
USCIS Proposes Rule to Welcome International Entrepreneurs - jrbedard
https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-proposes-rule-to-welcome-international-entrepreneurs
======
yurisagalov
A less "PR"-ey take (but still PR-ey non the less) on the White House Medium
blog: [https://medium.com/the-white-house/welcoming-
international-e...](https://medium.com/the-white-house/welcoming-
international-entrepreneurs-d27571475dfd)

As an international founder who has had to suffer the stresses of dealing with
US immigration while building a company based in the states, this is
incredibly welcome news.

~~~
mkolodny
Really important blurb from that article:

"The proposed rule is open for public comment for 45 days, allowing
stakeholders to provide valuable feedback to DHS before the final rule is
ultimately published. (We encourage you to read the details and submit your
comments.)"

And from the proposal [0]:

"You may submit comments directly to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) by e-mail at uscisfrcomment@dhs.gov. Please include DHS docket number
USCIS-2015-0006 in the subject line of the message."

[0]
[https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Article...](https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Articles/FR_2016-20663_793250_OFR.pdf)

~~~
Sophie_Alcorn
Hi, I'm doing research on this topic to draft a public comment for USCIS and
I'd like to request everybody's input:

-Is it reasonable to limit this to only 3 founders per company, or should it be 4?

-Reasonable for a successful founder to own at least 10% at the end of the 2 year period (which could be 5 years after founding the startup)?

-Reasonable to require $345k within the 1st 3 years to qualify? Too much capital?

-Is $500k annual revenue with average annualized revenue growth of at least 20% a good minimum requirement for proving "substantial and rapidly increasing revenue"?

-Will certain industries like biotech or medical devices be harmed if there is a requirement that the investor funding and application must occur within the first 3 years after founding? Are there some types of companies that take longer to get traction?

-Is winning pitch events or other competitions a good indicator of potential for rapid growth and job creation?

-Does getting into an incubator show a potential for success?

Thanks Sophie Alcorn

My blogs about this program: [http://alcornimmigrationlaw.com/international-
entrepreneur-r...](http://alcornimmigrationlaw.com/international-entrepreneur-
rule-foreign-founders/)

~~~
duncanawoods
> Reasonable to require $345k within the 1st 3 years to qualify? Too much
> capital?

An international founder probably wants to come to the states for funding and
scaling. Having pre-conditions on both scale and funding seems like a chicken
and egg. Requiring funding rules out all bootstrapped businesses which are
likely candidates.

> $500k annual revenue

The conditions feel like they select for small businesses like restaurants but
filter out the potentially massive ones e.g. pre-revenue consumer facing like
Facebook / WhatsApp or R&D heavy businesses like Biotech. Neither of these may
see revenue in the first few years but have evidence potential in user growth,
engagement or scientific achievement.

> Is winning pitch events or other competitions a good indicator of potential
> for rapid growth and job creation?

> Does getting into an incubator show a potential for success?

If a founder is wanting to relocate from a non-startup friendly region then
neither of these are may have been available. IMHO both competitions and
second-rate incubators are "playing at business" and distractions from the
truly necessary steps.

~~~
bernardlunn
Just nodding and agreeing with all your points.

------
beagle3
Anyone here aware of tax implications of the parole status?

Usually, "us taxpayer" status is only triggered with a proper visa (H1B, L1,
O1, etc.) or permanent resident status (green card). I've never met any
mention of tax status on parole.

To someone who has any non-trivial financial life outside the US (which I
expect to be true for most people who would apply for this), a us taxpayer
status is a horrible curse:

You might get a call from your bank/broker/insurer back home, telling you that
they have to close all of your accounts except perhaps a checking and 1 simple
saving (and perhaps those too). If you accrued any benefits in your pension
plan, you have to report them each year _and_ plan to pay yearly and/or dearly
(because it is a PFIC[0]) for any profit made in that account, even though you
cannot touch it for 30 years.

Also, if you own another business outside the US -- e.g. you had a previous
startup, or operated through some kind of personal LLC providing services --
the "us taxpayer" status means that you have to start filing financial reports
to the IRS as if those business were operated in the US (that is, according to
US financial standards, regardless of where it operated - and that might mean
double taxation despite any treaties in place).

