
The Founder Visa - pg
http://www.paulgraham.com/foundervisa.html
======
bokonist
_How would the government decide who's a startup investor? The same way they
decide what counts as a university for student visas. We'll establish our own
accreditation procedure._

This part scares me. Accreditation boards are a bug, not a feature. Perhaps,
like pg's idea, they started out as well intentioned. But today, their primary
purpose is to erect arbitrary barriers of entries, thus propping of the
salaries of professionals and the tuition of the schools. The tech industry is
great because it is so isolated from politics and bureaucracy. I'd hate for
that to change.

~~~
pg
That is a worry. It would have to be super transparent. Originally I proposed
a straightforward algorithm for deciding: to use Erdos numbers with Ron Conway
as the seed. I took this out because I thought it was better not to go into
this level of detail in the essay, but I'd advocate using something like this
to decide who was a startup investor.

~~~
psranga
You rank applicants to the visa program by Erdos numbers? Is this the same
Erdos number as <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s_number>? Or do you
rank investors?

In either case, you're ranking people based on _WHO_ they know, not what they
know. Worst kind of ranking possible (it keeps competent outsiders out).

~~~
pg
It's the investors who'd be ranked by Ronco numbers, not the visa applicants.
And even there it wouldn't be based on anyone knowing anyone. If you invest in
a startup that Ron Conway later invests in, you have a Ronco number of 1,
whether he likes it or not.

------
mohamedsa
As a non-American who applied to YC twice the article was a pleasant surprise.
However I'm not sure America is as attractive to non-American founders as some
people think. I'll explain (my arguments are mostly personal perceptions...I
have no practical evidence yet on any of this since my own startup is still at
the "wrote some code" stage).

Let's suppose there are 2 types of founders: people who have enough money &
connections, and the young "live on Ramen noodles" type founders.

For the "money & connections" type, a lot of foreign countries offer cheap but
still qualified programmers and don't put too many obstacles on founding
companies so if your country is like that it might make sense to stay. For the
"Ramen" type, many of them may not afford America's often high living costs.

As for the argument that the US provides a better/more free market... even
this is changing: The internet probably allows relatively easy selling to
worldwide customers from any country.

All that said, the American dream probably still lives on and many people
would likely provide counter-examples to my limited point of view. Of course
pg didn't claim that coming to the US is a no-brainer for every single
talented hacker. There are probably enough of those who are interested to
satisfy the 10,000 founder/year goal.

~~~
jey
" _For the "Ramen" type, many of them may not afford America's often high
living costs._ "

I think the algorithm PG proposes is something like this:

1\. Produce enough that you would be able to convince someone to fund you.
Maybe this takes a prototype, a convincing sales pitch, ramen profitability,
etc.

2\. Convince someone to [seed] fund you.

3\. Move to a place with an environment favorable to startups.

4\. Continue working on your product, now with access to investors, other
founders, good employees, great weather, ...

The idea is to get to step 4 as fast as possible. In most parts of the world
you'd never be able to find good investors or a startup-supporting culture,
and that counts for lot. As PG has pointed out, there's a huge variance in
startup-friendliness even amongst the major cities in the US.

------
alain94040
Having been through the hoops, I'd generally support this, but it's a tough
sell in today's economy. Because there are _emotions_ involved.

There are already similar visas (EB-5 and E-1). Especially the E-1 category is
very close and could easily be amended to fit Paul's ideas (I used the E-1 as
co-founder of my previous startup, EVE).

One issue that needs to be addressed: you are not likely to get funding until
you move here. But if the visa gives you a grace period (say 6 months) to move
first before you get funding, then it will be abused.

~~~
dfranke
> you are not likely to get funding until you move here

I think it's likely that if this visa existed, VCs would adapt to it by
becoming more open to funding people who haven't immigrated yet.

~~~
trapper
Can anyone think of a wonderful business (think truly great) that couldn't get
funding until they were in the US?

From what I have seen there is tons of money if your model is great.

I think the counter is true: it's much easier to raise money for bleeding edge
ideas in the US. But, ask yourself whether you want to be doing a bleeding
edge business (e.g. based on twitter or facebook) or one thats more likely to
make you wealthy (B2B).

~~~
pmjordan
_Can anyone think of a wonderful business (think truly great) that couldn't
get funding until they were in the US?_

How would you know? You only hear about the success stories and the
spectacular failures, not the full spectrum in between.

 _But, ask yourself whether you want to be doing a bleeding edge business
(e.g. based on twitter or facebook) or one thats more likely to make you
wealthy (B2B)._

Just because you'd prefer to do a B2B startup you want to deny others from
trying to go straight to the top?

~~~
trapper
"How would you know? You only hear about the success stories and the
spectacular failures, not the full spectrum in between."

