let them hire people until someone shows they're discriminating.
Imagine a world where to get a job you had to ask the government for permission (which is precisely what immigrants have to do in our world). Then one day someone comes along and says, "why don't you just let the companies hire whomever they want?" And then do you really say, "whoa whoa, now that the employment process isn't under government supervision, now we can't tell if they're discriminating"?
Save for the fact that as an industry, the VCs are not even trying to be fair. Much as it sucks, asking the government for permission seems better than what that group would achieve.
The Canadian one seems like a case of starting with decent intent but ending up with a system that pretty clearly had the details written in a way that's mostly looking out for the interests of a few big finance-side players. The requirement that it has to be Canadian VCs and angels, and Canadian VCs and angels on a specific list no less, makes it look like the category is really about maximizing deal flow to a few Canadian investment firms.
I was applying to the Canadian entrepreneurship program since 2010, so 4 years now. I was aware the processing time was long, so I was just waiting to be my turn to be processed. 3 weeks ago I've heard that the entrepreneurship program has been canceled in profit of the startup visa one. I mean that seems to be on whim and that's not really nice to wait 4 years for nothing but that's life I guess. I have started to contact the people on the accredited list, they seem to be overflow by the applications following the program. The big winners seem to be the organization on the accredited list, everyone else has been fucked.
This whole situation is insane. We could actually just let more people in; we need more for long-term demographic reasons and the current policy is just a xenophobic disaster.
They haven't told me anything yet, I've just read it in the news. They made it pretty clear that the current backlog of applications are going to be trashed, I guess including mine.
You don't have to be sorry, gov. != people.
What I dislike particularly it's the kind of hypocrisies you were denouncing. Canadian VCs had been lobbying for this kind of visa while other entrepreneur visa programs being shutdown. Now there are in position to determine who is getting Canadian residency based on their own interests. Like for example, I am posting this rant now under my usual handle, is it going to undermine our chances to get Canadian VCs' funding and be in Canada? Maybe or maybe not. I liked the ancient system where you have just to show you have accumulate more than $300k while being an entrepreneur whereas now it's the sole dick-sucking abilities that matters.
An incubator is different than VCs. If an incubator figured out a way to "hired" founders, that could be a hackaround if it didn't expose them to other employee rights assertion issues.
Here is a counter proposal: the government should approve this request, but stipulate that the immigrants relocate to somewhere other than silicon valley (so all of the created jobs don't end up in the once place where they aren't needed).
In Australia they have something similar for a few professions(teaching being a big one). Generally it's 1 year in somewhere really undesirable, then 2 more years in ok places then freedom. Though in those cases you're being sponsored by a government organisation that is generally also your employer.
The only way I could see making it work in this case would be if it was specific cities doing the sponsoring and requiring the business to be run out of incubator type offices for X amount of time. So not very well at all.
It's arbitrary, counter to free market dynamics, against the constitution for citizens [1], pays specific privilege to one state/region.
While they are at it while don't they just stipulate that approved applicants should pay johnrob's rent? (No offense, just trying to point out the arbitrariness of your counter-proposal)
I appreciate that there are some depressing social forces in Silicon Valley, but this is extremely special interest in the greater scheme of things.
1) You can't just allocate the startups in arbitrary locations and get the same result -- being in SV changes the outcome. (I've tried to start companies elsewhere.)
2) People benefit from Google, Facebook, Airbnb, etc., even if they're not in SV. The immediate job creation is a tiny fraction of the wealth created by startups. It doesn't matter where Bell Labs was located; it just matters that they did what they did. Similarly, we should just focus on creating more Googles, not on which state's payroll taxes get the immediate boost.