Sure, you can just ignore it, and if your startup fails, no one will come
after you. But of course, you plan to succeed, so be sure to read on PFICs,
FATCAs, FBARs, and consult a US accountant that specializes in international
taxation.

As a general rule, the US tax system assumes any financial dealings you have
outside the US are an attempt to evade taxes, and penalizes that (whether by
forms or by actual tax). Once it is assumed you plan to make the US the center
of your life (green card, H1B, L1), those assumptions, through the "us
taxpayer" status, affect you. If it is assumed you won't stay (e.g. F1 visa
for studying), they don't.

So, what taxpayer status will parole put you in?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_foreign_investment_com...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_foreign_investment_company)

~~~
winter_blue
With a few exceptions, immigration status is irrelevant to US tax status. US
tax status is determined by the Substantial Presence Test:
[https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-
taxpayers/subs...](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-
taxpayers/substantial-presence-test)

Certain visas (specifically A, G, F, J, M, Q) are _exceptions_ to the general
rule. For example, the F (student) visa allows you to treat yourself as a non-
resident for tax purposes for up to 5 years.

But everyone else, _including undocumented immigrants_ all get treated as
"U.S. residents for tax purposes" once they meet the timeline for the
substantial presence test.

~~~
beagle3
Thanks, but IIRC that is not the whole story:

Once you receive a green card, tax days retroactively go back to the first day
in which you were legally in the country that year in the status that switched
you to a green card - even if you fail the substantial presence test; e.g.,
you get married to an american citizen outside the US, you both move into the
US on 1-Apr, apply for a marriage-based green card, move out of the US a month
later*, come back december 20th and receive the green card -- at that point,
even though you only spent 40 days in the US (thus failing the substantial
presence test), your "us tax payer date" goes back to 1-Apr, which would make
you a (partial year) US tax payer for 8 months.

How that interacts with visas or parole, I have no idea, but I know someone
whose tax issues were very complicated because of such an issue.

I guess you are right in that the substantial presence test is the default,
and some visas have exceptions one way, and green card the other - but I would
urge anyone who might be affected by these issues to be very very diligent
with respect to tax laws.

And .. we haven't touched state tax laws, which are similar but not exactly
the same as federal laws (and vary between states). And there's also the
concept of domicile, which makes everything even crazier.

------
vmarsy
It looks like this rule would provide the entrepreneur a 5 year stay (2+3
additional if the start-up is doing well), but I don't see any mention of
granting a green card, so what would happen to that entrepreneur on year 6?

EDIT: from the medium link posted in another comment by yurisagalov:

> DHS will also publish guidance to clarify when entrepreneurs may self-
> petition for lawful permanent residence (also known as a “green card”).

EDIT2:

> That entrepreneur will have the confidence of knowing whether she is
> eligible for the temporary “parole status” pathway, allowing her to start
> growing her company here right away. Later, she will know under what
> circumstances she may qualify for the green card pathway, if she is
> successful in creating jobs for U.S. workers and attracting more capital
> from U.S. investors, allowing her to become an American over time. (Note
> that these pathways will likely also be open to "bootstrap" entrepreneurs
> who are successful in generating revenue from U.S. customers, without
> needing to rely on external financing.)

(From [https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/11/26/entrepreneurs-
wan...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/11/26/entrepreneurs-wanted-
president-s-actions-immigration) )

~~~
chrisper
It appears, it has the same issue as H-1B visas. At least in my opinion.

If your business fails and you invested 5 years of your life, you are kicked
out of the country and have to move your family and everything back to
wherever you came from. This big uncertainty of the future is, in my opinion,
a huge negative of both H1B and this parole.

~~~
serge2k
If you have a path to a green card then 5 years is a pretty solid amount of
time for most places (not india/china).

If they made it a separate quota for entrepreneurs then you could get most
people a green card within that timeline.

~~~
klunger
Why is China and India the exception here? They keep getting mentioned as an
exception in this discussion.

~~~
int_19h
A single country of origin is not allowed to use up more than 7% of the total
green card quota. Thus, very populous countries with lots of qualified
potential immigrants, and strong incentives to immigrate (e.g. significant
quality-of-life difference), are at a disadvantage.