By truly great I was meaning something that was a spectacular success. Every
company I have ever had the pleasure of knowing personally with a great model
had plenty of capital, whatever location they were in. Others who thought
there model was great, but clearly was too risky didn't.

"Just because you'd prefer to do a B2B startup you want to deny others from
trying to go straight to the top?"

I am not denying anyone from starting anything, just pointing at the facts.
It's much easier to get a B2B making money than a twitter widget that isn't
charging.

In my opinion, those types of businesses are never going to be the next
youtube, so why bother. You either go for the home run or the easy money. But
that's just my opinion.

------
gojomo
_By definition these 10,000 founders wouldn't be taking jobs from Americans_

"But, but, but: their companies will compete with and disrupt established
American businesses, destroying American jobs! Why, a 4-foreigner web news or
classified startup could put dozens of (unionized, citizen, voter) newspaper
employees out of work!"

Of course I don't believe this is true, nor would it even be a good reason to
restrict entry if it were true. (Better to have the new disruptive companies
here, than elsewhere.) But that's the sort of deranged logic used against
broader immigration. The neat trick of limiting the visas to those starting
companies will only help a little against anti-immigrant emotions.

 _They wouldn't all grow as big as Google, but out of 2500 some would come
close._

I suspect close-to-Google-scale successes come more like 1-in-100,000-tries
than 1-in-2500. There's a tendency to see every startup as a potential little
Google -- we could call this 'Google Goggles'. But Google is one-of-a-kind,
and it shouldn't require even one success of that scale to make the case for
broader immigration.

For example, shouldn't these visas be available to immigrants whose 'startup'
is a donut shop, nail salon, or bodega?

(I also suspect such a program could be easily gamed... but as I'd like to see
more immigration of anyone ambitious, I suppose that's a feature not a bug.)

------
tc
This line made me smile:

 _I think this would have such a visible effect on the economy that it would
make the legislator who introduced the bill famous._

It reminded me of "Law 13" of "The 48 Laws of Power":

 _uncover something in your request... that will benefit him, and emphasize it
out of all proportion._

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=555691>

~~~
tokenadult
A risk might be that if even one Al Qaeda terrorist gets in under this
program, then the whole program will be shut down, and the sponsoring member
of Congress's name will be infamous forever after.

~~~
ajju
Good VCs vet potential investees better than the FBI does. And that is true
without the risk of being blamed for enabling a terrorist. Think about how
well a VC would vet someone coming in from outside the country. (How well they
_can_ vet such a person is a separate but important issue).

And at least one of the 9/11 hijackers came in on a student visa. The student
visa program has not been shut down (although checks for all visa programs
have become more stringent).

------
jbenz
Hear, hear. I couldn't agree more. I have a foreign-born friend who has
inspired similar thoughts in me. I'm convinced this friend could found an
incredible web startup here in the States if only the Federal Government
wasn't making it so difficult for him.

I wrote to my congressman expressing this sentiment. He replied saying in a
nutshell: "Don't worry, I strongly support protecting American jobs from
foreign encroachment."

I wrote back to say that this was nearly the complete opposite of my concern,
and I asked him to respond with an indication that my original email was not
misunderstood. Of course I never heard back.

------
veteran
Is it incidental that except for one or two guys in essay review are all
people who are small investors who don't have ability to open investment shop
in India/China?..

May be 20 yrs back this was relevant but today just because you offer does not
mean quality people need it..so before proposing was there actually needs
analysis..did somebody read the Chinese social networks are ahead in revenue
numbers and there is huge investment in electric cars..same story with other
emerging markets and don't think there are no investment funds
there..obviously, people will say there is not enough support but in Silicon
valley also beyond seed stage very few outsiders get the funding..checkout
thefunded.com for more information..so if you are smart/hard working then stay
where you are because you can create opportunities..also worthwhile to read
mercury news story about dwindling public companies in silicon valley.. the
other part of the story is not there but you can very well guess.. world is
flat!

Btw, I have 2 investments in Indian companies and I would not advise them
coming to US unless they establish themselves well..simply because starting
and growing a company is not easy if you do not have well established
connections and good market read..hiring good people also needs good
connections..most of the time your early employees are your friends or past
coworkers.. This kind of arrangement will work only if the people are going to
hand over reins to someone local ..this is exactly and only suitable for mass
investors like Ron Conway/YCombinator..and I don't want to say anything on
this forum but entrepreneurs while choosing the investor need to see lot more
than initial recognition.. I know many people will oppose me here but just
walk through a case scenario where this will work..also if you are going to
throw in Google example then please do thorough analysis.. My advice to young
entrepreneur is just go in the market where you understand things not that
looks shiny.. there are no overnight successes..and don't quit something you
have (can have) simply on the word of an investor..definitely not for the
people who can not be with you till you get cash flow positive..(just to be
clear I am not taking swipe at either Ron or YCombinator program..i am just
talking in context of extending (and "assuming") its relevance to
international teams without really understanding the other side)

~~~
pg
I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that would-be founders
should stay in their home countries and start their startups there?

If so, then the answer is that it depends on the country and the nature of the
startup. There are certainly some combinations of country/startup where the
founders would be better off in Silicon Valley. It's up to the individual
founders to decide if theirs is.