If the issue really is that SV specifically needs more people to start companies, and having them do so elsewhere isn't possible or desirable, it seems like a first cut at solving the problem could be made without even changing visa regimes: just institute a program to convince more people from elsewhere in the U.S. to move to SV and start companies. With >300m people, most of whom don't yet live in the SF Bay Area, that's already a pretty large supply to draw from.
a) Most adventurous student entrepreneurs don't really MUST need a founder visa, they can use OPT. I think founders of Stripe did that.
b) Most non-immigrants already working (mostly with H1 visa) needs a founder visa. To work on a startup you founded in H1b visa is hard, consider H1b visa needs some funding/salary requirement on your startup, and that is hard to get by on the early stage of a startup. Giving these people the visa may be important to the U.S. economy consider that group of budding founders are with the most experiences.
c) Maybe approval of founder visa won't be in the near future. Right now that is really tangled with other messes in the Immigration Act, which seems hopeless at the House in the stage.
d) Really +1 for founder visa. Can't afford to lose foreign entrepreneurs to Canada.
> a) Most adventurous student entrepreneurs don't really MUST need a founder visa, they can use OPT. I think founders of Stripe did that.
Founder of Stripe here. Not disagreeing with anything you've said, but I feel I should point out that OPT is far from ideal: it doesn't last very long, it requires the job is related to the field of study, full-time work is permitted only during vacations prior to completion of a degree, etc. Still, it can be a useful stopgap in some cases, as you point out.
It's also a MASSIVE pain, and some schools (like mine) only allow OPT for internships (as opposed to CPT). As a result, I need to choose if I want to intern for my four years of college, or if I want to start a startup.
I agree with all of what you and Patrick said. Still most likely the student on OPT is in a much better position to start a startup than most people on H1b. Once you are hired by some company on H1b, you want to start your own startup? You need to prove your startup is viable (some funding constraint + providing prevailing wage for yourself I remember). But how you can have a viable startup that has not even been started? That kind of chicken-and-egg problem stuck tons of aspiring entrepreneurs on H1b.
Will really appreciate anyone here that can give some solution under current circumstances.
seconded - btw do you have a STEM related degree though? there's now an additional provision for OPT extension if you graduated from a STEM related field.
> a) Most adventurous student entrepreneurs don't really MUST need a founder visa, they can use OPT. I think founders of Stripe did that.
OPT is an extension of the F1 student visa, and only lasts for 12 months (29 with the STEM extension). In addition, it's a "non-immigration visa", which means that you can't apply for a green card with it (in fact, the whole idea of the visa is that you go back to your own country after you're done).
Also, if you're on OPT and your F1 expires, you might not be able to get it renewed, because your studies have ended (from what I've read, but not sure; can anyone confirm this?), which means you're stuck in the US (if you leave, you're not getting back in).
I am pretty sure even after you graduate and get an OPT, you are still on F1 visa. But the point is 29 months (if you are a STEM major) is enough for your startup to generate some revenue, and then you can apply for H1b (as long as you prove your startup has sufficient fund, your wage from your startup is prevailing wage, and you can be fired from your startup).
If a startup fails, it usually fails quickly. Yes, sometimes a company, like airbnb, went quiet for a very long time before it hit it off, but 29 months are likely enough.
Yes, but the GP was proposing using OPT as a founder visa. In that case, you need to get your own startup to sponsor your H1B; that's pretty hard to do.
I imagine you'd have to offer the market salary for "startup CEO" (whatever that is), post an ad for 30 days and then prove that you couldn't find an American to take that job (this is usually the process for regular H1B employees).
EDIT: It seems you can get a H1B where you work for your own company, it just needs special approval (there's a link to it earlier in this thread).
Thanks for the comment. I am not proposing using OPT as a founder visa, all I am saying is using OPT is one viable alternative, maybe not as cool as a founder visa, but you can still pull it off in the condition I stated in my other response to you.
"Maybe he was too ambitious in asking for 10,000 startup visas per year." hmm, lowering expectations a couple of orders of magnitude for a highly selective group? i'm a fan of YC and all, and agree that it'll probably end up being the cream of the crop thus a great likelihood to succeed, but i really do wish this issue was tackled properly - its so painful. I'd personally love to build something here (happily even with my own capital) but can't. I appreciate the call for action, though, but man - trying to immigrate here is rough.. when the conversation becomes 'let us just prove it with 100', while time keeps ticking on.. i wonder if anything will really happen.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
Since everybody seems to be contributing ideas...I think immigration visas should be awarded on a point based system similar to what it is done in countries that are actively trying to attract immigrants. Education, Family ties, employment history, language, health, financial resources, etc. The current system looks at only one aspect exclusive of the rest.