------
runesoerensen
It's pretty cool that they're proposing _parole_ rather than an actual visa -
I never thought of that possibility, but it seems to fix a lot of policy-
related issues, such as visa caps, and allow qualifying entrepreneurs faster
entry. Might short-circuit the process and we don't have to wait for
politicians to agree that a founder visa makes sense.

Founders also wouldn't have to get a certified LCA or meet minimum wage
requirements, which can be pretty costly for a startup and is less relevant in
case of founders (who are not taking anyone else's jobs or lowering average
wages). And generally founders would probably prefer (and have more to gain
from) spending that money to grow the company.

I suspect there are downsides to paroles vs visa (like fewer rights or
difficulty obtaining green card/other visa types later maybe?), but this seems
like a surprisingly good proposal to fix an acute issue.

~~~
slededit
Parole is a terrible experience on the ground. Yea you get into the states,
but you'll be sent to secondary every time you cross the border while they
validate your parole status.

It seems to be a trend for the US to make the immigration experience more and
more demeaning in practice.

~~~
keerthiko
Having a visa didn't really make this particularly better for me, and at the
end of the day being able to get/stay in and just work when you want to work
is a damn sight better than what many people (like me) have had to go through
in recent years to start a company.

~~~
slededit
Sure, it's better than nothing. That doesn't change the fact this is one more
twist in an already Kafka-esque system.

In the old days when this country's government worked you'd see a new visa
category created and USCIS able to keep processing times within reason.

Nobody should take this proposal as an example of the system working.

~~~
runesoerensen
_> Nobody should take this proposal as an example of the system working._

I certainly agree, but it's a great example of how _hacking_ a broken system
works :)

 _" And while there is no substitute for legislation, the Administration is
taking the steps it can within existing legal authorities to fix as much of
our broken immigration system as possible"_ [https://medium.com/the-white-
house/welcoming-international-e...](https://medium.com/the-white-
house/welcoming-international-entrepreneurs-d27571475dfd#.ghvpfuyis)

Go Obama!

------
e15ctr0n
For those looking to get a much more comprehensive look at this proposed rule
from USCIS, read the advance version of the notice to be published in the
Federal Register:

[https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Article...](https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Articles/FR_2016-20663_793250_OFR.pdf)
(PDF, 649 KB, 155 pages)

The sections most relevant to those who wish to apply under this rule would
be:

IV. Proposed Changes

A. Overview of Parole for Entrepreneurs (pages 30 - 32)

B. Criteria for Initial Parole (pages 32 - 52)

1\. Recent Formation of a Start-Up Entity 2\. Applicant is an Entrepreneur Who
is Well-Positioned to Advance the Entity’s Business 3\. Capital Investment or
Government Funding Criteria

C. Application Requirements for Initial Period of Parole (pages 53 - 61)

1\. Filing the Application for Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941) 2\.
Requirement to Appear for Submission of Biometric Information 3\. Income-
Related Condition on Parole 4\. Adjudication of Applications 5\. Limitation on
Number of Entrepreneur Parolees Per Start-Up Entity 6\. Authorized Period for
Initial Grant of Entrepreneur Parole

D. Employment Authorization (pages 61 - 66)

1\. Employment Authorization Incident to Parole with a Specific Employer 2\.
Employment Authorization Eligibility for Spouses 3\. Documentation for
Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9)

F. Re-Parole (pages 67 - 84)

1\. Criteria for Re-Parole 2\. Application Requirements for Re-Parole 3\.
Ensuring Continuous Employment Authorization 4\. Technical Changes

G. Termination of Parole (pages 84 - 87)

1\. Automatic Termination 2\. Termination on Notice

H. Automatic Adjustment of Investment and Revenue Amount Requirements (pages
87 - 88)

V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

C. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

3\. Population of Entrepreneurs Potentially Eligible (pages 103 - 116)

~~~
Sophie_Alcorn
I extracted the text of the proposed rule from the 155 page pdf and posted it
here: [http://bit.ly/2bXrguq](http://bit.ly/2bXrguq)

------
runesoerensen
Relevant essay:
[http://paulgraham.com/foundervisa.html](http://paulgraham.com/foundervisa.html)

In 3-5 years we'll probably hear founders tell stories about how this new rule
allowed them to establish very successful companies in the US. That should
help prove the value of a proper founder visa and (assuming the immigration
system is still broken at that time) pass legislation to fix it.

------
chx
Who knows what happens. The Canadian startup visa in three years managed to
bring in 100 people including dependents
[http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/start-up-program-
disap...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/start-up-program-
disappointment-laywer-says-1.3443956)