~~~
veteran
uh..hard point to understand (or swallow?).

I don't believe in this assumption -- "There are certainly some combination of
country/startup where the founders would be better off in Silicon Valley -
when we are talking about founders who need visas (they can't get EB5 green
card which is given based on investment or business visas which are pretty
much given to anyone who has valid established business or who are not already
in US as a student/employee..in that case founders do get H1B easily
transferred for their own company provided they can show company of
substance..if they pursued advanced degree here then they don't get in H1B
cap)..so limits to be the people without much of resources of their own - who
don't understand market here (at least not on first hand basis) and don't have
connections..how will they succeed.. why misguide some of them and also fool
ourselves that such a thing is useful..especially, given there is much better
chance if they stay where they are then they will be able to pull off
something successful targeted at the market they already understand

and that too putting up number of 2500 such startups every year ..good idea to
write 2 examples to validate it first..tell me some story..

so my point..people should start company where they understand the market and
if US wants to benefit from international resources then investors should go
outside US because only that will work..because that is right for
startups/founders/investors..

~~~
ajju
Actually there _is_ a cap on H1B visas for advanced degree holders
(20000/year) and this year this cap was met before the cap for the general
category.

~~~
veteran
you are right Ajju..this 20,000 exemption number indeed was not enough this
year ..I sponsored 2 H1Bs in 2006 and that year it was different..there is
just strong appetite for those visas.. I am in full support of increasing that
exemption limit because it seems it is pretty finite short fall and don't know
why it is not given by priority in the general bucket.. if somebody is doing
something on that then let me know how to support.. As far as Paul, you not
being able to understand what I say..I don't expect you to understand much of
it anyway..from your essay and comments, you come out as a typical guy who has
a 100% workable solution (in his mind) but he does not understand the problem
or market..

------
car
A visa type that is quite similar to what you propose does exist. It's the E-2
"entrepreneur" or "Treaty Investor" visa
(<http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1273.html>).

I've gone through the process, and despite it being a lot of paperwork and
requiring the help of a lawyer, it was ultimately a good experience.

In order to get such a visa, one has to submit a business plan, and show
sufficient funds from abroad. Interestingly, the funds only have to be
appropriate for the business to be started, there is no set minimum like a lot
of people assume (e.g. 100k). An example my lawyer gave me was a woman that
wanted to start a horse riding school, and who got her E-2 by proving an
investment of ~30k into her company.

I started an internet business, and my investment was in the same ballpark.

Also, for founders already living in the US, it is ok to work on setting up
the business, e.g. incorporating etc, while applying for the E-2, as long as
no customers are being engaged and money is being earned.

A downside is, that there is no straight path from the E-2 to a greencard;
other then upping the investment (which has to come from abroad) to $10^6.

Edit: There is another downside, mentioned elsewhere in this thread. One has
to be from a 'treaty' nation.

Disclaimer: I'd strongly advise you to consult an immigration lawyer if you
want to do this.

------
Aegean
I think the Founders Visa idea totally reflects the American freedom spirit
and it must be definitely tried.

I am currently holding a Highly Skilled Migrant Visa from the UK, and this was
the only way I could start a startup there. After the visa was available, I
quit my job and started my own business. I think with this visa, UK already
went ahead of U.S. in this respect.

I agree that in order to reduce competition with American citizens, the
Founders Visa may be limited to working in your own company. Founders don't
want to be employed (I strictly don't - even was gonna refuse Google if they
made an offer) and new companies create job openings. A Visa of this kind
would be totally adequate for someone like me.

I didn't like the "Let investors choose" criteria. What if I am self-funded?
If I bring my funds in, isn't that even better? Also it is highly subjective
whether a founder is going to be successful or not. I think the election
strategy should be based on founder's age, education, past earnings, work
experience etc. just like in the UK scheme:
<http://www.workpermit.com/uk/hsmp_calculator.htm>

Yes this is not the best criteria to select successful founders, but at least
it is a "secure" criteria, i.e. you choose people elite enough that they won't
hurt U.S economy. You could start with a "science/business graduate founders"
scheme, and extend it based on success.

My last words go to Europe. Europe is living in the past. I wanted to attend
FOSDEM in Belgium, was requested so many difficult documentation for Visa,
that I decided not to go. I will probably never go to Belgium or similar
countries, not because I hate them, but because its simply not worth the
effort to visit those countries.

