[cletus]

As for the small(er) business argument, there are a couple of factors:

1. This visa isn't meant to solve every problem. As soon as you try to solve every problem, you've just guaranteed you're not going to solve any problem; and

2. Arguably someone who is small isn't yet of interest to the American government in terms of being a taxpayer.

As for the successful investor example you've made, you've chosen a (quite deliberate, imho) strawman. The argument has several holes:

1. If you have $1m or more to invest in a business, there is an existing green card program for that;

2. I believe you know this, which is why you've said a couple of hundred thousand. The line has to be somewhere. 5-10 years ago, at least for tech companies, $1 million probably made sense. Does it make sense now? Maybe not. If not, address it by changing the requirements for that separate visa class; and

3. The American government has a vested interest in fostering businesses of American citizens and residents rather than those of foreign residents; and

4. If that person was going to seed invest (ie become an angel), a couple of hundred thousand isn't really enough to do that. Each "bet" they make, even if only $25,000 is simply too high a portion of their total investment pool.

As for the requirements being arbitrary, that's a double edged sword. Sure $1m is enough for an investment-based green card. Why not $950,000? Again, the line has to be drawn somewhere. After all, you're a minor up until you turn 18. Is someone 17 years and 11 months old so vastly different?

The positive side of arbitrary requirements is that they have certainty. Someone can look at those rules and clearly know what they mean and whether or not they qualify.

To give you a counterexample, in Australia the ATO (our equivalent of the IRS) has a discretionary test to decide whether you're "in business" to see if you can manage your tax deductions in a certain way. It's completely vague, sort of a "you'll know it when you see it" kind of test.

The problem of course is that there are still grey areas and humans need to make decisions about whether a given situation qualifies or doesn't.

At least arbitrary rules are clear.

[phjohnst]

Arbitrary rules are clear, yet, but also blunt. If you were building a capital intensive product (see most of the alternative energy/biotech space - to get a prototype built costs millions and millions of dollars in most cases), 250k investment is really low, and probably would have no bearing on the success of a company. But for a small tech/software company whose only expenses are its 2-3 founders' accommodation and sustenance, 250k is a lot. So maybe some arbitrary rules are the right thing, but there needs to be some common sense and differentiation across different sectors. Not all startups are the same.

[mdda]

The current E2 visas don't include a hard-and-fast minimum investment. It has to be sufficient, though : and the interviewer in the Embassy will be the judge of that, ultimately.

For an Internet technology startup, $100k is enough (proven in 1999, and renewed ever since).