~~~
qaq
For Canada there are so many options it's hard to compare to US

~~~
chx
Are there? Express Entry, family unification (and that's a very limited one!)
and some provincial programs. I managed to immigrate a few years ago and now I
am a citizen but doesn't look like "so many".

~~~
qaq
If you go to study you can work half time. If your spouse goes to study you
can work full time. That's pretty much opens the door for pretty much anyone.

------
kirubakaran
Although they mention funding and grants as the criteria and not revenue, I
hope "Partially satisfying one or both of the above criteria in addition to
other reliable and compelling evidence of the startup entity’s substantial
potential for rapid growth and job creation." means that revenue will at least
be considered to some extent.

------
Animats
There's already a visa deal for foreign investors, the EB-5 visa. You have to
invest at least $1M ($0.5M if you're willing to invest in a bad area of the
US) and create 10 jobs.

That's why downtown Palo Alto has all those rug stores.

~~~
arcticbull
There's also E-2 visas you can get
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_visa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_visa))
to run your own business with a much smaller investment (15-100K) assuming
you're a citizen of a treaty country.

~~~
stringlytyped
The problem with the E-2 visa is that you never become eligible to apply for a
green card.

------
gorbachev
What happens, if you get one of these paroles, but your business falls apart
for whatever reason within the first two years?

There doesn't appear to be any specific language in the actual document
outlining the rules changes, but it does say DHS would retain the right to
terminate the parole at any time without prior notice and in DHS' discretion
(pg. 84 in the PDF).

Looks like a little bit of gray area, unless there is some language in there
about the parolees responsibilities to maintain the conditions under which the
parole was granted and consequences if the parolee does not. I couldn't see
anything like that during a quick read through the document.

------
bozoUser
Great news for all the non-US budding entrepreneurs. Founders have to satisfy
either of 3 criteria stated -

1\. $345K from private investors.

2\. $100k from govt or Federal entities.

3\. partially satisfying the above criteria(up for a toss with uscis).

Some nascent YC potential companies might still loose out but nevertheless
theres some glimmer of hope. Hope the rule gets published.

~~~
_delirium
#2 is interesting for university spinoffs, since it'd mean one way for PhD
students to stay post-graduation is to get an STTR or SBIR grant for a spinoff
company based on their thesis work.

------
randall
Wow!!! So great. I have two international cofounders. So stoked.

------
1993USAFAgrad
I am inviting foreign nationals in a nonimmigrant F-1 Post Completion OPT
(EAD) status to meet in San Francisco and discuss their thoughts about the
proposed rule.

I am drafting a response from a nonprofit research organization and H-1B cap-
exempt employer perspective:

[https://www.eventbrite.com/e/lets-discuss-proposed-rule-
by-u...](https://www.eventbrite.com/e/lets-discuss-proposed-rule-by-uscis-to-
welcome-international-entrepreneurs-tickets-27393876823)

or SMS text WHOMENTORSDOTCOM to 50500 to obtain my contact information.

This year, my organization endeavors to maintain a relationship with startup
founders of a startup that would not otherwise be a qualifying institution to
work part-time on-site at the non-profit research organization anywhere in the
USA.

------
vesh
Does anyone know where and how the public can provide their comments? I cannot
find a link on the page. Bootstrapped startups with no outside investments
wouldn't be eligible based on this criteria.

~~~
skynetv2
you are right and that was probably intentional. if not, there would be no way
to determine if a startup is legitimate or not. attracting investment or
funding seems to be the determining factor in this process.

~~~
vesh
What about using growth, revenue and profitability as a factor? Wouldn't that
provide a similar data point to make the decision.

~~~
tlb
If you have growth and revenue, it should be easy to get investors to invest.
By outsourcing their decision, the government doesn't have to understand how
to benchmark growth or revenue in every kind of business.

