Comments on: Founders Visa Introduced in Senate

By: Dave mcclure

Dave mcclure — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:52:39 +0000

your arguments above ignore the first and most basic test of viability for the Startup Visa Act…

that is: find a way to create 5 jobs in 2 years with at least $250k in capital that’s been raised.

that’s a much more achievable milestone than the other 2 (still attainable) alternative rqmts which you’ve spent so mug time complaining about.

that’s it: create 5 jobs in 2 years, and you can stay in the US.

furthermore, it’s a much more pragmatic and politically feasible basis for making change happen.

your choice: keep tilting at windmills & complaining, and nothing will ever get done.

or, try taking the first basic steps towards a practical & realistic goal, and then use that as a springboard for further progress.

up to you.

By: Timothy B Lee

Timothy B Lee — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:35:13 +0000

Don: Yeah, that could happen. I imagine that there’d be some concept of a “bona fide” startup, and endless lawyering over how to define that. This doesn’t especially bother me since I’m happy to have more people finding loopholes in immigration law, but it certainly could create PR problems.

By: Don Marti

Don Marti — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:23:10 +0000

Couldn’t a business owner in the USA just use this to bring in random people?

Owner of XYZ Mart sends his friend papers to sign — congratulations, the friend is now founder of “XYZ Properties”

Owner borrows against his building to invest in XYZ Properties.

Founder gets a visa, comes to USA, and XYZ Properties buys the building. (Now the original business is no longer owner of a building, but majority owner of the company that owns the building)

Five of the XYZ Mart employees start getting their paychecks from XYZ Properties.

No new business activity unless you count the transaction costs.

(Sometimes I think transaction costs are the most powerful special interest in the USA.)