------
yan
I'm thinking: how can this be exploited? Can someone just say they're building
a new way to shorten urls and need two years in the country to build their
business to fruition? And what defines success or progress?

~~~
tomsaffell
If someone did apply under false pretenses, get here, and do nothing, then
what would be the negative impact on the country?

PG's suggestion was that they cannot work for other companies, so they are not
depriving anyone of a job. They will have to live somehow (on whomever's money
they have), and that will go into the local economy. If you add a clause to
the visa that they cannot claim any type of social welfare, then I think the
potential downside of 'gaming' nowhere near outweighs* all the potential
upsides.

* - opportunity cost of the 10,000 spots excepted, which is why you have the right folks picking the 10,000.

~~~
calambrac
Maybe add a requirement to hold in escrow enough money to ship the person
back, for the case where their startup fails?

------
jey
That's a good idea. The visa system generally makes it hard for hard-working
highly-motivated highly-educated foreigners to come to the US and create
value. PG is right that we should be _attracting_ these people instead of
throwing random obstacles in their way.

\-- American-born son of an immigrant Indian scientist

------
nickpp
A VISA?! Are you f..ing kidding me? Do you know what a fragile status one has
while on a VISA? Any day you your visa can be revoked and you can be thrown
out.

Do you expect me to risk everything, to pour my life and blood into a business
while under the stress that if anything goes wrong I am on a plane with a one-
way ticket to a place where I have nothing anymore, together with my family
and away for any of my friends?

Do you want founders? Do you want INVESTORS? Anything less than a Green Card
is a spit in the face. Take an example from Canada or UK who both offer
directly residency under a set of qualification rules, not $1m.

Stop treating us as we're nothing more than students happy to receive a couple
dozen k as if that was an actual serious investment. Oh wait...

~~~
shiro
I've worked on visa for several years, so I know it's like putting your life
at the mercy of USCIS. I got enough stress until I got a GC. But there are
already people who are willing to risk that, so it is one step forward for
those people and for US economy. And it is where pg stands, so at least it's
consistent; you shouldn't be surprised.

Of course there are different views. For other countries who wants to compete
Silicon Valley, it is bad. For those who concern rights of visa workers, more
visas may only make problems worse. You can stands there and discuss those
disadvantages logically, but you don't need to burst emotional responses---it
won't help changing opinions of the other side.

BTW, I think this visa plan is only an initial step and clear path to a Green
Card should be shown as the next step. After September 2001, it seems that
employment-based Green Card processing is taking longer and longer. Some of my
friends are waiting 5-6 years already. There's not much point if those who has
built successful business have to stay on non-immigrant visa status.

------
chops
_The tricky part might seem to be how one defined a startup. But that could be
solved quite easily: let the market decide._

As much as I support your position (I'm an open immigration advocate), the
concept of "Let the market decide" isn't exactly a position I hear the
government ever clamoring to support. The government wants control, and giving
up control is it's antithesis.

------
arram
Anyone who missed it should check out the etherpad link:
<http://etherpad.com/ep/pad/slider/foundervisa>

Very cool.

~~~
staunch
The accreditation struggle was tough! Now I want a list of every investors
Ronco number.

------
mhb
This idea is a special case of Gary Becker's proposal to sell the right to
immigrate ([http://www.becker-posner-
blog.com/archives/2005/02/sell_the_...](http://www.becker-posner-
blog.com/archives/2005/02/sell_the_right.html)). In this special case, the
investors in the immigrant's business would pay the immigration fee.

I don't see why the potential benefit to the US of immigrants with startup
ideas is necessarily greater than immigrants of similar technical skills with
no stated intention to start a company. But the immigration fee could help in
sorting that out.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
So the first thing all immigrants learn is that you're taxed for absolutely
nothing in return. Paying a tax to be allowed to pay taxes. Thank you very
much :)

------
sfg
One danger is that the accreditation process for recognised investors could be
hijacked and used to give special privileges to a small number of firms.

~~~
wheels
That's simple. You just make the accredidation based on the number and size of
US investments and you allow some small portion of those to be of this special
class.

------
tokenadult
After edit: On second reading of your article, this differs from the existing
investor visa category

[http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f...](http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=4ff96138f898d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD)

in asking the would-be immigrant to put up talent rather than money as the
sign he will run a successful business. That's in line with your usual take on
how easy it is to start up new businesses in today's economy.

It's an intriguing idea to broaden the talent pool available for seed-stage
investors to invest in. The political objections will revolve around

a) What happens to the people who start up but flame out, failing in their
businesses? It's expensive to deport people who have already arrived, and they
sometimes disappear from the view of law enforcement.

b) Why shouldn't the United States start-up investment market be
preferentially granted to persons who have legal right to work in the United
States? (My bias is toward free movement of people across borders, but the
only reason immigration law exists at all is that not everyone shares my bias,
not in any country.)

P.S. I am a lawyer, and used to practice immigration law, although the bulk of
the cases I worked on involved different visa categories.

------
gord
A link to a PETITION where one can register support, might give this some
political traction.

I think pg+hn+/. etc could generate 50k signatures.

ideas?