------
NhanH
The number doesn't quite work out: you got two years, and if the business can
demonstrate passing certain benchmarks (500k funding or (500k revenue and 20%
annual growth) or 10 'murican jobs), you get another 3 years. 5 years is
enough if your business fails fast, but otherwise it's unlikely to be
sufficient for building one (on average).

This is a parole rather than a visa, so it still leaves the question on what's
the follow up afterward.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
> 10 'murican jobs

I'm about the farthest thing there is from a SJW, but have you considered how
people will interpret your use of the slang "`murican"?

To me, it sounds like a reference to a meme which paints persons from the
southern part of the U.S. as parochial and unintelligent.

Have I misunderstood the reference?

~~~
NhanH
I'm not aware of any meme with the usage of "'murican" that paints certain
part of the US as parochial and unintelligent.

In any case, that's not what I intended. My usage of "'murican" would have
been closer to the joke about Canadians always apologizing than your reading.

------
vthallam
A great start for sure.

>Receiving significant investment of capital (at least $345,000) from certain
qualified U.S. investors with established records of successful investments

Not sure what does the qualified US investors mean though. Would seed
funding/angel funding from individuals not be considered for this? I guess
this has been added to avoid abuse by wealthy foreigners, but how do they
determine the qualified individuals or companies?

~~~
a13n
I would guess you have to be an accredited investor and have some history
investing in startups.

Accredited Investor:

\- net worth, or joint net worth with the person's spouse, that exceeds $1
million or

\- income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint
income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those years and a reasonable
expectation of the same income level in the current year

~~~
vthallam
Guess this should be the case.

------
titomc
What will happen after the 5 years stay ? Should the entrepreneur pack up and
leave ? Why should an entrepreneur startup something when he/she is not sure
about their residency in US. This rule says 'parole' & self petition, the
residency path is not clear. And when it comes to residency, US immigration
for skilled immigrants is so broken that you will regret applying for one.

~~~
OmarIsmail
5 years is more than enough time in startup land to either be a failure or at
least modest success - startups are designed to grow quickly after all.

If you're on the success path then getting an O1 should be very straight
forward, and then a EB1 greencard should also be easy.

If you're a failure, well - this isn't supposed to be a path to citizenship
for people with failed businesses.

------
benmarten
Please note that this does not seem to be any improvement for citizens of "US
treaty countries", e.g. most northern and western european countries. Where
the needed capital investment is only needed to be substantial to get an E-2
investor/entrepreneur visa. E.g. 100-150k of initial investment needed as far
as I know ;)

~~~
runesoerensen
This definitely seems like an improvement even if you're treaty country
citizen; particularly if you don't have $100-150K to invest (or whatever is
required depending on the industry), or you'd rather have US investors
contribute the capital. The E-2 investor visa requires _the foreign national_
to be the investor:

 _" The E-2 nonimmigrant classification allows a national of a treaty country
(a country with which the United States maintains a treaty of commerce and
navigation) to be admitted to the United States when investing a substantial
amount of capital in a U.S. business"_ [https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-
states/temporary-worker...](https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-
states/temporary-workers/e-2-treaty-investors)

In any case more options is better for people seeking to start a business in
the US (even people who are not paroled will benefit from not having to
compete with paroled entrepreneurs over the same limited number of visas).

------
yranadive
" A subsequent request for re-parole (for up to three additional years) would
be considered only if the entrepreneur and the startup entity continue to
provide a significant public benefit as evidenced by substantial increases in
capital investment, revenue or job creation."

How will they measure this? It's so subjective.

------
xbeta
Is it really required to found a startup inside US to have a greater chance of
success? Or more specifically in the bay?

I have seen many successful startups found in other countries (such as China)
Alibaba, Tencent, etc.

Is this a push that all talented software engineers HAVE TO move to the bay to
become successful?

I'm very doubtful on that claim.

~~~
outworlder
No, they dont' have to.