Could a weird sort of setup be created where YCombinator "hired" entrepreneurs and then gave them traditional work visas? I'm not really familiar with the specifics of how visas work, but I would think it would be possible to construct a situation such that the desired founders would be eligible.
I really wish there was an easier way to be allowed to work and live in the US as an entrepreneur. I completed both my Bachelor and Master degrees in the US (both as valedictorian) and work as an independent app developer. I have a vacation home and cars in the US but would love to stay there full time. Right now my best bet is looking like EB-5 unless I can get in on either EB-1 or EB-2. I wish they had some sort of VISA that let you freelance in the US/stay self employed as long as you met some sort of income or minimum tax requirements (for example your minimum taxable income must be $150k+/year).
I know it's somehow all about meeting people in bars in Silicon Valley, but really, is it totally absolutely necessary to come and live in America to start a new world beating company?
I work remotely, and do a fair job with my colleagues. Other more talented people work and produce entire operating systems while on different continents, and if you are working on something more worthwhile and less fad driven than Facebook for dogs the surely surely you do not need a visa or a relocation.
And if it is better/faster/easier today, why can't that be a reality tomorrow?
The post is addressed to the US government. The US government by definition has the interests of America first and foremost in mind, not the interests of other countries. It is in America's interest to have all the world beating companies started in America.
I am pretty sure there are already mechanisms for the rich to buy US citizenship. EB-5. Secure funding for your start-up, boom you're a US citizen as soon as you invest in jobs, etc. in the US. The rich have their ways.
What if YC selected ~100 projects per year, gave each their $500k so they could buy their way in...
This is a JOKE. Let Y Combinator? Oh yeah, bro? Wow. If the US were to give ONE company this right, that would be complete bllsht. I like YC, but think before you speak.
Definitely disagree. 'sama has clarified that he meant YC would volunteer to beta test it. Probably the fairest way would be for govt to take applications and select X at random.
Why only YCombinator? You're not proposing a solution to the problem here. You're proposing what YCombinator wants.
There are legitimate, promising founders and startups outside of YC too, you know. Sorry about the snark..it's just aggravating when piecemeal, self-serving solutions like this one are proposed.
Hey, sam, great idea... how about you ask the US to give these 100 visas to ANOTHER firm first, if you really believe it. Otherwise, you sound like a selfish douche.
> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Sorry for saying "douche", but depending on the tone in which he presented this idea to me, I might honestly say that. It's one thing to ask for 100 visas for YC, it's another thing to ask for 10 VCs spread across 10 different firms, and suggesting hat YC would take most of the burden of setting it up / distributing resources.
I meant almost in the sense of "possibly", as in YC is international in the range of 0.2-0.4 and 500 is in the range 0.25 - 0.45 or something. And that YC still has a greater number/quality of international startups, even if 500 has a greater percentage, partially because YC has been around longer and has had a few big successes (Team Ireland at Stripe is worth more than all of 500 combined, and possibly more than TechStars, although Digital Ocean might test that).
I have a counter-proposal: Paul Graham and others have described Y Combinator as large; many US-based entrepreneurs described San Francisco as far and a handful of comments here point out how concentration in one city is hurting everyone.
Why not start a Y Combinator in Europe and in Asia?
Yes, that would require flight tickets to visit from organisations, but that would also allow a better access to incredible initiatives (that keep yelling in unheard comments that Silicon Vally is neglecting them) such as London’s Start-up Roundabout, Paris’ The Family and certainly far more in Berlin, Copenhagen and Amsterdam. I can’t imagine Singapour, Beijing and Hong-Kong and GuandDong have any less merits, certainly with hardware, or less things to learn from Y Combinator.