~~~
tom_rath
An e-petition will do diddly. Write your senator, congressman and governor on
_paper_ , sign the documents and mail them.

Paper letters are the currency of elected representatives, and a stack of 10k
letters descending on numerous offices would do infinitely more than a lonely
web page with 50k e-mail addresses.

------
psranga
Others have said it, but I'll say it again.

Maybe in 1989, this would have made sense. But capitalism has had enough
converts that most countries have pretty low barriers to high tech startups
now.

IMHO, people who are already entreprenurial in their home countries will be
the last people who will want to immigrate to the US. Maybe pg looks at the
number of companies founded by immigrants and thinks that he can increase that
number by creating a new visa class for founders. Immigrants start businesses
because American culture is much more stable, open to startups, tolerant of
failure, and gives people second chances; so many immigrants let go of their
previous cultural biases and _become_ founders.

If you're already an entrepreneur in a poorer country like India and China,
why would you immigrate from there to a country where _all_ expenses are
_vastly_ higher. I mean, _American_ companies are setting up development
centers in India and China. For richer countries like France and Germany, you
give you any existing networks and go to a new place. Seems like a net loss to
me.

You have stay in a culture for a while before you recognize business
opportunities there. I bet that most of the immigrants who start things do so
after staying in the US for 3+ years. My claim is that a new immigrant will do
_worse_ at business than average.

You'll have to let in lots of smart people and hope that some start companies.
Maybe you can set up the rules so that it's easier for the smart new arrivals
to start a business as soon as they're ready.

Currently, due to various rules, the most common route to permanent residency
takes approx 6 years of _continuous_ employment with the _same_ employer for
an immigrant to gain unrestricted rights to do business (this requires
permanent residency). So for somebody who arrived for a Master's degree (being
simplistic and using Master's as a proxy for smartness), it will be 8 years
after arrival. This same person may have understood the culture well enough in
3 years and be ready to start a business.

------
DomesticMouse
PG's post is interesting, as always. The bit that is worrying me is the linked
Etherpad animation. Am I the only one that looks at the Etherpad DVCS using
javascript functions as the delta data format, and think XSS sploit in
waiting?

------
jules
So if you don't need VC money you don't get in?

~~~
stuntprogrammer
This is a serious hole in the proposal. If you have enough resources to not
need to take investment for your startup (and want to minimize outside early
stage money), but not enough for an EB-5 investor visa, then you're excluded.
I know several people who fall into that gap; you'd think the US government
would be happy to take immigrants with say at least 500k$ to support
themselves but nope..

------
hillel
Neat idea except for the part about using investors to validate which startup
counts. What about the plenty of viable and compelling startups that have
decided to bootstrap?

------
gojomo
Implementation questions:

Do the investors have to be Americans, or is it enough that the investment is
spent in the U.S.?

When the money runs out or the startup fails, are the founders asked to leave?

------
siegler
_I usually avoid politics, but since we now seem to have an administration
that's open to suggestions, I'm going to risk making one_

If your goal is to persuade as many people as possible, insulting the previous
administration and by extension those that voted for Bush is a bad start. I
was already opposed to your idea before the second sentence, despite the fact
that I'm an advocate of increased legal immigration.

~~~
geebee
I'm always curious when people say they advocate increasing immigration. Right
now, the United States takes about 1.2 million immigrants legally into the
country every year. Does this seem too low a number to you? If so, do you see
a practical need for some kind of limit, or are you in favor of limitless
immigration?

~~~
TJensen
The problem is that the majority of illegal immigrants are at the low end of
the tax spectrum, often taking more out than the put in. The people who we'd
ideally want in the country are at the other end, and they usually aren't here
illegally. That is the group PG is trying to target here, and I'm ALL for
making it easier for them to immigrate.

~~~
geebee
I completely agree, our immigration system needs reform, badly. In fact, I see
"low hanging fruit" that could really improve our economy and quality of life.

That said, I didn't really get an answer... you say you're in favor of
increasing legal immigration - are you in favor of changing the mix, of do you
think that we need to go way above the current level of 1.2+ million a year?

------
BerislavLopac
The main problem here is that there is no need for founders to move to the USA
to get funded by the US investors.

How would such a visa benefit foreign investors? If there is a shortage of
good entrepreneurs in the States, wouldn't it be easier if the VC's start
fishing around the world instead of waiting for all the fish to come to their
own pond?

Y Combinator should take a hint from their UK/European counterpart, Seedcamp.
Starting in London two years ago with a similar model as YC has in the US,
they have started organizing local mini-Seedcamps throughout Europe to make it
easier for the startups to apply: the first mini-Seedcamp was last year in
Kiev, Ukraine, while this year they have a tour of seven cities -- Tel Aviv,
Paris, Warsaw, London, Helsingborg, Ljubljana and Berlin; check
www.seedcamp.com -- where local startups may apply towards the main event in
London later this year.