However, if you are startup, then startup == growth, which means having access
to lots of capital, fast. Therefore, you should move to where there's an
abundance of money, harboring people with just the right mindset to invest.

~~~
contingencies
_where there 's an abundance of money, harboring people with just the right
mindset to invest._

Right now it's the best time in the last 15 years in mainland China to seek
VC.

------
nullcipher
This is a great step forward. I actually like the idea of parole rather than a
proper visa upfront. First, get entrepreneurs to US and let them show their
skills. If they succeed, they can always apply for GC directly through the
existing outstanding skills category or take an investor visa.

------
known
[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/...](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/rankorder/2199rank.html)

------
sethbannon
"Give me your tired, your overworked, your entrepreneurs yearning to
innovate."

------
AhtiK
If entrepreneur can keep at least 50% of the company then already today L-1
could be a viable option.

Looks like the proposed parole is quite similar to L1 except instead of
foreign company there's foreign private person direct relationship.

------
graeme
Can anyone see if this applies to bootstrappers or solo founders?

It doesn't look like it. Referring to the type of business that can have
significant revenue, but doesn't need investment or even necessarily
employees.

------
rrecuero
As another international founder, it is definitely a great step in the right
direction. I am still missing an easier way to bridge the transition gap into
a Green Card, maybe a different EB?

------
vadym909
This is great for the US and many foreign entrepreneurs, but would suck for
other country's startup efforts. Its like the Golden State Warriors getting
Kevin Durant.

------
pyb
This sounds like the holy grail for international founders, but how likely is
it to pass ? Anyone here in the know ?

~~~
winter_blue
This is administrative action, and does not need congressional (or other)
approval.

------
toodlebunions
Seems like the necessary investment amounts are pretty low.

------
ones_and_zeros
My prediction: This too will be gamed just like the rest of the immigrant
worker visa systems (H-1B, OPT, O-1, EB-5, etc). That big fat vague 3rd
criteria will see to it. A whole cottage industry of immigration attorneys who
specialize in this visa will crop up to prey on unsuspected foreigners and
collude with the knowing and corrupted ones.

The fact of the matter is most foreigners complaining about not being able to
start businesses in the US don't have profitable or well funded businesses.
The ones that do have profitable and well funded business can easily set up
shop on US soil and don't need to immigrate here and can use L1 visas when
they do need to come state side.

To me the most interesting aspect to this visa is it takes away the talking
point from the H-1B proponents that immigrant workers are job creators because
immigrants start companies that employ citizens.

~~~
runesoerensen
It's worth noting that granting parole seems to be entirely at the USCIS's
discretion:

 _" Under this proposed rule, DHS may parole, on a case-by-case basis,
eligible entrepreneurs of startup enterprises"_

I think this is different from visas where the applicants/petitioners have at
least _some_ legal rights: The USCIS are probably aware that some people are
gaming the current visa system, but they may be "forced" to approve visa
petitions if all the criteria are met - even in cases where they're obviously
not in "the spirit of the law".

The USCIS can likely just refuse to give parole under the new rule if they
think someone is abusing the system - and blacklist any startup investors they
believe is aiding in such behavior.

You prediction may be right, but I think there's reason to be optimistic. The
rule can also be changed more easily than laws if abuse is detected while
providing valuable data that can guide future startup visa legislation.

------
gjkood
If you are a hardware entrepreneur there may be better options than trying to
set up in the USA.

Try setting up shop in Shenzhen, China. Just spent a week over there. It is
truly a Hacker's Paradise.

You can validate your ideas and get an MVP out in much faster time than the
USA. You can be close to your eventual supply chain when you do make it big.
It may sound a bit like premature optimization but the advantages are huge.

Of course, it will not hurt to learn a bit of Chinese (Mandarin) if you do
decide to take that route. At least start with a few useful phrases to help
break the ice. 'Ni Hao' (Hello); 'Xie Xie' (Thank You) and 'Duo Shuo Qian'
(How much does it cost?). Learning the number system will also help know what
the price is.

I spent a lot of time in the Huaqiang Bei and LoWu malls.

A special shoutout to Andrew "Bunnie" Huang for his 'The Essential Guide to
Electronics in Shenzhen'[1]. It was invaluable.

Another shoutout to my Mandarin teacher Larry Xue and the San Jose Learning
Center.[2] Attending his classes made me so much more confident that I could
manage there even with the language barrier.

1\. [https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/the-essential-
gui...](https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/the-essential-guide-to-
electronics-in-shenzhen)

2\.
[http://sanjoselearningcenter.com/mandarin.php](http://sanjoselearningcenter.com/mandarin.php)

