[projectramo]

You're missing my point: this is not the H1B. This is an entrepreneur visa which is (presumably) less abusive.

The example he gave seems to indicate that the power dynamic you just mentioned carries over to entrepreneurs who have equity in the firm, who are empowered to make decisions and so on.

[brudgers]

I'm not inclined to presume that it would be less abusive (or more abusive) or abused than any other visa program which creates financial incentives for domestic capital.

[hildaman]

You are kidding right?

When the "entrepreneurs" very status in the US is dependent on being in the good-graces of anyone else - especially vultures like VC firms - these "entrepreneurs" are no better than indentured servants.

Think of it this way - any dispute with the "sponsoring" VC firm could snowball into a complaint to DHS which could result in the "entrepreneur" having to leave the country (and leave behind the carcass of a company the VC's will then proceed to digest).

Entrepreneurs might not understand or appreciate this yet, but they are better off going to Canada or somewhere else as landed immigrants with rights - instead of living in the US as indentured servants of some entity.

The junking of this rule has potentially saved so many startups from being absorbed by entrenched players (Hello Google Ventures). The resultant dispersion of wealth/ideas and the increase in competition will benefit all of us.

[projectramo]

"Think of it this way - any dispute with the "sponsoring" VC firm could snowball into a complaint to DHS which could result in the "entrepreneur" having to leave the country"

I don't know if you believe this to be true. How would this work?

VC: We have a complaint!

DHS: Yes?

VC: The entrepreneur wants to grant more options to their main people.

DHS: okay... so?

VC: Please dissolve the company, make my equity worth zero, and return this person to their country?

DHS: What?

VC: Good point, just make them turn their equity into MY equity and then kick them out

I just don't know what you imagine this rule to be. How do you think this works? On an H1b you can just fire the employee and they have to leave. I understand the mechanics of the power. For a VC and an entrepreneur, the VC has shares in a company that is run by the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur ALSO has shares in the company and always will even if they leave the country.

[hildaman]

How about this:

VC: Hey DHS, Entrepreneur lied about something 2 years ago just before/after he came here.

Entrepreneur: That was not a lie - that was marketing. Every business does it.

DHS: "Get out"

> For a VC and an entrepreneur, the VC has shares in a company that is run by the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur ALSO has shares in the company and always will even if they leave the country.

This is nice in theory, but in practice (especially in knowledge economy companies), the employees are the company - everything else is furniture, coffee machines, ping pong tables...

The VC can just start a new company with ideas stolen from the person they just kicked out. They can offer the (now unemployed) employees of the previous company slightly more equity and money then they would have received at the previous company.

I don't understand why you are defending a system like this.

[projectramo]

I am not defending or attacking anything.

Let's just understand what "the system" is in the first place.

Whether it is morally good or bad we can decide after we make sure we are talking about the same system.

It sounds like you are suggesting that DHS would kick out the entrepreneur if there was a falsehood on marketing materials?

I don't know what that example was supposed to illustrate so please clarify, because I don't think that is how it would work.

Secondly, I don't know under what conditions DHS is allowed to cancel visas.

But let's more on to the other matter, which is the relationship between the VC and the entrepreneur. You acknowledge that the "knowledge" is key, but you still think that they can replace the person who is running the company?

Finally, you agree that the person would still retain ownership in the company?