------
phugoid
With all due respect, this seems pretty naive to me.

I've met dozens of people trying to gain entry to Canada and the US, and it's
common knowledge that you can game the system with money. This would just
provide another entry point.

You would have to define what is a successful startup, in simple legal terms,
and people would find ways to satisfy the definition and stay in the country.

I have experienced first-hand the difficulty of moving to a new country,
adapting to a new system, trying to build a new social network. Any genuine
startup founders would have to contend with all this, all the while knowing
that if their business fails they're booted out of the country.

Anyway, I believe the reason entrepreneurship works so well in the US is
because we allow people to fail.

------
kalendae
What about the opposite question. Do startups need to be in the US to be
successful? And if so why? I'm sure there are non-US originated webapps that
are popular in the US, but it seems the opposite tends to happen more often
(Google, Facebook, etc etc...). Given that you can host your web app on EC2
from anywhere in the world with an internet connection as easily as from the
US, what then are the barriers? My guess is that it is actually mostly
cultural. If I write a webapp I am more comfortable knowing the target
audience well. If it is a cultural barrier, then maybe the foreign founders
don't really gain much from being in the US unless they are here to absorb the
culture?

------
resdirector
Currently, how difficult is it to get overseas founders into existing startup
programs such as YC, TechStars etc? Is YC, for instance, turning down foreign
applicants due to visa restrictions? If not, I don't see a problem.

------
jhancock
Its a fine plan. If I were your congressman, I would support the bill ;).

But if you think the U.S. is already tapped out of top entrepreneurs, your not
looking hard enough.

What would the costs be to enable those already in America? Things like school
loan deferment and establishing incubation investment vehicles in at least 10
other cities could enable at least 10,000 Americans. Sure that costs
something. But if you think it would be cheap to oversee a special program for
10,000 "entrepreneur visas" a year, then you haven't spent much time at
immigration offices ;).

------
IndianJazz
I agree - Infact this is THE biggest reason , stopping me to break free and
launch my ideas.

If "I" were to start a firm , all that matters is talent, I would cherish to
work with fellow American workers. Remember in the modern age , the more
varied my fellow workers are , the richer is my experience. Each one of us has
an amazing story to tell, along with the rich experiences from our varied
backgrounds.

I do understand the worries about the American workers right. Its genuine, and
I respect it.

------
colins_pride
I'm just happy to see the karma going where it belongs. I "found" these essays
three days before my first trip to Bombay, and read all of them on the 14 hour
nonstop. I showed up only slightly tired from the travel, but extremely
optimistic on the world, the future, and myself. And that made a difference in
convincing my now in-laws that I was a worthy son-in-law, deserving of their
daughter, the most wonderful woman I know.

Thanks, Paul, for another excellent essay.

------
tomsaffell
Nice idea. Feels like a version of the E-2, brought in line with the new
realities of the cost of starting a web based business -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E2_visa> (government is always slow). Rather
than requiring applicants to bring _monetary capital_ into the country, they'd
be required to bring _start-up capital_ , as measured by those who will invest
in it.

~~~
jerryji
My E-2 interview (at the US embassy in Singapore) is scheduled at the end of
this month.

Cost me more than $6K (in attorney fee, etc) and countless number of hours to
prepare all the documents without any guarantee that I'll get it.

It _is_ more scary than applying to YC, now good luck to myself.

------
atobe
I wonder, how could one turn this idea into a lobbying effort? Who else
realises the benefit of it and would support it? Whom should be contacted and
what representation should be made?

I think it's a great idea, btw.

Of all people BillG has actually been before congress and represented on this
issue. He had said that Microsoft had often been naive with regard to the
contact needed in Washington to get things changed.

Modernising this idea, how about Eric Schmidt?

------
gruseom
It seems like this might be more viable politically than most attempts at
immigration reform in the US because it neutralizes (if not reverses) the
"they're taking our jobs" objection. The objection could hardly become
"they're starting our businesses".

On the other hand, it's hard to underestimate the irrationality surrounding
this issue.

Edit: What meaningful changes could the Obama administration make without
having to go through Congress?

------
rys
I've not had a really detailed read of all the comments, so apologies if I
missed it somewhere, but how do you justify it as "a policy that would cost
nothing"? Or am I confusing monetary cost with something else?

The rest of the idea seems sane, though, as long as the application for the
visa made it clear what the intention was, on top of "I want to found a
company or companies please".

Non-US resident here, for what it's worth.

------
IndianJazz
Here is how the US can go about it,

1\. All visa applications must have a "CERTIFIED" viable buisness plan.

2\. Sensible cash amounts should be with the applicant along with the good
credit standings - Its foolish to ask for 100K if you are starting a Web2.0
business.

3\. Periodic progress reports to be submitted , certified by auditors.

4\. Initially for 2 yr , and then renewable depending on numerous factors like
success etc

------
nandemo
Not very likely to happen.

To put things in perspective: most (non-European) foreign nationals are
required to hold a transit visa just to make a connection via an US airport.
To obtain that visa you need to go the local US consulate and schedule an
interview. Not for study or tourism, mind you. Just to step off a plane and
board another 2 hours later.

------
ozchrisb
Just use an E-1 and educate US investors that if they invest in overseas
company X then they can get E-1 status.