~~~
toephu2
And let me guess, you went over on a 30-day (or 60 or 90 max) tourist visa?
Try getting a Chinese work visa from a startup (or one you found). USCIS's new
rule proposal allows entrepreneurs to stay legally in the U.S. an initial 2
years.

~~~
gjkood
I am not implying it is the best option for everybody trying to come and set
up in the US, but for hardware companies there are better options than the US.
In fact there are US based hardware accelerators[1] that encourage and
facilitate setting up in Shenzhen for a short while so that you can be close
to your eventual supply chain.

Coming and setting up in the US is no easy matter for people of Indian or
Chinese origins.

1\. [https://hax.co](https://hax.co)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Is setting up in she Shenzhen any easier for foreigners? I wouldn't be
surprised if it was harder.

~~~
gjkood
I have been using a book called 'the Shenzhen insider's guide' [1] as a
reference to help me understand what I need to do to setup something there.
There is an entire chapter 'Business in Shenzhen' that lays out the groundwork
needed to setup operations in Shenzhen and the different types of entities
allowed to do business there. There may be advantages to having a Chinese
partner in the setup.

I am currently only at the investigative stage. I will let you know as soon as
I know more about bureaucratic obstacles.

1\. [https://www.amazon.com/Shenzhen-Insiders-Guide-Never-
Ever/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Shenzhen-Insiders-Guide-Never-
Ever/dp/0996137319/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1472237237&sr=8-1&keywords=the+Shenzhen+insider%27s+guide)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
In my experience, if something is hard to do in the USA, it is much harder to
in China, which doesn't really acknowledge immigrants. Now, this is just "by
the book", which the USA takes much more seriously than China. Often times,
the book in China isn't even written and all they will say is "没办法", your only
option is a tourist visa where they wink you'll probably be ok, unless you are
unlucky enough to be caught in some crackdown, then it's 6 or so months in
Chinese detention before being deported.

Only be in China if you REALLY need to be there, otherwise it's a whole lot of
pain without corresponding upside.

~~~
gjkood
In the same vein, for those in the USA trying to do business elsewhere, please
be aware of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [1]. There is no upside to
breaking those rules.

Sean, my Mandarin/Chinese is at below beginner's level. My google translate of
your phrase is 'no way'. Was that what you were saying?

1\. [https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/foreign-corrupt-
pract...](https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/foreign-corrupt-practices-
act)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Yes, 没办法 just means "what you want to do is impossible, though (often implied)
should be possible."

FCPA applies not just to Americans, but anyone who does business in the USA,
so even non Americans can be caught up in it, and many developed countries
have their own versions of it.

I don't think bribes fly around so easily these days. At least nothing overt,
though the Chinese partner they thrust on you is often just a backdoor bribe
that looks legit on paper.

------
drl42
Summary: \- New startup entity (< 3 years old) \- Atleast 10% stake \- No more
than 3 applications per startup \- Atleast $345,000(VC,Angel,Incubator) or
$100,000(govt grants) or show public benefit if less funding available \-
Initial stay for 2 years \- Employment authorization only from startup \-
Minimum salary at 400% poverty level \- Spouse gets EAD, but minor children do
not.

After 2 years, 3 years extension \- Atleast 10% ownership and active role in
startup \- Atleast $500K additional funding OR $500K revenue with 20% growth
OR 10 Full time Jobs

0

~~~
r00fus
Spousal Employment Authorization Document (EAD) is huge. IIRC, H1B spouses
(ie, H4Bs) were recently allowed, but only if the H1B holder is applying for
legal residency - which can take a while.

In this case, you can get an EAD for your spouse as soon as you get your
parole.

~~~
OmarIsmail
WOW. This instantly makes this program substantially better than many other
visas. The difference between a working spouse and not is worth hundreds of
thousands of dollars - especially over a 5 year time frame. This is better
than the O1!!

------
gordon_freeman
This would definitely help foreign founders but after they have founded the
company in US since 3 years. That initial period of founding a startup is the
most difficult part for immigrants in USA as their visas are tied to employer
(like H1B).

So would this "startup visa" help in anyway in that initial stage of founding
a startup?

------
xyzzy4
How about a rule to welcome anyone who isn't a criminal?

