[davemc500hats]

not sure i understand your concern? the proposal we're working on is a modification to the EB-5 Visa, which currently requires a $1M investment (or a $500K investment in economically targeted area).

even with a lower capital rqmt of say $100K-$250K, i don't think many people would be willing to put up that kind of cash for a taxi driver.

on the other hand, it might be useful to make sure the source(s) of capital are from accredited and/or institutional investors, in order to prevent abuse.

[joe_the_user]

It saddens me to see so much effort put into this kind of proposal. I favor loosened immigration conditions but this is a poorly thought-out scheme that seeks to create private initiative via government intervention.

It doesn't just threaten to pollute the 'immigration space' with folks trying to seem like 'founders', it also pollutes the start-up space with these folks. If someone is 'creating jobs' with the goal of securing a VISA, they could put out ads (which real job seekers will try to answer), then hire only their friends, get the wages paid kicked mostly back to them and have a VISA pretty cheaply since they would get back a good proportion of their money.

Sure, you could have regulators looking for people who did stuff like this but it would get clunky and I'm sure folks could think of umpteen other schemes to get around this. I'm not a Austrian or free-market nut but I think the Austrian arguments are most plausible when governments try to micro-manage enterprises.

It would simpler to elimenate h1b's, skip the 'founders' and give N VISAs to individuals with documented skills and M to individuals who just pay a million dollars directly. That would bring skilled workers and investors here without a lot of falderal. If you wanted to make sure they were never unemployed, make them put up a bond.

And Taxi drivers can make up to $100K/year if they are committed (a lot of them work literally 24 hours/day). A beach-head in the States is worth a lot in many parts of the world since once you arrive you can bring your entire family. $100K for ten people to immigrate here is a good deal. It's not something I'm even opposed to as such - my father and ex-wife were both immigrants. In fact, the main thing I oppose is the way present system creates distortions which helps neither the economy nor the immigrants.

[miloshh]

As pointed out by gruseom below, if somebody wants to game the system, they will come on a tourist visa and simply not leave. I don't think these convoluted scenarios of possible abuse are realistic at all. Furthermore, if the founder's visa law is any good, it will not require the founders to create jobs. It will simply assume that from 2500 startups a year, many will create a lot of jobs.

[joe_the_user]

Uh,

While one can overestimate the number of folks gaming the system, there certainly are some.

It is much more desirable to attain the legal right to reside in the US and/or the legal to work in the US compared to simply getting to the US and residing illegally. Thus there are those who attempt to gain these things under false pretense - sometime they succeed now. Sometimes they are even people we'd want here but even then, it would be better if they come in an orderly fashion rather than scheming up ways to work legally here.

[tptacek]

Which is a faulty argument, because you flat-out can't work in the US on a tourist visa.

[gruseom]

Whoa there. I brought up the tourist visa as an obvious way to enter the country and then work illegally, to answer the bogus objection that a founders' visa would lead to more illegals stealing American jobs: all that would be is an expensive and convoluted way to do what anyone willing to break that law can already do cheaply and trivially right now. And it wouldn't even work as well, since your name would be associated with the company you'd "founded", leaving a trail that the other method wouldn't.

Edit: I suppose I should mention that no, I am not condoning anyone who enters a country on a tourist visa and works illegally.

[ilkhd2]

... legaly. As a janitor or on gas station - perfectly can.

[gruseom]

this is a poorly thought-out scheme that seeks to create private initiative via government intervention

But that's absurd. It's trying to lower a government barrier to individuals who are the very definition of private initiative. And I don't mean that in a moral sense. I mean it in a dictionary-literal sense.

[jhancock]

Comments from joe_the_user and sachinag do a good job of summarizing some issues previously discussed on HN.

I do believe that affordable health care attached to employers is a huge problem for enjoying a larger pool of U.S. entrepreneurs of every variety. Fixing this, which is an issue on the table with current Health Care reform, should bring far more new entrepreneurs than any new visa program would. Since the Health Care legislation is currently in process, why not write your congressman about this instead?

This current founders visa proposal sidesteps fixing what's already abusive with H1-Bs. Skilled immigrants deserve a better process than they current have. It would seem to do more good to fix this than inventing some new category and ignoring the existing problems.

Another problem is this agenda may not get a lot of love from U.S. entrepreneurs or would-be ones as there is a subtext to the founders visa agenda which says 1 - there are not enough good entrepreneurs in the U.S., which is very insulting; I've never seen any credible evidence to support this and 2 - VCs get to be "accredited" providing various leverage problems as discussed.

Last, but not least, how many of these visas do you expect to create each year and at what cost to the government? Just to issue the first visa could have a fixed cost of hundreds of millions. Have you ever worked in government or anything related to INS? The rules and documentation and training required for this program would be costly. Do the investors plan to give the gov shares in these startups to make up for these cost? You can say that the reward will be job creation. Maybe, but I have seen interesting numbers on this.

[ilkhd2]

Ok but I read that founder should own only 10% of 250K which means 25K - 1 year of illegal work on gas station in NJ.

[davemc500hats]

um, huh? what are you talking about?

please cite a link or reference.

[ilkhd2]

http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2009/09/the-founders-visa-mo...

look for "10%" in the text