~~~
abii
E-1 is restricted to nationals of a small set of countries. It needs to be
more open.

~~~
IndianJazz
Dude , some of those countries in the list is a joke !

------
aita
Why should people(bright) all around the world come and help america? Why are
proposing an idea to lure these bright people? Has america lost its
confidence? In this digital age, whole world is like home. Why again think of
country ? why not "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam"?

~~~
plinkplonk
" why not "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam"? "

For those who don't know Sanskrit

"Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" == (roughly) "(Every one in) The world is my family"

I wish people wouldn't drop into non english languages without providing a
translation. If someone were to sprinkle his messages with Swahili (for
example) I would be lost.

------
psranga
A quick search shows no mention of Illusions of Entrepreurship. Excellent
book, btw.

That book claims that existing companies create more jobs than new companies.
Starts at page 153: Here's the google books link: <http://bit.ly/m4vXV>

------
danbmil99
Is there really a lack of people in the USA today who want to start companies?
It might be a zero-sum game -- X dollars available for startups; if you let in
a bunch of people, the startup dollars will go there rather than to people
already here.

~~~
TJensen
But that is where the beauty of having the market decide comes in. If a person
from India but founding a company in the US has a better idea, then the money
SHOULD go to her. That is best for the investors, and it is best for America,
because a better idea will build a better company that will create more jobs.

------
joeythibault
It's called Eb5
[http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f...](http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=4ff96138f898d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD)

------
grinich
I like how you used Etherpad. Watching the essay unfold gave me even more
insight into your thoughts on the issue. ie: what topics took a while to iron-
out and how you formulated your sentences.

I'd like to see a few more of these in Etherpad.

------
rokhayakebe
You Nailed It PG(an immigrant living in the US). Simple as that. Nailed it.

------
hs
immigrants who make it big in internet seem to be from young kids who gain
permanent residency later

are there any greencard holders having thru h1b (6 years?) and then found
startup and be as successful?

------
csomar
agree I'm facing the same problem. I can't get VISA to USA or Europe and thus
start a startup there.

Many people are facing the same problem

------
ajju
Thankyou pg for writing on this topic!

------
pclark
I'm sure WebMynd would appreciate it

------
catz
There is a simple alternative – remove the stupid restrictions on H1B visas.
The restriction that if you loose/quit your job that you have to be out of the
country in 60 days is bad for three reasons.

The first reason is that the employer knows his worker is dependent on him –
he can thus get away with a lower salary, etc... The second reason it is bad
is that you cannot quit and start a start-up – if you do not have a sponsoring
company you must be out of the country in 60 days.

The third reason is that it deters people from going to the USA. I really want
to go to California next year – but with that Visa system it is not going to
happen (probably going to London). Compare the US system and the UK's General
Highly skilled Visas (e.g. [http://www.workpermit.com/uk/uk-immigration-tier-
system/tier...](http://www.workpermit.com/uk/uk-immigration-tier-
system/tier-1/general-highly-skilled-migrants.htm)) – it is really no fuss and
valid for a time period.

There are already more than 5 million Mexicans in the US. Would 1 million
engineers and scientists really be a bad thing?

~~~
iamelgringo
Downvote for the "Mexicans" reference. Perhaps saying, "There are over 11
million undocumented immigrants in this country. Would 1 million engineers and
scientists be a bad thing?"

And, 1 million engineers and scientists would depress salaries in the US.
That's a plus for founders, but a minus for engineers and scientists trying to
find work.

I'm almost always on the side of greater immigration into this country, but I
can see the downside of it as well.

~~~
catz
> Downvote for the "Mexicans" reference. Perhaps saying, "There are over 11
> million undocumented immigrants in this country. Would 1 million engineers
> and scientists be a bad thing?"

Saying there are over 5 million Mexicans in the USA is a completely factual
statement. It is true that you have much higher immigration (both legal and
illegal) from neighbouring countries than parts of the rest of the world.

> And, 1 million engineers and scientists would depress salaries in the US.

Maybe. But either companies move to where the engineers are (outsourcing, new
companies) or the engineers move to where the companies are. In the latter
case they still pay tax for the US.

And American engineers will have a depressed salary in any case.