What both need is access to capital and access to expertise on how to make that kind of deals; what Y Combinator provides is a needed discipline about testing and scaling, and that. Both travel far better than the founders, who are best because of their network of skilled friends, understanding of local markets and more. Yes, it might require a standard contract to make European or Chinese company have a finance subsidiary in the US to reassure US investors… but dealing with that kind of complication is what YC is good at, much better than any local equivalent.
I would hate to see YC come and unify how to make start-ups. Diversity is key, certainly in something as creative as making companies happen. I was kind of relieved when I noticed no one wrote that idea. But also disappointed: it would be in YC spectacular interest to try.
197 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 271 ms ] threadI'm not sure if anyone's ever successfully received one, however.
More here: http://www.murthy.com/2012/12/17/entrepreneur-h1b-petitions-...
NOT allowing a few thousand talented, motivated, educated, english-speaking entrepreneurs seems foolish.
VCs have proposed the same solution in Canada; the government canned the old investor visa and allowed founders to get a startup when they receive investment from some of our VCs. (There were many more investor visa than VCs can even process. We'll end up with less total job creation. You have to be careful what you lobby for, and how it will be implemented!)
What was once a process over which government had visibility is now in the hands of the private sector, with firms that have historically discriminated on age, ethnicity, gender, etc.
I'm not saying I wouldn't trust Sam Altman. I just wouldn't trust most VCs with this task.
You don't think the experience from this type of policy being tried somewhere else is relevant? That it won't backfire?
> Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Asking people to explain downvotes is really a form of complaining about downvoting. People routinely downvote when they disagree.
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/01/24/startup-visa-pr...
That logic would suggest companies shouldn't be allowed to hire non-immigrants without government approval either, since they've historically discriminated against people with non-immigrant hires too. But as far as I know, you're not suggesting you should have to apply to the government to get a job at your local IBM office, because that would be weird. We just make discrimination illegal and hope for the best. Why wouldn't the same logic apply to VCs funding foreigners?
Another problem there is the "we don't have oversight into how fair this will be, so now no one gets it!" which helps no one, including all those people you're trying to protect from discrimination.
Imagine a world where to get a job you had to ask the government for permission (which is precisely what immigrants have to do in our world). Then one day someone comes along and says, "why don't you just let the companies hire whomever they want?" And then do you really say, "whoa whoa, now that the employment process isn't under government supervision, now we can't tell if they're discriminating"?
I was applying to the Canadian entrepreneurship program since 2010, so 4 years now. I was aware the processing time was long, so I was just waiting to be my turn to be processed. 3 weeks ago I've heard that the entrepreneurship program has been canceled in profit of the startup visa one. I mean that seems to be on whim and that's not really nice to wait 4 years for nothing but that's life I guess. I have started to contact the people on the accredited list, they seem to be overflow by the applications following the program. The big winners seem to be the organization on the accredited list, everyone else has been fucked.
I'm sorry you've had to wait this long.
This whole situation is insane. We could actually just let more people in; we need more for long-term demographic reasons and the current policy is just a xenophobic disaster.
You don't have to be sorry, gov. != people.
What I dislike particularly it's the kind of hypocrisies you were denouncing. Canadian VCs had been lobbying for this kind of visa while other entrepreneur visa programs being shutdown. Now there are in position to determine who is getting Canadian residency based on their own interests. Like for example, I am posting this rant now under my usual handle, is it going to undermine our chances to get Canadian VCs' funding and be in Canada? Maybe or maybe not. I liked the ancient system where you have just to show you have accumulate more than $300k while being an entrepreneur whereas now it's the sole dick-sucking abilities that matters.
The only way I could see making it work in this case would be if it was specific cities doing the sponsoring and requiring the business to be run out of incubator type offices for X amount of time. So not very well at all.
It's arbitrary, counter to free market dynamics, against the constitution for citizens [1], pays specific privilege to one state/region.
While they are at it while don't they just stipulate that approved applicants should pay johnrob's rent? (No offense, just trying to point out the arbitrariness of your counter-proposal)
I appreciate that there are some depressing social forces in Silicon Valley, but this is extremely special interest in the greater scheme of things.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unite...