~~~
tlb
In case you're not joking: it depends greatly on what country they're coming
from. In countries without a strong rule of law, you can be a very bad person
without ever being convicted of a criminal offense. And in other countries,
good people are given criminal records for things we approve of, such
defending human rights or religious freedom.

USCIS can't really go interview lots of people for each decision to decide
who's "good". They mostly have to rely on submitted documents, and there's no
document you can submit to provide high confidence you're not a criminal.

~~~
aianus
> USCIS can't really go interview lots of people for each decision to decide
> who's "good".

If you charge $100 an interview, you can interview as many people as you want.
It would be a better job program than the TSA.

------
xenosapien
My startup will focus on building walls. I believe this is a burgeoning
market.

------
lawnchair_larry
Unfortunately wealthy foreigners are just going to abuse the hell out of this
to drive up real estate prices.

~~~
tlb
The sponsors of the legislation did think hard about this obvious issue and
believe they've addressed it (I talked to several people involved). They
learned a lot from the EB-2 and EB-5 visa processes, which were sometimes
abused by people who weren't really here to create viable businesses. Do you
have more specifics about what you think they missed?

~~~
fmp
> Do you have more specifics about what you think they missed?

Do you have any specifics of what you think they _didn 't_ miss, given that
you're the one who has supposedly talked to the sponsors of the legislation?

Legislation, like code, should be considered buggy until proven otherwise --
but with the complication that the people who write legislation aren't
necessarily interested in fixing the bugs in it.

Since the amounts involved are pretty small (15% ownership of a company that
has received at least $350K in funding) there seem to be no end of ways for to
make it happen. Six Chinese (say) dudes each pay $100K to some guy who is a
"qualified investor" in the US, who invests $350K in a Chinese restaurant and
makes them each 1/6th owners. Bam, hello US residency for all involved.

------
patcheudor
When I looked at that title I thought: "new rule in ____ . Leaves drivers
furious!" and wondered how HN was infiltrated with click-bait advertising.

The Internet has ruined me.

------
tostitos1979
I wish having an advanced degree was a criteria here. A few years ago, I
noticed that Britain would give a blanket visa to anyone with an MBA from a
list of top international schools. How about something like that for people
with Masters/PhDs (in STEM) from top-50 schools in the world.

That said, the proposed rule might mean if one gets into YC/techstars, etc.
they would be able to get a visa for the US easily.

The limited term and renewals do raise some flags. But I guess if you are
successful with your startup in the given time period, you can apply for a
green card through other categories like Extraordinary Ability, etc.

~~~
dineshp2
> I wish having an advanced degree was a criteria here. A few years ago, I
> noticed that Britain would give a blanket visa to anyone with an MBA from a
> list of top international schools.

Care to explain the reasoning? It seems shortsighted to limit this proposal to
people with advanced degrees, and why only from the top 50 schools in the
world? How does this make sense in the context of startups?

> That said, the proposed rule might mean if one gets into YC/techstars, etc.
> they would be able to get a visa for the US easily.

The article mentions that this is not a visa, but parole. And with the
requirement of $345K in funding, getting into YC/Techstars would not be
sufficient. Startups would need to raise additional money, unless they receive
$100k from the Government.

~~~
tostitos1979
I make a value judgement that the economy needs startups that work on deep,
meaningful technologies. While they are certainly instances where people
without advanced education are able to innovate in deep technology
disciplines, there are many cases where education is the key barrier to entry.
If someone spent a decade getting specialized education in an area like FPGA,
MEMS design, etc. I do think they should have an easier path into the country
than someone with no specialized education. Canada is trying the "we'll give
you a visa if your startup is funded by recognized investors". I think that
stops people who have bootstrapped ventures or funding from their own
savings/family savings. I'm also not saying advanced education is THE
requirement. I'm saying, it should be one of the possible options. That's just
my opinion :)

With convertible notes that are sometimes given to member companies of
distinguished seed funds, I think getting to 345K isn't a stretch.