~~~
iamelgringo
It's actually 13 million Mexicans:
[http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/15/Study-13M-Mexican-
nat...](http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/15/Study-13M-Mexican-nationals-in-
US/UPI-60041239814839/)

------
erlanger
Sorry, but I don't think that this makes much sense. INS already has their
hands full, and it wouldn't be much fun for them to have to check up on
thousands of startup founders to be sure that they're in fact running their
business (1) viably, and (2) according to their agreed business plan.

The system would be unbelievably easy to cheat. It also would be stupid easy
to turn a "startup" into a money laundering scheme.

Don't take this the wrong way: I really wish that there were an easy way to
let legit founders into the US. But it just isn't practical.

~~~
andreyf
Wow, who up-votes this junk?

Let's see:

 _The INS has their hands full..._

PG said: 10,000 people is a drop in the bucket by immigration standards

For comparison, there were 591,050 student and exchange visas granted in 2007
[1]. If the INS can handle checking up on individual students following
educations via Universities, they can do the same with 1/200th the number of
startups via investment firms.

 _The system would be unbelievably easy to cheat_

Oh, how? And why is accreditation a viable solution for Universities, but not
investors?

 _I really wish... but it just isn't practical_

Give one shred of evidence aside from senseless pontification and I might
consider it.

1\. <http://www.studyusa.com/English/articles/visa2.asp>

~~~
erlanger
_"PG said: 10,000 people is a drop in the bucket by immigration standards"_

Yes, in terms of people. But you fail to understand that it's _an entire new
process and system_ that would have to be invented and executed.

You just don't think like a con-man. Universities have quite a bit on the
line, such as accreditation. A private company has next to nothing on the
line. Anyway, here's how I'd do it:

1\. First off, I'd need to know somebody in the US who has a viable business
and would vouch for me. Because immigrant communities support business focused
on their interests, this wouldn't be very difficult. Of course they'd agree,
because of the benefits for the home country (sending money home, etc.).

2\. Have them offer fake investments to me and a pool of founders. Get
approved by INS/State.

3\. Once in the US, work as I please. Funnel this money back into the
"startup" as profits. Plenty of startups can't even turn a profit, so
financials wouldn't have to be impressive.

4\. Rinse, repeat. The same business would only get approved so many times,
but there are _tons_ of businesses here.

Now, for the unscrupulous way (since there's nothing particularly immoral
about the previous scenario). Note that I'm for the legalization of drugs, but
that's not the point: The US gov't is sure as hell against that.

1\. Have associate(s) in the US prop up a shell of a business that appears to
be legitimate. Have them offer a huge investment for what appears to be a
startup's credible business plan.

2\. Move in under an alias with fake documents.

3\. Funnel drug money through the "startup," which would be an ideal money
laundering node. Because the plan is intended to produce successful
businesses, nobody would blink an eye at the eye-popping profits. Just
bullshit as much as necessary...if YouTube cooked the books, they could
convince people that they were turning $150M profit annually easily. Show your
cards as you please, since you're holding the deck.

4\. If things get even remotely hot, leave the country. So much money's been
successfully processed at this point that it's undoubtedly a net win. Hell,
say you're flying to Lima to make a commencement speech on business. Nobody
would stop you. The associates could claim ignorance obviously, as you were
just some entrepreneur they put their hopes and dollars in. Even if the
startup were irrevocably linked to money laundering, you're back home and
extradition isn't happening, since you used a false identity.

5\. Rinse, repeat with other associates.

 _"Give one shred of evidence aside from senseless pontification and I might
consider it."_

Evidence on a virgin immigration plan? I'm sure there's plenty out there!

Let's flip this: Tell me how you prevent either of the two previous
scenarious, short of having the gov't handle the entire
recommendation/approval process, which would pretty much defeat the purpose.

 _Sigh_ ... people are so naive.

~~~
shiro
I think pg's point of investors accreditation system is that it's not the
government you have to cheat, but the group of pre-selected investors. (I'd
imagine something similar to professional guilds... you have to be recognized
by peers to be in part of the investor group of deciding who can get invested
with this visa, for example).

The obstacle I see is that the stake of having authority to say who can get
visas for work is very high these days (not like student visas); lots of
people are seeking ways to get working visas desperately. So there would be
lots of political frictions to introduce investor's accreditation system.

But yet, if politicians are convinced that this is crucial to revitalize the
economy (which is probably one of the highest priority items), much of such
muddling of power games may be avoided.

------
albertcardona
What I find fascinating of the idea is the multiple win-win:

1) The USA benefits: more companies that pay taxes and pay for services, and
create jobs for americans.

2) The founders benefit: they get a chance to bring their ideas to fruition,
and get rich.

3) Paul Graham benefits: improved competition in the startup world would bring
better founder teams to Y-Combinator.

4) The general public benefits: good ideas get implemented and are available
as services that improve, in some way, your life.