2) People benefit from Google, Facebook, Airbnb, etc., even if they're not in SV. The immediate job creation is a tiny fraction of the wealth created by startups. It doesn't matter where Bell Labs was located; it just matters that they did what they did. Similarly, we should just focus on creating more Googles, not on which state's payroll taxes get the immediate boost.
http://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent-workers...
a) Most adventurous student entrepreneurs don't really MUST need a founder visa, they can use OPT. I think founders of Stripe did that.
b) Most non-immigrants already working (mostly with H1 visa) needs a founder visa. To work on a startup you founded in H1b visa is hard, consider H1b visa needs some funding/salary requirement on your startup, and that is hard to get by on the early stage of a startup. Giving these people the visa may be important to the U.S. economy consider that group of budding founders are with the most experiences.
c) Maybe approval of founder visa won't be in the near future. Right now that is really tangled with other messes in the Immigration Act, which seems hopeless at the House in the stage.
d) Really +1 for founder visa. Can't afford to lose foreign entrepreneurs to Canada.
Founder of Stripe here. Not disagreeing with anything you've said, but I feel I should point out that OPT is far from ideal: it doesn't last very long, it requires the job is related to the field of study, full-time work is permitted only during vacations prior to completion of a degree, etc. Still, it can be a useful stopgap in some cases, as you point out.
Will really appreciate anyone here that can give some solution under current circumstances.
OPT is an extension of the F1 student visa, and only lasts for 12 months (29 with the STEM extension). In addition, it's a "non-immigration visa", which means that you can't apply for a green card with it (in fact, the whole idea of the visa is that you go back to your own country after you're done).
Also, if you're on OPT and your F1 expires, you might not be able to get it renewed, because your studies have ended (from what I've read, but not sure; can anyone confirm this?), which means you're stuck in the US (if you leave, you're not getting back in).
If a startup fails, it usually fails quickly. Yes, sometimes a company, like airbnb, went quiet for a very long time before it hit it off, but 29 months are likely enough.
EDIT: It seems you can get a H1B where you work for your own company, it just needs special approval (there's a link to it earlier in this thread).
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.
We need startup visas, but it can't be at the behest of investors.
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.
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'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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> So here is a proposal for the US government: please let Y Combinator help allocate up to 100 visas to founders per year.
I work remotely, and do a fair job with my colleagues. Other more talented people work and produce entire operating systems while on different continents, and if you are working on something more worthwhile and less fad driven than Facebook for dogs the surely surely you do not need a visa or a relocation.
And if it is better/faster/easier today, why can't that be a reality tomorrow?
What if YC selected ~100 projects per year, gave each their $500k so they could buy their way in...
There are legitimate, promising founders and startups outside of YC too, you know. Sorry about the snark..it's just aggravating when piecemeal, self-serving solutions like this one are proposed.
> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
We're willing to do the work on this. If others are, that'd be fine with us too. We just don't want to wait 5 more years for anything to happen.
Why not start a Y Combinator in Europe and in Asia?
Yes, that would require flight tickets to visit from organisations, but that would also allow a better access to incredible initiatives (that keep yelling in unheard comments that Silicon Vally is neglecting them) such as London’s Start-up Roundabout, Paris’ The Family and certainly far more in Berlin, Copenhagen and Amsterdam. I can’t imagine Singapour, Beijing and Hong-Kong and GuandDong have any less merits, certainly with hardware, or less things to learn from Y Combinator.
What both need is access to capital and access to expertise on how to make that kind of deals; what Y Combinator provides is a needed discipline about testing and scaling, and that. Both travel far better than the founders, who are best because of their network of skilled friends, understanding of local markets and more. Yes, it might require a standard contract to make European or Chinese company have a finance subsidiary in the US to reassure US investors… but dealing with that kind of complication is what YC is good at, much better than any local equivalent.
I would hate to see YC come and unify how to make start-ups. Diversity is key, certainly in something as creative as making companies happen. I was kind of relieved when I noticed no one wrote that idea. But also disappointed: it would be in YC spectacular interest to try.